I’m just going to post the whole thing, it’s good and seriously needs discussion.
Credit to the Birmingham Post.
As the debate rages over how a vibrant Digbeth can live side by side with new residential developments, Simon Jones, managing director of The Factory Club and co-director of Custard Factory Spaces, asks whether Birmingham City Council is really committed to providing space for creativity in the area.
Birmingham is under construction. Regeneration zones have been outlined, international investment sourced, strategic partners identified and the appropriate consultations made.
The Big City Plan has been presented and key areas such as The Jewellery Quarter, Southside and Digbeth (Eastside) have been highlighted as essential to the growth of the city.
After more than a decade of debate we all finally know what Birmingham needs to establish itself as a “global competitor”. Good, so we’re all happy and ready to go then? Well maybe.
In case you’ve been asleep for the past ten years, I’ll briefly recap.
In 2006 Birmingham City Council consulted Professor Michael Parkinson from Liverpool John Moores University on how to approach Birmingham’s multi-billion pound facelift.
In 2007 he submitted his Visioning the City Centre Masterplan report, identifying five key areas of a successful city: Innovation and skills, economic and cultural diversity, connectivity, strong leadership and quality of place.
Then in August that year, Urban Initiatives were brought in to shape Professor Parkinson’s City Centre Masterplan into a cohesive strategy that would “involve communities and business in helping to recreate and revitalise Birmingham”.
This is The Big City Plan, which city council leader Coun Mike Whitby calls his “Chamberlain moment” and the blueprint for progressive development in our city.
Unfortunately, this is also the start of a war of attrition between new developers coming into these key areas and those already carving out the culture of the city.
Initially, The Big City Plan’s focus on Eastside was like manna from heaven to the independent operators in the area, and it looked as if Digbeth would finally receive the public sector support needed to establish the “new creative quarter” that Birmingham City Council’s website promises it to be. Unfortunately, like any long-term relationship, promises got forgotten.
It seems that the people responsible for selling Birmingham as an investment are prepared to meet their targets at the expense of the city’s existing operators – even the ones that already provide the “cultural and recreational facilities” highlighted in The Big City Plan’s Global Themes.
Southside was the ground for a major battle between The Nightingale Club and Crosby Homes over their proposed Bradford Street apartments.
Jewellery Quarter restaurants have been warned about their operations affecting residents in the area, and now Digbeth venues are under attack from very individual complaints.
On each occasion the city council has started from a one-sided position, blindly backing the property developers and leaving the responsibility of bringing together local people and organisations within these “key development areas” to the independent operator.
OK. Fine. Whatever needs to be done for the “ambitious and far-reaching development and regeneration” of the city. After all, we’re all in this together, right?
Well wrong apparently, as the cost for accommodating these new neighbours has been given in full to the existing venues.
The independent businesses are already contributing to the economic impact of the region and cannot walk away if things simply are not going their way.
At this point I would like to refer to the “strong leadership” and “cultural diversity” Professor Michael Parkinson identified in his five key areas of a successful city.
As Graham Edwards, CEO of the East Birmingham and North Solihull Regeneration Zone (EBNS), said: “Following our formation in 2004, we quickly recognised the potential of the growing creative sector in Digbeth and identified it as one of our key strategic areas for targeting regeneration funds,” but venues such as The Rainbow, The Spotted Dog and the Custard Factory are facing closure due to financially unachievable demands.
While Coun Clive Dutton, Birmingham City Council’s Director of Planning and Regeneration, very sensibly declared: “It’s important that Digbeth is not over-planned, otherwise it will suffocate, the trick will be allowing the place to thrive without losing its character,” the office down the hall is dispatching Noise Abatement Orders and sticking their head in a big bucket of sand.
Attending a recent Big City Plan meeting Kent Davis, licensee of The Rainbow, talked to residents who were allegedly affected by the noise pollution in Digbeth.
Of those concerned enough to turn up, nearly all were sympathetic to the problems faced by businesses and residents cohabiting in a mixed use areas.
In a recent article in the Birmingham Post, Adam Crossley, chairman of the Digbeth Residents’ Association, said: “It’s flabbergasting, to be honest. Everybody I speak to is in support of the pubs. It’s quite infuriating, as we could end up living in a Digbeth with no pubs and no venues.”
So who exactly are Birmingham City Council looking after?
One way or another these debates are far from over.
It is understood that significant changes are needed in any collaborative regeneration, but communication and financial support are needed too.
If the city can raise more than £15million for the refurbishment of Digbeth Coach Station, then there has to be a way of using the municipal kitty for other development issues in the area.
But who am I to tell you what is what?
All of the quotes in this article, unless stated otherwise, have been taken from The Big City Plan and its website.
They are the promises made by Birmingham City Council to you, the public.
On the website there is also an opinion poll, asking Birmingham the following: “Creative and cultural organisations will play a key part in Birmingham’s future success. How do we work with this sector to provide the appropriate support and spaces in which they can develop?”
A very pertinent question, but I have to wonder, do they really care about the answer?
