Bradford needs regeneration. But this starts with the City’s economy not with politically-convenient funding that just pays developer profits without changing the economic fundamentals.
As someone who used to evaluate regeneration projects, the reports generally satisfied Green Book principles but were basically just a bunce to consultants generally willing to say whatever it took to keep everyone happy. A bullshit industry which I'm afraid propped up the regeneration facade you refer to.
I think the real problem with what you’re describing is that a lot of previous attempts, especially in Northern England are not really regeneration at all.
Regeneration isn’t subsidising failing projects or covering developer margins. That approach is aimless and doomed to become a money pit.
What successful projects like Glasgow or the London Docklands show is that you need a central focus which can provide an attractive investment opportunity for private capital while local and/or national governments can provide infrastructure and credibility. In London you had a real ambition to create a financial centre and it worked. In Glasgow the old industrial parts of the city have been turned into something usable and attractive that people want to live in as well as bringing in lot of investment and jobs.
I think that the freeport schemes ahead the potential to provide that fulcrum that investment could have been leveraged around, but they have been so badly handled that it’s lost any chance of actually helping communities that need them.
In short, I think your argument that regeneration doesn’t work is a bit misguided. Rather we need to be very critical of bad political stunts that are dressed up in the language of regeneration.
I thought the comments on land values was very astute. The best things councils can do is facilitate more private enterprise, that brings back some economic vitality, but also begins to drive land values higher, and creates both the currency for more redevelopment and amplifies the effect of public money.
The point that politicians and ‘planners’ miss about attracting businesses to an area to encourage economic activity and regeneration, is the owners, managers, entrepreneurs want to live near their businesses within easy commute.
Therefore the first question they ask is, do I want to live here? Will my wife and children want to live here and be happy, safe?
Government, local and national, focus entirely on ‘infrastructure’ roads, rail, warehouse units, and grants, as if it were some magic formula… but the truth is nobody wants to live in a dump, particularly one where the dross from the Third World has been imported.
Clean the place up, stop crime, get rid of planning rules to attract housing development without stipulation on ‘affordable housing’ which ultimately means housing associations, social rentals and the dross that will live there and which company owners, managers don’t want as neighbours.
"Bradford Live". This is like the idea of building a concert hall in Swindon. And the politicians don't understand a significant change that has occurred in the past 20 years, that people are much more mobile than they used to be. They don't mind driving to the big city nearby once in a while to see Les Miserables or Coldplay. So, it's created a concentration of entertainment in a smaller number of places. It's the same thing with luxury retail, where people now don't go to the shops 10 minutes away to buy a nice dress, but to the city or large town half an hour way to get more choice.
But politicians and activists are generally living in the past, trying to bring the past back, rather than adapting to what will work. Many smaller places would be richer, and look better by clearing out half of the centre and building housing. It would bring life back as it would create customers for the shops that are there, would create new facilities and leisure.
And I don't want to be the man in the plan saying this. That's my guess of what would be best, but the best thing would be to generally leave it to the market. If someone owns a shop but can get a lot more money selling to build housing, let him. After some of that, and a population, someone might turn a shop into a restaurant for all these people. Most town centres evolved from people having houses and selling things to their neighbours to turning the ground floor into a shop and living upstairs, to eventually the place becoming retail. The High Street is not the eternal state of things. We turned housing into shops as we needed them and we don't now, so let them be turned back.
Only that your argument about people being more mobile speaks to precisely the rationale for Bradford Live. There's a gap between the 02 (2,300) and the Arena (13,000). So lot's of acts don't play West Yorkshire. The success of the Piece Hall speaks to exactly the sort of acts that could play Bradford Live and that people will come. So while I generally agree lots of regeneration projects are lipstick on a pig, this could work.
As someone who used to evaluate regeneration projects, the reports generally satisfied Green Book principles but were basically just a bunce to consultants generally willing to say whatever it took to keep everyone happy. A bullshit industry which I'm afraid propped up the regeneration facade you refer to.
I think the real problem with what you’re describing is that a lot of previous attempts, especially in Northern England are not really regeneration at all.
Regeneration isn’t subsidising failing projects or covering developer margins. That approach is aimless and doomed to become a money pit.
What successful projects like Glasgow or the London Docklands show is that you need a central focus which can provide an attractive investment opportunity for private capital while local and/or national governments can provide infrastructure and credibility. In London you had a real ambition to create a financial centre and it worked. In Glasgow the old industrial parts of the city have been turned into something usable and attractive that people want to live in as well as bringing in lot of investment and jobs.
I think that the freeport schemes ahead the potential to provide that fulcrum that investment could have been leveraged around, but they have been so badly handled that it’s lost any chance of actually helping communities that need them.
In short, I think your argument that regeneration doesn’t work is a bit misguided. Rather we need to be very critical of bad political stunts that are dressed up in the language of regeneration.
I thought the comments on land values was very astute. The best things councils can do is facilitate more private enterprise, that brings back some economic vitality, but also begins to drive land values higher, and creates both the currency for more redevelopment and amplifies the effect of public money.
Reindustrialization.
The point that politicians and ‘planners’ miss about attracting businesses to an area to encourage economic activity and regeneration, is the owners, managers, entrepreneurs want to live near their businesses within easy commute.
Therefore the first question they ask is, do I want to live here? Will my wife and children want to live here and be happy, safe?
Government, local and national, focus entirely on ‘infrastructure’ roads, rail, warehouse units, and grants, as if it were some magic formula… but the truth is nobody wants to live in a dump, particularly one where the dross from the Third World has been imported.
Clean the place up, stop crime, get rid of planning rules to attract housing development without stipulation on ‘affordable housing’ which ultimately means housing associations, social rentals and the dross that will live there and which company owners, managers don’t want as neighbours.
"Bradford Live". This is like the idea of building a concert hall in Swindon. And the politicians don't understand a significant change that has occurred in the past 20 years, that people are much more mobile than they used to be. They don't mind driving to the big city nearby once in a while to see Les Miserables or Coldplay. So, it's created a concentration of entertainment in a smaller number of places. It's the same thing with luxury retail, where people now don't go to the shops 10 minutes away to buy a nice dress, but to the city or large town half an hour way to get more choice.
But politicians and activists are generally living in the past, trying to bring the past back, rather than adapting to what will work. Many smaller places would be richer, and look better by clearing out half of the centre and building housing. It would bring life back as it would create customers for the shops that are there, would create new facilities and leisure.
And I don't want to be the man in the plan saying this. That's my guess of what would be best, but the best thing would be to generally leave it to the market. If someone owns a shop but can get a lot more money selling to build housing, let him. After some of that, and a population, someone might turn a shop into a restaurant for all these people. Most town centres evolved from people having houses and selling things to their neighbours to turning the ground floor into a shop and living upstairs, to eventually the place becoming retail. The High Street is not the eternal state of things. We turned housing into shops as we needed them and we don't now, so let them be turned back.
Only that your argument about people being more mobile speaks to precisely the rationale for Bradford Live. There's a gap between the 02 (2,300) and the Arena (13,000). So lot's of acts don't play West Yorkshire. The success of the Piece Hall speaks to exactly the sort of acts that could play Bradford Live and that people will come. So while I generally agree lots of regeneration projects are lipstick on a pig, this could work.