by Tony Clegg
Our deserted and decaying inner cities are a mess, and something needs to be done to halt and reverse their decline — and it needs to be done fast. On this, I think I can safely say, we have agreement all round. But just what we do, how we do it and in fact even who should do it are matters about which there is considerable debate and disagreement.
In my opinion there is a significant role for modern developers in the regeneration of our inner cities. As a breed, I like to think we are capable of operating with an approach perhaps best summarised as: thinking big, thinking bold and acting fast.
In my view the city centre has a cancer at its heart, spreading outwards as the population moves away from it. My hope is that we may attack that cancer by moving people back into the city centre. Let us now “invert the city”. Yes, I mean turn our cities inside out.
Just look at them now. They were founded around features which drew people together — a junction of rivers or routes, a harbour, a bridge or a hill. Look at how we have neglected those special features. We turned our backs on their attractiveness and neglected the outstanding architectural heritage often concentrated around them. Instead, we have gone to live in the great sprawling and impersonal estate on the urban fringe, eating up more and more of the green belt around our cities and turning our outlying villages into dormitory suburbs.
We spend many, many hours during our working year travelling to and from our city-centre offices. We also spend many of our valuable leisure hours travelling to and from those very same city centres to go shopping. The result is that city centres are open for less than half the day. How many shopping centres do you know where at 6 pm the gates slam shut and the security guards take over, giving an eerie and unwelcome feel to what should be the vital heart of our cities?
The modern city’s heart is no longer designed for people. Some people see it as designed for rampant 9 am to 5 pm retailing, so why are they surprised when people vandalise it in the evening?
Look above the shops and you will see that nobody lives there. The people who used to inhabit the very centre of the city have gone. The combination of the Rent Acts and the neglect of residential opportunities in the centre have led to this outward migration.
Using the financial muscle of the major developers and their risk capital, we should invert the city; bring people back into its heart and make it live again.
Let us not be afraid to allow shopping centres out on the fringe, where people can use and park their cars and where it does not matter if the place closes at 6 pm. Given the space, we can achieve some really imaginative leisure activities providing something for everyone to enjoy. There simply is not room for this in the city centre, but the edge-of-town retail site can accommodate it.
Let us put housing back into the city centre. I am convinced that housing is the “fast track” for inner-city regeneration. If we can bring a mixture of people back to live in the heart of the city, then small businesses, entertainment complexes and service enterprises will surely follow and we will have a ripple effect spreading through the inner city.
People used to live there and many of their houses still stand, solidly built, to tell the tale. The water features in inner cities make pleasant places to live — look at Salford Quays and Docklands to see what can be done. The architecture of city centres like Liverpool and Bradford could be a delight to live in or beside. Why demolish it for shopping centres, flatten it for car parks and desert it every evening?
Attractive houses which people can afford will draw people back into the inner city. More people living there will reduce the crime rate, as people develop greater pride in their environment. And as that environment improves, so employers and their workforces will wish to come back into the inner city both to live and to work.
It is with this in mind that my company has proposed the concept of housing investment zones. These zones would use the well-tried and successful enterprise zone tax allowance to encourage inner-city housing development. I have put my ideas to the Government and, encouraged by the initial reactions, I commissioned a report by Roger Tym & Partners which I hope will achieve a positive response in Whitehall.
It is no good, however, individuals pursuing their own ideas in isolation, in penny packets. What we need is partnership. Forget confrontation, competition, massive tendering exercises for sites which cause such an appalling waste of resources by those unsuccessful in winning the tenders. Instead, let us think about how we may all contribute and try to bring in people who have special abilities and ideas.
Mountleigh has a history of avoiding prolonged confrontation. I have made this clear in my comments on potential takeover targets. In the same way our philosophy is not to ride roughshod over local authorities and local people in the areas where we wish to develop. In addition to the support of these bodies, we need swiftness and decisiveness from those who are in power, creating a climate of confidence for investment.
It also helps if the developers have knowledge of a region and the local authorities with which they are dealing. Consider inner-city successes and then think of the instigators’ names — you will find that they are people who know their areas. They can spot opportunities in places where they have grown up. The bankers and other financiers from the City, as well as the local authorities and professional advisers, should recognise this knowledge, and back the local man who has the vision and energy to initiate comprehensive inner-city regeneration.
Finally, I would say to the Government: “Remember that we are busy people.” We do not have time to sit in ivory towers contemplating endless consultative documents with a view possibly to running a pilot scheme some five years hence. We want to achieve something quickly and we need a clear path through the mine fields of red tape to help us to do so.
For example, I was reminded by Roger Tym & Partners that the enterprise zone legislation was originally contained in one short section and schedule of the Finance Act 1980. Following this example, a housing investment allowance would not only be something simple and quick for people to understand but it would be something relatively simple and swift for the Government to implement.
Surely it is much more difficult for the Government to find space in the already-crowded legislative programme for complicated Housing Bills requiring enormous consultation processes than it would be to introduce a simple change in the annual Finance Act.
Tony Clegg, is chairman and chief executive of the Mountleigh Group