Where are Britain's biggest city economies?

Couldn't work out how to illustrate this so here is a metaphor. Image: Getty.

The latest instalment of our weekly series, in which we use the Centre for Cities’ data tools to crunch some of the numbers on Europe's cities.

We talk a lot, round here, about which are the largest cities by population. (Nerds gonna nerd.) We talk a fair amount, too, about which have the richest residents.

What we don't talk about so much is the intersection of those two factors: which cities have the biggest economies? Where are Britain’s powerhouses and engines really located? London, obviously – but beyond that, what does the league table look like?

Let's fire up the datatron.

The first thing to say is that London is so much bigger than its nearest rivals – so many more people, generating so much more wealth – that it completely knackers the charts. Here's a scatter graph plotting population (of each city's primary urban area, explained here) against GVA (gross value added, a measure of economic output).

See if you can somehow pick London out of the crowd:

Let’s take it as read that London is far bigger than the other cities. To make these charts look in any way meaningful we're going to have to drop the capital.

Here's a bar chart showing the 20 largest city economies outside London.

GVA in £bn. Image: Centre for Cities.

Unsurprisingly, Manchester and Birmingham are way, way ahead of the pack. What’s perhaps more unexpected is that, at least on this measure, the Manchester economy is slightly bigger. I thought this might be a quirk of the population data – using a definition on which Manchester simply has more people than Birmingham – but surprisingly, no.


That said, there's not a lot of space between them. They're of the same order of magnitude, and a long way ahead of the next cities down. Which gets to be second city is an unanswerable question, but nowhere else is really in the running for the title.

There are a few more surprises in the next bit of the chart. That Bristol would have a bigger economy than Leeds, for example: maybe this is me making dodgy assumptions, but Leeds feels like it should be on the next level up from Bristol, not struggling to keep up with it. And yet.

Similarly, it's striking that Reading’s economy is nearly as big as Nottingham's, and that Cardiff is out performed by Bournemouth, Milton Keynes and Southampton. As ever, it's one thing to know there's a north-south divide in theory. But Reading? On a par with Sheffield?

Part of this is down to size, of course – more people will mean a bigger economy, generally speaking. So here's that scattergraph again, without London this time. This time it's interactive, so you can hover over a dot to find out which city it is and get the data.

 

There's a clear correlation between the two variables (duh). But it's not perfect. Dots that are higher than they should be represent cities that are outperforming the average (economies bigger than you'd expect for a given population); dots that are lower than they should be are the opposite.

Reading is on one side of that notional line; Sheffield on the other. You can probably guess which way round.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Here’s how Henry Ford and IKEA could provide the key to solving the housing crisis

A flatpack house designed by architectural firm Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners, on display at the Royal Academy, London, in 2013. Image: Getty.

For many people, the housing market is not a welcoming place. The rungs of the property ladder seem to get further and further out of reach. There are loud calls to build hundreds of thousands of new homes (and equally loud demands that they’re not built in anyone’s back yard).

If there was ever a time to introduce mass-produced affordable housing, surely that time is now.

The benefits of mass production have been well known since Henry Ford’s car factories made the Model T back in 1908. It was only made in one colour, black, for economic reasons. Not because it was the cheapest colour of paint, but because it was the colour that dried the quickest.

This allowed the production line to operate at faster, more cost effective, speeds. And ultimately, it meant the product could be sold at a more attractive cost to the customer.

This approach, where processes are tested to achieve increasingly efficient production costs, is yet to filter properly into the construction of houses. This makes sense in a way, as not everybody wants exactly the same type of house.

Historically, affordable mass-produced housing removed a large amount of customisations, to ensure final costs were controlled. But there is another way. Builders and architects have the ability to create housing that allows a level of flexibility and customisation, yet also achieves the goal of affordability.


Back in 2006, the “BoKlok” approach to affordable housing was launched to great acclaim in the UK. Literally translated from Swedish, the term means “live smart”. Originally created from a collaboration between flat-pack favourite IKEA and Swedish construction giant Skanska, the BoKlok housing approach was to allow for selected customisation to maximise individuality and choice for the customers. But at the same time, it ensured that larger house building components were duplicated or mass-produced, to bring down the overall costs.

Standard elements – wall panels, doors, windows – were made in large numbers to bring the elemental costs down. This approach ensured the costs were controlled from the initial sketch ideas through to the final design choices offered to the customers. The kitchens and bathrooms were designed to be flexible in terms of adding additional units. Draw and cupboard fronts interchangeable. Small options that provided flexibility, but did not impact on overall affordability.

It’s a simple approach that has worked very well. More than 10,000 BoKlok houses have now been built, mainly in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, with a small number in the UK.

But it is only part of the architectural equation. The affordable housing market is vital, but the cost of making these homes more adaptable is rarely considered.

Flexibility is key. The needs of a house’s inhabitants change. Families can grow (and shrink) and require more room, so the costs of moving house reappear. One clever response to this, in BoKlok homes, has been to allow “built in” flexibility.

Loft living

This flexibility could include a loft space that already has flooring and a built in cupboard on a lower floor which can be simply dismantled and replaced with a “flat-pack style” staircase that can be purchased and installed with minimal disruption to the existing fabric.

Weeks of builders removing walls, plastering and upheaval are replaced by a trip to the IKEA store to purchase the staircase and the booking of a subcontractor to fit it. The original design accounted for this “future option” and is built into the core of the house.

The best approach to new affordable housing should consider combinations of factors that look at design, materials and processes that have yet to be widely used in the affordable housing market.

And the construction sector needs to look over its shoulder at other market places – especially the one that Henry Ford dominated over a century ago. Today’s car manufacturers offer customised options in everything from colour to wheel size, interior gadgets to different kinds of headlamp. These options have all been accounted for in the construction and costing of each model.

The ConversationThey share a similar design “platform”, and by doing so, considerably reduce the overall cost of the base model. The benefit is quicker production with the added benefit of a cost model that allows for customisation to be included. It is a method the construction sector should adopt to produce housing where quality and affordability live happily together.

David Morton, Associate Professor in Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.