Comments on: Liverpool and the built environment http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2009/06/liverpool-and-the-built-environment/ Culture, arts, music, theatre and media in Liverpool, Capital of Culture Tue, 24 May 2011 10:44:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Patrick Hurley http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2009/06/liverpool-and-the-built-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-543 Patrick Hurley Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:09:10 +0000 http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2009/06/liverpool-and-the-built-environment/#comment-543 You mean actually know what I'm on about before commenting? Nah. Agree that questions need to be put, but its likely the answers would merely reflect pre-existing assumptions, from all sides. Nice pic of Manchester on the cover, though. You mean actually know what I’m on about before commenting? Nah.

Agree that questions need to be put, but its likely the answers would merely reflect pre-existing assumptions, from all sides.

Nice pic of Manchester on the cover, though.

]]> By: Robin Brown http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2009/06/liverpool-and-the-built-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-542 Robin Brown Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:59:51 +0000 http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2009/06/liverpool-and-the-built-environment/#comment-542 Obviously nothing is ever either/or, and I acknowledge - as I think the author does - that there are definite upsides to these huge investments of cash. I think it's also easy to become fearful of private ownership for nebulous reasons, but I think it goes beyond that when big chunks of city centres are signed away for 100 years to Grosvenor et al. I don't know what a housing estate built by retailers will look like, but I think it's wise to ask the question before it happens. On that not, though, perhaps we'd better read the book before we go any further. Obviously nothing is ever either/or, and I acknowledge – as I think the author does – that there are definite upsides to these huge investments of cash.

I think it’s also easy to become fearful of private ownership for nebulous reasons, but I think it goes beyond that when big chunks of city centres are signed away for 100 years to Grosvenor et al.

I don’t know what a housing estate built by retailers will look like, but I think it’s wise to ask the question before it happens.

On that not, though, perhaps we’d better read the book before we go any further.

]]> By: Patrick Hurley http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2009/06/liverpool-and-the-built-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-541 Patrick Hurley Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:46:42 +0000 http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2009/06/liverpool-and-the-built-environment/#comment-541 The thing is, it's not an either/or issue. I'd love the construction work going on in and around the city to be primarily for the benefit of Society rather than Capital, but historically, it's never happened on a scale large enough. If we reject private investment on the basis of some idealised notion of social provision of city centre building, we'll be in a situation where we've let the best become the enemy of the good. Since 1945, and throughout the 30 years of post-war consensus over social welfare issues, the country still couldn't get its act together sufficiently to fund social infrastructure/construction projects which avoided creating alienation, fear and distrust (many of them have since been torn down for this precise reason). I say let private capital have a go - it can hardly do a worse job of creating pleasant public (or pseudo-public) spaces than Liverpool Council has done over the past forty years. Look at Liverpool One and the way in which the project has transformed huge chunks of the city centre from being dominated by deprivation, potholed wastelands and BNP-supporting retail entrepreneurs. It's not perfect by any means, and there are bound to be issues with it in the future, but it's a hell of a lot better than what used to be there. And it's a hell of a lot better than what public ownership of city centre streets ever gave us. The thing is, it’s not an either/or issue. I’d love the construction work going on in and around the city to be primarily for the benefit of Society rather than Capital, but historically, it’s never happened on a scale large enough. If we reject private investment on the basis of some idealised notion of social provision of city centre building, we’ll be in a situation where we’ve let the best become the enemy of the good.

Since 1945, and throughout the 30 years of post-war consensus over social welfare issues, the country still couldn’t get its act together sufficiently to fund social infrastructure/construction projects which avoided creating alienation, fear and distrust (many of them have since been torn down for this precise reason). I say let private capital have a go – it can hardly do a worse job of creating pleasant public (or pseudo-public) spaces than Liverpool Council has done over the past forty years.

Look at Liverpool One and the way in which the project has transformed huge chunks of the city centre from being dominated by deprivation, potholed wastelands and BNP-supporting retail entrepreneurs. It’s not perfect by any means, and there are bound to be issues with it in the future, but it’s a hell of a lot better than what used to be there. And it’s a hell of a lot better than what public ownership of city centre streets ever gave us.

]]>