The summer riots across a number of English cities prompted Weber Shandwick to organise an event last week which explored the how the reputation of cities could be improved.
Increasing urbanisation is paradoxical. The seminar heard that cities have long been seen as crime ridden, dirty and dangerous (Charles Dickens is to blame apparently). And whilst they are perceived by many as good places to visit, the English seem to perceive that village life is more pleasant.
But cities exist for a reason. The exchange of ideas, cultures and experiences is far easier in a city than in a rural area. Cities drive economic growth. And despite the growth of social media, face to face contact is still extremely important.
Over the past 25-30 years the brand image of many UK cities has improved. Cities such as Manchester and Leeds have been transformed and London is playing a significant “World City” role. The seminar heard that whilst the reputation of UK cities is still not brilliant, they are improving.
But did the riots change all of this? For a couple of days across cities in England, people were afraid for their homes. In a world of 24 hour rolling news, cities and towns found themselves attracting the interest of a global audience.
Riots are not a new phenomenon. In fact one presenter pointed out that they might actually be “a necessary/inevitable evil of cities”. And we do forget about them quickly. Relatively recent riots in Paris are distant memories for many of us and the experience of them does not seem to have a long term impact on tourism.
One area of consensus in the seminar was that we don’t really know what caused the riots: “the reasons are complex” said at least three participants. Some cities, with similar characteristics to London, Birmingham and Manchester did not find themselves subject to riots. And certainly not all deprived communities saw rioting. There was an overwhelming view from delegates that the cause wasn’t spending cuts but long term and structural challenges. “Criminality, not cuts” argued one panel member.
The seminar heard slightly differing views as to the extent to which solutions lay in terms of the physical (buildings/built environment) or in terms of human capital. Some felt that “shiny buildings don’t improve the life chances of people without skills”, whilst others highlighted the importance of a good quality built environment in terms of engendering public pride. If people don't respect where they live they will trash it, argued one participant.
Government’s response to the people issue is, “Big Society”. And as one commentator pointed out, far more people were up cleaning the following day than rioting in the evening.
But ILC-UK research (1) by Dylan Kneale has highlighted significant challenges of engaging older people in the urban areas with the Big Society. The research found that those living in urban areas are less interested in politics and significantly less likely to vote in all or most local elections than those in rural areas, although much of his effect appeared driven by higher levels of disadvantage and inequality in urban areas.
The analysis of the British Social Attitudes Survey found that:
*Older people in urban areas were not as interested in politics – twice as many older people in urban areas said they had little or no interest in politics (35%) compared to older rural residents (18%).
*Not only were adults of all ages in urban areas less interested in politics, they were significantly less likely to vote in all or most local elections than those in rural areas.
*Older people in urban areas are significantly less likely to have access to the internet at home (two-fifths do) than older people in rural or suburban areas (over half do).
It’s not just about people of course. And the advocates for an improved investment in a better built environment have a strong case. Housman redesigned Paris to reduce crime for example. We are seeing increasing evidence of the case for lifetime neigbourhoods to deliver better built environment for all. The coalition Government must continue the previous Government’s work to ensure that the design of communities meets the needs of a changing demography. There is clearly a need for a long term strategy for the development of our built environment.
But as our research has highlighted, if Government is to engage Big Society in tackling the causes of the riots, they will need to invest in creating a more engaged urban community. People matter. We have to find a way of ensuring greater equality of engagement in urban areas.
One contributor to the seminar pointed out that far too often we look to Government to solve these societal ills (“do something”). There is undoubtedly a role for local and national government, but as the contributor concluded “The ‘doing something’ people should be all of us”.
David Sinclair
(This blog was also published at www.ilcuk.org.uk)
1) http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/record.jsp?type=news&ID=139
Weber Shandwick organised an event on “Restoring the Reputation of our Cities” on 7th September 2011. Speakers included: Andrew Carter, Director of Policy & Research, Centre for Cities; Chris Murray, Director, Core Cities; Tony Travers, Director of the Greater London group at the London School of Economics and Damian Wild, Editor, Estates Gazette.
No comments:
Post a Comment