C

FC

a

ARRAA

KMSC

1

“ciipphwdMasmigiTsm

agp

h2

Sustainable Cities and Society 15 (2015) 33–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

jou rna l h om epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /scs

oping with shrinkage: Rebranding post-industrial Manchester

ernando Ortiz-Moya ∗

hiba Laboratory, School of Engineering, Department of Architecture, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku 7-3-1, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 29 March 2013eceived in revised form 31 October 2014ccepted 2 November 2014vailable online 11 November 2014

a b s t r a c t

This paper investigates the role that flagship developments are having in the regeneration agendaof cities experiencing urban shrinkage. It focuses on Manchester, archetypical example of a post-industrial shrinking city that has been able to return to the growth paradigm. Using an exploratory casestudy methodology, this paper analyses the spillover effects of pro-growth approaches tackling urbanshrinkage. It first compiles and critically assesses its multiple flagship developments, in order to study

eywords:anchester

hrinking cityity branding

Manchester’s decay process by opposing it to the initiatives that are coping with it. It will then go on toanalyse the social consequences of those initiatives and to examine the factors that can burden the city’sfurther development. The paper argues that even though Manchester has performed well in the politicalgame, and cosmetically improved certain areas, its flagship developments have not been able to fix theeconomic or social problems derived from its decay.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Manchester was the first and greatest industrial city, becomingthe ‘shock city’ of the age” (Briggs, 1968, p. 87). The Twentiethentury, however, marked a turning point for Manchester. Start-ng with the First World War, the driving force behind its growth,ts industry began a decay process that resulted in a constantopulation decline. Between the censuses of 1931 – Manchester’sopulation peak – and 2001 – its lowest point – Manchester hasalved its population and has seen its economy and labour marketorsen, becoming a shrinking city. Yet, after 70 years of constantecline, the population data of the new 2011 Census showed thatanchester has become the third fastest growing city in England

nd Wales, with an increase of 19% of its population.1 This impres-ive figure (11.9% more than the average of England and Wales)eans that in the last 10 years Manchester has attracted more

nhabitants than any other metropolitan area besides London. Toet here, the city has had to radically shift its image: from thendustrial city of the Nineteenth Century to a World Capital of the

wenty-first Century. Manchester has rebranded itself through aeries of regeneration initiatives, flagship developments and pro-otional campaigns. All these attempted to project a new image of

∗ Tel.: +81 80 4624 0026.E-mail address: fernandoortizmoya@gmail.com

1 All Census data used for this paper can be accessed online in: www.visionofbritain.org.uk and in the Office for National Statistics,: http://www.ons.ov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html. This are the sources used in thisaper when referring to census statistics, unless other source is indicated.

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.11.004210-6707/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

vibrancy, cultural life, leisure and new economic possibilities. Thegoal of its regeneration agenda was to boost Manchester’s economyand consequently attract population willing to live here, while atthe same time changing its long-term image of a deprived post-industrial city.

This paper, rather than taking Manchester’s population growthas a validation of its regeneration agenda, aims to critically assessthe spillover effects of its pro-growth policies. It focuses on flag-ship developments, a common tool in branding and regenerationinitiatives that has been widely used in Manchester. The paperargues that Manchester is still suffering the problems derivedfrom its shrinkage process hidden behind its recently achievedpopulation growth. First, the problematic of shrinking cities is dis-cussed together with Manchester’s history of growth and decline.Secondly, the paper examines urban regeneration strategies andflagship developments in Manchester; these are critically assessed,paying especial attention to their spillover effects. Third, the paperanalyses Manchester’s current conditions and problematises itsfuture growth prospects. In setting out this analysis, the paper ques-tions the use of pro-growth policies as the means of facing urbanshrinkage.

2. Methodology

This paper investigates Manchester’s recent soar in population

and the different mechanisms that have helped the city to halt itslong-lasting decay. It uses an exploratory case study methodology.The paper focuses on Manchester City as the main unit of analysis,although some data refers to the metropolitan area—understood

3 ities a

hotpisedciMurctsmala

3

dow(Psieat–otFhc2tidoDattPt

t(ssrctpeeWtl

4 F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable C

ere as the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County. This is basedn the literature on shrinking cities, which points out that due tohe growing competition among cities it is on the city level whereolicies should take action (Cadell, Falk, & King, 2008). The analysis

s based on two different sets of data. The first set of data is cen-us statistics that help to understand the economic transformationxperienced by Manchester, which triggered the city’s populationecline. The emphasis is on population evolution, as this also indi-ates the wider socioeconomic conditions of the city—includingts labour market, quality of life and economic prospects (Turok &

ykhnenko, 2007). Nonetheless, different census economic data issed to examine the current weakness of the city’s recovery and toecommend different potential actions to improve the city’s livingonditions. The second set of data is the different policies and ini-iatives implemented in order to cope with the causes of the city’shrinkage. The focus here is on the different flagship projects andasterplans that have been trying to create a new image of the city

nd to change its economic model. The different initiatives are col-ected and critically assessed in order to analyse its spillover effectsnd how they have influenced on Manchester’s recent growth.

. Shrinking cities and urban regeneration

The problem of shrinking cities has become a major issue for aca-emics, politicians and town planners alike. Since the second halff the twentieth century, the seemingly unstoppable urban growthas halted as a consequence of the emerging new economic system

Cunningham-Sabot, Audirac, Fol, & Martinez-Fernandez, 2013).allagst, Martinez-Fernandez, and Wiechmann (2013) describehrinking cities as a “multidimensional phenomenon encompass-ng regions, cities and parts of cities or metropolitan areas that arexperiencing a dramatic decline in their economic and social basesnd are facing population losses” (p. 3). Urban shrinkage is the spa-ial result of globalisation, which entailed a new economic order

characterised by the network society, global cities or the spreadf neoliberalism – that has affected cities and their developmenthrough two different spatial restructuring processes. (Martinez-ernandez, Audirac, Fol, & Cunningham-Sabot, 2012). On the oneand, the concentration of population and economic activity inertain nodes of global power, the so-called ‘global cities’ (Sassen,001). On the other hand, the gaps in between those nodes; placeshat have lost their attractiveness for people and business to remainn them (Reckien & Martinez-Fernandez, 2011). It is not coinci-ence that the first cities suffering shrinkage were those pioneersf the Industrial Era, being archetypical examples Manchester andetroit (Oswalt, 2005). Industrial cities originated from the avail-bility of natural resources, and craftsmanship and trade triggeredheir development. Those assets, however, were not enough to sus-ain their status under the logics of the new global economy (Power,löger, & Winkler, 2010). Many cities lost their economic purpose;herefore, many people lost their reason to live there.

In the UK, the question of shrinking cities has been tradi-ionally addressed in the context of urban regeneration debatesGroßmann, Bontje, Haase, & Mykhnenko, 2013). The aim of thistudy is not to compose a comprehensive analysis of the UK exten-ive urban regeneration programmes, but rather to focus on howebranding and flagship developments fit within the UK and Man-hester’s regeneration agenda. To do this, however, it is necessaryo set the context of that urban regeneration. Since the postwareriod, manufacturing industries started a decline which wors-ned from the 1960s onwards; industrial cities lost their previous

conomic status, which affected their social and physical fabric.ith this background, urban regeneration was raised as the tool to

ackle urban decay in order to revitalise the economy and improveiving conditions (Tallon, 2010). Since 1969, when the Housing

nd Society 15 (2015) 33–41

Act established the General Improvement Areas, British politicianshave launched multiple regeneration schemes – among others:Community Development Projects, Housing Action Trust, City Prideto name but a few (Carley, 2000) – with the common objectiveof addressing the social consequences of deindustrialisation. Thisfirst stage of urban regeneration in the UK was focused on area-based welfare projects, with a subsequent view of urban decay asthe consequence of structural economic problems (Tallon, 2010).The arrival of Tatcher’s government shifted the focus to a market-led entrepreneurial model of urban regeneration, stressing theimportance of public-private partnerships and free market ideals asmeans of urban improvement. Linked to the entrepreneurial model,cities started marketing campaigns to brand themselves and rein-force the idea of change (Griffiths, 1998). With the change to theNew Labour’s government in 1997, urban regeneration’s agendatook a social approach as it started to foster community participa-tion (Tallon, 2010).

Despite these political changes, the idea behind urban regen-eration initiatives – through their different stages – was to fix themismatches between the post-industrial city and the necessities ofthe new service economy; accordingly, cities needed to improvetheir general conditions and recover their ‘sense of place’. Sincethe post-war period, urban regeneration has focused on physicaltransformation and planning, assuming that economic problemswill be resolved by themselves. The turn to city marketing reliedon the creation of the new brand through the transformation ofthe physical environment; moreover, efforts focused on the cen-tral area believing that this would benefit the entire city (Gripaios,2002). New public spaces and monuments were designed to cre-ate a new vibrant image distant from that of manufacturing decayand deprivation (Tallon, 2010). Nevertheless, the effects of citycentre transformation on surrounding areas were limited. Theregeneration of deprived neighbourhoods – with a similar focuson design-led interventions – was also necessary as they weredragging the general image of the city and burdening the over-all regeneration (Power et al., 2010). Despite acknowledging theimprovements achieved, this design-lead approach to urban regen-eration has not been exempted of criticism (see for example: Evans(2003) or Gripaios (2002)). Among others, critiques refer to thelack of tools of these schemes to trigger economic development,the commodification and low quality of their public realm and/orproblems of social integration and polarisation. These issues arediscussed in a greater detail in line with Manchester’s analysis.

Central to these interventions were flagship developments,iconic buildings with a high symbolic value that materialiseregeneration initiatives, becoming a dominant trend in urbanregeneration schemes since 1980s (Smyth, 1994). They are usuallydescribed as “significant, high profile developments that play aninfluential and catalytic role in urban regeneration, which canbe justified if they attract other investments” (Smyth, 1994, p.4). These projects are made possible through a combination ofpublic and private investment, usually thanks to a property-ledmechanism. As renaissance mechanisms, flagship developmentsboost economic activity and aim to attract people again thanks tothe improved urban conditions; they help to revitalise the urbanfabric and change the image of an area, or even the entire city(Smyth, 1994). Through this image change, flagship developmentslift demoralised cities bringing to the public the idea of change andopening new possibilities of investment (Power et al., 2010). Flag-ship developments help cities to try to replicate the ‘Bilbao Effectı,or the complete rebranding and global positioning of a decaying –usually post-industrial – city, through the construction of an iconic

building (Vicario & Martínez Monje, 2006). The ‘Bilbao Effect’ –with its iconic flagship project, the Guggenheim museum designedby Frank Gehry – upturned the use of flagship developments inurban regeneration agendas, as it is considered “one of the most

ities a

t(rw2c

tetBrnmiwmteo(

4

baeautrftgeFtdstd

yncasa1otLetsapmac

tc

F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable C

ransformative symbols of city place-making of the last decades”Evans, 2003, p. 432). Nevertheless, Bilbao’s strategy not onlyelied on the success of the museum itself. Rather, the Guggenheimas the catalyst of a series of infrastructure improvements (Evans,

003), accompanied by social and economic plans to tackle theonsequences of deindustrialisation (Power et al., 2010).

Their supporters argue that flagship developments physicallyransform a depressed area of a city, while at the same time attractxternal investment. The result is an economic improvementhroughout the whole city, helping to diversify its economic base.esides this, they are the visible symbols of the improvements andegeneration that are being carried out in the city, representing itsew image. On the other hand, those opposed to flagship develop-ents comment that it generates social and physical fragmentation

n a city. Location is determined by economic considerations –here it will produce more profits – rather than which area needsore urgent regeneration. This process ignores the social issues

hat affect each area, and even can exacerbate some of them, forxample creating a rent gap. Furthermore, there is no guaranteef their effectiveness, making them a risky and expensive optionImrie & Thomas, 1993, Loftman & Nevin, 1995, Williams, 2002).

. Manchester’s history of decline

Manchester, considered the first industrial city (Hall, 1998), haseen also one of the first cities to show acute symptoms of shrink-ge. Starting in the eighteenth century, and continuing until thearly twentieth century, a combination of geographical, economicnd intellectual conditions boosted its industrial expansion andrban growth. From the first industrial development based on cot-on manufacturing, Manchester became the financial centre of aegion where surrounding towns specialised themselves in dif-erent processes of cotton production, and later on diversifyingo other commodities (Kidd, 2004). However, this rapid industrialrowth could not be maintained through time, and in the twenti-th century several crisis hit Manchester’s manufacturing base. Theirst World War supposed a rupture of Manchester’s trade connec-ions, leading to the ‘cotton crisis’ which marked the beginning of itseindustrialisation process. Yet its industrial decline was progres-ive but unstoppable, with the collapse of the cotton industry inhe 1950s and the ‘container revolution’ in the 1970s, which finallyestroyed the left overs of its industrial past (Kidd, 2005).

Manchester’s story of deindustrialisation took place in only fiftyears, bringing social problems derived from this shift in the eco-omic model. Depopulation and unemployment were the parallelonsequences of the deindustrialisation that affected Manchesternd its metropolitan area. Its population decline happened in twotages: first there was a long term central city decline, which startedfter its 1931 peak, while its suburban area kept growing. Since971, the whole metropolitan area has experienced population fall-ff. It is interesting to compare Manchester’s population data withhat of the other two major England’s metropolitan areas apart fromondon: Birmingham and Leeds. Fig. 12 compares the populationvolution of the three cities and their metropolitan areas. Althoughhe three cases present the same trend, starting with an inner cityhrinkage followed by a population decrease in its metropolitanrea, the particularity of Manchester’s case is its extent. In general,opulation change is influenced by a city’s economic and labour

arket conditions (Turok & Mykhnenko, 2007). Manchester was

lso experiencing problems in this aspect: according to the 1991ensus, Manchester city’s unemployment rate was 21.67%, in front

2 Both figures where made using Data from UK Census. The paper’s aim is noto make an extensive comparative study between the three cities. Nonetheless thisomparison is interesting in order to point out the extreme situation of Manchester.

nd Society 15 (2015) 33–41 35

of the 12.78% of Greater Manchester or the 10.68% of England andWales. Therefore the shrinkage process can be seen as a natu-ral consequence of Manchester’s economy: people migrate fromone place to another following better life conditions. Furthermore,Home Office calculations showed in 1992 that Greater Manchesterwas the third police force area by incidence of crime reported, hav-ing this figure escalated since 1989 (Home Office, 1992). The samereport also points out that the top police force areas with highestcrime reported were previous industrial areas suffering of acutedeindustrialisation processes.

The fact is that Manchester was not able to adapt its economyto the new necessities of globalisation. Its industrial and decadentimage was burdening its possibilities of recovery. Being aware ofthis, Manchester’s City Council started to implement an ambitiousregeneration agenda in the 1980s aimed at changing the city’simage. During the first period of urban regeneration policies –theso-called ‘municipal socialism’ (Quilley, 2002) – Manchester CityCouncil political agenda was ideologically opposed to the nationalneoliberal approach of the Conservative government; nonetheless,since the mid-1980s, the City Council started a wide collaborationwith private sector agents in order to cope with the problems ofManchester’s post-industrial transformation. This laid the founda-tions for the subsequent turn to the entrepreneurial model, basedon a stronger cooperation between the public and private sectors;Manchester City Council, however, kept better control over theprojects than other cities following a similar model (McNeill, 2008;Ward, 2005). Yet, compared with the previous phase, the City Coun-cil has loosened its dominance over municipal politics – this wasalso partly imposed by national legislation – allowing the creationand reinforcement of different agencies that ultimately have driventhe city’s regeneration. A series of networks of influential agents,e.g. Manchester Chamber of Commerce or the Law Society to namebut a few, started to structure Manchester’s regeneration efforts(Robson, 2002). Agencies such as Salford Quays, Trafford Park orCentral Manchester Development Corporation have been workingsince then to rebrand the city. Besides this, the Council and the dif-ferent private-public partnerships were successful in the process ofbidding for funding for its regeneration. An important part of theirstrategy has been on a series of flagship developments which areattempting to place Manchester back into the city’s global competi-tion (Taylor, Evans, & Fraser, 1996, Williams, 2002). Throughout theregeneration process, Manchester City Council acted as the catalystagent of rebranding.

5. Manchester’s flagships, from manufacturing to culturalindustry

Manchester’s shrinkage affected its own sense of identity anderoded its image, as it became one of Britain’s most deprived citiesduring the 1980’s and 1990’s because of its high unemploymentand crime rates previously noted. In this context, Manchester CityCouncil fostered the construction of a series of flagship develop-ments, which aimed to create a new image for the city. Manchesterhad to forge a new brand for itself, with the challenge of answer-ing the social and economic problems that the city was undergoing.With the G-MEX Exhibition Centre opened in 1986, the City Councilstarted a trend that has continued until the present day. Manchesterbegan to promote both flagship and prestige developments in orderto reinvent itself. The idea was to physically show the shift from themanufacturing to a cultural and services industry. The interven-tions targeted three different areas, giving a distinctive characterto each of them: East Manchester houses the sports facilities, with

the Manchester City Stadium as main icon; Salford Quays has amajor cultural focus, with The Lowry, The Imperial War MuseumNorth and the MediaCityUK; the City Centre is a conglomeration ofoffices, leisure, cultural and commercial venues.

36 F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable Cities and Society 15 (2015) 33–41

F MidlanB

taOlctthotfTtth(ch

cafwoUMttbh

inwtbqie

n

rc

ig. 1. Population evolution. Population evolution of Greater Manchester, West

irmingham and Leeds respectively.

As forerunner of these regeneration policies, Manchester hadwo Olympic bids to host the 1996 and 2000 Games, in an earlyttempt to globally re-position itself. The idea was to develop thelympic Complex in one of the divested areas of the city, the East-

ands, in order to regenerate it. Despite losing both attempts, itreated the necessary public–private partnership network to allowhe construction of future projects, like the Bridgewater Hall orhe MEN Arena (Loftman & Nevin, 1996). Nonetheless, Manchesterosted the 2002 Commonwealth Games which boosted the devel-pment of sport facilities in the site previously designated to househe Olympic facilities. After the 2002 Games, the stadium was trans-ormed to become the home of the Manchester City football team.he area around the stadium is being further developed thanks tohe Etihad Campus, a project that includes football training facili-ies and the later expansion of the stadium; the current masterplanas East-Manchester as one of the target areas for regenerationCouncil, 2012). Moreover, the city has its main worldwide show-ase in its football teams: Manchester United and Manchester Cityave become one of the main symbols of the city.

Manchester has been working constantly to transform its cityentre, in the belief that this transformation will expand andffect the whole city. Following the G-MEX Exhibition Centre, andounded on the experienced of the Olympic bids and Common-ealth Games partnerships, flagship projects has followed each

ther: the MEN Arena (1995), the Bridgewater Hall (1996), therbis Museum (2002, which has become the National Footballuseum3) or the Beetham Tower (2007) illustrate this transforma-

ion (Williams, 2002). In this process, the 1996 IRA bomb pushedhe city forward to consolidate its redevelopment agenda; theomb reinforced the partnerships born from the Olympic bids,elping the city to respond rapidly to the attack (Holden, 2002).

In the past decade Manchester’s flagship developments havencreased their scale to become masterplans that create a wholeew area within the city. In this respect, the city centre countsith three examples: Spinningfields in the Irwell side, NOMA53 in

he North side and First Street in the South. The three of them wereorn with the ambition of becoming a new vibrant, multifunctional

uarter which will regenerate the city centre projecting a new

mage of modernity, when transforming Manchester into a globalconomic capital.4 Spinningfields, which last stage is currently

3 It was reopened the 6th of July 2012, according to its webpage: http://www.ationalfootballmuseum.com/4 The information about both, their aims and philosophy can be found in their

espective webpages: http://www.spinningfieldsonline.net, http://www.noma53.om/ and http://www.firststreetmanchester.com.

ds and West Yorkshire metropolitan areas and their central cities, Manchester,

under construction, is a joint project between Allied London andManchester City Council. It is compared with Canary Warf or LaDefense,5 due to its aim of becoming the economic hub of NorthernEngland and a world referent in offices developments. Nineteennew buildings host a mixture of functions, including residentialunits, the new Central Court Building or The Avenue, a commercialarea housing high fashion brands. On the other hand, NOMA53,which is also currently under construction, was initiated by The Co-operative Group to establish its new headquarters in Manchester.This £800 m, 20-acre project, has the same aim as Spinningfield,which is to transform Manchester into a leading headquarters city,creating a new quarter which combines residence, retail, leisureand commercial space. Finally, Ask Developments in partnershipwith Manchester City Council is developing First Street, a £750 mbusiness, leisure, culture and creative hub. Following the openingof its first stage, Number One in 2010, HOME will open in Spring2015 to reinforce the cultural character of Manchester – it com-bines theatre, cinema, books and exhibitions spaces in this newmultipurpose flagship building.6 These three projects have a com-mon aim and intentions of becoming a vibrant new neighbourhood,stressing their public realm as one of their biggest assets. However,these three projects have not taken into account Manchester’sindustrial past, and have constructed all their buildings from a tab-ula rasa scenario. Just a few flagship developments, like the G-Mexor the Museum of Science and Industry have preserved Manches-ter’s industrial heritage. Nonetheless, this trend is different whenlooking to the housing or offices projects, which has transformedmills and old industrial buildings into modern spaces. The propertydeveloper company Urban Splash played a pioneer role in thistrend starting the transformation of warehouses and abandonedindustrial buildings combining contemporary design with his-torical heritage (Mulhearn, 2005). Altogether, the city centre isexperiencing an unprecedented transformation, changing millsand renovating its physical fabric to project this new vibe of a worldcapital ready to face the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Although being situated in Salford, we can also take SalfordQuays as a fundamental part of the making of Manchester’s image(Fig. 2). The third intervention area, once the Manchester Docks and

major means of support of Manchester’s manufacturing trade, hasshifted into Salford Quays. This masterplan is gathering togethercultural, residential, shopping and leisure facilities becoming

5 According to the Financial Times, in an article published the 26 of April2007. http://www.propertyweek.com/news/manchester-city-council-and-allied-london-reach-spinningfields-agreement/3160087.article

6 Further information can be found in: www.homemcr.org

F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable Cities and Society 15 (2015) 33–41 37

FI

“twpIMiBastt

6

s

ch

ig. 2. Salford quays. The BBC media city and the imperial war museum north.mages by the author.

Manchester’s waterfront destination.”7 After the dismantling ofhe Docks, this area started to be redeveloped from a clean slate,ith the construction of the Lowry, a cultural venue that combineserforming and visual arts, as first icon. It was followed by the

mperial War Museum North and by the first stage of the BBCediaCityUk, opened in 2011. This new masterplan is stressing

ts character as a creative hub; it combines, among other things,BC studios, Coronation Street and the University of Salford, in anttempt of “creating a new city”. The MediaCityUK’s aims, whichecond stage will start according to the demand, are similar tohose described in the city centre as new multifunctional quartersrying to change the image of an area and attract inhabitants.8

. In case of shrinkage, rebrand yourself!

Manchester’s soar in population have been celebrated as theuccess of its regeneration agenda, stressing the importance of long

7 As it is advertised in its webpage: http://www.thequays.org.uk/8 Full information about the project in its web page. The slogan “creating a

ity” has become also the Twitter ‘hashtag’ for the project. Information available:ttp://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/

Fig. 3. East Manchester flagship development. The Commonwealth Games Stadium,currently The City of Manchester Stadium. Image by the author.

term growth aspirations (Crook & Linton, 2012). The city copedwith its shrinkage through the extensive use of flagship develop-ments, showing the interrelation between urban renewal policiesand urban shrinkage. When Buhnik (2010) argues that “contem-porary globalisation generates new forms of deindustrialisationand emphasises internal competition between cities or city-regionsfor the attraction of knowledge-based, high-profit activities” (p.133) stressing the relationship between postmodern economy,shrinkage and interurban national and global competition. Flag-ship developments are a common tool to remarket and repositioncities back in the game. They highlight the problem of Manchester’spast decline, since they have taken over the city, being the reflec-tion of pro-growth policies wanting to coin a new image (Kidd,2005): a city with a high-profile cultural life, leisure activities andheadquarters offices. By enhancing this functional change the CityCouncil is trying to amend the internal and external perceptions ofthe post-industrial deprived city.

‘New’ Manchester has transformed its image through multipleinitiatives and flagship projects. Still, before turning to the spillovereffects of its flagship developments, it is necessary to acknowledgeother initiatives that have focused on neighbourhood renewal.In line with the museums, stadiums or headquarters facilities,Manchester tackled the problems of some of its more deprivedneighbourhoods. Hulme, Castlefields, Moss Side or East Man-chester have gone through programmes aimed to improve theirimpoverished condition (Ward, 2003a). Of particular interest forour case is the regeneration of East Manchester as it happened intandem with the construction of the flagship sport facilities to hostthe Commonwealth games (Jones & Stokes, 2003) (Fig. 3). NewEast Manchester Ltd was form in 1999 as the company to run theregeneration, following the public-private partnership model. Theresulting policy framework ‘New East Manchester, A New Town inthe City’ established two main objectives: “to create sustainablecommunities” and “to maximise the contribution that East Man-chester makes to national, regional and local competitiveness”(Limited, 2000, p. 3). The 2002 Commonwealth Games and theSport City were the trigger of this regeneration. Jones and Stokes(2003) acknowledge that the event effectively served as catalyst ofsocial improvements; nevertheless, they were cautious about theirfindings as urban regeneration is a long-lasting process, and time isneeded in order to properly evaluate its effectiveness. Nonetheless,

on a more critical note, Ward (2003a) stresses that the goals of EastManchester’s urban regeneration were set on economic terms.Manchester acted over East Manchester to improve its economic

38 F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable Cities a

Fb

cTiisl

flwtoitstnhwmoTTtitpwlpbMfpi(tNns

pcan

for the development of such enterprises, constructing new officespaces and helping with an advantageous tax environment. Still,behind Manchester’s soar in population, its great-looking flagship

9

ig. 4. The Urbis. The Urbis Museum, currently the National Football Museum. Imagey the author.

ompetitiveness and thus, to contribute to the national economy.he success of the regeneration scheme becomes measurable –n economic terms – resting importance to the possible socialmprovements derived from it. Yet, contrary to other regenerationchemes, in East Manchester flagship developments happened inine with the general regeneration of the area.

The case of East Manchester illustrates how city branding andagship developments attempt to have wider effects in the areahere they are located; it also shows, however, how economy con-

rols their development. City branding aims to transform the imagef a city seeking economic development thanks to the appeal fornvestors and tourists of the new brand (Vanolo, 2008). Manches-er has been branding different aspects of its urban life, launchingeveral urban regeneration initiatives hoping that one will becomehe game changer that the city needs. It counts with fresh busi-ess districts, an improved cultural life with new facilities, creativeubs to attract creative class or sports infrastructures—with world-ide impact events such as the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Thiselting-pot of schemes, however, show the lack of an overall vision

f what the city wants to be beyond becoming a first rank world city.he Urbis Museum (Fig. 4) can illustrate this with its own history.his flagship development was a key part in the reconstruction ofhe city centre after the 1996 IRA terrorist attack; in the moment ofts commission, the only purpose of the building was “to celebratehe new millennium” (Evans, 2003, p. 433). It opened in 2002 dis-laying different aspects related to urban living, though its contentas criticised from the outset (Hetherington, 2007). Yet, due to the

ack of public success, the museum was rebranded as a centre onopular culture in 2004. It suffered a final transformation in 2012,ecoming the National Football museum and taking advantage ofanchester’s football’s tradition; this lays the foundations for its

uture success (Brown, 2010). The Urbis shows the non-existenturpose of some projects from inception: the necessity of a new

con is more important than its particular meaning or functionEvans, 2003). It is not surprising that the general public are scep-ical of some of the new projects. Referring to the MediaCityUK,oonan (2011) noted people’s cynicism in the comment section ofews covering the project. It may seem that Mancunians are alsotarting to doubt the benefits for the city of such expensive projects.

The objective of flagship developments is to transform a city’shysical, cultural and economic fabric, offering a new vision of the

ity that will influence public opinion—turning from a negative to

positive perception of a certain place (Power et al., 2010). Thisew image is shaped through two different processes, a physical

nd Society 15 (2015) 33–41

and a discursive one. One of the first symptoms of urban shrinkageusually appears in the city’s physical fabric: ruins, derelict spaces orvacant lots are common characteristics of shrinking cities (Buhnik,2010, Rieniets, 2009). Flagship developments work with the log-ics that a new physical setting will change people’s opinion of aplace, and will convince them to remain or live there (Seo, 2002).This physical transformation is stressed in the material aspect of thenew projects: instead of using bricks, the material par excellence ofthe Industrial Revolution, they are using high-tech materials. Thiscontrasts with its surroundings, where the physical regenerationhas not reached yet, and buildings in a ruined state wait to becomeluxury apartments or offices (Griffin, 2005). On the contrary, theyare also causing that Manchester’s city centre to resemble otherBritish cities more (Hetherington, 2007). Although these projectstry to create their own identity, they usually follow the generalvogue on architectural design. Therefore cities are becoming moregeneric and homogeneous (Tallon, 2010). This is a common aspectof branding initiatives, which neglect the historical identity of thecity –usually attached to manufacturing industries – when forgingtheir new brand (Vanolo, 2008). On the other hand, Evans (2003)also points out that flagship developments claim that they improvethe public realm through the creation of a high-quality postmodernarchitectural design and its associated surrounding public space.The public space generated by them, however, is unable to meetthe public functions that they are supposed to; nevertheless, theyattract homeless, skateboarders or graffiti artists, which usuallyrepel rather than draw people to those spaces.

The new physical image has to become part of people’s mind,and therefore it is important to have a media and discursive brand-ing in order to fully change a city’s image. Flagship developmentshave the capacity of raising the ‘moral’ of the city’s inhabitants,as they become the symbol of the determination of improvement(Power et al., 2010). Therefore, in line with the new physical image,there is a discursive forge of the city’s new vibe; through that logic,East Manchester added the ‘new’ to its name and became ‘NewEast Manchester’ in an attempt to reinvigorate the image change ofone of its most deprived areas (Ward, 2003a). On the other hand,the negative perception of shrinkage burdens cities’ possibilitiesof recovery, and therefore, local authorities neglect it (Zakirova,2010). The publication of the 2001 England and Whales Censusdata signalled Manchester as the fastest shrinking city in the UK.This data was contested by the City Council, and later adjustedup from the original 392,819 inhabitants to 414,8199 (Mace et al.,2004). In that time, Manchester City Council was expecting popu-lation to grow, using it as a proof of the success of its regenerationagenda. Rebranding is not possible just by changing how the citylooks, but also how others perceive it. Shaping public discourse isas important as physically improve the city.

7. Economic mismatches and limits to growth

Manchester’s physical redevelopment has happened in linewith its economic transformation. The city has stopped depend-ing on manufacturing industries to focus on tertiary activities;Manchester’s growth is based on its strong financial institutionsand, to a lesser extent, on its technology and creative sectors.The Council’s policies have created the favourable environment

This issue has been analyzed in the ‘2001 Census Local Authorities PopulationStudies: Full Report”’ The adjustment was made due to “potential discrepanciesbetween the administrative address lists of Manchester and Westminster City Coun-cils, and the address list collated by ONS for the 2001 Census” (ONS, 2004, p. 7).

ities a

dpTsiew

pfMtrcphfaOnMflsntietpld

elsmaEofcsttmErinfc

ihftt

ms

m

a

regeneration in other areas of the city. They are showing their weak-ness, however, in not being able of understanding the complexity

F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable C

evelopments and new urban areas, the city’s economic fabric stillresents some mismatches that can drag its future development.hese are: the city’s growing inequalities, its unbalanced economictructure, its labour market conditions and its quality of life. Thesessues are recognised by the City Council as remain pending tasks;ven so, local authorities still hope that its pro-growth approachill help to alleviate them.

As it has been noted before, Manchester’s growth has been sup-orted by the strength of its financial sector. The transformationrom a manufacturing to a post-industrial economy has positioned

anchester as a world’s first-rank city for investment.10 Besides,he technology and media and the creative industries sectors areeinforcing Manchester’s post-industrial economic profile. Man-hester’s new flagship masterplans have created the necessaryhysical infrastructure to allow this economic development. Theigh-profile office space of Spinningfields or NoMA 52 or the media

acilities created in the BBCMediaCityUK or the HOME project arecting as incentive for companies to locate themselves in the city.ther initiatives aim to digitalise the city and improve its tech-ological infrastructure – i.e. broadband connection thanks to theanchester Digital Strategy11 – to increase its connections to global

ows of capital and knowledge. On top of this, and as part of itstrategy to attract the necessary workforce to sustain these eco-omic activities, the City Council is improving its housing marketo match the necessities of the city’s new labour force. All thesenitiatives, however, keep repeating the same pro-growth strat-gy followed by the city during the last years based on the beliefhat growth itself can help to solve the city’s long-lasting socialroblems. The concentration of resources on a few sectors might

imit the city’s possibilities for further growth, as they limit theiversification on areas to invest.

The restructuring of Manchester’s economic fabric had a strongffect over its job market, resulting on some structural prob-ems but especially the polarisation between high-skilled and lowkilled-labour force. Data from the Business Register and Employ-ent Survey 201312 shows that the 21.23% of Manchester’s jobs

re on the Financial, Professional and Scientific Sector – while inngland it is just the 13.66%. On the contrary, people workingn elementary occupations account for the 14.83% of the labourorce while sales and customer services represents the 11.26% –ompared to the 11.10% and 8.42% respectively of England. Thekilled level of its working population might impede Manches-er’s future development as the city lacks the necessary workerso sustain its development model. Despite recent years’ improve-

ents, Manchester low-skilled labour force is 3.3% higher thanngland’s average.13 Nonetheless, Manchester’s economy heavilyelies on activities where skilled labour force is needed, represent-ng a mismatch between the current labour pool and the companies’ecessities. Currently, policies are targeting to attract population to

ulfil the necessities of Manchester’s companies, as many of themomplaint of the difficulty to find skilled workers.

Nonetheless, as many other post-industrial cities, Manchester’sndustrial past is difficult to overcome. Industrial cities not onlyave to face the regeneration of their economic and employment

abrics, but also, its environmental one. Pollution and industrialisa-ion are two interrelated concepts, as industrial expansion did notake into account the damages that it was causing the environment.

10 According to ‘The Business of Cities 2013’ report by the Jones Lang LaSalle invest-ent Management Company, Manchester ranked 12 in the total share of its financial

ectors of its economy among the world’s top 30 cities for investment.11 For more information about the project visit the Manchester Digital Develop-ent Agency webpage: http://www.manchesterdda.com/

12 Data quoted from Manchester City Council (2014, p. 14)13 According to the Greater Manchester Skills Analysis (New Economy, 2013) avail-ble: http://neweconomymanchester.com/stories/1768.

nd Society 15 (2015) 33–41 39

Air and water pollution or brownfield land are issues that industrialcities have to cope with in order to increase its quality of life, andtherefore its attractiveness if they want to drag new inhabitants.Manchester is also addressing this issues with its “Manchester: aCertain Future”14 initiative that aims to contribute to fight againstglobal warning by improving the city’s green-strategies.

Overall, Manchester development is not equally reaching itspopulation. The results of many of the development policies – e.g.the concentration on the city centre, emphasis on the financial andbanking sectors – has done little to improve the living conditionsof those most affected by the city’s deindustrialisation. Previousresearch has contested that urban branding and physically-ledregeneration affect life of existing residents of an area (Amin,Massey, & Thrift, 2000; Mace, Hall, & Gallent, 2007; Ward, 2003a).Besides, one of the most common critiques to flagship develop-ments is that they usually fail in solving the social problems thattheir developers address as justification of the investment (see forexample: MacLeod (2002) and Ward (2003b)). The case of Man-chester is that of a city which has performed well in the politicalgame, but not that well in fixing the economic or social problems(Peck & Ward, 2002). Far away from the necessities of its popula-tion, the regeneration projects are focused to attract a particularkind of residents: educated young people with the potential tobecome high-earning citizens. The most recent Manchester’s CityCouncil’s ‘Manchester’s State of the City Report’ declares that “oneof the city’s major growth priorities is to continue to attract andretain economically active people” (Council, 2014, p. 6); the reportalso noted that “many residents are disconnected from the eco-nomic opportunities created by the city’s wealth” (Council, 2014,p. 6). Despite all the new cultural venues, skyscrapers or sportfacilities, Manchester still reminds us of Engel’s depiction of adivided city. The new projects hardly affect the most deprivedareas, leading to an increasing social polarisation where the mid-dle class is growing smaller. Despite its recent growth, accordingto the Government’s indices of Deprivation Report 2010,15 Man-chester is ranked 4th out of 332 local authorities in England, whileSalford–house of the MediaCityUK ranked 18th. In line with thisdata, Manchester’s child poverty rate is one of the highest inEngland, with 36.6% of the children under 16 years old living inpoverty in 2011.16 Although Manchester seems on the path ofrecovery, some figures are showing that its recovery is weak. Pop-ulation growth can indicate a general improvement of some urbanconditions; nonetheless, the Council still needs to focus on theseissues rather than to trust that further growth will minimise them.

8. Flagship developments: rebranding shrinkage

Flagship developments have a key role in Manchester’s regen-eration agenda and rebranding process, progressively increasingtheir scale and scope. Despite the critiques to these projects – i.e.high cost, the growth of inequalities, social exclusion – it is clearthat they reposition cities on the map and serve to trigger urban

of Manchester’s urban fabric. Flagship developments may be one

14 Full information about the project can be accessed in: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/

15 This index is the combination of different deprivation measurements that arecombined into a single index. Among others, it is taking into account income depri-vation, employment deprivation, crime. . . for a full description and the methods forits calculation, see: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/

16 This figure is higher in Manchester than in other similar post-industrial shrink-ing cities; for example, Liverpool’s had 33% of children living in poverty whileSheffield had the 24,36% (Source HMRC Child poverty and child benefit data (2013),quoted in City Council (2014)).

4 ities a

oiocoipieetaotcntaecitt

captbEicttcao(bolidhtrepa

A

vtuatt

R

A

BB

0 F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable C

f the reasons for Manchester’s soar in population; nonetheless, its also true that they are maintaining, or even exacerbating somef its previous problems. Yet, Manchester’s branding efforts wereompensated with the last census data, which allowed the city tovercome its ‘shrinking city’ label. Manchester has started to facets future challenges with an optimistic outlook—its new master-lan, released in July 2012, expects an additional growth of 80,000

nhabitants between 2012 and 2027 (Council, 2012). It acknowl-dges Manchester as the centre of a growing region with worldwideconomic links, but still in competition with its European coun-erparts. The framework aims to reinforce the elements that havellowed the city’s recovery – entrepreneurialism, knowledge econ-my, its new image as the business centre of the North – while athe same time, aims to consolidate its population growth offering aity where you can live your whole life (Council, 2012). It seems thatow Manchester has attained its new brand, local authorities wanto improve the quality of life of the city by tackling the inequalitynd deprivation issues that remain. On the other hand, the city’sconomic fabric is presenting numerous mismatches between itsurrent inhabitants and the growth model than the city is follow-ng. These trends should be a warning for the local authorities ofhe kind of growth that they are generating in the city. In the future,hese mismatches can slow Manchester’s development.

Nonetheless, Manchester has achieved what many shrinkingities are craving for: population growth. Currently, it is considereds a successful example of how it is possible to reverse long-termopulation decline; many cities might look at Manchester in ordero develop their own branding strategies, as happened with Bil-ao during the 1990s. Cities trying to replicate the ‘Manchesterffect’ should find their own brand based on their own local her-tage. Rather than following generic strategies to become a ‘creativeity’, a ‘techno city’ or a ‘cultural city’, policymakers should findheir city’s inherent assets and develop their strategies aroundhem. Manchester’s regeneration lays its foundation on the prin-iples that made it the first industrial city: technical knowledge,

pre-established trade network and the entrepreneur characterf its inhabitants who also favoured the integration of immigrantsHall, 1998). Its rebranding has globalised Manchester, which hasecome a global city based on its local history and assets. On thether hand, Manchester case shows how urban regeneration is aong-term process; the new brand has to be consistently pursuedn order to change the inner and outer perception of decay. Flagshipevelopments will reposition a city in the world-city’s map, and willelp to kick-start its transformation and rebranding. Even though,hey should not be the central tool of the regeneration initiative;ather, they should be integrated into a framework that acknowl-dge the socioeconomic problems of the city. In order to stop theiropulation drainage cities have to offer better job opportunitiesnd quality of life as part of their new brand.

cknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Dan Swanton for hisital encouragement and support and much needed motivation inhe early stages of this paper. To Professor Manabu Chiba for hisnderstanding and assistance. I would also like to thank to Lilianand Minante, for helping me improve my English and proofreadhis paper. To Nieves, for her valuable comments on early drafts ofhis paper.

eferences

min, A., Massey, D. B., & Thrift, N. J. (2000). Cities for the many not the few. Bristol:Policy Press.

riggs, A. (1968). Victorian cities. Harmondsworth: Penguin.rown, M. (2010). Urbis sent off: Manchester cultural hub to become football

museum. The Guardian, 24 January 2012.

nd Society 15 (2015) 33–41

Buhnik, S. (2010). From shrinking cities to toshi no shukusho: Identifying patternsof urban shrinkage in the Osaka metropolitan area. Berkeley Planning Journal, 23,132–155.

Cadell, C., Falk, N., & King, F. (2008). Regeneration in European cities: Making connec-tions. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Carley, M. (2000). Urban Partnerships, Governance and the Regeneration of Britain’sCities. International Planning Studies, 5, 273–297.

Manchester City Council. (2012). Manchester’s local development framework: corestrategy development plant document. Manchester: Manchester City Council.

Manchester City Council. (2014). Manchester’s state of the city report. Manchester:Manchester City Council.

Crook, A., & Linton, D. (2012). It’s official: Manchester is Britain’s boom city. MENManchester Evening News, 17th July.

Cunningham-Sabot, E., Audirac, I., Fol, S., & Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2013). The-oretical approaches of shrinking cities. In K. Pallagst, T. Wiechmann, & C.Martinez-Fernandez (Eds.), Shrinking cities: International perspectives and policyimplications. New York: Routledge.

Evans, G. (2003). Hard-branding the cultural city—From Prado to Prada. InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, 417–440.

Griffin, P. (2005). Manchester city centre reinvented. In P. Oswalt (Ed.), Shrinkingcities: Volume 1. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

Griffiths, R. (1998). Making sameness: Place marketing and the new urbanentrepreneuralism. In N. Oatley (Ed.), Cities, economic competition and urbanpolicy. London: P. Chapman.

Gripaios, P. (2002). The failure of regeneration policy in Britain. Regional Studies, 36,568–577.

Großmann, K., Bontje, M., Haase, A., & Mykhnenko, V. (2013). Shrinking cities: Notesfor the further research agenda. Cities, 35, 221–225.

Hall, P. G. (1998). Cities in civilization: Culture, innovation, and urban order. London:Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Hetherington, K. (2007). Manchester’s urbis: Urban regeneration, museums andsymbolic economies. Cultural Studies, 21, 630–649.

Holden, A. (2002). Bomb sites: The politics of opportunity. In J. Peck, & K. Ward (Eds.),City of revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress.

Home Office. (1992). Criminal statistics, England and Wales. In H. Office (Ed.). Lon-don: HMSO.

Imrie, R., & Thomas, H. (1993). The limits of property-led regeneration. Environmentand Planning C: Government and Policy, 11, 87–102.

Jones, M., & Stokes, T. (2003). The commonwealth games and urban regener-ation: An investigation into training initiatives and partnerships and theireffects on disadvantaged groups in east Manchester. Managing Leisure, 8,198–211.

Kidd, A. (2004). Manchester: A brief economic history (Shrinking cities: WorkingPapers II, Manchester/Liverpool).

Kidd, A. 2005. The Rise and Decline of Manchester. In: Oswalt, P. (ed.) ShrinkingCities: Volume 1. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

Limited, N. E. M. (2000). New east Manchester, a new town in the city. Manchester:New East Manchester Ltd.

Loftman, P., & Nevin, B. (1995). Prestige projects and urban regeneration in the 1980and 1990: A review of benefits and limitations. Planning Practice & Research, 10,299.

Loftman, P., & Nevin, B. (1996). Going for growth: Prestige projects in three Britishcities. Urban Studies (Routledge), 33, 991–1020.

Mace, A., Gallent, N., Hall, P., Porsch, L., Braun, R., & Pfeiffer, U. (2004). Shrinking togrow? The urban regeneration challenge in Leipzig and Manchester. The Instituteof Community Studies: London.

Mace, A., Hall, P., & Gallent, N. (2007). New east Manchester: Urban renaissance orurban opportunism? European Planning Studies, 15, 51–65.

MacLeod, G. (2002). From urban entrepreneurialism to a revanchist city? On thespatial injustices of Glasgow’s renaissance. Antipode, 34, 602–624.

Martinez-Fernandez, C., Audirac, I., Fol, S., & Cunningham-Sabot, E. (2012). Shrink-ing cities: Urban challenges of globalization. International Journal of Urban andRegional Research, 36, 213–225.

McNeill, D. (2008). Politics and policy. In T. Hall, P. Hubbard, & J. Rennie Short (Eds.),The sage companion to the city. London: SAGE Publications.

Mulhearn, D. (2005). Urban splash: New entrepreneurs and reurbanization. In P.Oswalt (Ed.), Shrinking cities: Volume 1. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

Noonan, C. (2011). The BBC and decentralisation: The pilgrimage to Manchester.International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18, 363–377.

Oswalt, P. (2005). Introduction. In P. Oswalt (Ed.), Shrinking cities: Volume 1.Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

Pallagst, K., Martinez-Fernandez, C., & Wiechmann, T. (2013). Introduction. In K.Pallagst, T. Wiechmann, & C. Martinez-Fernandez (Eds.), Shrinking cities: Inter-national perspectives and policy implications. New York: Routledge.

Peck, J., & Ward, K. (2002). Placing Manchester. In J. Peck, & K. Ward (Eds.), City ofrevolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Power, A., Plöger, J., & Winkler, A. (2010). Phoenix cities: The fall and rise of greatindustrial cities. Policy Press: Bristol.

Quilley, S. (2002). Entrepreneurial turns: Municipal socialism and after. In J. Peck,& K. Ward (Eds.), City of revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester: Man-

chester University Press.

Reckien, D., & Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2011). Why do cities shrink? European Plan-ning Studies, 19, 1375–1397.

Rieniets, T. (2009). Shrinking cities: Causes and effects of urban population losses inthe twentieth century. Nature & Culture, 4, 231.

ities a

R

S

S

S

TT

T

F. Ortiz-Moya / Sustainable C

obson, B. (2002). Mancunian ways: The politics of regeneration. In J. Peck, & K.Ward (Eds.), City of revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester: Manches-ter University Press.

assen, S. (2001). The global city. New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

eo, J. K. (2002). Re-urbanisation in regenerated areas of Manchester and Glasgow:New residents and the problems of sustainability. Journal of Planning Literature,17, 262–331.

myth, H. (1994). Marketing the city: The role of flagship developments in urban regen-eration. London: E & FN Spon.

allon, A. (2010). Urban regeneration in the UK. London, New York: Routledge.

aylor, I., Evans, K., & Fraser, P. (1996). A tale of two cities: Global change. In Local

feeling and everyday life in the north of England: A study in Manchester and Sheffield.London: Routledge.

urok, I., & Mykhnenko, V. (2007). The trajectories of European cities, 1960–2005.Cities, 24, 165–182.

nd Society 15 (2015) 33–41 41

Vanolo, A. (2008). The image of the creative city: Some reflections on urban brandingin Turin. Cities, 25, 370–382.

Vicario, L., & Martínez Monje, P. M. (2006). The guggenheim effect. In P. Oswalt (Ed.),Shrinking cities. Volume 2: Interventions. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

Ward, K. (2003a). Entrepreneurial Urbanism. State Restructuring and Civilizing‘New’east Manchester. Area, 35, 116–127.

Ward, K. (2003b). The limits to contemporary urban redevelopment ‘doing’entrepreneurial urbanism in Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. City, 7,199–211.

Ward, K. (2005). Re-imaging Manchester: The privatization of urban planning. In P.Oswalt (Ed.), Shrinking cities: Volume 1. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

Williams, G. (2002). City building: Developing Manchester’s core. In J. Peck, & K.Ward (Eds.), City of revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester: Manches-ter University Press.

Zakirova, B. (2010). Shrinkage at the urban fringe: Crisis or opportunity? BerkeleyPlanning Journal, 23, 58–82.