Liverpool, a City Being Regenerated,
But Who is Benefiting?

By Darren Guy

Anyone visiting Liverpool city centre will notice that almost a quarter of the area, looks like it is being re-built; regeneration it would seem is on the up and up. (If you can put aside the £millions wasted on ill-thought out projects like the 'Fourth Grace' and the 'Mersey Wave'). The city has now moved on to by far it's most adventurous plans, the Paradise Street Development Area (PSDA), a huge urban village funded by one of Britain's richest men, The Duke Of Westminster. But according to local campaigning group 'Regeneration Watch' virtually 'every promise of regeneration for more than ten years has either been broken, or hardly benefited the people of Liverpool'. We are told by the city council and regeneration bodies that the PSDA will create jobs, it will benefit the people of Liverpool, but with so many promises and so many blunders can we really trust them now? And whom so far has regeneration benefited? Many argue 'Not the people of Liverpool'.

Liverpool has had its fair share of promises since the Scarman Report of 1981 and Michael Heseltine's infamous visit to the charcoaled remains of the Toxteth riots. Liverpool was identified as an area with extreme deprivation, high unemployment and in need of investment. We got the International Garden Festival and Albert Dock projects in the belief that tourism would provide much needed employment for the local area. Whether it did or didn't is still highly contested by locals. But the garden festival closed down, and was left 'derelict' for a number of years until recently it was sold on again to a private developer, despite strong local opposition, demanding the site be used as a conservation area to be enjoyed by all local people. And the Albert Dock…well research has recently revealed that workers were brought in from outside to re-build large sections of it. Richard and Judy have deserted it as have most of its original inhabitants. The luxury flats still remain but many of the retail outlets are empty.

'The chair of the inquiry, Cllr Paul Brant, challenged both chief executives on why the public sector held a public vote on the four short-listed designs for the Fourth Grace in 2002 but then chose the design which came last in the poll'. Daily Post, 19/08/04.

In 1994 - thirteen years after the riots - Liverpool received Objective One status, after being recognised as one of the poorest areas in the European Union. Between 1994 and 1999 over one and a half billion pounds was pumped into the city. Half from Europe, half from grants. It was difficult on the surface to see what the money was being used for, but occasional reports suggested it was being lapped-up through endless consultant reports and solicitors fees. As bars and shops were gutted, re-designed and then gutted and re-designed again, pavements were pulled-up and put down again and plans for the city centre came and went. One such plan - which excited the local arts scene - was announced in a flurry of media coverage. The Ropewalks area (covering Duke St and Seel St) would be developed into an artists' quarter, with an array of galleries and studios. Nothing more was heard about those plans until local daily post reporters suggested that the use of the money was now under investigation by the European Commission fraud squad (OLAF). Researchers trying to find the outcome compared it to trying to find WMD in Iraq. By 2001 - when all development work was due to be finished - a tour around the Ropewalks area would tell you that the area was declining, not developing.

In 1999, to another fanfare, a new private regeneration company was established - 'Liverpool Vision' - whose main aim was to regenerate the city centre. The company would work in partnership with Liverpool City Council, English Partnership and North West Development Agency. Its board members included Mike Story (Leader of Liverpool City Council and board member of the North West Development Agency), retired Chairman of Wimpy Joe Dwyer, chief Exec of Tesco PLC Terry Leahy and Dave Wade Smith from the clothes company of the same name. A small-scale scandal broke-out immediately when it was discovered that Joe Dwyer was one the people behind the planning of Liverpool's notorious 1960s high-rise flats. Further scandals followed after a number of reports, released through the local media, claimed that literally millions of pounds meant for the local economy was going into paying the wages of middle management council officials and Vision staff. In the meantime, Layth Bunny - Vision's first CEO - resigned, even though he said he was 'making no little plans' for the city and was committed to reducing unemployment. His £90,000 a year job then went to the present chief, Jim Gill. It was clear to critics of previous regeneration policies that the trickle-down theories that had dominated the city for nearly twenty years would continue.

Liverpool received Objective One status again. A Wealth of the Nation survey in 2001 revealed that Liverpool still had nine areas in the top twenty poorest areas in the country, and that 60% of the adult population were earning less than £10.000 a year. This time, though, Objective One would only last until 2006. There was much talk of getting it right this time. The city centre did begin to see improvement, work started on listed buildings, people talked of feeling more positive about regeneration. Liverpool built its first million pound penthouse, then more luxury apartments began springing up, even in the Ropewalks area. In Speke the airport was developing with the help of £15 million of European money, in other areas there was some investment. But by 2003 some prominent representatives began to wonder when the cities wealth would trickle to their communities. Peter Kilfoyle, the MP for Walton stated that "there was still no agreed and over-arching strategy for this area", and he feared that "when the EU grant aid is over" his constituents "would be worse-off". Concerns were also expressed at who was receiving the regeneration money, most notably by James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, who said he was continually being offered the chance to sit on various quangoes with between £5000 and £12,000 for the privilege, while local people were being excluded. The Bishop who has since resigned as the chair of Kensington regeneration board, told the national regeneration magazine 'Newstart' "So, it is alright to pay professional regenerators - day trippers who leave at the end of the day and get £50,000 a year - whereas the people who live there, the people with all the local knowledge and the daily skills of survival, get nothing".

When Liverpool won the European Capital of Culture, there was again talk of a bright future for everyone on Merseyside. There were claims that 14,000 jobs would be created. There was a newfound confidence particularly in relation to the regeneration bodies. They began to intensify not only their regeneration plans, but also their cultural plans. But grassroots arts and cultural organisations in the area began to talk of rent increases; independent galleries and art organisations were forced to close, and art studios and bookshops were either getting compulsory purchases orders placed on them or receiving massive rent increases. Jimmy Burns who had been running one of Liverpool premier second hand bookshops for over a decade 'North West Books' on Seel Street was told his shop was being turned into a wine bar called 'Moods'. Angrily Jimmy told us before he was forced out ' the second-hand book trade might seem like nothing to people with money but the corner stone in any culture is the written word. The possibility of decent cheap books is very important, to pensioners, those on low incomes and students. All this hype about the City of Culture…for me and many other small shop owners is like one sick joke'.

Others expressed the same concerns, the owner of an award winning art gallery on Seel street whose project had been running for 16 years told us 'bit by bit they're turfing people out to make way for bars and clubs and if I go there'll be nowhere for local artists'. Many other cultural projects although delighted with the city of culture award, felt like 'now they have used us to win it, they are getting on with making money for themselves'.

People organising popular independent music nights began to face threats by the local authorities for flyposting their events. There was a clampdown on homeless people and skateboarders. Critics of the present regeneration policy began to argue that the "whole notion of culture and regeneration was now being defined by those who stood to make huge profits out of it". Local campaigning group People Not Profit argued that "culture and regeneration, to those controlling the money means expensive cafes, wine bars and restaurants, luxury flats, and expensive retail outlets". But small businesses, artists and young people were not the only ones feeling excluded.

According to Professor Chris Jones from Liverpool University, elderly people were also feeling excluded: "older people - both working class and middle class - have reported that the city centre is becoming 'unwelcoming' to them. They talk about 'places they would have gone for cheap restaurants, for a cup of coffee, to have afternoon dancing' these places are ' not appearing anymore'. Added to this was the continued effort to clear the streets of legal street traders, and even people giving out leaflets. All policy decisions seem to be geared towards, according to Dr Roy Coleman author of new book 'Reclaming the City' "attracting the 'right kind of person', that is “someone with spending power”, and “excluding those on low incomes." The recent agreement signed by Liverpool city council and Grosvernor Estates (the Duke of Westminster's company) seems to re-enforce this belief. With a policy that takes us, according to some, back to the Victorian days.

Many of the people we have spoken to have said that when they have attempted to criticise regeneration policy that they have been accused of being 'mere knockers of development' who do not want to see the development of their own city. Many of the critics we have spoken to are local and active in trying to get what is best for the people of Liverpool and highly committed to regeneration. But it's regeneration for whom, they wonder? Many have expressed concerns for years, about the lack of consultation, the unaccountability and even questioned the relevance that regeneration has for local people. Others have talked about a city centre that is becoming 'sterile' 'cultureless', of feeling like 'ghosts' in their own city. And with a huge emphasis in regeneration publicity focusing on attracting visitors and tourists from more wealthy regions, and with the building of numerous luxury apartments, who can blame them. Professor Chris Jones talks about a city that is 'missing an opportunity for creating a space, a city centre that's going to speak for the diversities of the population, including those that don't have so much money'. People Not Profit the campaigning group believe the regeneration bodies are deliberately excluding local people from decisions about regeneration and that 'city of culture and regeneration is used cynically by professionals and those in power to line their own pockets'. Others are not so cynical; some identify major problems with distribution of interest but believe it is not too late to turn the tide. The Bishop of Liverpool James Jones still has hope that a regeneration can be achieved, one that benefits the people of Liverpool but the answer lies in genuine community led regeneration. He Believes that the people of Liverpool can and should be leading the way and that 'Leadership talent is there in disadvantaged communities' and that there are 'people, often single women with young children, who are determined to turn their neighbourhood into better places to work and live'. He understands that people are tired of what they perceive as a 'History of outsiders prescribing inappropriate solutions' but believes that ''If the government is serious about community empowerment it needs to realise that in the end it is about giving local people money.'

What do you think?