Today saw the Queen of Shop’s review of Britain’s high streets.  Mary Portas’ brief from David Cameron was “to create vibrant and diverse town centres and bring back the bustle to our high streets”.  This call for Britain’s towns to be ‘vital and viable’ is nothing new, in fact this commitment has been incorporated into various strands of national policy for at least 15 years.   

So why is the future for towns looking so bleak?  And what can the Queen of Shops do, that three successive governments have said they’d do and haven’t?       

Mary says that her report is not about pointing the finger of blame but in order to solve problems, you have to fully understand them.  The factors that drive town centre decline are complicated, interlinked, interdisciplinary and paradoxical.  As Mary points out  “(w)hen I started my work on the review, I ploughed through a huge pile of previous reports about high streets and town centres and found so many good ideas which have simply sat on the shelf. Pretty soon I realised why. What I discovered is the complexity and diversity of the problems faced by high streets.   And I’ve learnt just how much of a complex web of interests and stakeholders are involved, many of whom have simply failed to collaborate or compromise”.  

Town centre decline is ‘a messy problem’, it doesn’t fit neatly into one government department; one of the reasons why the Prime Minister chose to ask a celebrity consultant to conduct a review rather than his own civil servants.  Mary makes a lot of sensible recommendations, she doesn’t ask why the majority of her recommendations have already been made and in some instances, put into practice, but have still not worked.

“It’s obvious, it’s all wrong and anyway they said it years ago”.   Most of the on-line comments about her recommendations fit this paraphrase coined by the respected economic geographer Paul Krugman, commenting on how his economic geography and city development work was received by peer reviewers.  Nevertheless, these comments raise interesting questions. If a solution is obvious and ‘old hat’, then what has stopped it being put into practice?  Likewise, if something is ‘all wrong’ then why is that? And is the proposal at one end of a ‘solution continuum’, with its antithesis by the default of logic,  ‘all right’?

Although there are 28 recommendations, they fall into six main categories:  getting town centres running like businesses, getting the basics right to allow business to flourish, levelling the playing field, defining landlords roles and responsibilities, giving communities a greater say and re-imagining our high streets.

They are a mixture of top-down and bottom-up solutions that can be summed up in one recommendation.  Change needs to be locally driven within a supportive policy framework.

But three successive governments have known this already – and backed a commitment to ‘vital and viable’ town centres.  We know many towns are failing, especially those that are near cities and coastal towns, where retail vacancy rates run at nearly 30%.  Even the ones that are ‘viable’ or, in other words, are economically successful, are not vital in the same way they were. Research by the New Economics Foundation identify 41% of towns and cities as ‘clone towns’ i.e. more than half their shops are chains.  It’s hardly surprising that people are not using their town centre if it is only offering them an inconvenient ‘copy’ of what’s available in other more accessible areas such as out-of-town superstores or larger cities, that have good public transport links.

One of Mary’s main recommendations is to create ‘town teams’ to take a more direct role in the day-to-day running of a town and also create a vision and long-term plan for the place’s future.  There are already, I would estimate, 1,000 or so places that have such a partnership.  It might not be formal town centre management or a Business Improvement District, but the principle’s the same:  A partnership of local stakeholders, made up of businesses, the council and local residents.  Town centre management has been in place in the UK for nearly 25 years but it hasn’t been properly supported.  We know it’s a good idea but how do we actually encourage and facilitate it? The Portas Review does not address this.

Mary also talks about communities having more say, again an issue highlighted in recent government reforms such as the Localism Bill.  Traditionally it has been elected council members and their officers responsible for places.  The very fact that so many places have lost their way, illustrates Mary’s comment that these areas have been mismanaged and ignored for too long.  But in my experience it is hard to challenge the status quo, unless the existing governance structures are open to such change.  People responsible for places need to have the right skills and knowledge – it is a really important job so they need to be competent.  If they need some training and support, this needs to be available and if they are not up to the job, they shouldn’t do it.  Again, whilst Mary calls for professional and inclusive place management, she doesn’t say how this will happen.  

Her other main and very important recommendation is to level the playing field.  In particular recommendation 14 states “Make explicit a presumption in favour of town centre development in the wording of the National Planning Policy Framework”.  This will be interesting as this gets to the heart of the issue; will a government introducing planning reforms to simplify decision-making by getting rid of such guidance and statements be prepared to introduce this intervention?  Local action is crucial, as high streets won’t fix themselves, but this effort has to be within a supportive planning policy framework.  So if the Government really wants to put ‘town centres first’ then by default, it means other types of development coming last.

Town centres are more than just shopping destinations.  They have been the heart of the community, in economic, social and political terms.  Of course, if a centre doesn’t have a population to serve anymore, then this decline should be managed.  But for those towns and cities that still have a catchment then global trends, such as increasing transport costs, an ageing population and, ultimately, global warming, means that politicians should be doing what they can today to ‘future-proof’ our towns and cities.  They offer a concentration of services with transport links and a ready-made ‘brand’ (i.e. the town or city’s name).  In the long run, it is so much cheaper to not reinvent the wheel.

Today saw the Queen of Shop’s review of Britain’s high streets.  Mary Portas’ brief from David Cameron was “to create vibrant and diverse town centres and bring back the bustle to our high streets”.  This call for Britain’s towns to be ‘vital and viable’ is nothing new, in fact this commitment has been incorporated into various strands of national policy for at least 15 years.   

So why is the future for towns looking so bleak?  And what can the Queen of Shops do, that three successive governments have said they’d do and haven’t?       

Mary says that her report is not about pointing the finger of blame but in order to solve problems, you have to fully understand them.  The factors that drive town centre decline are complicated, interlinked, interdisciplinary and paradoxical.  As Mary points out  “(w)hen I started my work on the review, I ploughed through a huge pile of previous reports about high streets and town centres and found so many good ideas which have simply sat on the shelf. Pretty soon I realised why. What I discovered is the complexity and diversity of the problems faced by high streets.   And I’ve learnt just how much of a complex web of interests and stakeholders are involved, many of whom have simply failed to collaborate or compromise”.  

Town centre decline is ‘a messy problem’, it doesn’t fit neatly into one government department, one of the reasons why the Prime Minister chose to ask a celebrity consultant to conduct a review rather than his own civil servants.  Mary says she doesn’t want to point the finger of blame in her report, but to solve a problem you need to fully understand it – and whilst she makes a lot of sensible recommendations, she doesn’t ask why the majority of her recommendations have already made and in some instances, put into practice, but have still not worked.

“It’s obvious, it’s all wrong and anyway they said it years ago”.   Most of the on-line comments about her recommendations fit this paraphrase coined by the respected economic geographer Paul Krugman, commenting on how his work on new economic geography and city development was received from peer reviewers.  Nevertheless, these comments raise interesting questions. If a solution is obvious and ‘old hat’, then what has stopped it being put into practice?  Likewise, if something is ‘all wrong’ then why is that? And is the proposal at one end of a ‘solution continuum’, with its opposite ‘all right’?

Although there are 28 recommendations, they fall into six main categories:  getting town centres running like businesses, getting the basics right to allow business to flourish, levelling the playing field, defining landlords roles and responsibilities, giving communities a greater say and re-imagining our high streets.

They are a mixture of top-down and bottom-up solutions that can be summed up in one recommendation.  Change needs to be locally-driven within a supportive policy framework.

But three successive governments have known this already – and backed a commitment to ‘vital and viable’ town centres.  We know many towns are failing, especially those that are near cities and coastal towns, where retail vacancy rates run at nearly 30%.  Even the ones that are ‘viable’ or, in other words, are economically successful, are not vital in the same way they were. Research by the New Economics Foundation has showed that 41% of towns and cities are ‘clone towns’ i.e. more than half their shops are chains.  Its hardly surprising people are not using their town centre if it is only offering them an inconvenient ‘copy’ of what’s available in other more accessible areas such as out-of-town superstores or larger cities, that have good public transport links.

One of Mary’s main recommendations is to create town teams to take a more direct role in the day-to-day running of a town and also create a vision and long-term plan for the place’s future.  There are already, I would estimate, 1,000 or so places that have such a partnership.  It might not be formal town centre management or a Business Improvement District, but the principle’s the same.  A partnership of local stakeholders, made up of businesses, the council and local residents.  Town centre management has been in place in the UK for nearly 25 years but it hasn’t been properly supported.  We know it’s a good idea but how do we actually encourage and facilitate it?

Mary also talks about communities having more say, again an issue highlighted in recent government reforms such as the Localism Bill.  Traditionally it has been elected council members and their officers responsible for places.  The very fact that so many places have lost their way, illustrates Mary’s comment that these areas have been mismanaged and ignored for too long.  But in my experience it is hard to challenge the status quo, unless the existing governance structures are open to such change.  People responsible for places need to have the right skills and knowledge – it is a really important job so they need to be competent.  If they need some training and support, this needs to be available and if they are not up to the job, they shouldn’t do it.  Again whilst Mary calls for professional and inclusive place management, she doesn’t say how this will happen.  

Her other main and very important recommendation is to level the playing field.  In particular recommendation 14 states “Make explicit a presumption in favour of town centre development in the wording of the National Planning Policy Framework”.  This will be interesting as this gets to the heart of the issue; will a government introducing planning reforms to simplify decision making by getting rid of such guidance and statements be prepared to introduce this intervention?  Local action is crucial, as high streets won’t fix themselves, but this effort has to be within a supportive planning policy framework.  So if the Government really wants to put ‘town centres first’ then by default, it means other types of development coming last.

Town centres are more than just shopping destinations.  They have been the heart of the community, in economic, social and political terms.  Of course, if a centre doesn’t have a town to serve anymore, then its declined should be managed.  But for those towns and cities that still have a catchment, then global trends, such as increasing transport costs, an ageing population and, ultimately, global warming, means that politicians should be doing what they can today to ‘future-proof’ our towns and cities.  They offer a concentration of services with transport links and a ready made ‘brand’ (their name).  In the long run, it is so much cheaper to not reinvent the wheel!

He reviewed the government’s actions and plans for the country’s 5400 “High Streets”. I have made fairly copious notes, but feel if I promote the positive measures he discussed through this blog it will distract me from the “elephant in the room” which is the National Planning Policy Framework, and the requirement for Local Authorities to allocate suitable sites to retail and leisure of a ‘scale and type that is required’.

On the one hand Marcus talked about vital and viable town centres and the problems of clone towns. But he also talked about ‘positive planning and growth’ – or in other words not saying no and that bigger is better.

There is a tension between growth and diversity. We heard from one of the delegates who said his independent retailers on Portobello Road were being squeezed out by multiples, buying up adjacent units and joining them up, to change the scale of the offer.

Small becomes big. It’s growth – but it changes the nature of a place. No amount of small business rate relief or other ‘fiddling around the edges’ measures are going to stop town centre homogenisation.

I don’t doubt that there are opportunities in the Localism Bill and proposed changes to national planning for local places to have more autonomy over decision making. But how many places will be mobilised and knowledgeable enough to take advantage of these things?

There’s still time to take part in the Government’s consultation (until 17th October)

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpoli…

Any members of IPM that want us to include your thoughts in our response then let me know. I must say, I am not feeling very optimistic

Firstly, visitors spend money on food and drink. Sone might go walking or some might visit galleries but they will all definitely eat and drink. So markets that offer sit-down, take away or “souvenir” food should be targeting tourists.

Food and drink provision can also be promoted to self-catering tourists, by working with accommodation providers and tourist associations etc. And why not contact local hotels and restaurants? They can demonstrate their local credentials by buying and promoting market produce.

Local visitor attractions, museums etc may also be willing to showcase and promote your market. Interest in social and local history is increasing, so there may well be a local history group who can offer additional information and pictures to help promote your market.

David also mentioned how important the traders could be in attracting tourists. By acting as “ambassadors” and also “characters”, offering tourists a genuine opportunity to interact with local people.

In conclusion there are three important types of stakeholders in the market tourist market. The consumers, the tourists themselves. Those that create the market experience, the traders and market managers.

And finally, the facilitators, the groups that can reach and communicate with potential new market users, the tourist associations, group travel operators, hotels and museums etc.

A good presentation with lots of practical tips. I wish I had my own market to try them out on.

I am blogging from the National Association of British Market Authorities in Harrogate.

Krys Zasada, NABMAs Policy Manager is presenting the results of the Retail Markets Survey. 261 markets responded to the questionnaire.

Here’s my summary. On a positive note. There is a slight increase in stalls let, a market days have stayed the same and staff numbers have stayed the same.

But, there has been a slight increase in trader turnover, a slight decrease in footfall, income and the bottom line.

These findings suggest to me that the markets are doing ok (at the moment) in terms of the aspects they are in control of; such as the days they open, the staff they employ, perhaps offering incentives to new traders to take short-term licences.

It’s likely that the position will be worse next year, as local authority staff may start to disappear, tempted by the lure of still fairly attractive voluntary redundancy packages.

Other headlines from the research are that outdoor markets are doing better than indoors. Farmers markets are doing better than traditional and, finally, privately operated markets are doing better than local authority markets.

Tomorrow NABMA and IPM are launching the Diploma in Market Administration. Local authority employed Market Officers who manage traditional, indoor markets may want to sign up!

Interestingly, Richmond Tea Rooms isn’t the only new place to have popped up this week as today also sees the return of the “pub in a window”.

Between them, these two places represent polar opposites, in terms of their contribution (or exploitation) of place.

Let’s start with the pub in a window, so called because a small non-discript terraced house ‘transforms’ its front room into a pub, which serves customers through the window, for 4 days a year,

Transforms is in air-quotes because the only visible difference is that the net curtains come down and the window gets opened.

The only reason that the pub in the window exists is to exploit (in marketing terms) the demand for alcohol at this weekend’s Pride event.

The rest of the year the house stands empty. Even the 4 days it’s ‘open’ you can’t actually go inside. So tough luck if it’s raining or you need the loo. It is the licensed bricks and mortar equivalent of a burger van.

Richmond Tea Rooms stands in sharp contrast.. Its transformation is a result of months creating a traditional (ok slightly camp) interior, with chandeliers and doilies etc.

Richmond Tea Rooms are trying to create something different from the 18 hour drinking dens that have proliferated around Canal Street. Now, those that know me will know I like a drink or three + but being residents we must get at least two copies of licence applications a month. Either for new bars/clubs or for an extension of hours to existing premises. In my mind there’s no doubt that more hours and places to drink has led to a change to the feel of the area (and a rise in anti-social behaviour and more serious crimes).

Richmond Tea Rooms offers a different sort of space. One where you can think, chat and one the owners hope can offer a bit more of an opportunity to “get on” with people (rather than just “get off” with them?)

Whilst I don’t want to come across of some sort of restaurant reviewer I really like Richmond Tea Rooms and I think it has the potential to build more of a community spirit amongst us. The owners plan to open a local deli next, so I wish them the best of luck with that as well.

Cathy had two pints of lager and lime, half a bottle of champers and an assortment of miniature sandwiches, scones and fancies. Then another pint or lager.

I am used to time differences in multiples of 1 hour, not 30 mins. It would be the same as having London and Aberdeen on different time zones (which, admittedly, would only be necessary if you rotated Britain 90 degrees). Is it really worth it?

So, whilst the time difference was a surprise, I had done some research (Google) on Adelaide before I came.

I knew Adelaide was laid out on a grid structure – and from my taxi ride, nothing much had changed from 1837. I could have found my way to the hotel with my copy of an 1838 map (commissioned by The House of Commons).

Talking about the taxi ride (it’s OK expenses are paid by hosts….who are not facing the same public sector austerity we are in the UK because;

a) the Aussies regulated their banking sector more;

b) they are not entirely reliant on a tertiary level economy (they do a lot of ‘proper’ jobs here like farming and mining) and;

c) they sell their stuff to the only people that still have some money….the Chinese).

Where was I? Oh yes, the taxi ride. Whilst nothing much has changed from above, the street view wasn’t particularly promising.

But that’s normal. When you arrive anywhere for the first time, especially by train, you always seem to go through the arse-end of town.

On a more positive note, like all of Australia, the food, wine and beer is spectacular.

Customer service is exemplary (and genuine … so should be renamed people doing their job properly WHILST being nice).

We had our opening reception for the Mainstreet conference in Ebeneezor Place, a pedestrianised street, full of quirky independent shops that stayed open til 9pm ON A SUNDAY so we could wander round with our glasses of champagne in hand (it’s a hard life). No half-day closing here.

The only thing I was completey unprepared for was the interest in the Royal Wedding. And I hadn’t seen it.

The overall feeling here is the Brits do pomp and ceremony really well. But, I’d happily swap the ability to pull off a once-in-a-blue-moon occasion with the everyday efficiency and ‘can do’ attitude The Aussies take for granted.

Now I have been here a week, and had a chance to explore a bit, it is a really lovely city.

Because it is surrounded by parkland, that hasn’t been developed, the city centre is quite small and easily walkable. A bit like York that’s been contained by it’s walls.

Nevertheless, I didn’t have to be here long to start feeling the frustration from those that think Adelaide needs to change, if it’s not going to end up being left behind, like some sort of museum to 19th Century planning.

But, it certainly makes a change from being in Manchester, where there is so little green space at all.

“I might be somewhat shorter than his other students, but that shouldn’t prevent me grasping the basic principles of ethnographic research methodology. Amongst the most important of these, I learned, was the search for rules. When we arrived in any unfamiliar culture, I was to look for regularities and consistent patterns in the natives’ behaviour, and try to work out the hidden rules – the conventions or collective understandings – governing these behaviour patterns” (Fox, 2004; 7).

This is part of the introduction to Elizabeth Fox’s book about The English. She describes how, from a tender age, her father (the famous ethnographer Robin Fox) taught her to look for the ‘DNA’ of the different cultures they visited. I took her book (lent to me by my friend Choco) to Colombia with me, and these are the rules I discovered.

Rule 1 – If you are a taxi driver you have to buy a very small car.

When we arrived at El Dorado airport, we went out to the taxi stand and were greeted by a row of tiny yellow cars. There were 3 of us, plus luggage and conference materials; we didn’t think we would fit into a Fiat Panda – although we soon changed our minds when it became apparent that there were no bigger taxis in Bogota.

Why? Well, many of the big “Carreras” are a maximum of 3 lanes, with many being only 2. But, with small cars, it is possible to fit 5 cars across 3 lanes and 3 cars across 2.

Obviously a car is no real status symbol in Colombia, nor a proxy measure of any part of its driver’s anatomy. Given the congested nature of Bogota’s streets, the smaller your car the faster you’ll get wherever you’re going.

Rule 2 – If you are going to stand anywhere, stand at a crossroads.

This rule is apparent in the first photo. Nearly every busy crossroad in Bogota is framed by individuals, couples or small groups of people standing around, chatting (if they have company) or watching the world go buy, if they are on their own.

Why? Well many crossroads serve as unmarked bus-stops, as the traffic has to slow down or stop, giving people chance to climb aboard or get off. More usually, though, given the ‘purposeful’ nature of many conversations, it would seem people have arranged to meet at these crossroads.

As we found, the problem with a city that has been laid out on a grid system means, unless there is a major landmark, everywhere looks quite similar. So being precise with addresses is important, and this is done by specifying a place in relation to it’s location to the intersection with a Carrera and a Calle, or, in other words, a crossroad.

Rule 3 – Pavements must be at least 18 inches high

If you haven’t realised by now. The Colombians love their cars. In fact, 13 years ago it was difficult to traverse the city centre (CBD) as cars drove and parked pretty much wherever they wanted.

So the incoming Mayor, Enrique Penalosa, put up concrete bollards, almost overnight, to mark out sidewalks (and to stop traffic using the space that was needed by pedestrians).

Then, over a three-year period he financed the construction of pavements, making them at least 18″ high to stop cars driving or parking on them (see photo above).

So, there you have it. The ethnographic observations of a forty- year old, five-year old.

References Fox, E., 2008, Watching the English, Hodder: London.

Further reading: http://www.globalurban.org/Issue1PIMag05/Montezuma%20article.htm