reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration in castlefield,...

Planning Perspectives

Vol. 25, No. 1, January 2010, 29–48

ISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02665430903421726http://www.informaworld.com

Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009

Rebecca Madgin*

Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Taylor and FrancisRPPE_A_442350.sgm10.1080/02665430903421726Planning Perspectives0266-5433 (print)/1466-4518 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis2510000002009Dr [email protected]

The reinvention of deindustrial cities requires a long-term commitment to reconfiguringphysical space, altering perceptions and transforming the functions of space. Thecontraction of the manufacturing sector asked a series of questions of the existing industrialenvironment which once stood as a testament to Britain’s position as the first industrialnation but was increasingly falling into a state of disrepair. How these redundant spacesand buildings were continually subjected to re-evaluation and a reconceptualisation of thetype of role they could play in contributing to the urban renaissance remains the centraltheme of the paper. Contained within this is an examination of the complex matrix ofagencies from the voluntary, public and private sectors working on a local, regional,national and European scale. Their perception of the potential of the historic landscape wasconditioned by their remit, position within the institutional framework, the emerging urbanagenda and political changes as well as an emerging cultural switch to embrace urbanheritage. This paper will elucidate how the historic urban environment wasreconceptualised in Castlefield, Manchester and how the various desires of the voluntary,public and private sector were realised through the conscious manipulation andreconceptualisation of historic space since 1960.

Keywords:

heritage; regeneration; urban history; urban policy; conservation

Cities are in a constant state of flux as they are continually reconceptualised and modified byurban agencies working to fulfil various urban agendas. These agendas envisage comprehen-sive or incremental urban change and are either part of official national and local urban policiesor they are motivated by individuals and collectives working outside the confines of the tradi-tional institutional frameworks. Cities are thus never frozen in time; rather they respond to andreflect the wishes of actors and agencies. These desires are elucidated through various recon-ceptualisations of urban spaces. The process of urban change demands that spaces and placesare reconfigured and re-imagined by urban agencies to satisfy perceived contemporaryrequirements. This reconceptualisation exposes how contemporary pressures condition theperceptions and reactions of local authorities, quasi-autonomous national government organi-sations (QUANGOs), and the private and voluntary sector to the existing urban environment.Through the reconceptualisation of urban space a kaleidoscope of shifting priorities, tensionsand remits of the different urban agencies are revealed.

This paper explores how urban space was reconceptualised from the late 1960s until thepresent day. In doing this a number of changes to the policy landscape are analysed. Nowhereis this more evident than in the institutional framework and wider cultural trends whichillustrate how the existing historic environment both reflected and responded to broader urban,

*Email: [email protected]

30

R. Madgin

political, economic and cultural changes during the period from 1960 to present day. Morespecifically, the case study of Castlefield, an area located in inner city Manchester, illuminatesthe complex matrix of agencies involved in securing urban change, and how they gained andlost power during the late twentieth century. In addition, competing perceptions of places andhow the image and function of historic industrial buildings have been moulded and reconcep-tualised during this period (1960–present day) inform the wider process of urban change.

To explore these themes the industrial heritage contained within Castlefield is analysed.Castlefield serves as an exemplar of social and cultural change in urban Britain during the1970s, 1980s and 1990s, as the area experienced a series of locally, nationally and internation-ally induced changes to the function and appearance of its historic industrial environment. Thereconfiguration of the area was achieved by a multitude of agencies whose role illustrated theintricacies of the planning system, the influence of the voluntary sector and the shifting agencyframework in late twentieth-century Britain. The changes to the historic environment inCastlefield thus provide insights into the ways in which urban change was secured, and howthe motives for change allied to cultural trends and the shifting political context influenced thetype and extent of regeneration. In terms of both urban management and function Castlefieldprovides a window on the transition from deindustrial to post-industrial city and raises thesignificance of history as an element of contemporary relevance in the regenerative urbanprocess.

Perspectives

The existing environment has continually been subjected to re-evaluation during the processof urban change. The transition from walled city to free city, the Baroque reconstruction ofEuropean cities, the railway age, and the post-World War II climate of reconstruction and rede-velopment are each examples of how modernity pressurised the physical fabric of the past.However, the transition from deindustrial to post-industrial city, a process which started in the1970s, exposed cities to an accelerated form of adaptation as their traditional industrial baseexperienced terminal contraction. City strategies to remake places positioned at their core animprovement of the built environment either by retaining and adapting or demolishing andreplacing historic buildings. In turn, this necessitated a series of re-evaluations as to whatfuture role the existing historic environment could play in the regenerated city. How thesereconceptualisations were formulated and implemented and their impact on the conservationof the historic industrial environment during the regeneration of Castlefield lies at the heart ofthe paper.

The rise of conservation-led regeneration schemes reflected the importance of history andthe historic environment to both society and the economy. History, as Lowenthal found isessential to our identity and our well-being.

1

This was supported by Tuan who believed in theconnection between the past and love of place.

2

Lowenthal’s cultural exploration of the valueof history was reinforced by Grenville’s research into the psychological impact of retaining thehistoric environment in various contexts.

3

Larkham’s account of conservation and the cityexposes how the historic environment has become a part of planning legislation

4

whilstDelafons outlines the trajectory of the conservation and planning movements.

5

However, setin the context of deindustrial society and a seemingly inescapable spiral of urban decline, thelove of historic industrial places up until the mid-1970s was an oxymoron.


31

An entrenched backlash against the industrial city was summarised by Liverpool’s cityplanning officer in 1969 who believed ‘it is unreal to expect local interests, in an area whichhas suffered for many decades from chronic unemployment, to consider the preservation of abuilding more important than the opportunity of 40,000 jobs’.

6

However, paralleling the lossof jobs in manufacturing was a series of changes to conservation legislation designed topreserve these buildings. The Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 and the introduction oflisting in the late 1940s only made provision for buildings constructed before 1840.

7

However,a number of cultural changes, as evidenced by the formation of the Victorian Society in 1958,the first national conference on industrial archaeology in 1959, and the fall out from theEuston Arch debacle in 1962, saw increased numbers of different types of buildings start to berecognised as worthy of statutory protection. In 1970 the date limit under which buildingscould be considered for listing was extended from 1840 to 1939 and thus allowed for theinclusion of Victorian, industrial and inter-war architecture. The demolition of the Firestonebuilding in 1980 led to a ‘major relisting’ to protect buildings from demolition.

8

A furtherchange to the type and extent of listed buildings came in 1987 with the 30- and 10-year rules.

9

These allowed for any building constructed more than 30 years previously to be considered forlisting. Similarly, a 10-year rule applied to ‘exceptional buildings’ which were threatened with‘alteration or demolition’ and ensured that more historic buildings were given statutoryprotection.

10

These changes affected regeneration initiatives from the 1970s onwards in two ways.Firstly historic, and especially historic industrial buildings were often located in central urbanlocations or alongside canals which were becoming increasingly attractive sites for developersin the desire to reurbanise. Not surprisingly, prime urban locations often contained historicsites, many of which were listed, and so from the outset developers were challenged to findnew and appropriate uses. Secondly, the redevelopment process was costly as many of theindustrial structures lay redundant and in a state of decay. Some were on contaminated sites.The maintenance and remediation costs of these buildings were therefore comparatively highrelative to their site value. Furthermore, new buildings are not subject to VAT whereasrestoration and reuse schemes are subject to VAT payment, unlike in other countries such asAmerica and France, there are no tax breaks. In addition to the VAT requirement listed build-ing repair is also subject to restrictions on the types of materials allowed and constraints onchanging the interior and exterior of the building. Finally the need for listed building consentfurther slowed down the reuse process and increased development costs.

In the context of constrained public expenditure, and inner city unrest, greater emphasis onprivate contractors in local services formed a central pillar of Conservative policy in the 1970sand 1980s. The reuse of central city land came under greater scrutiny given its underutilisation,and in turn led to a reassessment of the development potential of downtown areas, inevitablyraising tensions with those heritage interests themselves strengthened by the new listingprocedures adopted from 1970.

A long running debate amongst academics and practitioners concerning the economicviability of reusing historic buildings has polarised opinion as to whether heritage should andcould be commodified. Indeed ‘there is a strongly felt view that any attempt to attach economicvalues to heritage is at best a pointless irrelevance and at worst an unacceptable soiling of theaesthetically sublime with the commercially mundane’.

11

However, in the urban economicclimate from the late 1970s and into the twenty-first century other commentators have extolled

32

R. Madgin

the virtues of utilising the existing urban investment in buildings. Binney found that industrialbuildings were ‘built to last, their load bearing walls are solid and made to carry massive floorloadings’.

12

Furthermore he stated that ‘they are extremely adaptable as the majority are laidout on an open plan and can be repaired and upgraded for a range of uses’.

13

The adaptivereuse of buildings therefore offered the chance for the private sector to be ‘handsomelyrewarded by profit’.

14

The durability and flexibility of the industrial environment was empha-sised by several pioneering attempts to regenerate the city by reusing the existing industrialenvironment for apartments, offices and leisure facilities. Rather than merely heritage attrac-tions such as Beamish and Wigan Pier this broader perception of industrial buildings placedthem at the very heart of property-led urban regeneration during the 1980s and 1990s.

15

At best there is an ‘ambiguous relationship’ between the historic environment andeconomic value. ‘Few historic buildings have been saved from demolition by dominantlyeconomic arguments’

16

yet ‘listed commercial buildings hold their own in the property marketand perform as investments as well as, if not better than, similar unlisted institutional build-ings’.

17

Lord Rogers’ Urban Task Force reinforced the economic role of heritage by statingthat the historic environment could strengthen the position of city-regions by being covered in‘regional economic strategies’.

18

However, as numerous ventures across England suggest and,as Ashworth found, in Canada the demolition of the historic environment is a risky investmentoften with minimal return compared to a new building.

19

In the light of this and the uncertaineconomic climate in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s the decision to reuse historic buildingsto revitalise city centres was a calculated risk. It placed demands on the capabilities of thevoluntary, public and private sector to source the finance to make reuse viable, to reduce thetime lag between redundancy and reuse, and above all to reconceptualise what the functionthe space could fulfil. Furthermore, the demands of regeneration in a deindustrial city settingnecessitated a redefinition of the roles of existing urban agencies and the creation of ones at alocal, national and European level. The reconceptualisation of the historic environment underthe guise of urban regeneration thus provides an insight into how urban change was managedand secured.

This transformation in the perception of the historic environment exposed how and why thebuilt legacy could be, and indeed was, reconceptualised and thus incorporated into the urbanvision. The local–national policy agenda that drove this process and the ways in which urbanagencies used the historic environment not only to regenerate the city but also to legitimate andconsolidate their positions within the changing institutional framework will be exploredthrough an analysis of the changes to Castlefield, a district of inner city Manchester whichunderwent a series of reconceptualisations and a profound transformation at the end of thetwentieth century.

Castlefield

Castlefield’s historic significance resulted from its Roman, Georgian and Victorian heritage.Indeed:

if ever one single area reflected the development of civilisation in Britain, it is Castlefield, an areaof just 28 acres in central Manchester where nearly 2000 years of mankind’s progress have beencondensed into a uniquely fascinating microcosm of our heritage.

20


33

However, it was the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century heritage and Castlefield’s position asa marketing and distribution centre during the British industrial revolution that propelled thearea’s twentieth-century revitalisation. A tradition of innovation was apparent in Castlefield asthe world’s first modern cut canal, the Bridgewater Canal, was opened in 1764 and the world’sfirst passenger railway station, Liverpool Road Station, opened in 1830. As a result of thesetwo milestones Castlefield built up an array of industrial buildings with a landscape dominatedby warehouses, canals, locks, viaducts, railway lines and good sheds, as well as socialinfrastructure such as houses, public houses, markets, churches and Sunday schools (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Aerial view of Castlefield showing Liverpool Road Station area circled in red and Canal Basin circled in white.Source: www.webbaviation.co.uk (Item name: aa02275b.jpg, Manchester City Centre from the air, 2006).

This historic significance of the area was nationally recognised as many of the industrialbuildings were accorded statutory protection. The earliest industrial building to be listed inCastlefield was Liverpool Road Station in 1968. This was given Grade II listed status (laterupgraded to Grade I listed status in 1977). It was followed in 1973 by the Grade II listed statusthe warehouse built in 1830 adjoining Liverpool Road Station, and in 1974 by Grade II listedstatus for the former Bridgewater Canal offices and the Victoria warehouse in 1974.

21

A laterwave of statutory protection came between 1988 and 1994 when Merchant’s, Middle, LowerByrom Street warehouses, the Power Hall in the surrounds of the former Liverpool RoadStation, two railway viaducts, two railway bridges, Hulme Junction Locks, Canal Flour Mill,Lock 92 and the Bridgewater Canal Basin were all listed. The gradual and increased recogni-tion of industrial structures as historically significant reflected an international phenomenon inwhich industrial history was increasingly celebrated both in terms of legislation and also

Figure 1. Aerial view of Castlefield showing Liverpool Road Station area circled in black and CanalBasin circled in white.Source: www.webbaviation.co.uk (Item name: aa02275b.jpg, Manchester City Centre from the air,2006).

34

R. Madgin

through heritage tourism, as illustrated by Lowell National Historical Park, Massachusetts, anindustrial eco-musée at Creusot – Montceau-les-Mines in the 1970s, Wigan Pier and Beamishin the 1980s.

Castlefield’s decline following the contraction of the manufacturing industries saw thewarehouses and Station close and fall into disrepair and decay. Indeed, reflecting a broadernational trend in which urban unemployment and depopulation soared during the post-WorldWar II period, Manchester during the period 1961–1983 lost over 150,000 jobs in manufactur-ing.

22

In addition, the highest levels of unemployment were found in inner city Manchester andreached on average 30%.

23

The inner city lost one in three manual jobs in manufacturingbetween 1966 and 1972

24

and thus the redundant nineteenth-century structures that oncehoused the manufacturing industries fell further into disrepair. Consequently there was ‘deadspace at the heart of the centre of the old industrial region’.

25

The situation worsened duringthe 1970s with a loss of 47% in city centre employment in industry and warehousing between1971 and 1977 left Manchester in need of urgent economic and social regeneration.

26

In the context of imploding industrial activity, Castlefield businesses carved out new rolesfor the area. Railway arches housed car maintenance and repair premises, the wastelands werelittered with scrap yards, and disused buildings became the resting places for tramps and thecity’s marginal population. Indeed, Castlefield during the 1970s was described as a ‘den ofthieves and vice’.

27

The impact of the dual processes of deindustrialisation and depopulationallied to the presence of noxious industries had a profoundly negative impact on the area.Castlefield was ‘pitted by crofts, crumbling buildings and silted waterways’ and devoid of life,meaning and people.

28

Castlefield’s historic warehouses all closed before 1980 as the areabecame like a doormat downtrodden by the passage of time. Castlefield was a ‘hostile’ placein the 1970s and entering the area was to ‘take your life into your hands’.

29

It was Manches-ter’s backyard and a part of Manchester’s forgotten history. Consequently, Castlefield wentfrom the birthplace to the ‘grave of the industrial revolution’.

30

Revitalisation

From an economic perspective Castlefield was a wasting asset. National recognition of theneed to repopulate the city centres and to increase their economic activity and social vitalityfocussed attention back on to the wastelands of the industrial era. The White Paper (1977)

31

,the Inner Urban Areas Act (1978) and Thatcher’s later concern for the inner cities each concen-trated attention and policy on areas like Castlefield. However, the origins of Castlefield’srenaissance came from a different source. The process started in 1967 with the voluntarysector, a conglomeration of local historical societies which were actively involved in influenc-ing the County Council until 1983. The administrative responsibility for Castlefield was itselfcomplex. Though land was owned by a number of different individuals and companies,Manchester City and Salford Councils both had administrative jurisdiction for parts of the area,though local government reorganisation in 1974 changed the local government boundarieswith Castlefield then under Greater Manchester County Council (GMC) until it was abolishedin 1986. The disparate interests in the area were reflected by the creation of the CastlefieldConservation Area Steering Committee (CCASC, 1982). Finally, Central Manchester Devel-opment Corporation (CMDC) coordinated the area’s revitalisation from 1988 to 1996 andcreated the Castlefield Management Company to help with the Corporation’s exit strategy.


35

There were thus local historical societies, local and regional authorities, quasi-autonomousnon-governmental agencies, a number of entrepreneurs and a Steering Committee involved inthe regeneration of Castlefield. Each of these agencies was influenced by a changing socio-economic and political climate and they were each working to a different remit. Furthermore,each differed in the extent of power and autonomy, their position within the institutional frame-work, capacity to buy/own land and buildings, as well as their ability to source funds and itwas these factors that influenced the ways in which Castlefield’s industrial landscape wasreconceptualised over three decades.

The regeneration of Castlefield can thus be split into three chronological and institutionaltime periods (Figure 2). Firstly, the period from 1967 to 1983 which saw a concerted effort bythe voluntary sector and then the County Council to improve the awareness of the area and itshistoric significance. Secondly, Manchester City Council (MCC) from 1984 to 1988 picked upthe baton from the voluntary sector to advance plans for the area’s regeneration and to legiti-mise their increasingly threatened role under the Conservative government. Finally, CMDCfrom 1998 to 1996 brought streamlined powers, fast tracked planning opportunities and further

Figure 2. Networks of involvement.Source: author.

36

R. Madgin

resources into the area to once again reconceptualise the urban space to fit the local, nationaland European agenda, and to further diversify the type and extent of the area’s regeneration.

Figure 2. Networks of involvement.Source: author.

Recognising and revealing historic significance

The rise of heritage tourism and, in particular, industrial heritage tourist attractions has beenthe subject of much debate within the academic literature. Much of this has centred onwhether turning to the past reflected a ‘climate in decline’ as proposed by Hewison,

32

an accu-sation countered by heritage practitioners and refuted by Samuel.

33

However, whilst thedebate over a backward looking society raged, facts presented concerning the number of newmuseums, visitor numbers and revenue gained has blurred how this profound cultural changeimpacted on the reconceptualisation of urban space, the regeneration of inner cities, andbroader processes of urban change and governance. This cultural change took various forms.Perhaps predictably, it embraced new uses for old buildings, and the value added benefits ofheritage tourism for local employment and economic development. It also reflected a changeof greater significance, a changing pattern of urban governance. A plethora of new agencieswere instrumental in investing new meanings into the historic environment by adapting build-ings for contemporary needs and breathing new life into redundant, derelict urban wastelands.Constant throughout this process in Castlefield was a continuous reconceptualisation of thehistoric environment by these new agencies whose individual roles within the institutionalframework modulated the perception of the area’s industrial past and of its contribution to theurban future.

During the period 1967–1983 the regeneration of Castlefield was primarily and powerfullymotivated by the voluntary sector. The work of a number of local historical society organisa-tions to first record and then to campaign to prevent the demolition of historic industrial build-ings reflected a growing national awareness of the importance of retaining the historicindustrial environment. The 1960s witnessed a fledgling industrial heritage movement inwhich several national organisations included industrial archaeology in their remits. TheCouncil for British Archaeology appointed a research committee for industrial archaeology in1960, the National Trust appointed an industrial advisor in 1964 and became involved withindustrial buildings such as Styal Mill, and the Association for Industrial Archaeology wasfounded in 1973. Running parallel to these changes in the make up of powerful national insti-tutions were a growing number of local historical societies formed to protect and embrace theindustrial past. The Manchester Region Industrial Archaeology Society (MRIAS) started in1967 to uncover the layers of history apparent in Castlefield. MRIAS recorded industrial struc-tures across Greater Manchester but focussed mainly on the city centre. The links betweenlocal and national were further reinforced by MRIAS’ work as they sent their findings to bearchived by the Council for British Archaeology. This move to record the structures was moti-vated by a fear that ‘the large-scale redevelopment of Manchester was threatening to wipe outthe industrial remains’.

34

This fear was well founded. Moves by a local media productioncompany to expand their premises in Castlefield and to look at the possibility of demolishingthe redundant industrial landscape reflected the fears of MRIAS. Furthermore, national prece-dents such as the demolition of Euston Arch in 1962 and the fact that ‘8000 listed buildingswere destroyed between 1957 and 1977’

35

confirmed the scale of urban redevelopment on boththe local and national scale and the very real threat of demolition.


37

Running parallel to the recording work of MRIAS was the research undertaken by theManchester Branch of the Civic Trust. Following a mandate by the owner of the local mediaproduction company, the Civic Trust researched the history of the Castlefield area through aseries of reports during the 1970s. These four reports came together to form the

HistoricCastlefield

planning leaflet (1976).

36

Just as MRIAS recording work paralleled the increasednational awareness of industrial heritage during the 1960s, so the reports written by a memberof the Civic Trust who was also the City Council’s Conservation Architect linked to nationalreports such as

Preservation and Change

(1967)

37

and highlighted the need to retain elementsof the historic environment in the face of comprehensive urban change.

Castlefield continued to provide an insight into the wider context of conserving heritage asthe formation of Liverpool Road Station Society (LRSS) in 1975 coincided with EuropeanArchitectural Heritage Year (EAHY) and illustrated how one isolated incident in an over-looked corner of Manchester reflected international concerns over the sustainability ofEurope’s heritage. A number of railway enthusiasts and members of the various local historicalsocieties joined together to form LRSS. From its creation in 1975 the Society took the initiativeto reveal the area’s industrial heritage to both the general public and the County Council whichwas able to place the reuse of the Station into a strategic regional plan which reflected thegrowing international rise of heritage tourism as a tool for social and economic development.The end of the 1970s, in line with EAHY and the heritage decade of the 1980s, witnessed aconcerted campaign to reuse Liverpool Road Station, a Grade I listed building. The LRSSlobbied the County and City Council, held celebratory events for the 148th, 149th and 150thanniversaries of the opening of the Station, distributed leaflets and posters, carried out remedialwork on the Station and involved the local newspaper with the aim of raising awareness of theplight of the Station and to try to find a new use (Figure 3). These efforts and those of GMCin buying the Station from British Rail for £1 and finding new use for it resulted in its reopen-ing as the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry in 1983.

38

Figure 3. Campaign poster used by Liverpool Road Station Society.Source: Reproduced with kind permission from the friends of the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry.

Whilst the voluntary sector was primarily motivated by a desire to protect the area’s historicsignificance, the remit and agenda of GMC from its creation in 1974 demanded that this historicimportance was turned into contemporary relevance. Furthermore, the fledgling and somewhatmarginal status of GMC ensured that it was looking to create a role for itself in the crowdedstructures of urban governance in the 1970s. In order for GMC to establish itself it needed ahigh-profile project of benefit to the Greater Manchester region. The GMC were working to awider geographic strategy which saw events in the city centre as a component of a regionaljigsaw in which Manchester’s revitalisation would trickle down to outlying areas such as Wiganand Bolton. Until their abolition under Thatcher’s local government reorganisation in 1986, theGMC was responsible for overseeing the development of the Greater Manchester area and theirdecisions were thus motivated by a wider geographical concern. Restoring a Grade I listedbuilding and turning it into a tourist attraction that would bring both people and investment intothe region fitted GMC’s criteria. Moreover, the restoration of this decaying railway station wasconsidered a low priority for the City Council which was faced both with local expenditurecapped by central government and with more immediate local concerns over housing and unem-ployment. The reconceptualisation of what Castlefield could be was thus conditioned by theremit of GMC and the tireless campaigning of the local historical societies.

The management of Castlefield’s regeneration continued to reflect broader cultural andinstitutional changes. Whilst GMC carved out a role for itself as it bought the Station and then

38

R. Madgin

‘funded the development of the Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry to thetune of more than £4 million’

39

the end use of the Station as a museum reflected a profoundcultural need to embrace the past. Tourism, and more specifically industrial and urban heritagetourism, accelerated rapidly during the 1980s. Museums embracing the history of the workingclass and industrial history became popular tourist attractions from Puy du Fou in France and

Figure 3. Campaign poster used by Liverpool Road Station Society.Source: Reproduced with kind permission from the friends of the Manchester Museum of Science andIndustry.


39

Ironbridge in Britain. Whilst the origins of this have been demonised as representative of aclimate in decline, the process of reusing old buildings for tourism represented a contemporarysurvival strategy. The importance of industrial heritage to popular culture was explained byNeil Cossons who couched his assessment in psychological terms. In his view it reflected ‘thehuge rate of deindustrialisation and the change which has been brought about in the last ten orfifteen years. We want something to hang on to, I suppose’.

40

This was a view supported byBinney who believed that industrial history had acquired the ‘patina of antiquity’ as it becameincreasingly obsolete.

41

In economic terms tourism and, in particular, the commoditisation ofthe past through museums and through the reuse of historic buildings for tourism and leisurepurposes, developed an aura of invincibility.

This attitude was expressed by the CCASC which was created in 1982. This agencybrought together public and private interests from Greater Manchester and coordinated thesepotentially disparate interests into a coherent group with a fixed aim to: ‘provide momentumfor the overall development of the area’ in order to ‘help the individual projects to progressmore quickly and benefit from each others presence’.

42

The Steering Committee met at regularintervals and was spearheaded by members of the GMC and MCC. Other members were drawnfrom Salford City Council and later CMDC, as well as the major landowners in the area –Manchester Ship Canal Company, Rochdale Canal Company, Granada and British Rail. TheCCASC capitalised on the growing cultural and economic need for tourism and focussed onthe tourism and leisure opportunities apparent in Castlefield. In Castlefield an industrialenvironment was reconceptualised to fit with an emerging national and local need.

The importance of tourism to the revitalisation of Castlefield was illustrated by the role ofthe English Tourist Board (ETB) in the discussions to create a Steering Committee. The ETB’sinfluence was reflected in meeting minutes in 1985 which stated that ‘promotion of Castlefieldas a tourist facility is essential for its future development’.

43

In 1983 the conceptualisation ofCastlefield’s industrial environment was as a visitor destination and the ‘ultimate and long-term objective should be to advance the area as a major visitor and tourist attraction principallywithin the North West but to a lesser extent on a national and international scale’.

44

However,cultural changes and economic needs were also married in Castlefield by the realisation that a‘growing appreciation of Castlefield’s heritage … will bring vital economic and social benefitsto the regional centre and inner city generally’.

45

This was explicitly stated in the 1982Tourism Development Plan where it was believed that:

tourism is jobs. The service industries – and tourism – is one, are a golden lifeline to future pros-perity and employment for growing numbers of our citizens and no opportunity should be lost toexploit their potential. Tourism has positive social as well as economic advantages which shouldnever be forgotten.

46

These statements were supported by the £290 million generated by tourism in the North Westof which £58 million was in Greater Manchester in 1980.

47

With the Manchester Museum ofScience and Industry established, other cultural and commercial opportunities followed. TheAir and Space Museum was housed in the former Upper and Lower Campfield Marketsadjacent to Liverpool Road Station, an exhibition space for the Science and Industry museumwas located in the 1830 warehouse, an annual Castlefield Carnival, the national boat and canalrally, a visitor and heritage centre, guided tours of the area and improved signposting eachcontributed to a greater awareness of the area and its potential, culturally and commercially.

40

R. Madgin

Castlefield’s industrial environment was no longer just recorded and reported by the voluntarysector for its perceived historic importance but was now given a contemporary relevance byurban agencies charged with reversing the fortunes of both inner cities and regions and cement-ing a role for themselves in local government. Arguably, without the voluntary sector’s effortsto increase the awareness of and their belief in the historic significance of Castlefield the areawould not have been reconceptualised by GMC and the members of the Steering Committeeas a vital component in the jigsaw of regional and urban regeneration.

From regional tourism to local retention

Whilst improved tourist facilities in Castlefield remained important to MCC they also recogn-ised the potential benefits of reintroducing housing into Castlefield.

48

Indeed, the first privatehousing scheme in Manchester city centre was completed by Wimpey Homes in conjunctionwith MCC in St John’s Gardens as soon as 1979. The

Manchester City Centre Local Plan

(1984) was the key planning document which outlined the position of MCC during the early1980s and in the context of Castlefield, the void between the reopening of the ManchesterMuseum of Science and Industry in 1983 and the inception of CMDC in 1988. This documentoutlined the City Council’s position concerning the effects of decentralisation and the need torepopulate the city centre.

Repopulating Manchester city centre and restoring its tax base was a necessary and press-ing task for the City Council. Allied to deindustrialisation was depopulation in whichManchester’s inner six wards, including the Castlefield area, lost 75% of the total populationof Manchester as a borough during 1951–1991.

49

Slum clearance, the appeal of newly createdsuburban districts, the outward movement of industry and distribution facilitated by the densestmotorway network in the country each contributed to a significant loss of population for thecity. Indeed the city centre population was estimated to be 250 during the 1980s and soestablishing a residential base with significant tax revenue potential was seen as a vital elementin long-term regeneration by a local authority charged with ensuring the city centre waseconomically sustainable and viable.

Whilst the City Council recognised that this process of ‘thinning out’

50

which occurred inthe post-war era as people moved to suburban locations, was beneficial in terms of creatingnew houses at lower densities in improved environments, their plan also recognised the needto remedy both the effects of decreased vibrancy and activity in the city centre and theincreased pressure for land in suburban areas. Consequently the Plan stated that: ‘there are realopportunities now to introduce housing back into the city centre on a significant scale in a waywhich will contribute further to the vitality of the city centre’ (Figure 4).

51

This belief was alsooutlined in the Greater Manchester Structure Plan (1981) in which there was an emphasis onfostering urban concentration. The City Council took an active role in ‘encouraging andsupporting initiatives to provide housing’ through ‘lessening the additional values created byhopes of development for higher value uses … by identifying areas suited to residential use …and through improving the environment and car parking provision’.

52

The historic environ-ment was perceived by the City Council to be one way of regaining a concentration of peopleand activity back in the city centre. Indeed, the City Council stated that: ‘one of the moreimportant benefits of more housing in the city centre is the contribution it may make to our keyaims of conserving the city’s finer buildings’.

53


41

Figure 4. New housing in Castlefield.Source: author.

Accordingly, the Local Plan (1984) focussed on creating more housing units; it stressedthat ‘the listed riverside warehouses may have potential for conversion to housing‘

54

thus illus-trating the potential of the historic buildings to attract a resident population which wouldsupplement the tax revenues. This position was outlined by a letter sent from a councillor tothe leader of GMC as early as 1982 stating that:

it seems to me that this particular initiative in rehabilitation of buildings which can be used in newways for not only offices, small factories possibly, but also for housing could be a very importantjob creator and very important for rejuvenation.

55

Both the Structure and Local Plans of the early 1980s recognised, therefore, the need to steer‘development towards the core of the conurbation’ and to ‘bring into use vacant and underusedbuildings and land’.

56

The explicit aim was to increase the volume of trade and commerce inthe city so that local taxes payable by both individuals and businesses would raise the revenuebase of the city. One way of achieving this, a pressing need in the light of the ceiling to localauthority expenditure imposed from central government was to promote the conservation ofthe historic environment to boost locally generated income and thus taxes. Castlefield’sindustrial environment was again reconceptualised to meet a contemporary agenda that wasdelimited by the remits and constraints of agencies working within the local and nationalinstitutional frameworks.

Figure 4. New housing in Castlefield.Source: author.

42

R. Madgin

Marginalisation, QUANGOS and accelerated transformation

Castlefield’s transformation during the 1990s under the stewardship of CMDC again illustratedmacro-level changes in urban governance and management as well as a national desire tobreathe life back into the city centres. Just as the early role of the voluntary sector reflected thetradition and influence of civic society in British governance, GMC’s creation and abolitionmarked ideological changes in urban politics. So, too, MCC’s desire to legitimise their position,and CMDC’s appearance in the patchwork of agencies that existed in the revitalisation ofCastlefield reflected the desire of the Conservative governments for a recentralisation of powerand for British cities to compete on the European stage. The historic environment once againacted as a conduit by which socio-cultural, economic and political changes were filtered.

The Conservative government contained two major urban priorities upon assuming powerin 1979. First was Margaret Thatcher’s remit to ‘do something’ about the inner cities and,second, was to control the amount of power in the remaining Labour-led local authorities. Thechanges to Castlefield’s landscape and the way in which this was managed epitomised thisConservative agenda. Once again Castlefield’s industrial landscape was reconceptualised to fita new urban agenda. Undoubtedly, the Thatcher government waged a war on the local author-ities and particularly those who were perceived to be bastions of municipal socialism. This wasachieved through privatisation, compulsory competitive tendering, the Local Government Actof 1985 and the creation of single issue QUANGO.

57

These principles were evident in Castlefield and it was the Conservative imposition of anunaccountable QUANGO on a left wing Labour local authority in 1988 that altered themanagement and type of regeneration in the area. CMDC was intended to undermine the fledg-ling City Council-led regeneration process and reflected the changed role of City Council’sduring the Thatcher era. Indeed, Ward believed that ‘one of the most profound changes of thelast two decades has been in the form and function of local government’.

58

The role of CityCouncils was the subject of fierce academic debate,

59

in particular between Ward and Imrieand Raco who interpreted the maxim that local government had been transformed from ‘beingthe central player in the development and delivery of policy to that of a strategic enabler’ inconflicting ways.

60

For MCC the QUANGO state resulted in a redefinition of their role, whichwas initially a source of contention. MCC formally expressed their opposition to the UrbanDevelopment Corporation yet CMDC started work in 1988. There was, therefore, mistrust andsuspicion between a national and local authority whose ideological standpoints lay at oppositesends of the spectrum. However, despite the fact that CMDC was the dominant partner, a set ofcriteria was put in place to try to secure a harmonious working relationship.

61

There were four main components of this. Firstly, MCC became the local developmentauthority, thus retaining its development control powers. Secondly, MCC also had three seatson the CMDC board. Thirdly, CMDC used the existing MCC created Local Plan. Fourthly, theethos of partnership was also mutually acknowledged, indeed Dr James Grigor, the chair ofCMDC, stated: ‘to achieve the ambitions we all share for Castlefield will require a philosophyof partnership between the Development Corporation and MCC’.

62

The belief in fosteringeffective working relationships between different agencies in conjunction with a long-termpolicy was vital to securing Castlefield’s renaissance. Despite this working relationship MCCwas still the junior partner to the Development Corporation who were able to access differenttypes of funding to lever in private investment and were also able to fast track planning


43

applications. MCC, therefore, enabled CMDC to regenerate Castlefield even though they didnot hold equal weight in the partnership. This relationship closely resembled that proposedmore generally by Ward and Imrie.

63

The financial and administrative capabilities of a single purpose agency armed with centralgovernment funding accelerated the pace of regeneration in Castlefield and saw the industrialenvironment of the area reconceptualised once again. Reflecting a desire to not just repopulatethe city centre but to make it a 24 hour live, work and play environment, CMDC diversifiedthe land usage in the area. CMDC capitalised on the previous work carried out by local agen-cies as they recognised that ‘an important start has been made in Castlefield but much stillneeded to be done to maintain and build on this momentum’.

64

The tourism and housing focuswas broadened by CMDC and Castlefield was reconceptualised as a cosmopolitan, mixed-use,urban idyll to be frequented by entrepreneurs, young professionals and service sector workersseeking to enjoy an urban lifestyle. Accordingly, Merchant’s warehouse was grant aided tohouse the offices of a computer software company, Middle warehouse became the home ofluxury apartments and a local radio station, whilst bars and restaurants sprang up underneathrailway arches and in the shells of former industrial buildings.

This was a process replicated across Britain and Europe from the 1980s; the historic envi-ronment came to be viewed as a catalyst for property-led urban regeneration. In many formerindustrial cities the built legacy has been converted for apartments, offices, bars and restau-rants. Examples come from the Albert Dock in Liverpool, Brindley Place in Birmingham, GunWharf in Portsmouth, Nottingham’s Lace Market and an early 1980s example from DeanClough in Halifax.

65

The process was not unique to Britain, though, and the Le Blan mill inLille, Motte-Bossut in Roubaix, Lamot in Mechelen, Völklingen Ironworks and the Van Nellefactory in Rotterdam are just some of the many examples of reusing an industrial structure torevive the fortunes of a deindustrial city.

Regeneration was consistent with an entrepreneurial spirit that in Britain related to theConservative government’s reliance on market forces. This was evident in both Castlefield andalso in the changed attitude of the City Council. Previous reuse schemes in Castlefield hadlargely been funded by public sector agencies and little significant private sector money wasapparent in the area. However, the grant-aiding and pump-priming capability of CMDCensured the corporation spent in Castlefield alone, £8 million and attracted in excess of £100million investment into the area.

66

The courting of private sector investment reflected bothnational market driven principles but also a change from the two previous eras of reconceptu-alisation. Formerly the risk of returns was perceived to be too high for many private develop-ers. What the public funding did, therefore, was to invest in infrastructure and reduce the riskprofile to the private developer. Hence partnerships became more attractive and allowed MCCto embrace a more entrepreneurial climate in their approach to securing urban regeneration.

67

This latest reconceptualisation of Castlefield was also aimed at a European market. Thehistoric environment became a tool to promote Manchester’s European city credentials astraditional locational advantages near raw materials gave way to the importance of image andreputation in the service sector and knowledge economy. Castlefield’s historic environmentplayed an important role as Manchester attempted to become a global player whose traditionalrivalry with Liverpool now extended to include Frankfurt and Barcelona. From the outset, oneof CMDC’s priorities was to ‘ensure the transformation of Manchester into a twenty-firstcentury city on a par with the great provincial cities of Europe’.

68

This was followed up with

44

R. Madgin

CMDC’s proclamation that Manchester was, in 1990 a ‘Major International City’,

69

a statementthat was traced back to the nineteenth century when ‘Manchester, through its role as the leadingcommercial centre of the industrial revolution developed links with many countries throughoutthe world’.

70

The Corporation was keen to stress this background and placed it into the contextof ‘the development of a single European Market in 1992, the opening of the Channel Tunnelin 1993, and Manchester’s position as Britain’s nomination as host city for the 1996 OlympicGames’.71 During this period, Manchester aimed to reinvent itself as a 24 hour, European city.Figure 5. Mixed-use in Castlefield.Source: author. Castlefield’s urban space was used to project a cosmopolitan image that was tied to the localhistory of the city. Associational value was also a marketing tool employed by CMDC in orderto build hope, attract investment and above all ensure a sustainable renaissance as illustratedby Barca bar housed in Catalan Square – a reference to the thriving post-industrial culture inBarcelona created under the arches of a railway viaduct (Figure 5). CMDC therefore believedthat ‘the opportunities exist for Manchester to move from its pre-eminent national role as thecapital of the North to establish itself as a major international city for business, tourism, sportand culture’.72 Castlefield’s revitalisation did not just save historic buildings from demolitionin order to retain a piece of history; rather restoration was linked to a bigger, global picture thatused the tradition of the city to redefine a role for Manchester on the international stage.

Once again Castlefield’s urban space was reconceptualised to fit with a changing urbanagenda. From modest roots where the historic industrial environment had to be uncovered and

Figure 5. Mixed-use in Castlefield.Source: author.

Planning Perspectives 45

revealed to the County and City Councils by local amateur historians, Castlefield’s industrialenvironment was continually reconceptualised to the extent where it could contribute to thelegitimation of urban agencies, serve various different agendas, and expose the local, nationaland European contemporary significance of the historic environment.

Reconceptualising success and value

If history had stopped at the end of the 1990s then it could be convincingly argued thatCastlefield was a successful example of urban change and reinvention. Successful in negotiat-ing changes in the institutional framework as its historic environment was constantly rein-vented to meet the demands of different agencies. Successful in both responding to, anddriving, broader cultural changes in which museums, urban living and finally the enjoyment ofan urban lifestyle became pre-eminent. And successful in turning from a derelict deindustriallandscape of decay to a post-industrial pocket of European promise.

However, the area is currently going through a further reconceptualisation which mirrorsthat of the situation four decades ago. The area is now popularly perceived as an area indecline, neglected and forgotten by planners, residents and entrepreneurs and policy. Attentionturned to East Manchester, new QUANGOs such as New East Manchester were created andthe young professionals turned to the next new thing – the bars, restaurants and luxury apart-ments which appeared across central Manchester on the back of Castlefield’s success.73 Thepepper-pot regeneration of Manchester city centre has ensured that for Castlefield, history onceagain stood condemned.

However, despite the reversal in fortunes Castlefield’s historic environment has acted as awindow on urban change both in terms of management and governance and broader culturalchanges. During the course of Castlefield’s regeneration the area was perceived as a tourist desti-nation, a residential enclave, a commercial location and as a vibrant example of a night-timeeconomy. Accompanying each period of change and each new agency was a reconceptualisationas to what Castlefield’s industrial environment represents and how it can meet various contem-porary urban needs. These different conceptualisations of the historic environment broughtmuseums, apartments, recording studios, offices, bars, restaurants and hotels into Castlefield.The new uses all reflected the agendas of the different agencies involved. Castlefield thus actsas an exemplar of changing urban society from the 1960s to the present day and continues toillustrate how our urban history influences and conditions the present condition of our cities.

Greater Manchester County Council worked to a wider remit that embraced the region andfunded and coordinated the restoration and reuse of Liverpool Road Station as the ManchesterMuseum of Science and Industry. This focus was narrowed by MCC, which after the abolitionof County Councils under local government reorganisations in the mid-1980s, promoted Castle-field as a residential area in order to increase their tax base. This reflected both the local remitof City Councils but also illustrated their redefined role in which budget cuts seriouslyundermined their ability to govern the city and thus increasing tax revenues was a feasible wayof improving the urban condition but also as a way of increasing their financial ability. However,the introduction of CMDC, an agency with both a local and national remit, once again saw Castle-field’s urban space reconceptualised as a mixed-use, 24 hour area cosmopolitan European city.

The form, function and management of the historic environment and the changes to thisduring the process of urban regeneration reveal the malleability of the historic environment and

46 R. Madgin

its inherent capacity to be moulded to fit different agendas. However, this capacity is onlyrealised through the capabilities of urban agencies working within their institutional frame-work. The potential of the historic built environment has to be recognised and appreciated bythese agents in order to unlock the building’s contemporary relevance. In each of the threestages of regeneration the various agencies involved saw Castlefield’s historic environment asa way to legitimate their role and to secure urban change that fitted a broader agenda than justthe neighbourhood. The local historical societies used the industrial environment as a way tojustify their existence, Greater Manchester Council needed Liverpool Road Station to carve outa regional role for itself, MCC was desperate for a boost in economic and administrativepowers and used the reuse of the historic environment to achieve this whilst CMDC used thehistoric structures to legitimate their position in the institutional framework and to secure aheightened European profile for British cities.

The historic environment thus has a contemporary relevance and historic significance asillustrated by statutory protection, reuse, voluntary sector campaigns and the continuing popu-larity of heritage tourism. Furthermore, when placed in an urban regeneration context, theCastlefield example has illustrated how the buildings do not just facilitate a renaissancethrough their changing form and function and have a capacity to fuel the tertiary revolution.Rather they have also been used to cement the position of various voluntary, public and privatesector agencies into the existing institutional framework. When the value of heritage is thusdiscussed, in economic terms (Ashworth), cultural terms (Lowenthal), psychological terms(Grenville) and planning terms (Larkham) a further strand should be realised, that of its role inreconceptualising power relations, defining urban governance and restructuring the role ofagencies within the institutional framework. The inherent malleability of the historic environ-ment and its capacity to house new functions, encapsulate new hopes and desires; it adapts tochanging urban agendas and in Castlefield resulted in a series of reconceptualisations thatdrove and reflected broader changes to the political economy and cultural trends. The contem-porary relevance of the urban historic environment is thus that the management of its transfor-mation provides an insight into global, national and local changes in society, culture, politicsand economics. The built urban environment, therefore, does not just reflect change but ratherthrough reconceptualisation is an active agent that shapes the transformation of our cities andgives history a fluidity and lucidity that allows the urban past to condition the future.

Notes on contributorRebecca Madgin is an urban historian and currently is a Research Fellow in the Department of UrbanStudies at the University of Glasgow. She completed her PhD at the Centre for Urban History, Universityof Leicester. Her interests include the built environment, heritage and regeneration in Britain and Europeduring the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Notes1. D. Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).2. Y.-F. Tuan, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values (New York:

Columbia, 1974).3. J. Grenville, ‘Conservation as Psychology: Ontological Security and the Built Environment’,

International Journal of Heritage Studies 13, no. 6 (2007): 447–61.

Planning Perspectives 47

4. P.J. Larkham, Conservation and the City (London: Routledge, 1996).5. J. Delafons, Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage 1882–1996 (London:

E & FN Spon, 1997).6. R. Hewison, The Heritage Industry, Britain in a Climate of Decline (London: Methuen, 1987), 100.7. See Delafons, Politics and Preservation, 65.8. S. Emmitt, Architectural Technology (Oxford: OUP, 2002), 199. Also see J.H. Harvey, ‘The Origins

of Listed Buildings’, Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society 37 (1993): 1–20.9. The ten-year rule only applies to England.

10. Emmitt, Architectural Technology, 199.11. B. Graham, G.J. Ashworth, and J.E. Tunbridge, A Geography of Heritage, Power, Culture and

Economy (London: Arnold, 2000), 129.12. M. Binney, Bright Future: The Re-use of Industrial Buildings (London: SAVE Britain’s Heritage,

1990), 13. Also see RICS/English Heritage, The Investment Performance of Listed Office Buildings(London: RICS Foundation, 2002) for more up to date information on the value of listed buildings.

13. Ibid.14. Ibid.15. See F. Bianchini and M. Parkinson, Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European

Experience (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994) for more information on culture,conservation and property-led regeneration.

16. Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge, Geography of Heritage, 129.17. English Heritage, ‘Historic Environment Review’ (discussion paper, 2000, 29 cited in G.J.

Ashworth, ‘Conservation Designation and the Revaluation of Property: The Risk of HeritageInnovation’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 8, no.1 (2002): 9–23).

18. Urban Task Force, Towards an Urban Renaissance (London: E & FN Spon, 1999), 251–52.19. Ashworth, ‘Conservation Designation’, 9–23.20. Britain’s First Urban Heritage Park, Promotional Leaflet, 1984.21. The 1974 designations were influenced by the change in the Town and Country Planning Act of

1968 which further emphasised the need for preservation.22. A. Kidd, Manchester: Town and City Histories (Lancaster, 2006), 192.23. B. Robson, Those Inner Cities, Reconciling the Social and Economic Aims of Urban Policy (Oxford:

OUP, 1978), 27–9.24. Kidd, Manchester, 192.25. R. Mellor, Changing Manchester (occasional paper no. 44, Manchester University Press, Manchester,

1995), 1.26. MCC, Manchester City Centre Local Plan (Manchester: MCC, 1984), 23.27. Den of Thieves and Vice, Manchester Evening News, October 30, 1979.28. Treasures in a City’s Backyard, Manchester Evening News, October 29, 1979.29. Interview with MCC Officer A, December 2005.30. Ibid.31. Department of the Environment, A Policy for the Inner Cities (Cmnd. 6845, 1977).32. Hewison, Heritage Industry.33. R. Samuel, Theatres of Memory, vol. 1: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture (London: Verso,

1994).34. Interview with MRIAS Member, December 13, 2005.35. Hewison, Heritage Industry, 37.36. MCC, Historic Castlefield (Manchester: MCC, 1976).37. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Historic Towns: Preservation and Change (London:

HMSO, 1967).38. The Manchester Museum of Science and Industry exhibits had previously been held in temporary

storage in the University of Manchester premises.39. Letter, 15 November 1983, Greater Manchester County Record Office (GMCRO).40. Cossons in Hewison, Heritage Industry, 88.41. Binney, Bright Future, 31.42. Draft Report to Planning, Policy and Recreation and Arts Committees, Development and Promotion

of the Castlefield Conservation Area (Manchester: GMCRO, 23 November 1981), 1.

48 R. Madgin

43. CCASC Meeting Minutes, June 10, 1985, GMCRO.44. Report of the Officers Working Party, November 1983, point 3, GMCRO.45. Papers prepared for the visit by Lord Bellwin, December 9, 1983, GMCRO.46. Castlefield Tourism Development Plan, Report of the Officers Working Party (Manchester: City of

Manchester Planning Department, 1982).47. Castlefield Tourism Development Plan, point 2.1.48. From the 1780s onwards housing began to spread over Castlefield. Some of this survives on Liver-

pool Road but like other parts of Manchester a significant proportion was however demolished as aresult of the advent of the railway in the area from the 1830s onwards. Indeed, the houses at ‘AlportTown’ were removed for the GNR Goods Warehouse. See D. Brumhead and T. Wyke, A WalkAround Castlefield (Manchester: CMDC, 1989) for more information.

49. Mellor (occasional paper), 3.50. MCC, Local Plan, 6.51. Ibid.52. MCC, Local Plan, 28.53. Ibid.54. Ibid., 103.55. Letter from Councillor P. Scott to the Leader of GMC, 22 September 1982, GMCRO.56. MCC, Local Plan, 28.57. See H. Wollmann, ‘Local Government Systems: From Historic Divergence towards Convergence?

Great Britain, Germany and France as Comparative Cases in Point’, Environment and Planning C,Government and Policy 18 (2000): 33–55; A. Cochrane, ‘The Changing State of Local Government,Restructuring for the 1990s’, Public Administration 69 (Autumn 1991): 281–302.

58. K.G. Ward, ‘A Critique in Search of a Corpus: Re-visiting Governance and Re-Interpreting UrbanPolitics’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, new ser., 25, no. 2 (2000): 169.

59. See the introduction in R. Rodger, The Transformation of Edinburgh (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2004) in which he cites D. Marquand, ‘Commentary After Tory Jacobinism’, Polit-ical Quarterly 65, no. 2 (1994): 125–7; R.A.W. Rhodes, ‘Hollowing out the State: The ChangingNature of Public Service in Britain’, Political Quarterly 65, no. 2 (1994): 138–51.

60. R. Imrie and M. Raco, ‘How New is the New Local Governance? Lessons from the UnitedKingdom’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, new ser., 24, no. 1 (1999): 47.

61. See T. Kitchen, ‘The Emerging Urban Agenda’ (occasional paper no. 43, Department of Planningand Landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester, 1996), 136–42 for CMDC years.

62. CMDC, Area Regeneration Framework (Manchester: CMDC, 1994), 7.63. See Imrie and Raco, ‘How New is the New Local Governance? Lessons from the United Kingdom’.64. CMDC, Planning for Regeneration (Manchester: CMDC, 1996), point 1.3.65. See M. Stratton, Industrial Buildings: Conservation and Regeneration (London: Taylor & Francis,

2000).66. CMDC, Eight Years of Achievement (Manchester: CMDC, 1996).67. The Left Wing City Council adopted a pragmatic approach to regeneration by embracing an entre-

preneurial, market-driven approach to urban regeneration and working with private investors. Thismarked shift in the ethos of MCC is covered in I. Deas et al., ‘Rescripting Urban Regeneration, theMancunian Way’, in British Urban Policy, ed. R. Imrie and H. Thomas, 2nd ed. (London: Sage,1999), 206–30.

68. CMDC, Strategy for Consultation (Manchester: CMDC, 1989), point 1.1.69. Ibid., point 3.0.70. Ibid.71. Ibid., point 3.2.72. Ibid., point 3.0.73. See http://www.killingcastlefield.blogspot.com/ and http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/

index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwImNwErJlP6IHqjNwB6IA (accessed May 10, 2009).

reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration in castlefield,...

Documents