BIDDULPH 2011

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

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

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

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
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

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
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
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
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

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,
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

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
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

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

BIDDULPH 2011

Documents

Transcript of BIDDULPH 2011