Back in January I submitted an article to an open call for literary pieces of a political nature for a Liverpool Creative Writing student magazine. My piece was selected, the only non-fiction essay to be included. The magazine was launched on Wednesday night. Below is the article I wrote; "Disposable Cities". Initially I was disappointed with the article, I'd struggled with the 1000 word limit to say everything need to make a point and I'd have dearly liked to have gone into more depth on certain points but reading it back in the context of the magazine I think it sits quite well (if I say so myself). The editors have done a great job compiling a set of disparate pieces into a collection of well pitched pieces and I'm proud my contribution was included in the final product.
We recently
heard in the news that after the Toxteth riots in 1981 Margaret Thatcher was
advised to “abandon” Liverpool. Whilst Liverpool, and our other towns and
cities, haven’t literally been abandoned in the years since they have slowly
been abused and then handed over to private developers. The private developers
hegemony over our urban areas displays a devastating erosion of democracy and
citizenship that affects us all.
Urbanisations
capacity to offer a means of investing surplus has led to a cycle of
destruction and reconstruction in our city centres in the pursuit of profits
and regardless of the repercussions for the local populous. The architect Adam
Caruso has pointed out that the capitalisation of cities has created the
requirement for urban areas and buildings to offer a return on their
investments year on year.[1]
Even when an area is popular and profitable developers see it as grist to the
mill, a profit extracted only by demolition and the subsequent construction of
ever larger, more efficient and newer buildings. Before the recession hit, a
huge number of bland buildings were constructed which is not only depressing
aesthetically but it is also disorientating to local people. Cities act as
repositories of cultural memory and by flattening them and returning to a tabla
rasa condition we lose our ability to relate to our surroundings and position
ourselves in the world.[2]
Whilst the preservation of buildings that no longer have any use out of
sentimental attachment can create a city of mausoleums the destruction of
buildings that play an active role is damaging to the living culture of a city
that takes years to develop.
One example
of this in Liverpool is Quiggins, the home of alternative shops, artists and a
music venue which was demolished to make way for Liverpool One despite being
hugely popular with locals and residents as was proven by a petition signed by
tens of thousands to save it. Liverpool One and its generic counterparts which
can be found all across British cities are another feature of the detrimental
slide of urban areas; the privatisation of public-spaces. As Anna Minton
explains, ‘the rules that govern the rest of the city do not apply [to
privatised spaces]. Rather than being unconditionally open to the public, like the
rest of the city, it is up to the owner to decide who is allowed in and what
they are allowed to do there.’[3]
Liverpool One is one of the largest privatised public-spaces in this country
and demonstrated even before it was built how these areas fall outside of the
normal democratic process and pay no heed to local demands. Tyranny is not too
strong a word to use, the rules are decided by the owners and enforced by
private police. These areas are like private city states and do not operate for
the benefit of the host city and its people but solely for the creation of
profit.
It is
partly because of this singular aim that these areas are so banal. The lack of
functional diversity has created a lack of architectural diversity. During the
60’s it was suggested that freeing up planning restrictions would lead to
exciting buildings and places being created as the British people would be able
to build what they wanted and needed, where and when they needed it. But as Minton
points out, ‘this is not what happened. The lack of local government
involvement and planning controls…resulted in the creation of remarkably
similar places…removing planning does not free up people to make choice; it
allows the market to make choices.’[4]
One of the results of this sterile environment and the draconian laws
established by the owners are events such as flashmobbing which have emerged
because “people do not want to spend twenty four hours a day in the same type
of designed environment.”[5]
It is
reported that Geoffrey Howe didn’t want his suggestions to abandon Liverpool to
be made public suggesting he was uncomfortable with the idea. But by handing
over our democratic control and large areas of our cities the local authorities
have abandoned our right to the city. Deyan Sudjic has suggested that the
worrying thing about this is that the private developers will not be so
uncomfortable when the time comes for them to abandon our cities. When there is
no more profit to be squeezed out of a city or it becomes too expensive to make
redevelopment worthwhile they will simply desert our cities and move on to new
ones, ‘leaving behind the wreckage of their occupation. Treating cities as
disposable in this way is the most wasteful use of resources imaginable.’[6]
It is naïve
to imagine that a city can exist without creating waste as it is a living
organism. No one can predict what the circumstances of change will be. The
demise of industry in Britain has created vast swathes of derelict land and
buildings. Even the introduction of the humble shipping container has caused
profound changes to many traditional ports like Liverpool and the dockers who
worked there.[7]
But even these derelict sites are resources, we can reimagine these wastelands and
they can offer us a way to reclaim the city.
Rather than seeing the brownfield site or the derelict building we can
instead observe the latent potential of these scraps. These spaces can be
reprogrammed for adaptive reuse by active citizens of the city who become
urban-scavengers.[8]
Where this has happened in the past decade derelict areas have seen an
explosion of culture, repopulation, and land values have soared. To be
able to shape the city in which we live is to be able to re-shape ourselves and
therefore it should be seen as a right, not a privilege.[9]
Unlike the flashmobbers who only temporarily reclaim space these scavengers
would permanently occupy, repatriate and shape these spaces democratically for
the benefit of the citizens of the city.
Minton
refers to research conducted by Urban Catalyst that ‘confirmed what had long
been suspected: areas which may appear empty and abandoned often provide the
most fertile ground for artistic subcultures which begin organically to nurture
creative and exciting places...’[10]
With this in mind perhaps Thatcher would have done Liverpool a favour by
abandoning it to the citizens.
[1]
Caruso, A. (2008: 39) The Feeling of
Things, Barcelona: Ediciones Poligrafa
[2]
Virilio, P. (2005: 6) City of Panic, English
Edition, Oxford: Berg
[3]
Minton, A. (2009: 4) Ground Control: fear
and happiness in the twenty-first-century city, London: Penguin Books Ltd.
[4]
Minton, A. (2009: 184-186) Ground Control:
fear and happiness in the twenty-first-century city, London: Penguin Books Ltd.
[5]
Berger, A. (2006: 30) Drosscapes: Wasting
Land in Urban America, New York: Princeton Architectural
[6]
Sudjic, D. (1992: 235) 100 Mile City, London:
Andre Deutsch
[7]
Sudjic, D. (1992: 96) 100 Mile City, London:
Andre Deutsch
[8]
Berger, A. (2006: 12) Drosscapes: Wasting
Land in Urban America, New York: Princeton Architectural
[9]
Harvey, D. (2008: 1) The Right to the
City, New Left Review
[10]
Minton, A. (2009: 188) Ground Control: fear
and happiness in the twenty-first-century city, London: Penguin Books Ltd.