SkyscraperCity Forum banner

The Northern Cities | Governance & Infrastructure (including HS3)

1M views 10K replies 266 participants last post by  sponge_bob 
#1 ·
.

Liverpool reflected in the Mersey: "Collaborating with other cities
and other countries is the future, and it helps to be able to shape
much of that future ourselves," says elected mayor Joe Anderson.



Will the north follow Scotland and search for greater power?

The most remarkable thing about the fast train between Liverpool and Leeds is that it doesn't exist. Sure, some trains move more swiftly than others, but there's none that even the most hucksterish rail operative would call fast. Not in 2014, between two of England's leading cities, both with aspirations to have futures as well as pasts.

So it is that an hour and three-quarters after setting off from Liverpool Lime Street, you arrive in Leeds, 60-odd miles away. A London train leaving Liverpool at the same time for the 210-mile journey would arrive only 20 minutes later. And that train would be full of people doing business, preparing for meetings. The Leeds train is not full of anyone much at all.

"Yep, not the greatest of journeys," says Keith Wakefield, leader of Leeds city council when I fetch up in his office, "but I've got a better illustration." A better illustration, that is, of how the northern cities fail to connect. Manchester, Leeds's neighbour across the Pennines, is 35 miles away or an hour by train. "But only half a per cent of Leeds people ever go to Manchester; and it's the same the other way round."

Wakefield's "half per cent" statistic might seem arcane but it says plenty about how England operates. Open a map and you can draw a neat, relatively short line linking Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds, moving across country. But people and businesses, tend not to move this way, as Wakefield suggests. Northerners who leave home, whether for the day or for good, tend to head south. All roads – and fast trains – lead to London.​


http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/31/one-north-regeneration-railways-jobs-cities

'



Manchester town hall: northern leaders have overcome past divisions
to bring forward a coherent plan for investment.



Whichever way Scotland votes, more power must be devolved in England

Even if the people of Scotland vote against independence, all of the mainstream political parties have promised Holyrood greater powers and responsibilities. If the nation avoids separation, this could still precipitate a constitutional conundrum south of the border as England – led by its core cities – asks "What about us?" The upcoming conference season will be a good time for politicians to offer some answers.

IPPR North has long argued that greater English devolution can both unlock national economic prosperity and drive a new wave of public service reform.​


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/however-scotland-votes-england-must-change

'




Why the ‘One North’ transport proposals make my heart sink


According to a popular online journey planner, I could at this moment leave my front door in south Manchester and, using public transport, be in the centre of Leeds in an hour and a quarter. I could travel to the centre of Liverpool in one hour and two minutes. Getting to the large Sharston industrial estate, in south Manchester, would also take me exactly one hour and two minutes.

As a proud resident of the north of England, I am not lacking in visions of how life here could be improved. Strangely, these have never included taking a diagonal sash stretching from Newcastle to Liverpool and transforming it into an ersatz imitation of the south-east commuter belt. Economic investment and regeneration are desperately needed, of course, and perhaps I should be cheering the proposals announced today by the civic leaders of five big cities to improve transport infrastructure to the tune of £15bn and create an economic powerhouse under the banner One North.

In truth, the plans and their paucity of imagination makes my heart sink. Who will really benefit from these developments? It is unlikely to be the poorest, the jobless, those on the merry-go-round of insecure, low-paid employment. People in poverty need employment opportunities close to home, not because they do not have the time to travel, but because they do not have the money. Despite being the most densely populated major country in Europe, England has longer and more expensive commutes than any competing country, with train passengers in particular paying up to three times as much in real terms to get to and from work each day. I can only shrug at proposals to make public transport faster, when the real need is to make them cheaper.​


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...h-transport-proposals-england-northern-cities

.
 
See less See more
3
#103 ·
The Manchester Independent Economic Review looked at clustering and wasn't convinced that it was a particularly useful economic strategy for Greater Manchester. I can't quite remember the reasoning but I think it was something to do with how our businesses currently works in a much more outward facing manner than clustering needs. Indeed it seemed to imply that successful clustering was much rarer than we might presume given all the hype.

Even thinking about regions renowned for their clustering in certain sectors (e.g. San Francisco Bay) there's still a generalist service centre at the midst of it and other centres in other businesses. Or if we think about the South East Lancashire textile cluster at the end of the 19th Century, while the towns around it specialised in spinning or weaving, Manchester pretty much had all the sales, trading, marketing, finishing and logistics businesses for the region. Where there's a connected region, even one with industrial specialisms it appears there will be a more generalist hub at its heart.
 
#104 ·
As I said before, I'm really only looking at it as a thought experiment at the moment, as I'm unconvinced that the required powers and funding will be forthcoming, but yes I would imagine the current hierarchy of urban populations would be retained for the reasons you suggest. Basing the populations on fractions of London, I'd imagine Manchester taking the 1/2 spot, Birmingham the 1/3 (as part of an expanded West Midlands conurbation separate for the Northern Supercity), West Yorkshire the 1/4 and Liverpool the 1/5. That's approximately a 5 million Manchester, a 3.5 million Leeds and 2 million Liverpool by 2050. All are about double the current county populations which seems unlikely to happen, but a fair reflection of what might be achievable.

It would mean a very dramatic and disruptive change in all of those cities though, but particularly Manchester. It's not all bad; all three cities could do with repopulating and improving their inner cities (particularly Manchester). But it would also inevitably mean more suburban expansion, particularly around Manchester Airport and the Bollin Valley, which while not a particularly important landscape is very pretty, a useful recreation resource in the area and means quite a lot to me personally. But if it happens I'd imagine it'd happen here.
agree in general there Che; but I think your projected populations may be too high.

Underpinning all of this is a theory of optimal spatial agglomeration; which suggests that overall national economic functioning is optimised when wider urban populations follow a particular distribution. Much of this is a bit speculative, but if the theory is correct, then the failure of a proper 'second city' to emerge in England (for whichever reason), will have resulted in functions that would be most effectively provided in the second city, migrating to the capital in default. So, not only are Manchester and Brum too small, London is about 50% too big, and overcongested - to a degree that impairs the efficiency of its 'first city' functions.

So, to projecct a theoretical optimal second/third/fourth city size, we first need to remove the excess element in the London population. What this also means is that, should agglomeration polices work, then the extra growth in Manchester/Brum would be at the expense of lower growth in London and the South East, not at the expense of lower growth in the other metropolitan centres.

In theory.
 
#105 ·
I do agree with some of your points but Manchester is not a bigger city than Leeds and Liverpool. To keep suggesting this means there is a flaw in your theory about how these city's have and will develop that, if maintained will lead you to the wrong conclusions regardless of emotion from people in Liverpool to lines such as "As you rightly point out there are many problems of living in London which is vastly bigger than any other UK city. To a lesser extent Manchester suffers from social problems you won't find in smaller cities like Leeds or Liverpool."

I've lived in Manchester and Liverpool, the two places are virtually the same except for the architecture which, sorry Manchester, this is one thing Liverpool wins hands down but that's another debate.

The way in which this country works and thinks, unfortunately is by size. To say Manchester is larger doesn't make it better doesn't matter - if politicians and society thinks it bigger then we automatically attribute success, importance and status to that notion and with it funding, priority and power over those deemed the opposite.

All northern city's have their strengths but a northern 'powerhouse' should consist of all the city's of the north inter-depending and developing. We can't have all commerce in Manchester and leave Liverpool to retail and public sector for example. To dicate things like this as part of a wider plan will become weapons for those with vested interests or bias to jeopardise the whole idea of a northern cooperative powerhouse. Then there is the reality that this country is forever cutting back the state and retail and hospitality pays very little comparatively for those in these industries meaning the opportunity for the city to grow, attract talent and indeed foster talent and provide real, lucrative and sustainable career paths is diminished unless, shock horror, you go and live in Manchester.

All city's should work to the notion that they will play to their strengths, increase and develop areas of their economy that perhaps they're lacking in. Manchester could perhaps look at it's cultural offering. sciences or public sector offering or develop more comprehensively its ports facilities at Salford. Liverpool could look to grow it's commercial and media offering, lure in more blue chip organisations, develop more office space and develop it's connections, particularly rail, perhaps create a sea/airport at Speke on a par with Manchester airport, Leeds could do the same and so on.

London has 5 airports, we need to think the same. Develop each city to it's full potential and cooperate with each other to do so rather than attempt to undermine each other or court favour from London for a larger slice.

Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester all have their individual offering, there own strengths and qualities. Lets build on those and pull up where there is a lacking. Imagine moving to northern England with several centres to choose from, each with an international airport and excellent rail and road links, good standard of living and, as there is choice rather than one blob all-consuming city in the middle one would hope the price of a home/rent would be much more favourable too.
I don't think we disagree on that much, certainly not in all the cities of the north having something to offer and their own strengths to build on. But one of Manchester's strengths is size. You may not 'feel' that Manchester is bigger, but that doesn't really matter, the stats prove it is. It's a bigger business centre in a bigger core city, has a bigger urban area (whichever definition you use for that) and a bigger metropolitan footprint. It may lack some of Liverpool's architectural grandeur, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's a bigger city and a larger market.

What I say when size doesn't make it better isn't that it has no effect, but that it has different effects, some good, some bad and some indifferent. So it may have a more productive economy, but it also has greater inequality and more crime, which produces a cost to residents, government and businesses. Some will be attracted to bigger cities, others to smaller ones depending on the balance of these factors and their importance to those agents. All cities should try and be the best they can be, but it doesn't alter the underlying facts.

I also don't advocate forcibly moving businesses out of some centres and into others. Businesses know their own business, and they have a right to base themselves wherever they want to be. I also don't envisage consigning any of our great cities to 'retail and public sector'. But the future you envisage of a pool of equal cities competing for the same investment in the same sectors with equal success is one of wishful thinking. A northern powerhouse should use all or as much of the assets of the region as possible, but that doesn't require Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester etc. to be equal in all things, because they can't be. Manchester and Leeds aren't on the sea, Liverpool and Leeds do not have a major international airport, Liverpool and Manchester can't pull on an area the size of almost all of Yorkshire to fill their retail centres. And Liverpool and Leeds are not the largest city, nor the population centre of the northern belt.
 
#107 ·
agree in general there Che; but I think your projected populations may be too high.

Underpinning all of this is a theory of optimal spatial agglomeration; which suggests that overall national economic functioning is optimised when wider urban populations follow a particular distribution. Much of this is a bit speculative, but if the theory is correct, then the failure of a proper 'second city' to emerge in England (for whichever reason), will have resulted in functions that would be most effectively provided in the second city, migrating to the capital in default. So, not only are Manchester and Brum too small, London is about 50% too big, and overcongested - to a degree that impairs the efficiency of its 'first city' functions.

So, to project a theoretical optimal second/third/fourth city size, we first need to remove the excess element in the London population. What this also means is that, should agglomeration polices work, then the extra growth in Manchester/Brum would be at the expense of lower growth in London and the South East, not at the expense of lower growth in the other metropolitan centres.

In theory.
I think I used the same point (about northern growth reducing London growth) to Vulcan, and then promptly forgot it. So yes I agree the figures might be a bit high. So perhaps 4-4.5, 2-2.25 and 1.6-1.8 for Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool respectively might be more accurate.

It's also worth noting that the LSE paper that raised this issue suggested that currently it wasn't London that was too large (although given its rapid growth it's probably on the way to becoming so) but the mid sized towns of over hundred thousand of which we seem to have too many. Our New Town obsession perhaps?
 
#108 ·
It's also worth noting that the LSE paper that raised this issue suggested that currently it wasn't London that was too large (although given its rapid growth it's probably on the way to becoming so) but the mid sized towns of over hundred thousand of which we seem to have too many. Our New Town obsession perhaps?
More plausibly our Green Belt obsession. If so, that would imply that London is too big (in terms of jobs, traffic and economic functions) but this is to a degree masked by a proportion of London's effective residents actually bedding down in mid-size towns beyond the Green Belt.
 
#109 ·
In the end we need more business to make (or be forced to make) the move of significant elements of their operations away from London and the SE to the North - stop the futility of Cross Rails 1, 2, 3 whatever, offer incentives to move North or disincentives to expand in London/SE - something has to be done to reign in the cess pit black hole that is the small SE corner of the UK

And build on every green field between Manchester and Liverpool such that the silly debate over the NW cities stops because then there ONLY is one city - and we'd call it All Comprehensive Rot :lol:
 
#111 ·
More plausibly our Green Belt obsession. If so, that would imply that London is too big (in terms of jobs, traffic and economic functions) but this is to a degree masked by a proportion of London's effective residents actually bedding down in mid-size towns beyond the Green Belt.
Since I've had a bit of time this morning and nothing to do I thought I'd have a look at the stats to see if I can see any patterns. I looked at the differences between in built up area population between what would be expected if Zipf's law applied perfectly and the actual population of our built up areas.

The first thing I noticed was that even large urban regions with no green belt e.g. Leicester, South Hampshire etc. appear to be considerably smaller than they would be under a strict interpretation of Zipf's law. This suggests to me that while our green belt policy might have an impact on specific cities by constraining growth around them, it can't be the ultimate cause of lower than expected growth in all cities. This makes sense, given that the ratio of size between Greater Manchester and London hasn't really changed since the end of the 19th century, well before the green belt policy was enacted. This doesn't mean that Green Belt doesn't mask London's over-sized nature, but that suggests that there's another powerful force operating in the England causing a deviation from that which would allow typical urban growth to proceed.

The obvious solution to me is political structure. The other western European country that defies Zipf's predictions is France; another nation state that centralised early and strongly. Contrast that with Germany or the USA where political power has long been distributed more diffusely. An interesting contrast to the UK is also provided in federal Australia, where each of the State Capitals (Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide) are bigger than you would expect given the population of Sydney. Now obviously geographically Australia is a lot different to Britain, but it does suggest that it isn't cultural factors that make the countries different, given that the differences apparently set in before an independent Australian culture developed. It's also interesting that the next biggest urbanity (Gold Coast) is not a major political centre and has an urban population in line with/slightly smaller than you would expect compared to Sydney.

I'm not sure what mechanism political power would influence city size. Presumably there are infrastructure and planning issues that a governmental tier between locality and nation would benefit. I would also have thought that the ability to vary some local taxes in response to local need might help foster a growing economy, and so a region that better attracts residents. There might also be an institutional factor, with regional bodies drawing in a wider pool of expertise that might foster innovation and better decision making. However without a more fundamental understanding of why cities tend towards this distribution it's very hard to say which if any factors are vital, and if political power is important how it should be structured to best improve the economic position of our underperforming regions.
 
#112 ·
Very interesting Che.

I think your are right to concentrate on political/administrative factors; though historically, maybe missing some options from the list.

My impression is that the reasons for London and Paris emerging so much larger than expected in the 19th century - is that these were imperial, rather than national capitals. Vienna, of course, was a similar case. The narative here is that late 19th century imperialism functioned in an entirely different way from previous imperialisms - e.g Spain, Portugal - especially in relation to industrial and financial enterprises; and this resulted in unprecedented population growth in imperial capital cities.

The more intriguing issue is how the current differential is maintained. In particular, London stopped shrinking, and started growing around a decade earlier than either Leeds or Manchester. Again, a lot ot this seems to be due to finacial services and the globalisation merry-go-round; there are a numeber of wards in London where banking and financial services represents more than 50% of employment.

But it is also my speculation that there is a multiplier effect, due the additonal employment costs arising in London associated with high population and congestion. Especially in public agencies; London allowances are grossly insufficient to compensate for residential and transport costs; with the consequence in London public sector employment of high rates of turnover and high vacancy levels for skilled employment - especially administrative. One consequence, in my experience, is that it has become extraordinarily difficult undertake any sort of major activity in London using 'standard' channels of communication. The person you were talking too last month has now left; their deputy is on maternity leave, nobody there knows what you are talking about. What this means is that much business depends on face-to-face contact and personal networks of acquaintance - which in turn means that enterprises - especially in the 21st century out-sourced world - have a big advantages in being located nearby. Which cuts down on the potential functional space available for enterprises based outside London in othe urban centres.

Its my theory anyway.
 
#113 ·
nerd said:
due the additonal employment costs arising in London associated with high population and congestion. Especially in public agencies; London allowances are grossly insufficient to compensate for residential and transport costs; with the consequence in London public sector employment of high rates of turnover and high vacancy levels for skilled employment
If we keep feeding that differential/weighting we perpetuate the problem. My preference is to drive it harder so that what happens is the supply (of staff) dries up and prices/costs have to reduce back towards the national norm. I have little sympathy with the SE as a whole - they've done it to themselves, I see absolutely no reason to support it/them. Harsh on the individuals but enough is enough.

So could carving up England & Wales (Scotland go do whatever it wants) into proper regions with administrative and tax controlling powers help? Have 6 to 8 regions in England; Wales could stay as one or be split into two. Westminster forced to share funds/budget fairly per head of region population? The NW would all of a sudden be a much bigger player. Thoughts?
 
#114 ·
If we keep feeding that differential/weighting we perpetuate the problem. My preference is to drive it harder so that what happens is the supply (of staff) dries up and prices/costs have to reduce back towards the national norm. I have little sympathy with the SE as a whole - they've done it to themselves, I see absolutely no reason to support it/them. Harsh on the individuals but enough is enough.

So could carving up England & Wales (Scotland go do whatever it wants) into proper regions with administrative and tax controlling powers help? Have 6 to 8 regions in England; Wales could stay as one or be split into two. Westminster forced to share funds/budget fairly per head of region population? The NW would all of a sudden be a much bigger player. Thoughts?
Absolutely right DS; London-bsed commentators have till recently tended to assume that the corollary of devo-mx for Scotland and Wale, is a devolved 'England' adminstration. What seems to be increasingly acknowledged is that devolved 'England' would or the most part, be a replication (and rival) for un-devolved 'Westminster'. England devolution must include the break-up of Whitehall - such that for instance there should be no such thing as a Department of Education.

But that leaves hanging a question of how big the devolved units ought ideally to be. Administrative conveniece would strongly favour regions/provinces of roughly equal size ( the old GOR regions are an example). But empirical regional studies rather inidicate that 'real' regions are widely variable in size; London clearly emerges as a region, but equally Cornwall does too.
 
#115 ·
Getting in there early on the Manchester devolution front:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29201541

They are hungry, opportunistic and have good governance - why they've gotten ahead and monopolised Westminster's northern treats over the past 20 years. The other cities moan but they need to mobilise like Manchester have.

Interesting about the Australian cities. I suspect geography plays a huge part. As Che says, no states really have a big second city. Population isn't quite there yet, but each city is hugely dominant within its own state. A microcosm of the same situation. Canada too.

Gold Coast is on the up, but ironically its growth will just continue the blurring with Brisbane - and end up being one massive metro and possibly lose its stand-alone identity again.
 
#116 ·
Absolutely right DS; London-bsed commentators have till recently tended to assume that the corollary of devo-mx for Scotland and Wale, is a devolved 'England' adminstration. What seems to be increasingly acknowledged is that devolved 'England' would or the most part, be a replication (and rival) for un-devolved 'Westminster'. England devolution must include the break-up of Whitehall - such that for instance there should be no such thing as a Department of Education.

But that leaves hanging a question of how big the devolved units ought ideally to be. Administrative conveniece would strongly favour regions/provinces of roughly equal size ( the old GOR regions are an example). But empirical regional studies rather inidicate that 'real' regions are widely variable in size; London clearly emerges as a region, but equally Cornwall does too.
I think a variable model but with fairly strict conditions is probably the most sensible way to go. So a minimum population and a functional economic region with some exceptions made for areas of strong cultural affinity (such as Cornwall, possibly Cumbria) or isolation. The key to getting it right isn't the peripheral areas of England, but what you do with the 'Middle England' areas that do fine with Westminster and dislike change. Asymmetry means that these areas won't go first, but if the structure proposed is one that makes no sense I the south I don't see it surviving the media barrage or lack of cross party support it will receive.
 
#117 ·
I think a variable model but with fairly strict conditions is probably the most sensible way to go. So a minimum population and a functional economic region with some exceptions made for areas of strong cultural affinity (such as Cornwall, possibly Cumbria) or isolation. The key to getting it right isn't the peripheral areas of England, but what you do with the 'Middle England' areas that do fine with Westminster and dislike change. Asymmetry means that these areas won't go first, but if the structure proposed is one that makes no sense I the south I don't see it surviving the media barrage or lack of cross party support it will receive.
I am not sure where these 'Middle England' areas are that you refer to Che; Oxford, Cambridge. Swindon and Reading perhaps - together with central West London. But much of the rest of the south (East Angia, Lincolnshier, East Kent, South Hampshire) is as 'angry' as anwhere else; they may not like change, but for exactly that reason they don't like the EU/Westminster/Establishment consensus that they blame for ecouraging change to happen. Hence UKIP.
 
#118 ·
Since I've had a bit of time this morning and nothing to do I thought I'd have a look at the stats to see if I can see any patterns. I looked at the differences between in built up area population between what would be expected if Zipf's law applied perfectly and the actual population of our built up areas.

......

The obvious solution to me is political structure. The other western European country that defies Zipf's predictions is France; another nation state that centralised early and strongly. Contrast that with Germany or the USA where political power has long been distributed more diffusely. An interesting contrast to the UK is also provided in federal Australia, where each of the State Capitals (Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide) are bigger than you would expect given the population of Sydney. ....

.

Interesting thoughts, but bear in mind that France & England have also been countries mostly in their current geographical boundaries* for much longer than Germany (only really came into existance mid 1800's) and USA (each State joining a union) so Paris & London have had much more time to develop as a national capital. Clearly not the only reason but maybe one.

* there are many interactive maps around charting the changing political borders accross Europe for the last 1000 years, worth finding if you've not already seen them.
 
#119 ·
Could bigger regions be created - i.e could South Wales handle being run from Bristol, and North Wales from Manchester, for example?

Having less would be handy - but splitting Wales (even if practical) might be a challenge. They have their Assembly too which we'd want to respect. So conversely, might they take on the South West?
 
#120 ·
I am not sure where these 'Middle England' areas are that you refer to Che; Oxford, Cambridge. Swindon and Reading perhaps - together with central West London. But much of the rest of the south (East Angia, Lincolnshier, East Kent, South Hampshire) is as 'angry' as anwhere else; they may not like change, but for exactly that reason they don't like the EU/Westminster/Establishment consensus that they blame for ecouraging change to happen. Hence UKIP.

The Thames Valley/inner Home Counties really. Where bankers, tabloid columnists and senior civil servants play at being country Gentry before commuting to the commanding heights of London. The problem I see is that this region already runs the country and benefits from the current structure, what possible motivation could they have to devolve?
 
Top