Centre for Cities

Now the Games are over, the legacy begins

Yesterday I spent half my flight back from a weekend in Moscow discussing London 2012 with a stranger. The lady in question was neither British nor a Londoner, but she was just as excited about the Games as if she were.  A week after the Paralympics ended, my encounter gives a sense of how London 2012 acted as a showcase, getting people talking positively about Britain across the world. But now the Games are over, there is no time to rest on our laurels.  The world’s attention will move on, but the chance to create long-lasting change for London as a result of the Games starts now.

The experiences of past Olympic hosts show that a great Games does not necessarily mean a great legacy. The impressive venues built for Beijing 2008 are now underused, while cities from Montreal through to Atlanta and Athens have struggled to generate permanent benefits from staging the Olympics.  London has already applied a number of important lessons learned from previous Olympic hosts, including using temporary venues for many sports, setting up a legacy body early on, and agreeing a Convergence agenda to set social and economic targets.  Centre for Cities’ new report, A Marathon Not A Sprint?, looks at further ways in which London can learn from other cities and improve its legacy prospects.  Analysis reveals both successes to imitate and pitfalls to avoid.

Three main lessons are apparent from Olympic cities elsewhere. First of all, a legacy depends upon a clear, consistent vision. The regeneration of Barcelona was underway before the 1992 Games, and continued long after. The Games were part of a longer-term strategy for the city, and it took commitment to see it through.  In the mid-90s recession, the legacy could have been seen as a failure, but the vision for the city was central to Barcelona’s economic future and therefore able to survive short-term setbacks.

The legacy vision for London 2012  should aspire to the same level of clarity and purpose.  During the life of the bid, legacy aims have moved significantly from social and environmental focus to a post-recession economic rationale.  With Boris Johnson’s installation as its third chair in the space of a year, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) needs to publicly demonstrate its clear political commitment to a single legacy vision and pull together the people who can ensure London’s legacy plan is strong enough to survive future political and economic challenges.

The second crucial lesson is that London needs to have a clear and consistent plan for the Olympic Park.  A permanent physical legacy on an Olympic site requires political and financial backing over time, as for example in Barcelona where a new business district was developed around the main Games site.  London is still agreeing uses for the Olympic venues; the current masterplan focuses on housing, but the Prime Minister and others have suggested that Tech City businesses might also be a part of its future (although Centre for London’s research casts doubts on the likelihood of the latter happening). To deliver results, a persuasive and single vision for future business and residential development is the real priority.  The LLDC is the first legacy body to have been set up before the end of the Games; it needs to make the most of this advantage by setting out why potential firms and residents would benefit from locating in the Park. 

Thirdly, analysis of past host cities spotlights the challenge of delivering long-term change for East London beyond the Olympic Park.  No Olympic host city has used the Games as a tool to reduce deprivation, but the transformation of East London is London 2012’s marquee legacy objective.  This will only be delivered with a commitment to social as well as physical improvements, for example increasing skill levels to help local people access jobs.  The Olympic Host Boroughs are working closely together to improve socio-economic indicators across their boundaries and have made a good start.  However, lasting change will require both Government and the Mayor of London to provide support and resources for many years to come.

The Games are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for London, and so far they could not have gone better.  However, the toughest job starts now, away from the limelight and in the context of squeezed budgets and political realities.  Learning the lessons of modern host cities will help London deliver a legacy to match the resounding success of London 2012.

Learning from history: urban Britain 1901 to 2012

Yesterday we launched Cities Outlook 1901, a report exploring the evolution of cities across Britain from the turn of the 20th century. At the launch event, our expert panel - Sir Peter Hall, Tony Travers and Tristram Hunt MP - reflected on the report’s findings and helped build the picture of our cities’ rich histories. It was a reminder of just how vital it is that we learn from the past if future policy is to be effective.

Here are some of the key lessons shared:

· Skills matter but it’s about a mix of skills not just graduates. For many cities back in the 20th century their ability to adapt to the changing economy came down to the fact that they had a strong professional skills and an advanced engineering base. Take Swindon and Honda or Derby and Rolls Royce. The two cities were able to attract these firms because of their strong engineering backgrounds.

· The best connected cities in 1901 tended to be the strongest economically. Places connected by rail and within two hours of London were at an advantage in 1901. Newport and Doncaster are two notable exceptions, highlighting the importance of economic diversity as well as transport. In the latter half of the 20th century it was Sir James Drake's invention of the motorway that led to Preston’s and Warrington’s success; the Preston By-Pass built in 1958 was the first motorway in the country.

· Small and large cities can suffer from a lack of diversity. Smaller cities tended to be less diverse, although the stories of Birmingham and Glasgow show that large cities can become overly reliant on single industries too. For Birmingham it was the automotive sector; for Glasgow it was shipping.

· City leadership can make a big difference. The success of cities is partly down to time and chance. Places like London, Cambridge and Oxford started with a strong base and high skills in 1901 putting them in a far better position than others. But cities like Reading and Swindon demonstrate that a city can transform itself if it has the right leadership.

· Strong municipal authorities in the 19th century raised standards. The disempowerment of local government and loss of local financial autonomy coincided with deindustrialisation. The 20th century saw local government lose the capacity to make decisions and invest locally. Until this is reversed it will be very difficult for cities to reinvent themselves.   

Follow Naomi on Twitter @Naomi_Cities

Beyond the Core: City Deals for mid-sized cities

The Government is due to conclude its City Deals negotiations with the Core Cities in the next week or so.  As part of the sign-off ceremony there’s likely to be an announcement about the next wave of City Deals.  

 In preparation for City Deals Round Two on Tuesday we launched our work on mid-sized cities. The work identifies that there are several medium sized cities – including Derby, Coventry, Sunderland and Preston – that have similar economic characteristics and challenges.

 Because of these similarities we argue that there are advantages to be gained by Government by dealing with them as a group in the first instance. The research deliberately does not strictly define which cities should or shouldn’t be in this group. Our only criterion for the group is that it’s a group of the willing – it should provide the platform for other cities that feel that they identify with these issues to come forward to join the group.

 Using Sunderland as the main focus, the research shows that the recent underperformance of its city centre has undermined its overall economic performance. The city was one of the stronger performing cities in terms of private sector jobs growth before the recession. But at a time when its economy overall was exceeding expectations, its city centre actually lost private sector jobs.

The report shows that very similar patterns have also been seen in Preston. And it identifies other cities such as Derby, Wakefield and Coventry that are displaying similar symptoms that are characteristic of a city with an underperforming city centre.

For this group of cities the report calls on the Government to create a £500 million mid-sized cities investment fund as part of the City Deals process. Commercially-run the fund would change the way that European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) money is allocated, moving from the allocation by regions, as currently occurs, to allocation according to economic issue. It would then be matched by central Government monies such as the Growing Places Fund, local authority assets and private sector money. There are a couple of different ways that this fund could be set up, but I’ll do a post at a later date looking at this issue.

The fund should be used to reconfigure the city centres of our mid-sized cities. It’s important to stress here that the operative word is reconfigure – these cities should look to reshape their city centres so that they better operate as environments to do business. So while it may mean building some new office space, it will also mean removing office stock, either through demolition or conversion.  It may also mean encouraging more residential.

The fund will not provide a free lunch for cities either. The Government has been very clear that the City Deals process is just that – a deal. This means that cities also have to bear some of the risk and cost of the reconfiguration. See the report - Hidden Potential - for more detail on this.

But given the knock on impacts that underperforming city centres have on wider economic performance and the growing economic importance that city centres are likely to have in the future, the weak urban cores that some cities suffer from is a pressing issue. City Deals provide an opportunity for these places to tackle this fundamental problem head on.

Follow @AndrewCities on Twitter

Elected mayors and the missed opportunities

The overwhelming message on mayors from the big cities was ‘no’ today, with just one city out of 10, Bristol, opting to have a directly elected mayor – although Doncaster opted to keep its mayor, despite the holding of that referendum having been a rallying cry for ‘no’ campaigns.

So, apart from it being a very bad day for the Coalition, what can we take from today’s results?

First, the disillusionment with politics flagged in Policy Exchange’s recent Northern Lights report is clear. While local election turnout is rarely high, it was less than a quarter of the voters in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham. Nottingham had one ward where only 8% voted. This should send a strong message to national and local politicians of all parties that they need to do far more to generate debate, engage with local voters and show how local politicians affect daily lives.

Second, the Government messed up a critical opportunity to promote directly elected mayors. There have been some speeches but too few people even knew that there were mayoral referenda in their cities, let alone what the pros and cons might be. And although campaigns such as Yes2Mayors worked hard to get the message out, by not nailing its colours to the mast and spelling out the powers that will be afforded to mayors, the government has missed a major chance to convince voters that mayors could make a difference in their cities.

Third, the geography of our politics has become even clearer, with the North and Midlands – which continue to suffer most in this slow recovery - even more dominated by Labour. It’s notable that two of the mayors who were elected were both Labour, in Salford and in Liverpool. We’re still waiting for the London result as I type, but it’s looking closer than originally predicted – and if it’s Ken who’s elected then the Coalition will have had an appalling urban result.

The attention now has to turn to what happens next. For those cities that voted yes, the focus over the next six months will be the mayoral elections in November. Candidates need to set out what they would do, how they would support local economic growth and what extra powers they’ll need, as well as working to engage a generally uninterested electorate.

For other cities, the focus will be on City Deals and taking actions to support the local economy. And it’s vital that the government stay committed to supporting the prosperity of cities regardless of which way they voted.  While David Cameron warned that the mayoral referenda were a choice between joining the race or falling behind, Nick Clegg’s reassurance that the further devolution of powers would not be contingent upon cities voting yes was welcome. 

Ultimately, it’s strong and accountable leadership across the right economic geography that matters most for a city’s prosperity and in the new era of localism it must be recognised that this will come in different forms across different places.  Greg Clark needs to be a Minister for Cities and not a Minister for Mayors.

In the longer run, we would like to see leadership at a city region level – ideally ‘Metro Mayors’, especially for England’s largest cities.  And they should have real powers and funding, tailored to the particular needs of each city.

Cross-boundary working, as demonstrated by the combined authority in Manchester, is a good step in that direction.  All mayors – and city leaders – need to work with their neighbours to make sure decision-making is coordinated and that the economy remains the priority. But if the UK is to have more mayors, it’s down to the government to set out why mayors would make a difference and what powers they would come with – otherwise it will be the same old story in any future referenda. 

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

Leeds makes it nine out of 10 against elected mayors

Leeds has voted no to having a directly elected mayor.  The three main parties in Leeds were united against moving to a mayoral model – as their election leaflet clearly shows (with  thanks to LGIU).

Leeds has recently made headway on moving towards a combined authority model similar to Greater Manchester. Will a Metro Mayor still be an option given the no votes in Leeds, Wakefield and Bradford?  The idea of a mayor with clear powers, similar to the mayor of London, might prove more attractive to local voters - but only if it's clear what powers they would have and senior politicans set out how they would make a difference. 

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

 

 

Second city becomes the eighth to vote no to elected mayors

Despite expectations that Birmingham would be the city which voted a resounding “Yes” for mayor, the final result is a very disappointing no. Birmingham has been cited throughout the mayoral campaign as the city that would most benefit from having a mayor.  With the ghost of Joseph Chamberlain much evoked, and three senior Labour personalities with their eyes on the job, early rumours of a no vote last night were brushed off lightly.

The no for Birmingham - on top of a string of no votes in 7 other cities - will prompt serious soul-searching within the Government about how it has run the campaign and the fact that it did not communicate clearly either the benefits of a mayor or the additional powers they would have.

It's been a disappointing day for elected mayors. We’ll have our final roundup for you shortly after the Leeds result is announced.  

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

Wakefield and Newcastle vote no to elected mayors

Wakefield and Newcastle have both voted no to an elected mayor.  That makes , 7 nos, and 1 yes, with only Birmingham and Leeds left to declare.

Newcastle is one city where nobody can say the debate on elected mayors has been quiet. Back in 2009 when Centre for Cities spoke to then council leader John Shipley about his view on mayors he was in adamant opposition. He’s changed his mind since then and recognised the potentially positive role a mayor could have in tying up the strands of localism at a city level into a coherent picture.  Greg Clark made a final plea to Newcastle voters earlier in the week, as did David Miliband, but Newcastle has voted no. 

A strong ‘no’ campaign run by influential figures such as Labour’s Lord Beecham and by Unison is likely to have had an impact. 

North Tyneside is one of the few local authorities in England to have a directly-elected Mayor, while Sunderland’s mayoral referendum in 2001 delivered a no vote. 

All eyes are now on Birmingham and Leeds...

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

 

Bristol votes yes for a directly-elected mayor

Bristol is the first city to announce a yes vote for elected mayors.

Bristol has been another city where there has been a lot of opposition to mayors.  BBC Bristol helpfully produced this guide highlighting the difference between the Lord Mayor ("The only decisions I make are what events I go to”) and a directly elected mayor.  It was also highlighted in our Big Shot or Long Shot? report for having 7 council leaders since 2000 – a figure that rose to 8 last week with the resignation of Cllr Barbara Janke.

Bristol often ranks top of the Core Cities in our annual Cities Outlook when it comes to GVA and jobs. Will an elected mayor push the city forward and onto a global stage?

The focus will quickly turn to picking the right person for the job in November, and Bristol will be looking to Liverpool to see what difference an elected mayor can make.

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

 

One by one cities vote no to mayors, while Liverpool votes in its first

Coventry

Coventry has voted No to an elected mayor.  The Guardian speculated on Wednesday that this may be because the city isn’t the “basket case” it once was and the case for change isn’t a strong one.   Lack of information about the powers a mayor would gain can’t have helped.

We’ll have to wait until this afternoon for the results in Birmingham.

Bradford

Bradford – the largest English city not to be included in the “Core Cities” and therefore not fast tracked into the City Deals process – has voted no to switch to an elected mayor, although the focus this morning is likely to be on the 5 seats gained by Respect, which included the council leader's seat.

The challenges facing the city – in particular around the Westfield “hole” - have been well highlighted by George Galloway in recent weeks.  Bradford needs to make sure the economy their first priority, working closely with its neighbours through the proposed ‘Combined Authority’. But we’ll have to wait until later today to find out which way its neighbours Leeds and Wakefield will vote and assess what impact that might have on Bradford’s economic future.

Manchester

Since elected mayors came on the agenda, Manchester has been adamant that it doesn’t want or need a mayor.  Last night's close result wasn't the resounding no vote we might have expected, but it was still a ‘no’ all the same.  

Leader Richard Leese has kept his seat and his position, and called for a proper conversation about a Metro Mayor for Greater Manchester - which is the model that makes most sense given Manchester's long history of working with its neighbours and the fact that they already have a Combined Authority covering 10 local authorities.  

Manchester will need to ensure that it does not lose out by not having a mayor and being excluded from David Cameron’s cabinet of mayors (although this looks like an increasingly cosy meeting anyway…). Given Greater Manchester’s strengths and its innovative City Deal, making sure Manchester are round the table for conversations about economic prosperity is in the Government’s interest too.

As the Government reflects on what happened with its campaign for directly elected mayors, it should consider whether we might be talking about a different result if yesterday’s referendum had been on a Metro Mayor for Greater Manchester.

See my comment piece in LGC for further analysis on Manchester.

Nottingham

Nottingham has voted a disappointing No in the mayoral referendum. The fact that no local elections were going on at the same time may go some way to explain the low turnout.  The council leader is reported to have said that he will write a letter to Greg Clark "demanding" a City Deal.  We would support this; Nottingham’s City Deal needs to meet the same criteria as all the others with respect to offering better outcomes or greater efficiency in terms of devolution, and Government will demand a strong governance structure before it devolves – with a Combined Authority not on the agenda, Nottingham will need to be clear about how it meets this criterion. But if the city is allowed to choose whether to have a mayor or not and decides not to, then it should not be penalised for this decision when it comes to City Deals, especially as Nick Clegg has been clear that a City Deal is not dependent on having a mayor. 

Liverpool

It looks like after being the first to negotiate a City Deal for Liverpool, Joe Anderson has smoothly moved from the position of council leader to city mayor.  Over the next 6 months, other cities that vote yes will be looking to Liverpool to prove what a difference an elected mayor can make for a city.

Birmingham

Labour has won back Birmingham, but despite expectations that this would be the city which voted a resounding “Yes” for a mayor, early indications are that this is much less certain than predicted. A ‘no’ from Birmingham must prompt serious soul-searching within the Government about how it has run the campaign and the fact that it did not communicate clearly either the benefits of a mayor or the additional powers they would have. We’ll have to wait until this afternoon to find out the final verdict.

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

No to elected mayors so far

The first four results from the mayoral referdendums have all come out against elected mayors. While there'll be different reasons for the "no" vote in the four cities, by not nailing its colours to the mast and spelling out the powers that the new mayors would have, the government has missed its opportunity to convince voters that mayors could make a difference in their cities.

For the cities that voted no, the focus will be on City Deals and taking actions to support the local economy.  The government must stay committed to supporting the prosperity of cities regardless of which way they voted.  While David Cameron warned that the mayoral referenda were a choice between joining the race or falling behind, Nick Clegg stated that the further devolution of powers would not be contingent upon cities voting yes.  Eric Pickles' recognition last night that strong leadership will look different across the cities and that the priority must be supporting cities to grow to their full economic potential is welcome.

In the longer run, we would like to see leadership at a city region level – ideally ‘Metro Mayors’, especially for England’s largest cities.  Richard Leese's call for a proper conversation on a Mayor for Greater Manchester recognises this.

But Greg Clark’s acknowledgement of this yesterday was too late to make a difference this time round. And if the UK is to have more mayors or metro mayors, then the Government has to set out very clearly why they would make a difference and what powers they would come with, moving beyond more symbolic gestures such as the Cabinet of Mayors – otherwise it will be the same old story in any future referenda.

We'll be following the results from Birmingham, Bristol, Wakefield, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle but at the minute it looks like it’s going to be a pretty cosy meeting – with Joe Anderson and the PM likely to be getting to know each other pretty well over the next few years.

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter