A property-owning democracy

Another day, another speculative and shoddy plan to 'regenerate' this benighted town. More shops, more hotels, more architectural excrescences - and a market that's going to be 'transformed' by the presence of a massive Sainsbury's. Just like mountains are 'transformed' by mountain-top removal mining (it really exists, sadly).

Where did this plan come from?

this vision has been shaped with the direct input of developers, agents, landowners and major businesses.”

Ah, I see. Or rather I don't see one particular category listed here: us. The citizens of the city. The movers and shakers - and Uppal's fingerprints are all over this one - haven't noticed that we live in the era of Occupy and Open Source democracy. They'll no doubt demand the same things they always do: no planning restrictions, tax breaks, low wages and the control of public space.

But why on earth does the council not think of asking the inhabitants what we need and want? Do they really think we're too stupid to have an opinion? (Probably, yes). Until about a century ago, the vote was restricted to citizens who owned a certain amount of property, on the basis that only they had a settled stake in society. This kind of project makes it abundantly clear that the property qualification is back, and it's more undemocratic than ever.

To add insult to injury, this 'artist's impression' is the worst bit of Photoshop I've ever seen. How small is that train? What about the guy under the hotel canopy? I notice too that - unlike this delightfully diverse city - the imaginary version is whites only.

Political Fail. Photoshop Fail

He's at it again

I'm actually embarrassed by the intellectual frailty of my MP, Paul Uppal. As I predicted yesterday, his speech in Parliament was a shameful rehearsal of all the bees in his bonnet. Despite claiming that

Town centres are not just about retail

he quickly refers to the people in the city centre as 'shoppers' - not citizens or locals.

He's been going on about 'chuggers' (= charity muggers) for months - this is just the latest attempt:

I conducted a survey of small shops and businesses in the city centre to find out why people do not shop there. I was surprised by the No.1 reason—chuggers: people who fundraise, perhaps aggressively. Again and again, shoppers said that the aggressive tactics used by some street fundraisers leave them feeling harassed and intimidated.

It's very thin stuff (and I doubt he was really 'surprised', given his previous claims on the subject). Methodologically very suspect: how many people did he ask? What proportion were shopkeepers? What was the question? The very fact that he calls them 'chuggers' implies bias from the start. It seems very unlikely that fundraisers are a) aggressive (I find them annoying) or that they are the primary reason why people don't shop in the city. I'd be less than surprised to find that he asked a leading question. It seems to me that the reason footfall is down is because there's a massive recession on, one which his government has made worse. But apparently recession is a word that is never going to cross his lips, even in a debate about high street decline. Also, Birmingham, with a wide range of shops, is 20 minutes away on the train.

There's one rather glaring error in this survey, if indeed he conducted one on the street: he claims that shoppers in the city centre told him that they don't shop there because of fundraisers. Can anyone else spot the problem there?

What's his solution? Ah… again he's a little disingenuous:

In Manchester, there is an agreement between the city centre management company, CityCo, and the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, a self-regulating body that monitors face-to-face fundraising. They have found a balance between fundraising and leaving people in peace to shop. It is important that that fine line is drawn.

It's a disguised call for the privatisation of public space: CityCo is a private corporation given control over what used to be public space by the elected local authority. It's a move to prevent ordinary people using public space for anything other than consumption: try handing out political or religious leaflets in a CityCo area - you'll soon learn the difference between public and pseudo-public space.

Why should people be left 'in peace' to shop? Teenagers aren't left in peace to flirt and play. The arts, sport and leisure have no place in his world. Only shoppers are to be afforded civil rights in Uppal Consumerist Wonderland.

What else does Uppal want? Well SURPRISE SURPRISE: he wants taxpayers to fund commercial developers. Does he mention at any point that he is in fact a commercial property speculator?

 I should also like to offer the Minister some guidance on trust and clarity over tax-incremental financing, which is an issue for the developers of city centres. We have to go back to basics. If we are to see regeneration, we cannot look at the old model whereby development was funded only by bank lending; we need to look at partnerships between local authorities and businesses.

Er… no. Don't be ridiculous. He wants state aid for people like him, and cuts in public services - like Disability Living Allowance - for people like us.

So in summary, a classic Uppal speech: dishonest, intellectually weak and self-interested. I despair, I really do.

This just in from the Department of Irony

Well well, Uppal's tweeting from the House of Commons:

In the chamber, hoping to contribute to the debate on the future of town centres and high streets

If you're a regular reader of Plashing Vole, or you follow Uppal's exploits on They Work For You, you'll be able to write his speech in advance:

1. Shoppers only. No charity collectors, layabouts, anti-consumerists or citizens.
2. End all taxes on commercial property owners.
3. Public space to be abolished and turned over to commercial property owners. There is only one conceivable use for space: retail.

What you won't hear:

Mr. Speaker, I should declare an interest before I say anything else. I own commercial property worth millions of pounds and the British Property Federation described me as 'our man in Parliament'. So you should assume that everything I say is informed by my desire to enrich myself and my friends without regard to the public good.

In case of emergency, lift cover and release Meades

Jonathan Meades knows what causes riots: bad architecture and the bad faith which causes it. Here's part 1 of his 2007 'On the Brandwagon'. This may be the best few minutes of your life.



Talking of Garden Festivals, I played in the orchestra at the Stoke Garden Festival. The site is now a concrete retail park fit only for joyriders, junk food and muggings. Regeneration was a mirage. And my violin playing hasn't improved either.

Meades was right. And we've learned nothing.

The High Life

Very little would tempt me to visit the US again, mostly through guilt about the environmental damage the flight would involve.

That said, I'd love to see the High Line - a wonderful piece of architecture and gardening which will transform the way pedestrians see New York.

Essentially, it's an old elevated railway which has been turned into an aerial garden, a linear park moving through the city. This is the kind of project that regenerates places in a subtle way, creating a greener and gentler place without the anguish caused by major relocations and corporate projects.

See a gallery here or here.