Mike Biddulph*
School of City and
Regional Planning, Cardiff
University, Glamorgan Building,
Kind Edward VII
Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3WA,
United Kingdom
Abstract
This paper explores whether and
how forms of entrepreneurial
governance effecting deprived regions
of the UK have embraced
urban design as a necessary
and distinctive feature of
regeneration efforts. It applies
established theory and thinking to
work
completed in the city centre
of Liverpool since the late
1990s. The article examines the
economic and governance context
through
which new forms of urban design
policy and guidance have emerged,
and discusses whether and
how they have been applied
to
developments emerging across the
centre.
The case has embraced an
urban design agenda and this
can firmly be attributed to
entrepreneurial forms of governance,
although
the attributes of the built
form sometimes credited to such
places were not so evident.
Principles embedded in policy and
guidance
have dovetailed with substantive
thinking within urban design and
can be recognised in significant
projects. Whilst there should be
a
concern for the privatisation
of the public realm generally,
issues such as gentrification
and a more general concern
for placelessness
are overstated. Iconic forms
of development have not
materialised. Forms of over development,
such as tall buildings, have
been
moderated by policy and guidance.
Large scale projects can be designed
to fit into and enhance
the fabric of the city when
urban
design thinking is clearly embraced
by partners. Established critiques
of the relationship between urban
design and entrepreneurial
forms of governance have not
always explored the multiple meanings
and discourses that the built
environment can contain, but
where urban design is concerned
the discussion must at least
embrace the criteria urban designers
themselves employ to design
schemes or judge the results.
# 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Urban design; Design
control; Aesthetic control; Liverpool;
Entrepreneurial governance; Urban
regeneration; Urban renewal; Urban
renaissance; Competitive cities
2. Urban design and the
entrepreneurial city . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
64
3. Urban design principles and
public policy in the UK
since 1997 . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 68
4. Liverpool’s relevant socio-economic,
design and development trends
until 1997 . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . 71
5. Urban design and entrepreneurialism
in Liverpool after 1997 .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . 74
5.1. Governance for design .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . 74
5.2. Design policy, strategies
and guidance . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . 77
6. Recent developments in Liverpool
1999–2008. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . 82
6.1. The significant urban design
projects in Liverpool City Centre
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
84
6.2. Liverpool One . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 85
www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann Progress in
Planning 76 (2011) 63–103
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44
029 2087 6293; fax: +44 029
2087 4845.
E-mail address:
[email protected] .
0305-9006/$ – see front matter
# 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.
7. Entrepreneurial governance and urban
design in Liverpool . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 97
8. Conclusion . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . 100
entrepreneurial city
regeneration efforts in such places
(Hubbard, 1995,
1996). But
what urban designers might be
trying to achieve in their
work, and the role and consequences
attributed to them
and their outputs when discussed by
others.
Knox (2011, p. 157) refers to
‘‘. . .the Janus-faced
condition of the urban design
professions. . .’’ who
might claim to be working for
environmental quality
and meeting social need, but who
can only do this by
planning for competitive accumulation. He
notes (p.
129) how ‘‘contemporary cities, mostly
a product of the
political economy of the
manufacturing era, have been
thoroughly remade in the image
of consumer society.
Design professionals have to adapt
to a neoliberal
political economy in which
progressive notions of
public interest and civil
society have been all but
set
aside.’’ It is useful to compare
writing about urban
design such as this with the limited
literature from
within urban design, both theoretically
and from within
policy, to explore whether and how
these views of urban
design dovetail and how they diverge.
These issues are explored through a
discussion of
some of the significant
developments in the city centre
of Liverpool in the north west
of England. This allows
for an exploration of the
thinking with reference to a
particular
place
where
entrepreneurial
forms
of
govern-
was undertaken
organisations, and sometimes the
individuals involved
in the city. Three site visits
allowed reflection on the
developments of the last decade.
These involved
systematically
walking
the
streets
and
comparing
the
qualities
of
the
environments
with
published
objectives
design. Twelve extended interviews were
also under-
taken with
whilst judgements about successes and
failures were
also shared. Finally the findings
have been discussed in
seminars with practitioners and academics
in the city on
two occasions. These allowed the quality
of the
information and views of
development to be tested
and debated.
practices will
designers themselves have rightly or
wrongly adopted
or feel that they have adopted. The
ideas in these two
areas of
literature
will
be
combined
to
provide
a
framework
through
which
we
can
understand
and
discuss the case, and the relevance
of the thinking to it.
Then there is a discussion of
the case and general
themes and issues emerging from the
experience of the
city. In the end the work
returns to discuss how this case
might help us understand the role
of urban design within
a regeneration context.
Hubbard (1996,
with
the
prosperity of the city and its
ability to attract jobs and
investment.’’ This
urban environment is conceptually commodified
with
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10364
markets,
appropriating
the
city
and
treating
it
as
their
formed from amongst land owners, business
leaders
and local government representatives re-evaluate
their
cities, and scan their competitors
for best practices and
initiatives to maintain or improve
their competitive
standing, focussing on what some
regard as a narrow
urbanpolicy repertoire (Hall& Hubbard,
1998; Hubbard,
1995, 1996; Peck & Tickell,
2002).
Swyngedouw, Moulaert and Rodriguez
describe how
contemporary urban development must
‘‘. . .stand the
tests imposed by a global
and presumably liberal
world
order .’’ It
not for
et
al.,
Gospodini (2002) refers to this
as the new use for
urban design, as cities of
varying size and therefore
influence polish up and repackage
their built environ-
ments to attract the higher value
industries and
individuals who can now thrive economically
in many
locations. Whereas in the past the
quality of the built
environment was a by-product of economic
develop-
ment, today it is seen to be
a prerequisite for it.
A number of
to hard branding written into the
form of the city
through a combination of
tactics like flagship devel-
opments (stadia/museums/opera
1976) resulting from such tactics, as
different cities
adopt the same strategies (see also Turok,
2009).
Interestingly accusations of placelessness
or standar-
disation might be directed to the history
of urban
development more generally, and most
particularly to
the later development projects of
themodernist, fordist
or managerial era. Fainstein (2008) and
Lehrer and
Laidley (2008) point out a recent
tendency towards
‘‘mega’’
projects
such
as
comparators in
established centre. They are
and due to their scale, move activity
patterns to serve
the interests of uses on the inside,
whilst failing to
spread a regenerative effect to
neighbouring streets and
spaces. In many respects urban
designas a publicpolicy
agenda in the UK has been
established to overcome
such forms of development, at least in
physical and
functional terms.
tecture designed by signature architects
(starchitecture)
(Knox,
Basque identity)
environments (Sorkin, 1992) driven by a
concern for
the consumer experience and what
Pine and Gilmore
(1999) call the experience economy;
a process of both
meeting and exceeding consumer
expectations through
a totally managed experience, gilded
with post-modern
architecture or notions of
urbanism (Jencks, 1978;
Punter, 1988; Venturi et al., 1977).
They are part of a
subtle strategy
historic motifs), familiar or even
fun to people, but also
to in some way manipulate and
depoliticise people.
Boyer (1993,
established by advertising and
provides invented
models of reality, seldom disguising
their artifice. The
city these spaces represent is
filled with a magical
and
exciting allure, landscapes of
pleasure intentionally
separated from the city’s more prosaic or
threatening
mean streets. Controlled by the
rules and values of the
market system, these places
offer a diet of
synthetic
charm that undermines critical
evaluation.’’ Hubbard
(1995) mines Harvey’s (1989a, 1989b)
discussion of
entrepreneurialism
to
critique
the
development
accepting de-industrialisation and distracting
them
from any
entrepreneurial policies to bring
about an urban
renaissance’’ (p. 250). Can these
discrete developments
really be charged with the
responsibility of reversing the
discussion moves
generally (Bell & Jayne, 2003)
with the suggestion that
‘‘[t]here is a danger that
the re-imaging of the urban
environment may act as a
‘carnival mask’ that distract
from more serious social issues,
and serves the needs of
investors and local elites at
the expense of local
residents’’ (p. 251). The outcomes
of urban design are
presented as important and worthy
of discussion, but
possibly shallow or distracting.
ary pastiche or historicist developments
challenge any
notion of
combined in a form that
alludes to local context
and
history. Design strategies of
allusionism, contextualism
and vernacularism have all been
seized upon by
developers in an attempt to stress
the distinctiveness
and character of the city. .
.’’ although such strategies
are regarded as subversive in that
they ‘‘. . .mobilise
meaning in favour of
supporting existing social
structures’’ (1996, p. 1445). Neo-traditional
develop-
ments (sometimes conflated with New
Urbanism more
generally) fall into this category,
as through historic
building forms and styles they
‘‘.deploy a sanitised and
mythologised past in invoking
identity and commu-
nity. . .’’ (Knox, 2011, p. 149)
where there is no
guarantee of
nations fall into and are embraced
by the critique.
Harvey
(1989a)
quotes
Hewison
(1987)
who
discusses
impulse during a period of
great social change, and what
Harvey sees as an obsession
with identity which he
explains as due to insecurity in labour
markets. Historic
environments are, however, not merely
appreciated for
their quality, future use value and
distinctive character.
McGuirk et al. (1998, p. 126)
discuss how in Newcastle,
in New South Wales the ‘‘[l]ocal
identity, made up of
convict heritage, working class roots
and industrial
legacy, is all being glossed
over in an attempt
to present
the city as a slick retail
and recreation location.’’ This
is
attempt to attract, for example,
tourists.
If
urban
design
is
seen
as
a
mechanism
to
attract
it can also be seen as complicit
in any resulting
displacement of established residents
and a decline in
available affordable housing. Gentrification
leads to a
contested
notion
of
regeneration,
because
alone
it
is
not
cesses are often associated with a decline
in the living
conditions of displaced people (Smith,
1996). The
gentrification literature is complex and
beyond the
focus of this article (for
an overview, see Lees et al.,
2008), but governments now work with
private partners
to facilitate gentrification as property
led regeneration
comes to represent or define what
urban regeneration is
(Bianchini et al., 1992; Healey et
al., 1992; Imrie &
Thomas, 1993; Turok, 1992). Urban design
work is
most evident
opments.
These
environments
have
market
value.
They
between the pursuit of urban
design quality and its
gentrification impacts in his bullish
advocacy of the
phenomena: ‘‘. . .the most
sure-fire technique for
permanently preventing gentrification is
to provide
dismal architectural and urban
design.’’ He argues that
it is a measure of the success
of contemporary urbanism
and urban design thinking and practice
that marks it as
distinct from
home to
indicative of a revanchist strategy
and attempts to
protect property and property values
from negative
externalities and in support of
social homogeneity
(Madanipour, 2006; Punter, 2010b).
Such outcomes are
not uncommon (see for example Punter,
2007) but are
they indicative of urban design
effort or an absence of
concern, and are these forms
exclusive to affluent
neighbourhoods? In
frontage, reinforcing
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10366
point of view is the trend
towards the privatisation of
public space. In the United States
early forms of
privatisation resulted from incentive zoning
which
passed the production, management and
control of
new plazas over to the private
sector (Barnett, 1974).
Loukaitou-Sideris (1993, p. 153) notes
the
‘‘. . .introversion, fragmentation, escapism,
orderliness
user behaviour.’’ She
space such as plurality and diversity.
Punter (1990a, p.
9) notes a disinvestment in the
public realm by local
government, and points to private
out-of-town and in-
town mall developments replacing or
competing with
traditional high streets. The history
of shopping centre
developments has its own evolution
(see Coleman,
2006), but Punter highlights the
particular concerns of
the early 1990s: ‘‘Exterior design
has become more
sympathetic in strictly visual terms,
although function-
ally many centres continue to turn
their back on the
townscape, except at the
key points of entry into
the
peak pedestrian flows. . .commonly
the megastructures
have walled off large parts
of the town destroying the
grain of the townscape and
reducing the permeability of
the town centre’’ (p.
towards the development of retail
‘‘malls without
walls’’, creating the impression
of public space in new
large scale in town
critical, but design is also to some
extent complicit. Her
opinions pull together themes discussed
above: ‘‘City
centres which are designed purely
with shopping and
leisure in mind produce
strangely ‘placeless’ places,
cut
off from their original wellsprings
of local life and
vitality, characterised instead by
a fake, theme-park
atmosphere which is a result
of disconnection from the
local environment ’’ (Minton, 2006, p. 5).
Although often implicitly about
urban designs,
criticism of contemporary developments
tends to focus
on a social
within a
projects which have limited local impacts,
and which
do not seem to be representative
of all forms of
development which might be occurring
locally. Some-
times authors contrive to know the
opinions of locals in
their interpretations of styles and
meanings, and talk-up
their significance. Sometimes the principle
of devel-
oping local sites exclusively to meet
the needs of local
people goes
in
which
people
often
have
little to do with many of the
activities and uses in their
neighbourhood or most certainly in
the wider city where
they live.
ing the extent to which cities
are, to varying degrees,
competing regionally and also
locally for forms of
investment which might sustain jobs
within localities,
and in particular trying to
overcome the impacts of
decentralisation of many jobs
and services. Design itself
is sometimes conflated with issues
of ownership and
management. There is also an argument
that if only we
could get the power and politics
right a better urban
form would ultimately emerge through
the process. The
history of
public
are
discussed
as
unknowing
victims,
and
yet
through
and
use
these
environments
and
they
make links across a town that fit
their needs and desires.
Peoplemake choices about where to
go and what to like,
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–103 67
Fig. 1. Affordable enclave housing
on Russell Street on the edge
of
the city centre.
so we must assume that in city
centres in particular busy
spaces are
shaped urban design and development
practices over
recent decades. If there are flagship
and iconic projects
have they emerged instead of or in
addition to other
forms of development? Have these
schemes been
adequately contextualised, either in
terms of the
thinking through which they have
emerged, or in
relation to
socially or
urban design as a key mechanism for
achieving certain
regeneration goals, might this significance
be over-
stated? Ley and Mills (1993) point
to the elitist
posturing of theorists who account
for, or represent the
masses without including them in
their research. They
also refer to an implicit and
mistaken view that the
buildings and environments reproduce mechanically
the
social relations imputed to the culture
(p. 258). They
wonder
why
critics
typically
fail
to
provide
259) in
McNeill
(1998,
p.
242)
starts
to
doubt
some of the links being made
by arguing that ‘‘[a] focus
on the changing urban landscape can
help dramatise
accounts of economic and political
transition, but an
over-reliance on the icons of
urban change such as the
heritage site or the waterfront
development may
overstate the case for
transformation. Dramatic new
buildings are one thing, shifts in
governance or power
are another.’’
Manchester
and
Cardiff
have
Wansborough & Mageean, 2000;
Williams, 2000,
2003). The
Liverpool city centre. In writing
about urban design
does this literature provide adequate
insight into what
urban designers are trying to
or able to achieve, and are
its consequences
the UK since 1997
overview see Carmona et al., 2003;
Cuthbert, 2003;
Moudon, 1992) emerged during the 1960s to
essentially
challenge two development trends. In city
centres there
were the impacts of modernism,
comprehensive
redevelopment
and
attempts
to
remodel
cities
to
significant redevelopment
regional identity, with car-dependent schemes
contain-
ing few neighbourhood amenities or
facilities.
In response a set of pragmatic
design principles were
developed in the UK which
translated the emerging
literature into an urban design
agenda for practitioners.
Subsequently these principles have
been debated,
developed and re-presented on numerous
occasions
since they emerged (Bentley et al.,
1985; CABE, 2005;
CABE/Department of
necessary to
presents a set of design objectives
which reflect very
clearly the Anglo-American agenda
and stabilise the
jargon in practice (Fig. 2). A table
lists the aspects of
development which should be considered
and judged in
the public interest (Fig. 3). This
guidance also explains
the policy and guidance tools and
procedures necessary
to deliver the urban design agenda
through the UK
planning system
In contrast to the earlier discussion,
this is a very
pragmatic set of principles or
objectives. They are for
example
about
sit,
stand or stay, how to bring people
together or keep them
apart, how to promote types of
economic and social
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10368
They are
and
choices
in
any
form
of
scheme.
They
focus on how to design the public
realm, or the form of
buildings which might come to shape
the public realm.
It
has
been
argued
that
if
schemes
conform
to
these
more economically
outcomes being interpreted and subsequently
judged so
it has been built through concepts
which help us
interpret
its
bit of the built environment
which echoes the form or
activity elsewhere, it comes to stand
for a particular set
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10370
about urban
caricatured, but
are impossible to define clearly and
consensually and
therefore really solve (Rittel &
Webber, 1973). We
might suggest, however, that well
designed places
should at least be well used,
and in urban terms their
positive impacts should spill over into
neighbouring
spaces.
thiswriting about and
for urban
design
might
be
applied
and tries
guidance is discussed, followed by a
review of how they
materialise within schemes. After the
case has been
presented the discussion returns to
reflect on how the
forms of development have been
shaped by entrepre-
neurial governance,
4. Liverpool’s
Located in the North West of
England, Liverpool sits
on the coast of England at
the mouth of the Mersey
estuary. Once described as the
second city of empire,
Liverpool became the main UK
port linking the early
industrialising region of North
West England with
North America. For an excellent history
of the city see
Belchem (2006).
discussed previously.
turbulent decline, contracted in
population size by about
a half during the latter
half of the 20th
century, and has
subsequently
stabilised.
Reflecting
the
economic
population had grown from 5000 at
the beginning of the
1700s to a peak of
870,000 just before the start
of World
War 2. Wilks-Heeg agrees with the
Victorian Society
who note that ‘‘. . .[i]t is
no exaggeration to say that
by
the mid-nineteenth century Liverpool, with
London and
New York, was one of the
great maritime commercial
centres in the World’’ (Wilks-Heeg, 2003,
p. 40).
Decline in economic fortunes and
population starts after
the war. Population decline is
partly planned and
affected by
It is
containerisation and a shift in
markets towards Europe
saw a massive decline in demand
for what tended to be
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–103 71
Fig. 4. Policy and guidance
tools and procedures necessary to
deliver the urban design agenda
through the UK planning system
from By Design.
Fig. 5. The semiotic triangle
and meaning derived from the
built
environment.
policy initiatives
ers in the regions. The population
of the city, however,
declined to about half its
peak in just 60 years,
with the
lowest population recorded in 2001
of 440,000.
Recession hit the city harder than
most other parts of
the UK during the late 1970s
and 1980s. The city
suffered the racially affected Toxteth
Riots in 1981, a
militant Labour council between 1983 and
1986 and a
lengthydocker’s dispute over the
casualisation of labour
between 1995 and 1998. These were
all factors which
contributed to a drying up of
private investment in the
city during
an increase of 4.4%
of jobs, and unemployment
down to
5%. In 2007 the city continued to
experience growth in
jobs in banking, finance, insurance,
public administra-
tion, education and health sectors, and
also pointed to a
reasonable healthy Gross Value Added
per head of
population to the economy of
£15,530; a value 25%
higher than
growth has not been sustained, and
was fuelled by both
public sector
Liverpool’s built environment is a
product of its
mercantile past but its recent qualities
are closely tied to
its economic fortunes but also and
importantly shaped
by technological, planning and architectural
trends and
thinking. The town grew quickly after
trade was
establishedwith the colonies in
North America, and this
growth accelerated after the first
dock was built in 1715;
a process of dock building
that would ultimately result
in the
moved south
Victorian era was characterised by
grand civic projects
making their contribution to today’s
stadtbild with a
number
of
buildings
and
spaces
of
national
significance,
succession. At the turn of the
century commercial
architecture left its mark on
the core of the city,
and
following the infilling of St George
Dock three of
Liverpool’s most famous buildings were
erected on the
waterfront site: the Liver Building
(1911) Cunard
Building and Port of Liverpool
Building (1916)
collectively known as the Three
Graces. These years
of affluence created one of
the UK’s richest architec-
tural legacies discussed in Hughes
(1964, 1999) and
Sharples (2004).
nisation schemes
and public transport (Paradise Street
Bus Station)
schemes were forced into the city’s
grain (Fig. 6). A
project for a new civic centre was
planned but never
undertaken and blighted an area
around the former
Queens Square.
emergence of sites that would
be redeveloped and
regenerated in the late 1980s and
1990s. Economic
decline creates
a difficult
centre. It created the vast areas
of derelict dockland. It
also
limited
the
resources
available
to
maintain
street,
affected by the scale and also
severing effects of
highway management and construction which
have
disconnected streets and therefore
neighbourhoods. The
Paradise Streets and Queens Square
sites were even
affected by how bus movements have been
managed in
the city.
in 1981
the neighbouring Wirral. This allowed
central govern-
ment to
endorse. The renovation of Albert
Dock became the
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10372
mation and public realm works. This
was a strategy of
property led urban regeneration focussed
on developing
land rather than improving more directly
the economic
and social circumstances of people.
The Albert Dock
development spearheaded the concept
of heritage and
cultural tourism in the city, and
became the location of
the Museum of Liverpool Life, the
Merseyside
Maritime Museum and also, most
significantly, a
regional Tate Gallery, reflecting the
city’s historic link
with sugar
for significant sites at the Kings
and Princes Docks, the
sites attracted
no initial takers.
more moderate Labour City Council on
a competitive
bidding basis for an area of
the city containing many
historic buildings. This included the
Queens Square site
introduced above. Building on the
important Georgian
and Victorian heritage in the area,
the programme
embraced a range of
environmental, housing improve-
ment, infill
for Monument
opment brief also emerged from the
City Council for the
Queen’s Square area. The brief
established broad
parameters
for
a
mixed
use
commercial,
hotel
and
office
Against a background of under
investment in the city
centre, and with little design
advice, the resulting
scheme which did emerge was a
reasonable success,
although the quality of the
individual commercial
buildings is unspectacular (Fig. 8).
Certainly the
scheme re-established some useful routes
through the
city, and created a new public space.
The scheme is
important, however, because it is
the first large scale
development in
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–103 73
Fig. 7. Development brief
diagram suggesting a form for
the Queen
Square development.
resulted
from
design
ideas
and
contextual
thinking,
a
concern for mixed use and the
value of a human scale
public realm. City centre living, cultural
industries,
tourism, a night time economy, and
the growth in further
and higher education were also creating
some new
buildings. With the exception of the
museums and Tate
Gallery, most of these developments
must be regarded
as relatively low key. In addition
there is little evidence
that the city was thinking strategically
about the form of
the city and how its public realm might
evolve.
5. Urban
A new government, elected in 1997, was
keen to
reinforce the role of cities
and adjust our view of urban
life. Whilst London and the south-east
of England had
essentially boomed during previous decades,
the
Labour party supporting heartlands in
cities in the rest
of the UK had continued to
struggle with the social and
economic consequences of deindustrialisation,
progres-
sive suburbanisation and a perceived loss
of more
affluent people from large areas
of formerly industrial
cities. The
government’s
ment (CABE)
treatment of design matters through
the planning
process
and
The urban
Design principles. Significant emphasis
was put upon
developing and creating socially
diverse but balanced
and walkable neighbourhoods by promoting
urban
intensification, mixed uses, diversity
of housing form
and tenure and appropriate but
varying densities to
support an adequate provision of
facilities and services
close to homes. This was supplemented
by requirements
for effective public transport to
connect these neigh-
bourhoods
to
the
wider
urban
region.
A
concern
was
to reduce the impact of cars on
neighbourhoods and city
life (Punter, 2010b). Procedurally the
report builds on
previous experience
quality in urban development. These
were heavily
normative prescriptions fuelled by a
concern about the
state of English towns and cities,
but very clearly linked
to an ongoing discourse within
urban design about a
notion of an ideal form
of English urbanism. The
report
acknowledged the role of
cities in terms of creating
attractive locations for investment,
particularly in what
was described as a knowledge-based economy.
How all
the British
is
discussed
in
Punter
(2010c).
Punter
(2010a)
characterises
the
urban
policy
agenda
of the UK’s New Labour government
of the 1990s as
offering a middle
approach pursued by former Labour
governments. The
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10374
Fig. 8. View of the Queen
Square development showing the
Marriot Hotel, commercial frontages
and new bus gyratory system and
information
centre.
policy was driven by the desire
for urban regeneration to
be managed
by emerging markets, but the public
sector would (or
should) regulate against forms
of development inap-
propriate for a planned context,
whilst also potentially
using planning gain powers to secure
community
benefits.
and the
explain
the
change.
In
1998
Liberal
executivewas
employed.
One
aim
was
to establish Liverpool as a place
that was safe to invest.
Previous Labour administrations had moved
in this
direction, but the new council were keen
to exploit the
opportunity of a change in party in
power.
Following the publication of the
Urban Task Force
Report this new leadership team established
Liverpool
Vision as the UK’s first urban
regeneration company, to
regenerate sites in the city centre.
This was a partnership
organisation created to build consensus
between
organisations
responsible
for
delivering
projects.
Such
organisations
were
recommended
by
the
report.
sectors the small organisation facilitated
relationships
and subsequently
of statutory planning control continued
in the city,
rather than being replaced.
availability of land around the commercial
core, the
quality of the historic environment
and the need to
protect it, the existence of certain economic
drivers
(higher education and the knowledge economy,
under-
performing retailing,
visible andvisited part of thecity by
residents as well as
tourists and business people. This decision to
focus on
the city
centre is
it
is
study for the North West Regional
Development
Agency
emphasises
ing Liverpool’s. This reminds us that many,
if notmore
people are working in the suburbs
of Liverpool. Urban
design has had little role to play
in this success,
although this is also not the focus
of this study. The
region remains an area with
significant problems but
whilst changes are occurring in the
city centre, there is
also a dynamic pattern within deprived
neighbour-
hoods, as some people get jobs and move
out:
‘‘. . .strong economic growth in parts
of the region
has lead to a reduction in worklessness
and residents
have tended to ‘vote with
their feet’ by moving
into the
more affluent suburbs and this has
exacerbated the
problems experienced in declining
neighbourhoods.’’(-
North West
Regional Development
through reports
such as this, it is evident
that helping people back into
employment is a complex and
important task, but
choosing to critique the role of
designwithin particular
territories such as a city centre
is a distraction from
initiatives that should be of more
fundamental concern.
In Liverpool we would probably need to
critique the
work and successes of the
Liverpool Local Strategic
Partnership (http://www.liverpoolfirst.org.uk )
who
For
the
city
include the
premier European city. In more
moderate terms it is also,
however, keen to meet the needs
of residents, re-establish
inclusivecommunities, and improve the
city as a regional
shopping destination. This local and
regional perspective
is an importantmoderation, and emphasises
the multiple
scaleson which all cities or
parts of cities operate. Whilst
the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool
has a nationally
significant collection, a new shopping centre
is meeting a
regional
need,
whilst
forms
of
housing
or
bars
are
mapping of
poor environments
pragmatic observations about the nature
of the city from
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–103 75
agenda:
City of
ment. . .[there is a]. . .lack
of ground floor activity in
many buildings adjacent to public
open spaces and
streets. . .much of the streetscape
is tired and lifeless.
Despite this, Liverpool is fortunate that
it has the
building stock and urban fabric
to provide a public
realm that could be the envy
of most European cities.
(SOM, 2000, p. 19)’’
emphasis on tying movement proposals to
ideas for
public space and pedestrian connectivity
and also
enhancing key public spaces to
‘‘ post card ’’ standard—
a very interesting and illuminating
turn of phrase. It also
established proposals for character areas
of distinctive
land-use and built-form; an approach
reminiscent from
Birmingham (Hubbard, 1995; Wright, 1999).
This drew
attention to
potential of the Paradise Street
and Chavasse Park
area to
conference centre and arena at the
Kings Dock site. It
also called for new movement and public
realm
strategies. This document, written
by a global design
agency, contains many of the
cliches critiqued in the
literature about urban design.
developed its in-house urban design
team. Many
commentators working in the city
have suggested that
previously the quality of design and
development had
not been
having one
manager, a public art officer, and
an additional urban
designer bringing the team up to
four. Despite this it is
evident that Liverpool Vision was
essentially being
proactive in
in areas of implementation with
European Objective
One funds being siphoned through a
Regional Devel-
opment Agency to approved projects.
Of course, as a
partnership organisation the city council
can claim
some involvement in this, and rightly
so, but in contrast
it might be judged that the
city council’s planning
department was a little slower to
embrace urban design
and its contribution.
supported by
and design practices, the Trust
tried to raise awareness
of the value of design for the
city in parallel with the
emerging debate nationally. It established
a design
review panel during the mid to
late 1990s to review and
comment on the design issues associated
with planning
applications for the city council.
The panel continued
with a small membership and CABE
became critical of
its procedures. This panel duplicated
a national CABE
design review panel which would also
comment on
significant schemes
always in agreement with those
of the local panel. This
could frustrate the local planning
authority. Interest-
ingly there
England. Neither Liverpool nor Manchester,
big cities
in the region, send their schemes
for consideration.
Liverpool has been keen to re-launch
the local panel,
widen its membership, but also
retain some autonomy.
Concurrently the new management team in
the city
also established a Design Champion in
2002. Towards
an Urban Renaissance (Urban
Task Force, 1999) had
been calling for cities to establish
Champions, and
Liverpool was
in public
suitable training of all staff
to ensure awareness of the
emerging urban design agenda and how it
might affect
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10376
Within Liverpool
other cities. The Design Champion
has been an
important symbolic post and the
previous Champion
worked hard to put design concerns
on the agenda
locally. It seems similarly symbolic
that the post has
now disappeared.
City
Council,
archaeology. It
Services and Chapman Robinson
Consultants, 2003).
The guide firmly reflects the
generic language and
agenda of By Design, and
so it connects directly to a
broader body of thinking about
what urban design and
therefore development
promotional and teach people about
the existing
qualities of the city. It
was not site specific and the
language is encouraging, using
could rather than terms
such as must or should . Some
have viewed it as a coffee
table publication (interviews). It was
well received but a
list of further more specific
guidance, including city
centre design guidance and a tall
buildings policy did
not appear until called for by UNESCO
(see below).
People committed to design quality have
wondered
whether and how the guide has been
applied without
adequate dedicated
below
the
aspiration
set
in
the
document
(interviews).
well publicised strategy to reorganise
travel and
improve facilities for public transport
users in the city
centre. The movement strategy provided a
framework
for embracing a planned Mersey Tram
proposal which
subsequently was not awarded funding.
It involved new
and other Merseyrail stations. It
involved public realm
work to reduce the impact
of traffic in key areas,
improve pedestrian surfaces and road
crossing oppor-
tunities. It also included works
to enhance movement of
traffic north and south across the
eastern edge of the
centre; a plan that replaced
a failed ring road scheme.
Critically the strategy was giving
greater priority to the
needs of pedestrians and public
transport users, linked
to emerging proposals for the
regeneration of six key
development areas around the edge
of the centre
(Fig. 10).
Fig. 10. Liverpool City Centre
Movement Strategy.
pool Vision,
and spaces in relation to their proposed
movement
function and also character. Spaces were
categorised
and mapped as strategic streets and
boulevards, city
streets, (pedestrianised) retail streets,
pedestrian lanes,
strategic gateways, major squares and
gardens, city
squares, garden courts and water spaces
(docks)
(Fig. 11). For each category a
performance standard
and design guidance was established. A
series of
projects was then developed
thinking about and developing projects for the
public
realm
in
ment of this suite of
urban design related strategies and
guidance documents is in very significant
contrast to a
previous decade when essentially urban
design thinking
struggled to be taken seriously.
We can see the influence
of the developing national agenda as
it applies the ideas
developingwithin urban design since
the mid 1980s, but
this links firmly to the new forms
of governance which
had come
attention to
due to its tourist potential.
Liverpool’s historic docks
and commercial core received World
Heritage Site
(WHS) status
buffer zone required by UNESCO
contains the entire
city centre area which provides long
views to the
waterfront. Pendlebury et al. (2009)
note the distinct
problem that urban World Heritage
Sites present. For
UNESCO designated sites ‘‘. . .transcend
national
values and [are] of common
importance to present
and future generations of humanity
as a whole’’
(UNESCO, 2007, p. 7) They should
be authentic and
able to
tall buildings
a
position
emerged
as
regional
cities in the UK saw more
proposals for tall buildings,
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–103 79
Fig. 12. Williamson Square fountains
implemented as part of the
Public Realm Implementation Framework.
for some
for a discussion about the assessment
of tall buildings in
historic areas, including a number
of cases in Liver-
pool).Within UNESCO members seemed
surprised that
major urban centres seeking investment
might find
WHS status somewhat of a
straightjacket, despite its
good intentions (Rodwell, 2008).
Buildings, its lack of an
urban design policy for the
city started to show as UNESCO
scrutinised the nature
of developments emerging, and started
to wonder if they
were out
proposals
within
the
World
Heritage
Site
and
buffer
clear framework to guide decisions
about developments
across the city centre. The
emerging supplementary
planning document (SPD) is based on
a thorough urban
design analysis
character of streets, ease
of movement and the location
of key urban and open spaces (Fig.
14). Following this,
specific character areas are highlighted.
These discuss
architectural styles and details, the
character of key
edges, important urban design characteristics
and
specific development issues (Fig. 15).
Urban design
guidance in the SPD is then
organised around By Design
headings with key questions highlighted
for developers
and their designers to address
through design and access
statements.
The
same
is
done
for
any
designs
for
the
are defined, whilst sites for a
clustering of tall or
medium rise
must
relate
to the existing grain of the
city and how they should sit
in the immediate streetscape. Following,
this detailed
guidance is presented for development
in each character
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10380
area. The result is a stringent
framework for the entire
centre which will empower the planning
authority in its
decision making.
developers confronted by the quality
of the SPD, and the
analysis on which it is based,
might work towards better
schemes quickly, given that the
ground rules are clear.
Future research should explore its
impact.
The policy, strategies and guidance
established to
encourage design quality reflect quite closely
the
developing practices occurring elsewhere
in the UK
and also government guidance. There are
evidently a
number of explanations for this.
The city has moved
towards a more
strategic design
been somewhat more tentative in
creating its Liverpool
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–103 81
Fig. 15. Extract from the World
Heritage Site Supplementary Planning
Document Evidential Report, analysing
a specific character area.
Fig. 16. The location of
high buildings in the World
Heritage Site
Buffer Zone based on Fig. 4.3
in the Supplementary Planning Docu-
ment (Liverpool City Council 2009).
team. UNESCO
and driven by a heritage agenda.
Interestingly in a quest to make
the city more
business facing it is worth
reflecting on whether these
documents have subsequently been ignored
in a quest to
court investors. The discussion of
developments will
explore this, but in policy terms
one indicator of this is
the reluctance of the city to
initially approve a tall
buildings policy. It is worth noting
the complexity in
judging the implications of
this, given the fact that the
Government Office
senior
impact that this has had, and most
critically the quality
of the guidance that is emerging.
6. Recent developments in Liverpool
1999–2008
Reviewing developments
understood within some context. Between
2001 and
2008 Liverpool Vision published
development updates
listing the schemes in the city
centre submitted for
planning permission which would
involve new build-
ings (Liverpool Vision, 2001–08). Fig. 17
is a map of
the sites which have been subject to
developer interest,
including private investments and
also work to the
public realm. This map highlights
the diverse range of
settings for which a significant mix
of projects came
forward.
Although
comprehensive
schemes
have
been
proposed,
an
awareness
of
these
must
be
balanced
with
Fig. 18
presented. Others are grouped
together under the same
M. Biddulph /
Progress in Planning 76 (2011)
63–10382
a range
such schemes, but their spread shows
that investment
has been realised across the
centre, and that the city has
experienced a significant range of
investments in
developments at a great variety
of scales.
Fig. 20 is a map showing areas
that have been subject
to mixed use proposals. Mixed use
development is a
direct result of debates within
urban design and
regeneration discourse during recent
decades. Before
the 1990s developers preferred
willingness of investors and
developers to embrace
mixed use schemes reflects a
dovetailing of urban
design, planning and developer objectives.
In Liverpool
many developments have often been
residential uses
with, for example, a commercial use on
the ground
floor. These schemes