How does the layout of a city affect its economic success?

A scale model of Beijing, 2007. Image: Getty.

How does the layout of a city affect its performance? And what are the opportunities and challenges of spatial evidence in policy? Centre for Cities discussed these issues at a recent roundtable with urban planning consultancy Space Syntax.

Space Syntax studies the impact that the physical layout of cities has on the social, organisational and economic performance of urban areas. Developed by researchers at The Bartlett (University College London’s global faculty of the built environment), this theory is used to give streets an ‘accessibility’ score, denoting how well a street is linked to the wider layout of a city: for example, if it is a dead end, its score would be low. Streets are then plotted on a map using different colours for different levels of accessibility – with red meaning more accessible streets and cold colours like blue representing less accessible ones.

The physical fabric of a place has an impact on its performance. One of the examples discussed on the day was the comparison between Ashford, Kent, which has grown over a number of centuries, and the new town of Skelmersdale in West Lancashire.

The two cities have different layouts and this has consequences in terms of city centre accessibility and land use. In Ashford, most streets are interlinked with one another, creating an accessible town centre:

Streets Accessiblity in Ashford.

By contrast, the centre of Skelmersdale is characterized by fragmented streets with many more dead ends. These separated movements make the city centre inaccessible.

Streets accessibility in Skelmersdale.

The accessibility of streets affects land use. Ashford town centre is more accessible, and has a combination of retail and catering businesses, commercial activities and offices, houses and services, all in close proximity.

Land use in Ashford town-centre. 

By contrast, land use in Skelmersdale town centre is much more fragmented (figure 4). The Concourse Shopping Centre dominates the town centre while offices, houses and services are broadly segregated in three different parts.

Land use in Skelmersdale town-centre.

The wider body of research shows that the layout of a city has an impact on a wide range of issues such as crime, social inclusion, poverty, and health. Understanding that impact – and better communicating the implications to policy-makers – has the potential to bring about positive change to the everyday lives of the people who live and work in urban areas.

In conjunction with the researchers at UCL, we will be doing more work in the coming months on the implications of spatial design for policy makers at the local and national level.

Elena Magrini is a researcher at the Centre for Cities, on whose website this article originally appeared.


 

 
 
 
 

Treating towns as bastions of Brexit ignores the reasons for the referendum result – and how to address them

Newcastle: not all cities are booming. Image: Getty.

The EU Referendum result has often been characterised as a revolt of Britain’s “left-behind” towns and rural areas against the “metropolitan elite”. But this view diverts attention from the underlying issues which drove the Brexit vote – and ironically has diverted policy attention away from addressing them too.

It’s true that a number of big urban authorities, led by London, voted to stay. And overall people living in cities were less likely to vote leave than towns. Setting aside Scottish cities and towns, which both voted very strongly for remain, Leave polled 51 per cent of the vote in English and Welsh cities, compared to 56 per cent in local authorities that include towns. (Consistent data isn’t available below local authority level.)

Yet there is a lot of variation underlying this average across towns. In Boston, 75 per cent voted Leave, and in Hartlepool and Grimsby it was 70 per cent. But at the other end of the scale, there were a number of towns that voted to stay. For example, Leave polled at 49 per cent in Horsham and Harrogate, and 46 per cent in Windsor and Hitchin. In places such as Winchester, Leamington Spa and Bath, the Leave voted amounted to less than 42 per cent of the vote.

What drives this variation across towns? Data from the Centre for Cities’ recent report Talk of the Town shows economic outcomes were the biggest factor – with towns that voted Remain also having stronger economies.

For a start, pro-Remain towns generally have smaller shares of people who were either unemployed or claiming long-term benefit. (This is based on 2011 data, the latest available.)

Towns which voted Remain also had a higher share of jobs in high-skilled exporting businesses – an indication of how successful they have been at attracting and retaining high-paid job opportunities.

And both measures will have been influenced by the skills of the residents in each town: the higher the share of residents with a degree, the stronger the Remain vote.

So the Brexit vote was reflective of the varying economic outcomes for people in different parts of the country. Places which have responded well to changes in the national economy voted to Remain in the EU, and those that have been ‘left behind’ – be they towns or cities – were more likely to have voted to Leave.

This sends a clear message to politicians about the need to improve the economic outcomes of the people that live in these towns and cities. But the irony is that the fallout from the Brexit has left no room for domestic policy, and little progress has been made on addressing the problem that, in part, is likely to have been responsible for the referendum outcome in the first place.

Indeed, politicians of all stripes have seemed more concerned about jostling for position within their parties, than setting out ideas for domestic policy agenda. Most worryingly, progress on devolution – a crucial way of giving areas a greater political voice – has stalled.


There was talk earlier this year of Theresa May relaunching her premiership next summer focusing on domestic policy. One of her biggest concerns should be that so many cities perform below the national average on a range of measures, and so do not make the contribution that they should to the national economy.

But addressing this problem wouldn’t ignore towns – quite the opposite. What Talk of the Town shows is that the underperformance of a number of cities is bad not just for their residents or the national economy, but also for the residents in surrounding towns too. A poorly performing neighbouring city limits both the job opportunities open to its residents and impacts on nearby towns’ ability to attract-in business investment and create higher paid jobs.

This isn’t the only factor – as the last chart above suggests, addressing poor skills should be central to any serious domestic policy agenda. But place has an influence on economic outcomes for people too, and policy needs recognise that different places play different roles. It also needs to reflect the importance of the relationships between places to improve the access that people across the country have to job opportunities and higher wages.

The Brexit vote didn’t result from a split between cities and towns. And if we are to address the reasons for it, we need to better understand the relationship between them, rather than seeing them as opposing entities.

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

Read the Centre’s Talk of the Town report to find out more about the relationship between cities and towns, and what this means for policy.