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.
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.
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.
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.
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.