Manchester is currently riding the crest of the wave, never have there been so many cranes on the skyline, so many exciting new changes and developments in progress, so much investment and confidence in the city.
So why the talk of crisis?
In the opinion of Eye On Manchester, there are some hidden issues, problems being ignored, and other invisible threats, which could mean that Manchester will never become a truly ‘world class city’.
Eye On Manchester believes that in order to achieve its full potential, Manchester, that’s to say, the wider conurbation, needs a single, over-riding local government authority, like London, like New York, like Berlin. Manchester is a big city with a fragmented and parochial local government set up.
What’s the solution? I have a suggestion, to be published in due course.
There are two other issues. The second is Manchester’s often chaotic and fragmented public transport system. We’ve seen in recent weeks how the city centre has been brought to a standstill by bus companies competing for custom, scenes not seen since the 1920s. And the Metrolink ‘Big Bang’ is set to be more of a ‘small whimper’.
Issue Number Three concerns the current wave of construction and the architecture – often of a mediocre standard – that is springing up all around us.
I’ve coined a new word to describe it – Read the main article to find out.
Yes, there are some notable exceptions, but just what kind of a city are the planners creating for us?
And it is simply not true to say that the current boom is unprecedented. I remember it happening between 1960 and 1970, when the Manchester skyline altered far more radically than it has in recent years, and many grave planning errors took place – the Crescents, Fort Ardwick and many others.
Then, as in recent months and years, many interesting and viable buildings have been swept away due to the pressures of planning and development, and many more are set to disappear. I believe many of the same mistakes are being made today as were made in the 1960s, and that we are going to live to regret it.
Aidan your suggestion of strategic authority for the conurbation is a good one. This precisely what the Thatcher government removed from Greater London and it suffered until it was re-established. Many towns and cities outside London suffer from de-regulation of buses(yes another Thatcher policy)! Manchester has become gridlocked through this political legacy in recent weeks. Conurbations need strategic planning, transport and other initiatives and Manchester and other cities in Britain are harmed by the lack of it. Time for a change, but don’t hold your breath, politicians don’t work like that, they are focussed on short term i.e. the next election. When it comes to long term thinking they become paralysed!
I am proud to have been the GMC\’s Conference Officer from the inception of the post in 1978 until I left in 1984 due to the impending 1986 \”handbagging\” of the Metropolitan Authorities by the Thatcher woman.
The Tories set up the GMC under the 1972 Local Government Act and it came into full effect in April 1974 under the new Labour government, along with the other UK Metropolitan Authorities, to address precisely the issues you are highlighting.
From the start there was moaning from the \”little Lancastrians\” and \”horrified Cestrians\” who were determined to keep ancient and irrelevant boundaries and methods of local government (note: I do not include traditions and local pride) which needed sweeping away for the greater economic and cohesive good of the region as a whole.
They were tacitly and sometimes openly supported by sections of the local and national media.
When, as a result of the first backlash against the Thatcher government, the Metropolitan Authorities turned massively Labour in the 1981 local elections and were seen to be major power bases for opposition to the government, as well as becoming more pro-active in areas of regional development and in working links with business than the previous Tory incumbents, Thatcher decided that they and the thorn in her side that Ken Livingstone\’s GLC had become, had to go.
Using the lickspittle Tory press as her messenger she fabricated a host of reasons why the Authorities weren\’t working and, playing on the dislike of the Authorities amongst certain sections of the public, she used her Commons and Lords majority to do away with the structure with barely a whimper and certainly no backward glance to the fact that she had been a Cabinet minister who voted for the 1974 reorganisation.
So, 20 years on we are left with a fragmented mess. It\’s ironic that another of her daft ideas at the same time was bus deregulation (or road passenger transport fragmentation) which has left the mess we still see on the streets of certain cities, particularly Manchester, whilst at the same time 3 mega companies – with accountability to only their shareholders – now dominate the UK bus market.
There needs to be a unitary authority covering the economic, planning, transport, health, waste management, policing, social service and housing policies for all the former GMC constituents plus Wilmslow, Macclesfield, Glossop, Hayfield and New Mills.
There is plenty of expertise in the ranks of local government officers to make such an authority work and, in the same way as many councillors of all persuasions worked well together in the 12 years of the GMC, so their modern day equivalents could today.
Aidan, it all comes down to BELIEF. Belief that the region has potential, belief that a better life with better facilities doesn\’t depend on the whim of civil servants and politicians nearly 200 miles away making isolated decisions and a belief in the people themselves that the casting off of old boundaries doesn\’t cast away traditions, identity and pride but makes for a more cohesive unit which can speak for itself and THEM on a world stage and offer a platform on which they can build on their traditions.
The good news for Manchester is that it is perceived to have moved ahead of Birmingham as England’s second city. That’s the good news. The bad news, however, is that being second is not as powerful as being first in something.
Manchester, therefore needs a powerful, future-focused single (not multiple) big brand idea – a cultural brand strategy – to position it as a European leader. Manchester needs to champion this cultural brand idea, first locally, then natonally, finally, globally.
Here are a few examples:
Brussels: Capital of Europe.
Edinburgh: Capital of Scotland.
Las Vegas: America’s Gaming Capital.
Melbourne: Australia’s Sports Capital.
Alan ‘Brand’ Williamson
Destination Brand Developer
http://www.brandopia.typepad.com
Manchester\’s prior position as one of the leading cities in the country and even the world, centred on its manufacturing prowess aligned with that of the surrounding towns and villages. If it had been allowed to develop as a single entity like London was allowed to do, by absorbing the surrounding area into one central authority, Manchester may well have surpassed London and perhaps that is where the problems we face all began. Can you imagine the upper crust indignation at a Northern city putting on airs and acting as if they were better than they were? It appears to me that a lot of the barriers to Manchester\’s economic growth stem from the fears that it would outstrip the capital city, if that\’s the case, so be it.
The lack of a regional government is the major stumbling block to Manchester\’s growth, and so long as the political agenda continues to stifle the obvious need for a governmental system similar to that which allowed London to grow to the size and importance it is today, Manchester will always play second fiddle to it. There is too much of the small boy syndrome at play in the adjoining municipalities, where the spoiled brat will take his ball and retreat to his own backyard, instead of seeing that the ostrich method doesn\’t work any more. They are so worried about losing control of their own little empire, that instead of looking at the larger picture and realizing that it isn\’t Manchester they are fighting, but the bureaucrats behind their power, we won\’t get anywhere.
We need to be forward thinking with our transportation infrastructure as well, because it goes hand in glove with economic growth, only if we can move workers to and from their places of work at a reasonable cost will any overall plan stand a chance of working. We must get out of our cars and onto transit, and transit HAS to be party of the Regional Government system as it, and I know I am repeating myself here, has to grow and develop alongside the economic expansion. Right now we see petty rivalries among bus companies for example, that wouldn\’t exist if it wasn\’t for privatization. Don\’t get me wrong, I\’m not advocating a socialist state, but there are some things that have to be centralized. That doesn\’t mean that some of it cannot be privately owned to service areas that a central transit authority may find it uneconomical to do. But the main thrust has to be under the jurisdiction of one central authority.
As you know I live just outside Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and have often worked in, or driven into the city. Vancouver has always resisted freeways inside the city, and I understand why, but the lack of a decent road system is what creates most of the gridlock the city experiences, as does the lack of a formidable transit system. The Vancouver Regional District finally realized that something had to be done and began change with the Rapid Transit that came as a result of Expo 1986, but its expansion has been far too slow to keep up with the population explosion. Now, with the Winter Olympics coming in 2010, a push is on to improve transit, alongside better road infrastructure, new bridges, and freeways as they too go hand in hand with the expansion of transit and industry. Our Regional District includes at least 9 municipalities, who each have a seat on the GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District) with each member community retaining its own municipal government. It may not be perfect, but it is something, I still think they should work closer together on many of the common problems they face.
If we could take the creative thinking that transformed the Castlefield basin for example, and expand that thinking to all the surrounding municipalities, just imagine what a threat that would be to those too afraid to step out in faith. We need to expand our manufacturing infrastructure, attract new investors into the North West by offering them the kind of facilities that attract them to other cities around the globe. Right now, because of the strict boundaries we have from one municipality to the other, the land we may need for expansion can only be acquired by destroying what is already here, and haven\’t we seen too much of that already?
As far as what we see of topics in problem 3) of your article, I too see that from afar. I see the loss of Manchester\’s heritage that is being sacrificed simply because our city boundaries are fixed; there is simply nowhere to go. So what happens? Potential heritage sites are demolished because the land they sit on will allow upward expansion, for this read tall buildings, often ugly, ill-conceived and short-term solutions. A typical case in point is the bastardization of Piccadilly, one of the few large areas in the city centre where people used to congregate, and perhaps still do. But what part of Piccadilly (or Manchester) will go next?
George Greatbanks
I often visit this website and consider it a balanced and refreshing alternative from the hysteric one-upmanship and parochial chest-beating of the BBC and Skyscrapercity boards.
It is good to see that others are noticing the mediocrity and blandness of these ubiquitous apartments, and the areas that are suffering as a result.
Quite often it isn’t the case that only a building that is torn down is ruined; many historic buildings are left overshadowed or looking rather silly next to a huge glass monolith- the Marble Arch pub on Rochdale Road for example. The Ancoats/Northern Quarter area has suffered numerous pub closures in recent years,and this does nothing to add to the character of Manchester- rather, it looks the same as everywhere else. The council needs to rethink this gung-ho planning policy, and fast. Areas such as the Northern Quarter and Ancoats reflect the stark, gloomy beauty which inspired the likes of the Smiths and Joy Division and endear to many visitors. It would be a disaster if the Northern Quarter’s highly indivudual streak was damaged by the short-sighted desire for a quick buck.
I also admire the way your website promotes the traditional and existing counties.
The unfortunately titled ‘Greater Manchester’ gave the city a cheap ego-boost at the expense of the identity of the surrounding towns, but the resentment and confusion caused when the media statrted to use this has not been worth it. Manchester would be in a better position to assume its natural role as capital of the North West had this unfortunate name not been foisted on the region.
From a Manchester-addict in Wigan