8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
1/16
Britain: Runcorn A Tale of Two CentresAuthor(s): CHRIS COUCH and STEVEN FOWLESSource: Built Environment (1978-), Vol. 32, No. 1, Neighbourhood Centres in Europe:Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (2006), pp. 88-102Published by: Alexandrine PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23289488.
Accessed: 30/09/2014 19:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Alexandrine Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toBuilt Environment
(1978-).
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=alexpreshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23289488?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23289488?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=alexpres8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
2/16
Britain: Runcorn
-
A Tale of Two
Centres
CHRIS COUCH and STEVEN FOWLES
The
experience
of
Runcorn
emphasizes
the
importance
of flexibility
in
planning
and
design. 'Shopping City',
built around 1970 as the centre
for
the new town
of
Runcorn,
was
facing problems by
the 1980s. Rents were
high resulting
in a narrow
range of shops,
most
of
which were leased and
managed by
national or international
chains with little
connection
with,
or
concern
for,
Runcorn
as a
specific community.
It is
argued
that centres that have
grown organically
(such
as
Runcorn Old
Toivn)
are able to support a much wider range ofuses and functions. In addition to making
organic
centres more
interesting places
to
visit,
these characteristics make them
better able
to
adapt
to
changing
economic or social circumstances than
planned
centres. Runcorn demonstrates the
failures of
the
rational
comprehensive
approach
to
planning, perhaps indicating
that the incremental
approach provides
the
variety
of
socio-economic and
physical
circumstances that enables towns and their
centres to
flourish
and
develop,
while the rational
approach provides only
sterile
environments
that
discourage
and
frustrate
initiative and
change.
The post-war 'new towns' programme is
regarded by many
as the
'jewel
in
the crown'
of
British
post-war planning.
Although
Runcorn was a relative late-comer to the new
towns
programme,
its 1966 master
plan
was
regarded
as bold and
imaginative,
with its
new town
centre,
originally
called
'Shopping
City',
hailed as an innovative
solution
to
the
problem
of
integrating
retail and
community
facilities in a new
development.
In contrast
the merits of the
existing
Runcorn 'old' town
centre were more or less ignored at the time.
Assumptions
were also made about the
nature and merits of local
neighbourhood
centre
provision.
This article examines the
fortunes of these two centres over
time,
namely
'Shopping City'
and the old town
centre,
and it considers whether the
residents
of
Runcorn new town
might
have been
as
well
served
by
an
expansion
of the
existing
town centre and a
more
organic development
of
local
shopping
facilities than
by
the
highly
planned hierarchy of new facilities that was
built
by
the
Development Corporation.
The
article is divided into
three main sections:
firstly
the
development
of Runcorn will
be
discussed
with
particular
emphasis
on the
Shopping City; secondly
we will
outline the
wider context of
national
retail,
consumer
and
policy change during
Shopping City's
life
span
which will
provide background
to the
final
section
analysing
recent
change
in both
Shopping City
and the old town centre.
Location and
Development
of Runcorn
The
regional
location of
Runcorn,
in
the
north-west of
England,
is shown in
figure
1.
The
town is situated on the south bank
of the River
Mersey approximately
16
km
down river
from
Liverpool. Although
Run
corn
shares economic and social links with
Merseyside,
and
Liverpool
in
particular,
for
administrative
purposes
it lies within the
BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
VOL
32 NO
1
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
3/16
BRITAIN: RUNCORN
-
A
TALE OF TWO
CENTRES
Figure
1.
Regional
location
of
Runcorn.
Borough
of
Halton
in
the
county
of
Cheshire.
Building
on an
existing
urban
settlement
of
over
25,000
people
in
the
early
1960s,
Runcorn was
designated
a
new town
in
1964, primarily
to meet
Liverpool's need for
more
housing
land. This
section will
briefly
consider the
context
within
which Runcorn
new town was
planned
and
developed.
According
to
Ward
(2002,
p.
227)
Everywhere,
the
1960s saw the
commitment
to
self-consciously
modern
urban
planning
reach
its
zenith
...
experiencing
the
longest
economic
boom of the
century
...
advanced
capitalist
countries were
able to
concentrate on
becoming
mass-consumer
societies
based on
advanced
technology...
These
circumstances allowed urban
modernization
finally
to
become
mainstream,
implemented
on a
massive
scale.
This
approach
was
characterized
by Utopian
comprehensiveness:
that
is,
a
drive
to
build
or rebuild
whole cities
or
large parts
of them ... within
fifteen
years
of
the end
of the Second
World
War,
a
whole
ring
of
new towns had
been built
around London and in
the inner
areas of
many
cities,
huge
schemes of
comprehensive
redevelopment
had
transformed
the urban
fabric.
(Taylor,
1998,
p.
75)
The
modernist
approach
to urban
planning
spurned
the
old and the
inefficient in
favour
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1 89
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
4/16
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES
IN
EUROPE:
YESTERDAY,
TODAY AND TOMORROW
of
the new and functional. Those
who
planned
and
designed
Britain's
new towns
were no
exception
to this
trend. The new
towns were to
represent
an
orderly
and
tidy
solution to
the
problem
of
accommodating
the
growing population
of the conurbations
and
the households
pushed
out from
the
central
cities
through
the linked
processes
of slum-clearance
and
rebuilding
at lower
densities.
Much of the first wave of
British new town
building
was intended to accommodate
overspill
from the Greater London area.
Many
of these
towns have
become
household names
in
the
history
of
planning
and
they
attracted
some
of the
best
architect-planners
of the time
to meet the
exciting challenge
of
designing
'a new town' on
open
land
(Sir
Frederick
Gibberd
at
Harlow;
G. A.
Jellicoe
at Hemel
Hempstead;
Louis de Soissons
at
Welwyn
Garden
City; George
Parr at
Stevenage).
Most
of these new towns were intended
to become self-contained
communities of
50-100,000
people. Containing
a
balance
between
employment
and
population,
they
were to be
developed
at
moderate
densities,
with residential
development grouped
into
neighbourhoods served by appropriate pro
vision
of
schools,
shops
and other
community
facilities.
These
neighbourhoods,
and
separate
industrial
districts,
would
be
grouped
around
a new town
centre.
Thus land
use
would be
strictly
zoned whilst
traffic
would be chan
nelled
along
a
hierarchy
of
distributor,
local
and
access roads.
'They
were
important
as
planning
laboratories where new
experiments
in
building, layout
and
design,
and
in
cater
ing
for social
groups
could be made'
(Cherry,
1972, p. 169).
It was not until the 1960s
that it was felt
that the
problems
of
Liverpool
warranted
the
designation
of new towns
(Liverpool
Corporation
had built its own
overspill
town at
Kirkby
and had entered into a
number of 'town
development
schemes'
in
the
previous
decade).
In
1964 Runcorn
New Town
was
designated
to accommodate
overspill population
from
Liverpool
and
North
Merseyside
at a time when
a
high
rate
of
population growth
was
being predicted.
Economic
growth
was also
continuing,
albeit at
a
less
impressive
rate than some
of its
European neighbours,
whilst
regional
policy
was
encouraging
investment outside
of the South East.
Furthermore,
massive
slum clearance
programmes
were
changing
the face of inner cities
and
creating pressure
for
overspill
accommodation and the issue of
coping
with
'traffic
in
towns'
had
moved
to
the centre of the
political stage.
It was
in
this context that the Runcorn
New Town
Master Plan was
prepared.
The
author of the
plan
was Professor Arthur
Ling.
Ling
was an architect and
planner
who
had
previously
been a member of Abercrombie's
planning
team
in
London
and
Chief
Planning
Officer
of
Coventry
in the
early post-war
years.
He was
by
this time
a
consultant
and
holder of a Chair of
Planning
at
Nottingham
University.
Professor
Ling's plan
embraced
the
modernist
agenda. Although
there was
already
an
existing
town of Runcorn
with
a
population
of
28,000,
the new town
would
turn
its back on this older 'inefficient'
settlement and be provided with efficient
new
shopping
and
community
facilities on
a
greenfield
site to the east of the
existing
town
(see
figure
2).
The
target
for the new
town was a
relatively
modest rate of
growth
to
70,000
people by
1981 and
90-95,000
by
the millennium. But the actual
population
of Runcorn
in
year
2000
(62,730)
was
only
around
two-thirds
of the
target figure.
The
theory
behind this
plan
envisaged
a
linear
arrangement
of new residential areas
on either side of a spinal public transport
route so that most
people
would be within
five minutes
walking
distance of a bus
stop.
The
application
of this linear
principle
to the
topography
of the
designated
area
led
to the
'figure
of
eight' layout.
The new town centre
would be at the intersection of the
'figure
of
eight';
the residential areas would be on
either side of the
public transport
route and
the
industrial areas were to
be
located
at
90 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
5/16
BRITAIN:
RUNCORN
-
A TALE OF TWO CENTRES
the
edges
of the town as shown
in
figure
2
(Runcorn
Development Corporation,
1964,
pp.
18-20).
Figure
2
also shows the
relatively
peripheral
location of the
existing
or 'old'
town centre
compared
to the
centrally
located
new town centre.
Shopping City: Planning
a
New Town Centre for Runcorn
Shopping
and
community
facilities were to be
provided
in a
hierarchy
of centres.
In
the new
town centre
(to
be known as
'Shopping City')
would be the
major
shopping
and leisure
facilities. The
adjoining
office blocks would
accommodate
council
offices,
and the town
hospital
would be located
nearby.
The old
town centre was
given
its own
designation
as
a 'district centre' but offered little new
investment.
This centre
already
contained
about
6,000
m2 of retail
space together
with the
array
of
community
and
leisure
facilities
that
would
be
expected
in a small
Cheshire town
in the 1960s. Within each of
the new residential
neighbourhoods
(average
population
about
8,000),
a
local
centre would
provide
for
daily shopping
needs
together
with local health and
community
facilities.
More remote
parts
of these
neighbourhoods
would also benefit
from a small number of
individual 'corner
shops'.
Schaffer
(1970,
p.
117)
has
suggested
that the new
shopping
centres became the
best known
features of British new
towns,
as
exemplified
by
Runcorn.
He
explains
that
the decision
regarding
size of the new
centre was
normally
informed
by 'highly
complicated'
techniques,
to
some
extent
based on
a model
commonly
used at the
time,
Reilly's
Law of Retail Gravitation: this
measures the
pull
of
rival
shopping
centres
and
calculates
the amount of
shopping space
a
given population
can
support.
However,
normally
the model assumes the
population
is an
existing
one,
subject
to
relatively
small
and often
pre-dictable
change
over a forecast
Shopping
City
^
Halton
Lea
Residential
Industry
Figure
2. Runcorn New Town master
plan.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1 91
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
6/16
NEIGHBOURHOOD
CENTRES
IN
EUROPE:
YESTERDAY,
TODAY AND TOMORROW
period,
but
for a new town
the
calculations
must
be made before the
population
arrives,
based
on
predictions
of what the situation
will be
many years
ahead.
Furthermore,
it was
usually
assumed
that the new
shopping
centres would be used
by people
living
well outside
the
town,
theoretically
extending
the catchment
area
beyond
the
new town
boundaries.
There was therefore
a
high degree
of
uncertainty
and
guess
work
involved
in
determining floorspace
for the
shopping
centres
in new towns. Schaffer
(1970,
p.
118)
rather
drily
observes
that,
'a
major [forecasting]
error could lead to serious
losses'. Runcorn
Development
Corporation
was no
exception
to this
approach.
The size of retail
provision
in the new
town centre had been decided
through
a
series of calculations about
predicted
retail
turnover
in
1991
and
dependent upon
various
assumptions
about
population
and
economic
growth
rates,
competition
from
other towns
and
the allocation
of
shopping
between the town centre and local centres.
The
final
proposal
was for
46,000
m2
floor
space
devoted to retail and
ancillary
uses.
It
is
clear,
especially
with
hindsight,
that the
margin
for error in these calculations and
the absence of
any
'qualitative'
discussion
could lead to
huge
variations
in
the actual
retail
space
needed
in 1991 and thereafter. At
the
very
least this would
suggest
the need
for a
very
flexible
building design
that could
accommodate
change.
If this was the
case,
why
was
the decision
taken to
build a
new,
relatively
inflexible,
high-cost,
purpose
built town centre on
a
greenfield
site,
rather than
develop
the
existing
Runcorn town centre on a
piece
meal basis? The answer lies
partly
in the
philosophical underpinning
to new town
planning
mentioned above and
partly
in
an
analysis
carried out in
preparing
the master
plan.
That
analysis
is
paraphrased
in table 1
opposite.
Looking
back
it
is
possible
to criticize this
analysis
on
a
number
of
grounds.
Perhaps
the most
striking
is that
in
drawing up
the
Master
Plan,
land
use was
clearly expected
to fit in with a
pre-determined pattern
of
transport
infrastructure.
Thus,
it is
argued
that the
existing
town centre is
badly
located,
and the alternative
new
location well
located,
in relation to the
proposed highway
and
rapid
transport systems.
Nowhere
is it
suggested
that the
transport system might
be
designed
to serve the
optimum pattern
of land use.
Some
thinking
around the commercial
de
velopment process
seems
confused;
it
is
difficult to understand
how
property
can be
'ripe'
for
redevelopment
whilst at
the
same
time
arguing
that site
values,
demolition and
disturbance costs would result
in
excessive
costs and that clearance
and
phasing
would
be a
problem.
On the
question
of location,
it could be
argued
that excessive
weight
was
given
to the benefits of the town centre
being
at
the
physical
centre
of the
town,
given
the
relatively
short distances involved.
Furthermore the
analysis
took little account
of the
variety
(of
building
forms,
ages,
uses,
rent
levels)
available in
the
old
town centre
that
planners today
would
perceive
as ad
vantages.
With
hindsight
it
is
easy
to
question
and
challenge the planning analysis supporting
the decision
to
build a
new town centre.
However,
the true reason for the decision
was
possibly
that,
working
in the modernist
planning hegemony
of the
time,
Ling
and his
associates
simply
wanted to build a new
town
centre.
Guy
(1980,
p.
97),
for
example,
noted
that the
special
status of new towns
generally
resulted in
a
different and radical
approach
to
the
planning
and
development
of retail
centres. He
suggests
that
the
planners
were
able to choose locations for shopping centres
without direct
responsibility
to local
political
and commercial
interests:
consequently
the
main
shopping
centre
of a new
town such as
Runcorn has almost
always
been an
entirely
new
development,
rather than an extension
of
an
existing
centre.
According
to the master
plan:
'the
(new)
Town
Centre
will
be the
natural
meeting
place
for the town's social and cultural life as
92 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
7/16
BRITAIN:
RUNCORN
-
A TALE OF TWO CENTRES
Table 1.
Analysis
of
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of the
existing
and alternative
greenfield
locations
for Runcorn
new
town
centre
Existing
town centre Nezv location
(Shopping
City)
Advantages Advantages
Existing
trade would attract new businesses
Position
in
relation to the
Mersey,
the canals
and
bridge
affords an
exciting setting
Topography provides
an
opportunity
for
multi-level
development
on the
deck
principle
Much
existing property
is
'ripe'
for
redevelopment
Take
advantage
of the
existing railway
station
Site is
large enough
to accommodate the
required
development
and
allow
for
expansion
Lack of
existing development
on the site means a
saving
in
land,
demolition and disturbance costs
Freedom from
existing development
allows for
flexibility
in
phasing
Site is
large enough
to accommodate the
necessary
large
scale roadworks
without
compromising
other elements
In this
position
the town centre would be
in
the centre of
the town
Site is at the best possible location on the rapid transit
system
No
other
major
traffic
generator
in the
vicinity
Halton Rock
(a
nearby
landscape
feature)
would
provide
visual
identity
Disadvantages Disadvantages
Site is restricted
by
the
Bridgewater
and
Manchester
Ship
canals
Site is
badly
located
in
relation to the
population
of the new town
Site is badly located in relation to the
proposed rapid
transit
system
Lack of
space
would make
costly
multi-storey
car
parks
necessary
Site is
badly
located
in relation to the
primary
road
system
Site is
inadequately
served
by
the
primary
road
system
Site
values,
demolition and disturbance costs
would result
in
excessive
site
costs
The restricted area would have to
be almost
completely
cleared,
including
recently
re-developed shops
Difficult to
phase
the
development
in
relation
to
the
availability
of land and
property
Requires
a
change
in status of
the
existing
town
centre
and the removal of some businesses
It
is
away
from
the
railway
station
Requires a change in the shopping habits of the existing
population
Source: Runcorn
Development Corporation
(1964),
pp.
82-83.
well as for
shopping,
offices
and
specialized
amenities such as a
theatre,
library,
central
sports
hall,
etc'
(Runcorn
Development
Corporation,
1964,
p.
85).
Clearly
this was
to be
more than a
shopping
centre: it was
intended to be a
genuine
town centre. The
need for
'vitality'
was understood:
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1 93
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
8/16
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES IN EUROPE:
YESTERDAY,
TODAY AND TOMORROW
It is desirable that
as
many people
as
possible
should live
in
and around the
Centre,
and have
easy
access to it. This will
ensure
that ... there
is
maximum
local
support
from
people living
within
walking
distance ...
late
night
shopping
(and
entertainment)
facilities will assist
substantially
in the
objective
of
making
the centre a
lively place
at
night.
(Runcorn
Development Corporation,
1964,
pp.
87-89)
The
proposal
was
for
an
enclosed centre
built
on
a
number of levels with
servicing
from below and
multi-storey
car
parking
around the
edges.
At
ground
level the centre
would be linked
into
the
distributor road
system,
whilst the main retail level would
be
directly
accessible from the
busway
and
pedestrian
walkways
from
adjoining
residential
neighbourhoods.
At the heart of
the enclosed centre would be a central
square,
from this
square
four 'arms'
were to extend
in each
direction
of
the
compass.
The
arm
extending
northwards
would contain
mainly
offices
and
civic
buildings;
the arm to the
east would link
to the
town-park,
technical
college
and indoor
sports
building;
to the
west the main residential area of
the
town;
and to the
south,
cultural
buildings
such as
the
library
and theatre.
Figure
3
provides
an
aerial view of the centre:
clearly
visible are
the two
raised
busways
running
east-west
and the
multi-storey
car
parks
in
each
corner;
together
these
help
to enclose the main retail
centre. In the
foreground,
and to the south
of
one
of the
busways
are the council offices
and
related
community
services such as the
library,
as
envisaged
in
the master
plan,
while
to the
north and
east of the centre are new
retail
developments.
It is also
apparent
from
the aerial view
that
the
design
of the centre
serves to
discourage
casual visits and the
centre would be
unlikely
to attract the sort
of
passing
trade common to traditional
high
streets.
In
1972,
on the
opening
of
'Shopping City',
The Times
commented that:
Shopping City
is
possibly
the nearest
planners
have come to the sort of
building imagined by
science fiction writers. In
appearance
it
resembles
a
supersonic mosque,
with
gleaming
white bricks
even on the dullest
day.
(Skidmore, 1972)
It
was noted that all the retail units were
fully
Figure
3.
Runcorn,
Shopping City
aerial view.
94 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
9/16
BRITAIN:
RUNCORN
-
A
TALE
OF TWO CENTRES
let
and in the
first five
months of
trading
some
shopkeepers
had
already
reached
the
turnover
targets
that
they
had
hoped
to
attain in
five
years. According
to The
Times
the
explanation
for this success
lay
in the
'cleverly
sited car parks with space for more
than
2,000
cars';
the
superb busway 'carrying
passengers
at
more
than four times the
speed
of London
buses';
the
'clarity
of the
design
of
shops,
malls and
public squares
-
carpeted
and furnished and
bright
with flowers and
shrubs';
and the
'spacious, beautifully lighted
shops
themselves. Boots
for
example,
was 10
times as
big
as the
old
shop
in Runcorn
...
while Tesco had 20 times more
space'.
The
Times
correspondent
admired the scale of the
centre, noting that this had only been possible
because the
development
corporation
had
planned Shopping City
'not
only
as a local
town centre
but as a
regional shopping
centre which would be a
magnet
to
shoppers
from
Wigan,
St
Helens, Widnes,
Warrington
and other
parts
of the vast
Merseyside
conurbation'
(Hutchin, 1972).
However,
whilst it was not
appreciated
at the
time,
this
high
level of success
was
to be short-lived due to
changes
in con
sumer behaviour, retailing methods and
government policies.
Even as
early
as 1975
it
was
becoming
clear
that:
all
was
far
from well
with
'Shopping City'.
A
number of
tenants were
running
into
financing
difficulties,
the car
park usage dropped by
about
40/) compared with the previous year, pedestrian
counts showed
the same trend.
(Shakespeare,
1977)
Bui: worse was
still to come.
The Wider
Context:
Consumers,
Retailers
and Government
Policy
Since
Runcorn
Shopping City opened
in
1972 there have been dramatic
changes
in
shopping
patterns,
retail
development
and
policy towards town centres and retailing
in
the UK.
It has
already
been noted that
Shopping
City
was
planned
in
the
1960s,
when
retailing
and retail
consumption
tended to be
based on a hierarchical
system
of
shopping
centres,
each
fulfilling
different
functions.
Shopping trips
for convenience
goods
were
typically
short
in
length
and
would
be carried out
locally
several
times
each
week,
if not
daily,
on foot or
perhaps
by
bus,
whilst
shopping
for
comparison
or
specialist goods necessitated a visit to the
Table 2.
Descriptions
of
types
of retail
development
Convenience
Shopping
Convenience
retailing
is the
provision
of
everyday
essential
items,
including
food, drinks,
newspapers/
magazines
and
confectionery.
Superstores:
self-service stores
selling mainly
food,
or
food and non-food
goods,
usually
with more than
2,500
m2
trading
floorspace,
with
supporting
car
parking.
Comparison Shopping
Comparison
retailing
is the
provision
of items
not obtained on a
frequent
basis.
These include
clothing,
footwear,
household and recreational
goods.
Retail
warehouses:
large
stores
specializing
in
the sale of household
goods
(such
as
carpets,
furniture and
electrical
goods),
DIY items and other
ranges
of
goods, catering mainly
for
car-borne customers.
Retail
parks:
an
agglomeration
of at least
3 retail warehouses.
Regional
and
sub-regional
shopping
centres: out-of-centre
shopping
centres
which
are
generally
over
50,000
m2
gross
retail
area,
typically
comprising
a wide
variety
of
comparison goods
stores.
(Source:
ODPM
(2005),
PPS6,
Annex
A:
Typologies)
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1 95
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
10/16
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES IN EUROPE:
YESTERDAY,
TODAY AND TOMORROW
nearest town or
regional shopping
centre. The
planners envisaged
that
Runcorn
Shopping
City
would be the focus for a wide
range
of
food
and,
critically,
non-food or
comparison
shopping
whilst a
network
of smaller local
centres would
provide
for localized
shopping
and service needs.
As will be discussed later it was the
inability
to attract a
range
of
comparison
retail
outlets that undermined
Shopping City's
theoretical
position
in a
hierarchy
of centres.
Furthermore the centre
opened during
a time
of
rapid
social and
demographic change;
nothing
less than a 'consumer revolution'
according
to
DOE
(1994a,
p.
3),
with
changes
in residential
location,
the
growth
of female
employment,
increases in
purchasing
power
and increased
mobility
(Davies,
1984,
p.
40).
Of these factors it was
arguably
increased
mobility
which most undermined
Shopping
City:
as car
ownership
increased,
the new
town residents were better able to visit
free-standing superstores
with
convenient
car-parking
for convenience
shopping,
and
other
nearby
centres with a better
range
of retailers for
comparison shopping.
Added to this
list
of
quantifiable
trends
are
more
subjective
but nevertheless
equally
significant
changes
in
consumer attitudes
and
expectations. Shopping
is
increasingly
referred to as a leisure
activity,
and the
traditional ties between residents and their
local
shopping
centre have been loosened
with
increasingly
mobile consumers
willing,
and
able,
to travel
considerable
distances
to visit new
shopping
centres. Indeed new
major
retail
developments
are
generally
a
mix
of retail and leisure
uses,
combining
a
range of comparison goods retailers with
leisure facilities such as a multi-screen
cinema
complex
and indoor
bowling
arena
(Guy,
1994,
p.
191).
The
pace
of
retail
development
per
se
accelerated
during
the 1980s as
the
change
of
government
in
1979 marked a watershed
in recent
British town
planning history
(Thornley,
1991).
The new Conservative
government
was a
pro-free
market
admini
stration with a
laissez-faire
philosophy.
It
generally sought
to relax
planning
controls
in order to
promote
a national economic
renaissance and the
development
of an en
terprise
culture. What followed for town
centres was later described as 'the virtual
abandonment of
any
retail
planning
in
the UK'
(Davies,
1995,
p.
xvii),
whilst
the
process
of retail
change during
this
period
was
famously
described
by
Schiller
(1986)
as 'three waves of retail
decentralization'
comprehensively undermining
traditional
town,
district and
neighbourhood
centres. The
first wave was the
development
of
large
stores
mainly
for
food
retailing
from the
early
1970s
onwards;
the
second
wave,
also
beginning
in
the 1970s in Britain, was associated with the
development
of
retail
warehouses,
mainly
for
bulky
household
goods
such as furniture
and
carpets
and
electrical
goods.
The third wave
began
in
the
mid-1980s
and
was associated
with
comparison goods
such
as
clothing,
footwear and
toys (Guy,
1994,
p.
143)
and the
development
of
regional shopping
centres,
or as in the case of 'Marks and
Spencer'
for
example,
the
development
of
large,
free
standing,
single-level
stores
with
adjacent
car
parking,
in locations convenient for car
borne
shoppers.
The combination of
rapid
retail
develop
ment and
changes
in
consumer
behaviour,
coupled
with
periods
of
economic recession
during
the 1980s and
early
1990s,
resulted in
serious
problems
for
many
shopping
centres.
In
1994 the
government duly reported
on a
range
of
run-down
and
neglected shopping
centres
including
those
in
market
towns,
industrial
towns,
suburban centres and even
major city centres which were all struggling
to survive
in
the new
trading
environment,
with a view
to
improving planning practice
and
policy
(DOE,
1994a).
It is no
surprise
therefore that Runcorn
Shopping
City
experienced
decline
during
this
period.
Before this
is
analysed
in the next section it
is worth
briefly noting
the
significant
changes
to
government
policy
for retail and town
centres over the last decade.
96 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
11/16
BRITAIN: RUNCORN
-
A TALE OF TWO CENTRES
The Conservative
government's
laissez-faire
approach applied
until the
early
1990s when
a combination of events
began
to
persuade
it to take a
more interventionist stance
in
which local authorities were
eventually
to
be encouraged to plan positively for retail
change
and
give explicit protection
to town
centres.
First,
concern
was
growing
that
much
of the off-centre
development
of the 1980s
was
harming
traditional
shopping
areas
with evidence of the
undesirable
impact
of
some out-of-town
retailing
emerging
from
government-sponsored
studies
(DOE
1992,
1994a).
A
second reason for
change
was
the new
policy
of
attempting
to
restrict
the
growth
in
private
vehicle use. Off-centre
retail
developments
reliant
upon
car-borne
customers were an obvious
target
for
a
government attempting
to establish its
green
credentials with an international
audience.
These factors
led
to the
publication
of
two
new
planning
policy guidance
notes:
in
1993,
PPG6:
Town Centres and Retail
Development,
and in
1994,
PPG13:
Transport.
These two
guidance
notes reflected
a
shift
in
thinking
towards
promoting
town centres as the
preferred
locations for new retail investment
(DOE, 1994a, p. 41), although the revised
PPG6 still maintained that 'the Government
believes
that both
town centre
and out-of
centre locations have distinctive roles
to
play
in
providing
for
new retail
developments'
(DOE,
1993,
para
21).
In
1994 the House of
Commons Environment Select Committee
reported
to
government
(DOE, 1994b).
They
were
highly
critical of the
laissez-faire
approach
to retail
development
that had
dominated the
preceding
decade,
noting
that
many giving evidence had been concerned
that the
damage
to town centres
had
already
been done and
that
the revised
and new
planning policy guidance
was
'closing
stable
and
garage
doors after horse and Volvos
had
long
since bolted'
(DOE,
1994>,
Vol.
1,
para
4).
The
government's
response
to
the Committee's
report
was
published
in
February
1995
(DOE,
1995)
when
they agreed
that
PPG6 should
be revised to
recognize
further the
importance
of town
centres,
and
to
highlight
the
protection
and
promotion
of town centres as
key government
policy
aims.
Accordingly
in
June
1996,
a revised
PPG6 was issued. This clearly set out the
government's
new
primary
aim of
promoting
town centres
and
encouraging
new retail
development
to be either
in,
or on the
edge
of,
established centres. To
help
achieve
this,
the
guidance
advised local
planning
authorities
to
'adopt
a
sequential approach
to
selecting
sites
for new retail
development'
(DOE,
1996,
para
1.10).
This
approach
requires
local authorities
and
developers
to
seek,
as
first
preference,
a town centre site for new
development, with all options to be assessed
before less central sites are considered. In
the absence of
a suitable town centre
site
the
second
preference
is for
edge-of-centre
sites
in
the
expectation
that such
developments
will
support
'linked
shopping trips'
with
benefits for the wider town centre.
Only
when these sites have been assessed should
accessible,
out-of-centre sites be considered.
However,
with
several
million
square
metres
of
off-centre
floorspace
in the
development
'pi peline' when the new policy emerged (Guy,
1998),
out-of-town
developments
continued
apace
until
about
2000,
since when there
has been a
significant
reduction in off-centre
retail
developments
and a
renewed
emphasis
on
town centre
development.
PPG6
has now been
replaced by Planning
Policy
Statement
6,
Planning for
Town Centres
(ODPM,
2005),
which not
only
reaffirms the
government's
'town centre first'
approach,
but also
complements
the wider urban re
naissance strategy and agenda in promoting
'vital and viable' town centres. Within this
policy
context initiatives such as town centre
management
and
marketing,
and substantial
investment
in new
residential,
cultural and
retail
developments
over the last few
years
have
helped
to reverse the decline of some
town
centres,
and in
particular
larger city
centres.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1 97
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
12/16
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES IN EUROPE:
YESTERDAY,
TODAY AND TOMORROW
Runcorn
Shopping City:
From Plaudits to Problems
These trends
in
consumer
behaviour,
retailing
supply
and
government policy, particularly
during the 1980s, collectively caused major
problems
for
the continued success of
Run
corn's
new town
centre,
Shopping City.
With around
100
shops,
it falls
below
the
scale of a traditional first tier
shopping
centre
attracting
customers from
a
large
hinterland. Furthermore
the
composition
of
the
shops,
with a
heavy emphasis
on food
and
convenience
outlets,
failed to
provide
a
suitable destination for non-food
shopping
as
a 'leisure
activity'
and
served to reinforce
its
lack of attraction to shoppers from beyond
the local
area. No
departmental
store
(e.g.
Debenhams or
John Lewis)
nor
any major
chain store
(e.g.
Marks and
Spencer
or
BHS)
was ever attracted to the
centre. The other
proposed
town
centre
land
uses,
offices
and
leisure
activities,
were never
developed
to
the extent
envisaged
in
the
master
plan.
The
enclosed
design
and
physical separation
from
adjoining
residential areas
discouraged
casual
visits or
passing
trade.
On
the other
hand,
the centre was on the
large
size for a district
centre and was in direct
competition
with
Runcorn Old Town
Centre,
with
its
traditional
catchment of
'old
town'
residents.
Competition
has
always
been a
problem
for
Shopping City,
not
only
in terms of
retail
competition
but also in terms of the
status
accorded to
it
as
a
centre
by policy
makers. From the first
days
of the Runcorn
New Town
Development Corporation
it
was
necessary
for the
planners
to consider the
development of Shopping City within the
context of its
impact
and the need to
avoid
detrimental
impacts
on the
existing
Runcorn
Old Town Centre. In 1974
Runcorn
was
joined
with
Widnes,
an
adjacent
town on the north
bank
of
the
Mersey
to
form the
Borough
of
Halton. The new local
authority
now had
responsibility
for
three
town
centres:
Widnes,
Runcorn Old Town
centre
and
Shopping
City.
With
relatively
low consumer
spending
power
in the
Borough
and no centre
large
enough
to
attract consumers from
beyond
the local area
there
was
clearly
excess retail
capacity
The
position
of
Shopping City
was
not
helped
as the
Borough began
to invest
in new retail
premises
and environmental
improvements
to both Widnes and Runcorn
Old Town Centres.
Through
the 1980s both
Warrington
town
centre
(less
than
12 km
distant)
and Chester
city
centre
(about
24 km
distant)
developed
rapidly
as
major regional comparison
shop
ping
centres,
attracting many
of
the
major
comparison
and
specialist
retailers that
might
otherwise have considered
locating
in
Shopping City.
Furthermore,
as
was
discussed
in the
previous
section, the more relaxed
planning regime
of that
decade enabled
large
new
free-standing supermarkets
and
non-food convenience
superstores
to
open
in
locations that were
directly competitive
with
Shopping City.
A
further,
and
critical,
problem
for
Shop
ping City
and other
planned
centres
is
that
shop
rents tend to be
high
and
relatively
uniform,
resulting
in a
relatively
narrow
range
of
shops,
most
of which
were leased
and
managed
by
national or international
chains with little
connection
with,
or concern
for,
Runcorn
as
a
specific
community.
Both the
centre
management
and the
management
of
the individual
shops
see the centre
primarily
as
an
investment,
whose success can be
measured
by
its
ability
to
yield
a
good
return
on the
capital
invested.
In
contrast,
centres
that
have
grown
organically
(such
as Runcorn
Old
Town)
comprise
a
hetrogenerous
range
of
building ages,
sizes, uses,
tenures and
rents. As such, these
organic
centres are able
to
support
a much wider
range
of
building
uses and
functions,
including
a much
wider
range
of
shops.
In
addition to
making
organic
centres more
interesting places
to
visit,
these characteristics make them
much
more robust
centres,
being
able to
adapt
to
changing
economic or social
circumstances
more
easily
than
planned
centres.
Being
a
planned
centre of
fixed
size,
it could never be
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
13/16
BRITAIN:
RUNCORN
-
A TALE OF
TWO CENTRES
the case that
Shopping City
would
precisely
meet the needs of Runcorn in
the
long
run. It
was
always going
to
be
inevitable that there
would be a mismatch
between
the needs
of
the residents for
shopping
and town centre
facilities and those that Shopping City could
provide.
Although
the
growth
of retail
parks
and
out-of-town
retailing
posed
a
threat to ex
isting shopping
centres
nationally,
there was
little of this
type
of retail
investment
in
the
Runcorn
area
and
little direct
competition
with
Shopping City
from these sources.
Nevertheless,
around
a
decade
ago,
Asda
(part
of the Wal-Mart
'family'
[szc])
were
given permission
to build a
large superstore
on an adjoining site. However anecdotal
evidence
suggests
that
despite
its
edge-of
centre location the store does not contribute
much
in
the
way
of 'linked
shopping trips'
often associated with
superstores adjacent
to other
shopping
centres.
Furthermore,
the
current owners of
Shopping City, Fordgate,
decided
in
the late
1990s,
that it would
be
commercially prudent
to
diversify
the
attractions of the centre
by developing
a retail
park
on an
adjoining
site
(known
as Trident
Park). This had the advantage of providing
sites for
'big
box'
retailers
that could not be
accommodated within the restricted confines
of the
existing
centre. Whilst both devel
opments
are
popular
with
shoppers,
and
in
turn have
probably
been
financially
beneficial
to
Fordgate,
it
is unclear whether
they
have
helped
or hindered retail turnover within the
enclosed
centre.
According
to
an
analysis
of
retailing
in
Halton carried out
in
1996
by
consultants
Herring-Baker-Harris, Runcorn Shopping
City
had
originally
been intended to
function
as a
major
comparison
shopping
centre but
'over the
years
its
image
has
moved out of
step
with
the evolution
of retail formats' and
in
terms of
shopping
centre
design
it was an
anachronism.
Its
general
environment was
considered to be
poor
and
it faced
a
unique
set of issues
very
different
from those
facing
centres
with a more traditional
high
street
form.
However,
this was not to
say
that the
centre was not well used
by
local
people,
many
were
economically disadvantaged
arid
relied
on it
as their main
shopping
facility
Indeed,
the catchment area of the
centre was
very
localized with 79
per
cent of
non-food
trade
coming
from the south
and
south-eastern
parts
of Runcorn alone. With
regard
to the future the
study
concluded
that
Shopping
City
did have a future role
in
providing high-order retailing
for the
people
of Runcorn and that the
existing
enclosed centre should be refurbished and
complemented by
the
development
of retail
warehousing
on the
adjoining
'southern
loop
site'
(Halton
Borough
Council,
1996).
A further problem with the new town
centre as a whole has been that whereas the
original 'shopping city'
was
planned
and
built
to an
integrated design,
later
additions
have not
been
so well co-ordinated:
M;my
of the later
developments
at the town centre
(in
the
1980s
and
1990s)
have been
constructed
independently
of the
original
structure,
and
have not been
integrated
at mall level as was
originally
intended,
nor have
they
been
linked
at
ground
level for
pedestrians. Examples
of
freestanding
developments
which are
part
of
the town centre are the Asda store to the west,
the
Department
of
Employment
offices to the
north
and
east,
the TAVC
barracks,
the Post Office
sorting
office,
Halton
Hospital
and the Hallwood
Health Centre. The town centre
is
therefore
made
up
of
many
unconnected
parts
which need to be
drawn
together
to form a
corporate identity
and to
function as one.
(Halton
Borough
Council,
1997a,
p.
3)
The
report
called for
integration
of the
activities of the various
agencies
involved
with
the new town
centre,
enhancement of
its physical environment and a promotional
campaign
(Halton
Borough
Council, 1997a,
p.
4).
Later that
year
the
Borough
Council
approved
a
strategic policy
for its town
centres
that
accepted
these
proposals,
so that
Shopping City:
fulfils the role as the main centre of attraction
for Runcorn
and
surrounding villages,
without
becoming unduly
dominant
to the
detriment
of
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1 99
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
14/16
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES IN EUROPE:
YESTERDAY,
TODAY AND TOMORROW
Runcorn Old Town Centre or Widnes Town Centre.
(Halton
Borough
Council,
1997b,
para
7.7)
In an
attempt
to
change
and
improve
its
image, Shopping City
was also renamed
'Halton Lea'.
With
regard
to Runcorn Old Town Centre
the same
strategy
concluded
that it
should be
revitalized
'by major
investment
in
retailing,
leisure and education and the arts so that
it
performs
the
dual
function as a small
market town with
specialist
attractions and
as a district centre for the
nearby
residential
areas'
(Halton
Borough
Council,
1997b,
para
7.8).
The old town centre had not
stood
still
in the
intervening years.
The 1970s saw
investment in the
busway,
new road
accesses,
housing
and environmental
improvements.
In
more recent times the centre benefited from
improvements
to
the
esplanade
along
the
Manchester
Ship
Canal,
new
landscaping,
new social
housing
and traffic
calming
measures.
Part
of Runcorn Old Town Centre
is shown in
figure
4, with the outline of the
Runcorn-Widnes
bridge
in the
background.
In
addition to
providing
local convenience
shopping,
the old town centre contains a
number
of
specialist
retailers
(e.g. shops
selling
books,
musical
instruments,
angling
equipment),
a
range
of financial and
prop
erty
services,
pubs,
restaurants,
library,
health
and
community
centre,
swimming
pool,
churches and other
civic
amenities. In
1996/97,
supported by
an award from the
government's Single Regeneration Budget
(SRB),
Halton
Borough
Council led a 50
Figure
4.
Runcorn Old Town Centre
today.
100 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
15/16
BRITAIN: RUNCORN
-
A TALE OF TWO CENTRES
million investment
programme
for the re
generation
of the old town centre. One of the
landmark
results of this
programme
has been
the new
'Brindley'
theatre and art
gallery
on
the banks of the
Bridgewater
Canal.
In
consequence,
whereas 'Halton Lea'
provides
a
functional
and efficient location
for
convenience
shopping
with some
ancillary
uses,
it is not
today
the 'natural
meeting place
for the
town's social
and cultural life' that
the
planners
intended. On the other
hand,
the
Borough
Council's
ambition for Runcorn
Old
Town Centre
to
perform
as
'a small
market town
with
specialist
attractions
and
as a
district centre
for the
nearby
residential
areas' seems much closer to
being
achieved.
Conclusions
At the time of the
drawing
up
of the Runcorn
master
plan
there was little
appetite
from
architects and
planners
for the refurbishment
of
existing shopping
centres. The
advantages
attributed to Runcorn Old Town Centre were
modest.
It
was
suggested
that
existing
trade
might
attract new businesses but without
any significant comparison shopping
sector,
other than estate agency. And although much
existing property
was
thought
to be
'ripe'
for
development,
until the
impetus given by
the SRB investment
in
the
1990s,
there was
little demand from
developers
to take
up
the
opportunities
offered. Even the
'exciting
setting'
afforded
by
the canals and
bridge
have remained
substantially unexploited
apart
from the construction of the
esplanade
along
a
short
length
of
the Manchester
Ship
Canal
and
the recent
development
of
the 'Brindley' theatre on the banks of the
Bridgewater
Canal.
On the other hand the
development
of
Shopping City
with such a
rigid
and inflexible
design
on the basis
of
long-term
forecasts of
retail
spending
patterns
was
always going
to be a
risky
business.
Whilst the
planners
could not know the
precise
nature of
the
changes
in
demography,
spending patterns,
retail demand
and
supply
that were
going
to
occur over the next 30
years,
the
history
of
urban
development
and
retailing
should have
told
them that
there would be some
changes.
For this reason
if
for no
other,
the
design
of
Shopping City
was
insufficiently
flexible
and should have made more allowance for
organic change.
Nevertheless,
even
if
it is
accepted
that
at around
60,000
m2
(gross)
Shopping
City
was an over-ambitious
development,
it was
inevitable
that
substantial
new
shopping
facilities would have had to be built to serve
the:
needs of the new town. To accommodate
development
on the scale
required
within
Runcorn
Old Town Centre would have
been a
complex
operation requiring
a
great
deal of sensitive planning and design skill.
Managing
traffic access and
parking
would
have been
particularly challenging.
But it
might
have been a task worth
undertaking:
if
developed
successfully,
such
a centre could
have
provided
the combination of an efficient
retail centre
(at
present
found in Halton
Lea);
the:
flexibility
of a
variety
of
building types,
ages
and rent
levels,
specialist retailing
and
commercial services
(at
present
found in
Runcorn
Old Town
Centre)
and the 'natural
meeting place for the town's social and
cultural life'
(which
neither
existing
centre
manages
to
achieve).
The
experience
of Runcorn
emphasizes
the
importance
of
flexibility
in
planning
and
design.
Whilst it is
possible
to
design
a
major shopping
centre
that functions tech
nically
in an
efficient
manner,
it
is
quite
a
different and more difficult
matter
to
plan
a town centre. The modernist
design
may
be functional
at
one level
but
(certainly
in
this instance) it lacked the 'requisite variety'
necessary
to
accommodate the
complexity
of socio-economic activities
and trends that
constitute an urban area. Runcorn demon
strates
the
comparative
failures of the rational
comprehensive approach
to
planning
and
forces us to
accept
that
we have little choice
but to
rely
on more
gradual
or incremental
approaches.
It
may
even be the case that the
incremental
approach
provides
the
variety
of
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1 101
This content downloaded from 88.104.0.224 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:49:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 a tale of 2 centres
16/16
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES
IN EUROPE:
YESTERDAY,
TODAY AND TOMORROW
socio-economic and
physical
circumstances
that enables towns and their centres to
flourish
and
develop,
while the rational
approach
provides only
sterile environments
that
discourage
and frustrate initiative and
change.
REFERENCES
Cherry,
G.E.
(1972)
Urban
Change
and
Planning.
Henley:
Foulis.
Davies,
R.L.
(1984)
Retail and Commercial
Planning.
Beckenham: Croom
Helm.
Davies,
R.L.
(1995)
Retail
Planning
Policies
in
Western
Europe.
London:
Routledge.
DOE
(1992)
The
Effects f Major Out-of-Town
Retail
Development: A Literature Review. London:
HMSO.
DOE
(1993)
Revised
Planning Policy
Guidance Note
No 6: Town Centres and Retail
Development.
London: HMSO.
DOE
(1994a)
Vital and Viable Town Centres:
Meeting
the
Challenge.
London: HMSO.
DOE
(1994b)
The Fourth
Report from
the House
of
Commons Select Committee on the Environment:
Shopping
Centres and their Future. London:
HMSO.
DOE
(1995)
Shopping
Centres and their Future: The
Government's Response to the Fourth Report from
the House
of
Commons Select Committee on the
Environment. London: HMSO.
DOE
(1996)
Revised
Planning Policy
Guidance Note
No 6: Town
Centres
and Retail
Development.
London: HMSO.
Evans
R
(1997)
Regenerating
Town Centres.
Manchester: Manchester
University
Press.
Guy,
C.M.
(1980)
Retail Location and Retail
Planning
in Britain.
Farnborough:
Gower.
Guy,
C.M.
(1994)
The Retail
Development
Process.
London:
Routledge.
Guy, C.M. (1998) Off-centreretailing in the UK :
Prospects
for the future and the
implications
for town
centres.
Built
Environment,
24(1),
pp.
16-30.
Halton
Borough
Council
(1996)
Halton Retail
Study.
Widnes: Halton
Borough
Council.
Halton
Borough
Council
(1997a)
Runcorn New
Town Centre
Strategy.
Widnes: Halton
Borough
Council.
Halton Borough Council (1997b) Halton's Town
Centres:
An
Overall
Strategy.
Widnes: Halton
Borough
Council.
Hutchin,
K.
(1972)
Courageous
10m
Shopping
City
confounds critics.
The
Times,
Special
Report
on Runcorn New
Town,
4
May, p.
II.
ODPM
(2005)
Planning Policy
Statement 6:
Planning
for
Town Centres. London: The
Stationery
Office.
Runcorn
Development Corporation
(1964)
Runcorn
New Town Master
Plan.
Runcorn:
Runcorn
Development
Corporation.
Schaffer, F. (1970) New Town Story. London:
MacGibbon Kee.
Schiller,
R.
(1986)
Retail decentralisation: The
coming
of the third wave. Estates
Gazette,
279(33),
p.
648.
Shakespeare,
R.W.
(1977)
10m
city
within a town
is
an
act of faith.
The
Times,
Supplement
on
Runcorn,
16
February, p.
III.
Skidmore,
I.
(1972)
Planners take
up challenge
with
homes,
work and a
lively
environment.
The
Times,
Special Report
on Runcorn New
Town,
4
May.
Taylor,
N.
(1998)
Urban
Planning Theory
since 1945.
London:
Sage.
Thornley,
A.
(1991)
Urban
Planning
under
Thatcherism.
London:
Routledge.
Ward,
S.V.
(2002)
Planning
the
Twentieth-Century
City.
Chichester:Wiley.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors
would like to thank
Halton
Borough
Council for
permission
to use
the
aerial view
of
Runcorn,
shown in
figure
3.
102 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 32 NO 1