Disposable Cities

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.