What the West Midlands’ local industrial strategy means for other cities

West Midlands mayor Andy Street and Prime Minister Theresa May learn a little something. Image: Getty.

Back in May, the West Midlands won the race with Greater Manchester to publish the first local industrial strategy. No doubt both will become the benchmark for other areas to follow as they produce their own strategies. But if these or other strategies are to be successful, they will need to focus on making their areas more attractive to highly productive businesses.

As with the national strategy, the purpose of the local industrial strategies is to improve the productivity of the economies that they cover. While the prevailing thought is that poor productivity is the result of a “long tail” of unproductive businesses, a point referenced in the West Midlands’ strategy, our previous work has shown how this isn’t the case. And looking at the West Midlands and Greater Manchester specifically shows this to be true for these areas too.

The charts below look at the distribution of businesses according to their productivity for the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and cities in the Greater South East. They show two key things.

Source: ONS, Annual Business Survey.

The first is that the long tai’ in all areas is dominated by local services businesses such as cafés, bars and hairdressers. And there is very little difference in the distribution of these businesses, meaning they do not explain the difference in productivity between the areas as a whole.

The second is that the difference between the areas is in the distribution of exporting businesses – those that sell beyond their local market – such as advertisers, finance businesses and software developers. While Greater Manchester has a higher share of higher productivity exporters than West Midlands (the distribution is more skewed to the right in the chart), both lag well behind cities in the Greater South East of England.

This difference is not because exporters in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester are performing below par, but because the nature of the activities is different, with highly productive, innovative activities more likely to locate in the Greater South East than elsewhere. So the challenge for both areas is to make themselves more attractive to this type of activity (such as software design), rather than the lower skilled exporting activities (such as back-office functions for a bank or data handling company).


This has been increasingly happening in Manchester in recent years.  Bet365 have opened a city centre office in Manchester to locate its tech team, rather than at its headquarters in Stoke. Siemens engineers its wind turbines in the city that are then built in Hull. And JLR is to open a software, IT and engineering centre there too.

But the chart above and overall productivity figures for the city region show that even with these moves there is still a considerable gap. And so the challenge for the local industrial strategies will be to identify the specific barriers that prevent more investment from these types of exporting activities.

This holds true for many other places too, especially in the north of England. They will no doubt take great interest in the local industrial strategies of West Midlands and Greater Manchester, and take inspiration from them.

But if they want their own strategies to be useful, they must be clear in how the actions that they propose – be it investment in skills, transport or commercial space, for example – will help them be more attractive to higher productivity exporters in the future than they have in the past.

Paul Swinney is head of policy & research at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

 
 
 
 

Jane Jacobs and Le Corbusier would agree on one thing: we need more social housing

Unite d’Habitation, Marseille. Image: Iantomferry/Wikimedia Commons.

Much has been written in CityMetric and beyond about the urban planning debates of the 1950s and ‘60s, that came to be characterised as a battle between master-planning and preservation. One side of the debate was personified by the father of modernist architecture, Le Corbusier, whilst the counter-argument was advanced by writer and journalist Jane Jacobs.

But when it comes to London’s housing crisis, aren’t there a few things that these two would actually agree on?

Jane Jacobs’ writing about the organic nature of self-organising communities, demonstrated, in her words, by the “intricate sidewalk ballet” of inner city neighbourhoods, should be required reading for anyone interested in how cities function. But today, Jacobs is increasingly invoked in attempts to oppose new developments of any kind. Her role in conceiving Manhattan’s West Village Houses, a low cost rented housing scheme built through New York State’s Mitchell-Lama Program, is unfortunately much less well known. It’s been suggested that if Jacobs were around today, she’d be working with New York’s housing activists. When her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities was written, there were almost 2 million rent-controlled or rent-stabilised apartments in New York City; nowadays, there are fewer than half that number.

Le Corbusier, on the other hand, is too often blamed for drab high-rise blocks. But regardless of how well his followers across Europe interpreted his ideas, Le Corbusier’s vision for cities was about high quality residential blocks that also contained shops and leisure amenities and were surrounded by parkland – the original mixed use development if you like. His most famous building, Marseille’s Unite d’Habitation, consisted of 337 apartments with views of the mountains and the sea together with shops, a restaurant and a nursery school. The building was originally intended to be public housing, but the French government eventually sold off the flats to recoup costs. Alton West Estate in Roehampton and Park Hill in Sheffield are just some of the examples of Le Corbusier’s influence on the design of post-war council housing here in the UK.

Building homes for a serious business in post-war Britain. Under Attlee’s 1945 Labour Government, 700,000 new council homes were completed. In 1952, the largest architectural practice in the World was at London County Council, with 1,577 staff including 350 professional architects and trainees. These were the days of consensus, and very quickly Tory governments were actually competing with Labour governments about who could built the most council homes.

Some of the council homes built post-war have stood the test of time better than others. But what’s not in doubt is that building council homes on such a scale immeasurably changed the lives of so many families in desperate need of a decent, secure and affordable home. And so many of the post-war modernist high-rise blocks so despised by Jacobs quickly took on the organic self-organising traits that she held in such high regard and have become some of the most enduring and closely-knit communities in London.

Fast forward to 2019 and Right To Buy continues to decimate council housing stock, but perversely home ownership seems more out of reach than ever for so many. An entire generation is being forced to embrace long term private ting in a country that has some weakest protections for private tenants in Europe. Meanwhile, government spending on building new homes fell from £11.4bn in 2009 to just £5.3bn in 2015 – from 0.7 per cent to 0.2 per cent of GDP – and since then, the housing minister’s desk has been occupied by no fewer than six people.


So what would a comprehensive drive for new council and social housing on the scale of the 1945 government’s efforts look like in 2019?

Lubetkin, the architect responsible for Islington’s Spa Green Estate and Bevin Court, summed up the spirit of post-war council home building with his maxim that “nothing is too good for ordinary people”. It’s a vision that we’re trying to recreate through our own council home building programme in Islington.

One of the best opportunities for small council home building schemes is to expand upon existing communities. The vast majority of Islington’s new council housing takes the form of infill, construction on existing estates; in unloved spaces, in old garages, and in old undercrofts. These projects often involve landscaping and new amenities to enhance rather than reinvent local communities. We have built community centres and even rebuilt a library as part of council housing schemes. One Tenants’ and Residents’ Association had an idea for a new specialist over 55s block for the older residents of the estate who wanted to stay in their community.

But there’s a place for large-scale place making as well. When the Ministry of Justice closed Holloway Prison and announced that the site would be sold, Islington Council published a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the site. We had one aim – to send a clear signal to the market that anyone who was looking at buying the site needed to be aware of their planning obligations. Most importantly, any development on the site needed to include at least 50 per cent genuinely affordable homes. The speculation around the site came to an end on 8 March this year when Peabody Housing Association announced that it had bought it. It has committed to going well above and beyond our planning requirements, by making 600 out of a total 1000 homes genuinely affordable homes, including 420 homes for social rent. We need to see more detail on what they are proposing but this is potentially brilliant for the borough. A local grassroots group, Community Plan for Holloway, have been instrumental in ensuring that the community’s voice is heard since the site was sold.

To recreate the scale of the massive post-war council home building programmes would require a Jane Jacobs inspired level of community activism combined with the architectural idealism of Le Corbusier. But it would also need the political will from central government to help local authorities get council housing built. And that, sadly, feels as far away as ever.

Diarmaid Ward is a Labour councillor and the executive member for housing & development at the London Borough of Islington.