Centre for Cities

Maintaining the golden glow

After six months of relative silence, the debate about the Olympic Legacy reappeared on front pages yesterday with a joint article by David Cameron and Boris Johnson. And it appears that they have been reading our report “A Marathon, not a Sprint” that we published in September. 

In our report we looked at the experiences of past Olympic cities to see what London can learn from them.  In their article the PM and the Mayor used the same approach to show that London is already taking lessons on board and to restate their commitment to the 2012 Olympic legacy.

Here are some of the recommendations we made and how they have been reflected in Cameron’s and Johnson’s article:

1. Use the success of the Games to help business grow. The agreement announced yesterday between the British Olympic Association (BOA) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) to allow businesses to promote their Olympic experiences will benefit suppliers across the country and is likely to unlock more export-led growth.  The fact that the Prime Minister is engaged in conversations about getting British firms involved with future Olympics is also a sign of the Government’s commitment to making the most of business opportunities created by the Games.
2. Develop a clear legacy vision for the Olympic park. The speed with which the conversion of the Olympic Park and venues is progressing is also good news. With a number of venues reopening this summer and several events already scheduled, the threat of these venues becoming white elephants appears to be receding.
3. Use the Games to deliver a social legacy for east London. The commitment to deliver more jobs and apprenticeships, housing and social infrastructure as part of the legacy is welcome.  Yet it is still unclear whether any of the new development will be located outside the Olympic Park, and whether local communities will benefit from new developments. In our report we showed that most of the direct Olympic interventions were limited to the Olympic Park and its immediate boundaries. East London remains one of the most deprived areas in the country. The challenges of low skills, unemployment and poverty are deep rooted and can’t be resolved through developing the Olympic Park alone. The Host Borough Unit is committed to narrowing the gap between Olympic Boroughs and the rest of London, and has seen some success. But broader initiatives focused on addressing deprivation are still missing from the Olympic legacy framework.
4. Be patient and be ready to invest more. A long term plan for legacy development outside the Olympic Park needs to be put in place, and the Government needs to commit to it and be ready to invest more to make it happen. It remains unclear whether any progress has been made in this regard. It took Barcelona’s Olympics over a decade to be recognised as a legacy success, and that was based on considerable political commitment and more investment. There is no reason to believe that it will take less than that in London.

The Olympics produced a once in a lifetime summer of sport.  Its legacy is likely to take more than a lifetime to realise.  

Related articles

East London leads the way on business base growth in the Capital

2012 was a big year for UK cities; now 2013 is all about delivery

David Cameron and Boris Johnson: Six months on, we won't let the Olympic Games legacy die

The Olympic legacy has failed to bring jobs to London's East End | Rushanara Ali

From lost generation to regeneration: our Labour Conference fringe

Three knights, two mayors and a Lord joined me for Centre for Cities fringe at the Labour Party Conference on Tuesday night.

Taking place in Manchester’s Victorian town hall, our packed-out event tackled the century-old debate of the re-empowerment of local government. And, while the rest of the conference focused on what Labour should do if it regains power in 2015, our panellists focused on what they are doing to improve the success of their cities today.

Sir Richard Leese set out how he wants to improve the skills of Manchester’s population so that the recent success seen in Manchester’s city centre spreads out to the rest of the city and city region. As City Deals continue to be discussed, he will be arguing for skills commissioning powers to be devolved down to the city region level. 

Mayor Joe Anderson spoke about how becoming mayor has put him in a better position to promote and champion Liverpool both home and abroad.

Sir Robin Wales set out how Newham’s Skills Place initiative has seen great success in getting people into work in the Borough. Newham's proactive approach to working jointly with employers and jobseekers to better match jobs to jobseekers succeeded in getting 5,000 people into work last year.

Finally Lord Adonis, who is currently drawing up Labour’s industrial strategy, challenged the party to set out what metropolitan institutions it would like to see to support city growth. Following his support for the mayoral campaign, he would like to see more powers devolved to city regions to promote growth – a position the Centre has also championed for a long time.

In discussion Birmingham's leader, Sir Albert Bore, questioned whether academies, which are outside the control of local authorities, weakened a city’s ability to drive up educational attainment. There was no consensus on this point and it was interesting to see that opinion was divided on this topic across Conference.

At the end of his question and answer session at conference, Ed Miliband said that Labour policy needs to be formulated bottom up, working with local authorities. On the basis of our fringe event, there's no shortage of ideas from local government, or examples of what works on the ground and will support the local growth that the UK needs.

Let the Games begin

Almost a billion people around the world will watch the Olympic opening ceremony in East London tonight. 80,000 will be watching it inside the stadium (some of them having only gained their tickets today as politicians vie to give up their tickets to troops guarding the Games).

Some of those in the crowd may remember how Stratford looked 7 years ago. It’s a stark contrast. Stratford has been transformed and London as a whole has also gained two Olympic size pools, a velodrome, an athletics stadium, another huge shopping centre and over a dozen pedestrian bridges.

Over the next few weeks, the papers will be full of the winners, the losers, and the Twenty Twelve style gaffes that are inevitable with a Games of this scale, whether it’s the army filling in for absent security guards, bells nearly injuring innocent bystanders or organizers mixing up two flags that, of all the flags, really shouldn’t be mixed up.

And afterwards will come the inevitable soul searching. Was it worth the money? Was it worth the hassle? (and the regular, slightly startling recordings of Boris telling people to ‘get ahead of the Games’ that echo around tube and railway stations across London at the moment). And will not just London but the UK as a whole reap the benefit?

Just after London won the bid, the Centre published a paper about the Olympics legacy, so it won’t be a surprise that just after the Games we’ll be publishing a short paper that considers how London can learn from previous Olympics in order to ensure a lasting positive legacy. Making the most of the physical infrastructure – the houses and sporting venues – as well as the business opportunities generated will be key. And Boris might need to re-think his pledge not to spend any further money on legacy…

But that’s for later. In the meantime, whatever your view of the pros and cons of the project, today is a day to be proud of one of the most complex and diverse cities in the world hosting one of the most complex sporting spectacles in the world. The rest – the post opening ceremony analysis, the angst or joy about how many medals we have won – can wait, at least until tomorrow.

A strategy for cities and growth go hand in hand

While the preoccupation with "pasty tax" rumbled on in the background, this morning we turned our attention to the bigger questions on the Budget: does the Government have a coherent strategy for growth and is the economic potential of cities being harnessed to full effect? 

Vince Cable set out his thinking on the Budget within the government’s economic growth strategy, highlighting the enormity of the economic “heart attack” that the economy is still recovering from, the importance of stimulating demand and the necessity of easing access to finance, especially for SMEs.  Sir Merrick Cockell, Chair of the LGA, spoke about the role of local government in driving economic growth and the importance of overcoming the culture of dependency that has sometimes characterised local government.

Sir Merrick made reference to the walls of Whitehall needing to come down between central and local government. To me it seems that the walls between Whitehall departments need tumbling down too.  In his speech to launch Cities Outlook 2012, Greg Clark set out clearly that the battle for growth will be won or lost in our cities. We’d agree, and it was disappointing to hear Vince Cable characterise cities by their concentration of deprivation without acknowledging their growth potential.  It is true that compared to their European counterparts England’s Core Cities  - with the exception of Bristol and also Leeds depending on what measure is used – lag behind the national average. But the Core Cities and London together generate 49.5% of the country’s GDP and the sheer scale of these cities means they have significant economic potential, which Government policy simply isn’t capitalising upon.

It’s also vital for Government to have a strategy that goes beyond the Core Cities: Cities Outlook 2012 identified the successes of smaller cities such as Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Aberdeen.  In all, cities generate 61% of UK GVA and the GVA per head of the top performing cities – Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Cambridge, London and Oxford – was at least 150% higher than the UK average in 2009.

There was agreement that there is more need for place-sensitive and flexible policy making. Vince spoke – as he has at Centre for Cities events in the past – about his time as a councillor in Glasgow and the creativity and energy that allowed local government at that time to flourish, and sometimes to make their own mistakes too.  Arrangements such as the tri-borough model in London and Manchester’s combined authority show local government innovation at its best. Giving cities the tools they need to cooperate, innovate and fulfil their growth potential has to be part of the solution to the challenges facing the national economy.

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

A place for industrial policy

Last week I attended the event "Developing an Industrial Strategy for the UK" hosted by the IPPR, the Resolution Foundation and New Economics Foundation.

The key point to come out of the event is that politicians are looking for potentially new ways to respond to the economic challenges the UK is facing and industrial policy could be an area for development.

After the shortcomings and problems industrial policy faced in the 60s and 70s and its abandonment over the coming decades, politicians and academics were invited to the event to discuss both the broader remit of industrial policy as well as the specific recommendations for its implementation.

The debate was far less polarised than in previous decades. Most of the speakers recognised that key innovation and research are not going to be undertaken purely by the private sector especially in such a de-risking financial climate. But there was also a recognition by the panellists that the state, and indeed the rhetoric, should move away from the notion of "picking winners" and understand how other factors, such as competition, the regulatory framework and skills, can improve productivity.

Therefore, the speakers suggested that whilst “horizontal” policies (i.e. those policies which are not sector specific such as education, tax, regulation etc) should be used, the Government should also support the strongest sectors and have a strategy for “vertical” policies. Support, presumably in the form of procurement or investment, could be a reward for firms who are delivering on key long-term objectives such as research and development, employee training and up-skilling or long-term investment growth plans.

A key rhetoric change to come from the event was the recognition that 21st century industrial policy needs to be more spatially aware if it is to be successful – there is no industrial policy without regional policy.

Any future development of industrial policy needs to combine both vertical and horizontal policies with a spatial awareness that understands and recognises the strengths of different places. With a lot of activity across the cities agenda - LEPs, City Deals, mayors to name a few – it is imperative that industrial policy development does not ignore the role that cities can play.

Follow @joesarling on Twitter

 

The battle for growth will be lost or won in our cities

Yesterday we launched the fifth edition of our annual report, Cities Outlook 2012. Our economic snapshot on the state of the cities shows that, while the whole economy faces a difficult year, each city will face quite different economic opportunities and challenges.

Our index suggests that some cities are better placed to grow, while others are more vulnerable to the difficulties of the year ahead. But we know from our work across the UK that all cities are working hard to help those most affected by the recession as well as to make the most of any economic opportunities.

And there is little doubt, as Greg Clark said at our event yesterday, that the battle for growth will be won or lost in our cities. 

Greg openly acknowledged that city deals would be on the table for all cities and that the core cities were just a start – something the Centre welcomes. The next step is for Government to make good on its offer, and for cities to make the most of the opportunity to gain greater autonomy and powers as well as responsibilities. 

Nick Forbes, Leader of Newcastle City Council, said that Newcastle was ready for the risks and responsibilities that come with devolved powers. He highlighted the importance of cities being clear they are "open for business”, while also dealing with the challenges of unemployment.  

Sian Reid, Leader of Cambridge City Council spoke about the importance of striking a balance between short and longer term policy. Public sector job cuts, welfare reform and a weak economic climate taken together mean that city leaders could very easily get bogged down in short terms fixes. But economic growth requires cities to take short term actions that are on the path to a longer term vision of success.

Greg Clark recommended Cities Outlook as ideal bedside reading; I'd suggest it's a good read at any time of day. I hope you do have a chance to read it, and please get in touch with your thoughts on the outlook for 2012 for your city and those around you.

Follow @AlexJonesCities on Twitter

 

Investing in Growth Cities

On Thursday we welcomed the news that the Government is giving cities greater freedom to steer their economies and fuel the “engines of economic growth” from within.  Each of the eight core cities in England will have the opportunity to individually bargain over which freedoms – and responsibilities – they take on.  Nick Clegg and Greg Clark have called this their challenge to cities. 

But there is a challenge for government as well.  If we are to make the most of the contribution of cities to the wider economy, this offer should be extended beyond the core cities.  Last night this challenge was presented directly to Chloe Smith MP – Economic Secretary to the Treasury – at the launch of the Centre’s report Investing in Growth Cities.

The report looks at a group of cities in the Greater South East, from Norwich to Southampton, and explores what they can do to boost investment and drive economic growth.  The potential is definitely there; these are strong economic achievers.  In the decade before the recession hit they contributed 27 percent of the UK’s growth in private sector jobs.  Core cities are a logical place to start, but growth potential also lies elsewhere.

Investing in Growth Cities recommends a number of things these cities can do for themselves to become growth-ready.  But they also want Whitehall to loosen the shackles. We heard from the leader of Portsmouth City Council, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, that they are ready for their turn at the city-deal negotiating table.  A show of hands in the room showed that other cities are joining the queue.

Chloe Smith acknowledged the role that local MPs need to take in working alongside their local government colleagues. Representing Norwich North, she has a strong local interest in how these places perform and how they work together – she wants to see them flourish and thrive. Encouragingly, given her “other” job, she also recognises that they are extremely important for the UK economy. 

It seems that the cities bug is catching in government.  We hope it won’t be long before Greg Clark is signing deals in Norwich, Portsmouth, Ipswich and Brighton.

City leadership: the new view

The last few weeks have galvanised my thoughts about a new way to think about the economic, physical and social wellbeing of our cities. The most critical question seems to be how can city authorities proactively and positively manage cities in order to support their economic prosperity and the related job and business growth with the obvious positive impacts on the quality of life and opportunities for people? What is apparent is the need to understand and be able to strategise, act and lead within the context of different or emerging spatial geographies, institutions, power relationships and funding realities.

Last week we saw the announcement of the terms of reference for the “City Deals” with the publication of “Unlocking growth in cities”. In the deals with be struck between Whitehall and the core cities, it is apparent that the world of local government may be about to change, and potentially fundamentally. The devolution will need to relate to power and monies, but will have to be matched by the right style and qualities of leadership within local government and their private sector partners in the form of the LEPs.

Through conversations about the pros and cons of having a city mayor in Bristol, the final event of the Centre’s Cities Network programme discussing City Leadership and asking what forms of governance can help cities grow, and our event last night to launch our report on the buoyant cities of the Greater South East, city leadership emerges as a key thing to get right.

But what has changed and is it so different?

Throughout the sessions what came through most strongly both from speakers and attendees was that a “new view” of city leadership and city management does seem to be starting to take hold. In thinking and strategising about what to do to grow the economy and jobs, the city region is time and again being underlined as the right spatial scale at which to think, prioritise and lead. For example, if we are to have mayors, the logic of having city-region, rather that local authority based mayors has become ever more clear. Also, and as importantly, what is required is a sophisticated understanding of the interlinked nature of town and cities, where they compete and where they should collaborate, what the inherent strengths and weaknesses of places are and how to create policies and action that are place specific, while also recognising that the economy of places is very dynamic and needs to be constantly re-evaluated and understood.

This all sounds familiar but issues also emerge about how city leaders can build their confidence and ability to take on new powers which inevitably brings increased responsibility and risk. The diagram below which summarises the “old “and “new view “of how to manage cities seems to ring true with many in cities, business and Whitehall.

Empowering cities to define their needs and potential to grow and then to act and invest accordingly, will not result only in a transfer of monies and power, but also responsibilities and risk. What is needed is not simply a sophisticated understanding of what to do, but also how to do it, and for local government to develop a more savvy and informed approach to managing and investing monies in new ways.

While there is much in the “new view” to be welcomed, the onus is now on each city to properly realise their own vision for their future, and in hand with government work out the steps they need to take to get there. A new age of city autonomy begins here.

Post-regeneration cities: what next for Labour’s urban vision?

Tuesday’s fringe event at the Labour Conference bought together a panel of Shadow Ministers, city leaders and urban experts with a very engaged audience to discuss and debate some of the most pressing issues for cities.

Here are some of the key points raised:

Beyond the ‘Full Monty’ depiction of cities. The image of cities conjured up by the Sheffield film about a group of unemployed men turned strippers is ‘long gone’ and cities are recognised by many as the ‘engines of our economy’. The national economy is only the sum of its parts – and, as our statistics show, cities form a large part of the equation. Supporting cities is in the ‘national interest not special interest’. But there’s still a lot of work to be done.

From physical capital to human capital. Perceptions of many cities have been changed somewhat by the physical regeneration of city centres. The transformation of Liverpool city centre is certainly striking. But regeneration needs to extend beyond physical development to the development of human capital. Are the businesses there to fill Liverpool’s new high grade office spaces? Are the city’s residents able to access the jobs and wages that make the city centre’s new shops affordable?

Getting the ‘green light for growth’. As the North and Midlands are hit hard by the public sector cuts, ‘the government needs to commit to regeneration and the North’. There was consensus in the room that cities need more power and resources to support economic growth. There has been much rhetoric about devolution – cities now need to ‘take matters into their own hands and make the case to government for what they need’. Is the introduction of LEPs and Enterprise Zones a step in the right direction?

Localism: lowest common denominator? ‘No city is an island’ – cities need to work with their surrounding areas to achieve economies of scale and to ensure the benefits of city growth are realised beyond their municipal boundaries. This means working across the functional economic area. LEPs have a clear role to here. But are seen by some as ‘penniless, powerless and potentially pointless’. Others see a ‘more mixed picture’ with LEPs needing more powers and resources behind them. Questions still remain for some on whether the Enterprise Zones, whilst acknowledged as different from the 1980s originals, will create genuine new jobs or – as one panellist put it – merely result in ‘relocation, relocation’. Big questions remain as to whether devolution is taking place to the right spatial level or whether its ‘devolution to the lowest common denominator’.

Regeneration made possible by long term strategic vision. Cities like Liverpool, it was argued, ‘would not have been bought about the regeneration of the centre without a long term planning framework’. City leaders need to avoid the short-termism political cycles can lead to and continue to deliver with strong visions for the future.

‘Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater’. City regeneration over the last decade was largely ‘property and service sector’ led but the ‘development models of the last 10 to 15 years are gone’. Over the next decade cities will need to adjust to new models of growth. But this doesn’t mean past approaches will no longer work and lessons are no longer relevant. Cities should ‘stick to the fundamentals’, be ‘open for business’ and, particularly in the current climate, be ‘financially innovative’.  

The lively debate will no doubt continue throughout our events at next weeks Conservative conference.  

 

To be or not to be? A question for local enterprise partnerships

Do LEPs need to be formally constituted bodies or can they exist as an informal entity?  This was one of several interesting questions discussed at the roundtable we held yesterday in Leeds looking at the progress and future of LEPs.  With the participants in the room holding different perspectives. 

To be: Some in the room held the opinion that the role of LEPs should include being statutory consultees in the planning process, being direct recipients of government funding, and being able to borrow and spend money.  These roles it was argued would need LEPs to be formally constituted bodies. 

Not to be: Others argued that the role for LEPs should be to act as facilitators providing forums for discussion and agreement, and as strategy setters and overseers.  All of which could be done without being a formally constituted body.

Clearly different LEPs will make different choices based on their particular circumstances – this after all is the purpose of encouraging greater decentralisation and devolution (a trend that our recent paper on LEPs highlighted).  However, as one participant reminded the room – if LEPs want greater devolution of powers and resources from central government then central government will need ‘something’ to devolve to.  An issue that more than one central government department is currently grappling with.

Whether they choose ‘to be or not to be’ LEPs will need to carefully weigh up the pros and cons of the different options before they begin knocking on the door of central government asking for more powers and resources.