It calls for greater cooperation between the two cities while largely ignoring the collaboration that is already happening. It is also oddly unspecific in what a closer relationship would mean in practical terms.
If we’re talking about more interconnected labour markets then improved transport links are crucial. But these are dismissed as either unrealistic or unimportant. The Liverpool-Manchester Rail Board was established as a result of Northern Powerhouse Rail being downgraded (abolished, in reality) by the previous government - its role is to develop alternatives.
If we’re talking about governance, does the author want to see a return to North West regional structures? Or is something else being proposed? He talks about Dallas/FW and Minneapolis/St Paul but relationships in these cities are largely managed bilaterally at the mayoral level and using state mechanisms.
If we’re talking the economy - to what extent can government at any level divvy up industries between places? Path dependence matters - Liverpool has a port, it has long standing strengths in manufacturing and life sciences, it is beautiful and has an incredibly strong brand internationally. Manchester is bigger and has a stronger heritage of knowledge industry, tech and finance.
I’m not sure this animosity the author identifies actually exists at any real level beyond football rivalries and a bit of banter about accents and purple bins. The two mayors work incredibly closely together, the two red brick universities have just signed a concordat to align research priorities, and proximity means there are significant overlaps in supply chains and labour markets. Beyond that we’re getting into the realm of a more formal combined administration which don’t seem particularly realistic as city-regions are the clear spatial preference of this government (as they were the last one) and earlier attempts to develop North West structures lacked public and political support.
Agree with all the above. Given the antipathy towards even pan-Manchester governance expressed by some (admittedly fringe) groups, I doubt that chucking Liverpool into the mix would particularly help. Look at the complete and continuing disinterest in regional assemblies of any sort.
The correct way forward is continuing alignment and co-operation between the existing functional areas in making the wider case for investment and/or greater powers in deciding our own destiny. The Mayors and the underlying Combined Authorities have already demonstrated they are getting pretty good at this, as well as acting as a general counterweight to Whitehall.
The idea of greater cooperation between Liverpool goes back decades in planning policy but was revived as an economic concept by NWDA including the Mersey Belt in its first regional economic strategy and given added impetus by Prescott’s Northern Way and Will Alsop’s Super City. The barrier has always been Manchester which has wanted to prioritise the city centre for development. This came to a head when Peel, who are significant players because of their ownership of the Ship Canal and the Port of Liverpool, proposed the concept of the Atlantic Gateway which had buy in from NWDA, GONW and parts of GM (Salford) but not the City. AG lives on in spirit in the LCR freeport, which stretches to Salford.
There has been more cooperation as a result of Manchester becoming much more interested in science (Daresbury lying within the LCR, the bioscience facilities at Speke, as well as the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) and a shared interest in improving transport links between the two, but the underlying dynamic hasn’t really changed.
As you say, governance is a key issue here for two reasons: first there are three unitary authorities lying between LCR and GM that might reasonably expect a voice in discussions; second, you can’t have a serious discussion about how resources and facilities are shared between the two city regions without some overarching accountable governance structure. MCAs aren’t a substitute for that and probably make it harder to achieve. It’s significant that ministers have referred to the creation of “regional councils” to facilitate links between MCAs and their surrounding areas.
I visit Liverpool once a year, usually at Christmas, and find that it’s done a fantastic job of marketing itself internationally as a tourist destination.
Rather than waxing lyrical, I remember being stood inside the, frankly fantastic, Museum of Liverpool and thinking “Why don’t we have a Manchester version of this?” I took out my phone and tweeted Andy Burnham that very same question. My futile effort of trying to roll a snowball down the hill, to try and bring something like *this* to Manchester.
I could almost physically feel the absence, it was so stark. Yes we’ve got Manchester Museums, but not a museum of Manchester - and having one would be glorious!
- All of Manchester’s amazing musical history and influence
- It’s role in the global stage of industry and computing
- Greatest hits from TV and Film, both in terms of the talent and shows it’s made, and the international talent it’s hosted
- It’s storied and constantly changing architecture
- Much much more
The Museum of Liverpool is a template that needs to be copied - a stunning location, amazing building, and the entire cultural history of the area packaged up and served into discrete enjoyable courses. It sets a celebratory tone that the rest of the city follows.
This article suggests Manchester does better tourism wise? It doesn’t feel that way? A visitor to Manchester might cobble together some sort of greatest hits for themselves, but I don’t think Manchester necessarily makes it easy, nor celebrates itself in quite the same way.
Dang, I am waxing lyrical after all.
I want a Museum of Manchester! Anyone fancy helping make one?
Exactly, Colin, I've long thought that Manchester needs a museum dedicated to the city (or to the wider conurbation). The Museum of Science and Industry did have a small gallery dedicated to the city's history, but now that it's been absorbed into the Science Museum, MOSI has been lost to Manchester.
Some of the existing institutions cover certain aspects (such as the fire museum in Rochdale, or the Transport Museum on Boyle Street) but there's nothing to bring it all together. Crucially, there's no central body or organisation to rescue items which may otherwise end up in the skip. Granada spent over sixty years in its building on Quay Street; it must have accumulated a treasure trove over that time, but much was presumably discarded during the move to Media City. Similarly, most of the northern archives of the newspapers were probably lost when the so-called nationals retreated to London in the late-eighties.
It could be more than just the history, though, it could explain how the conurbation works, such as water, sewerage, transport.
I would have suggested the London Road fire station as potential location but that's now spoken for, and the rapacious developers make finding a suitable site ever-more difficult.
A bit like the 19th century industrialists that made the city, different organisations have seen gaps in the market for the public presentation of history in Manchester and sought to fill them, which is possibly why the city's museum landscape doesn't include a municipal museum.
I used to work at MSIM/MOSI/MSI/SIM and the question of why Manchester doesn't have a city museum was asked so often that I decided to learn something of the history of the city's museums. What can I say? I'm an archivist.
Unlike other towns and boroughs around it, Manchester didn't establish a municipal museum during the 19th century. It did open the municipal art gallery in 1823 and its Free Library in 1852, but I've never come across a reason why the city council didn't set up a museum. Maybe I haven't read the right books. Maybe the answer is in the City archive collections at Manchester Archives and Local Studies. I'd be surprised if the council didn't at least discuss it when places like Bolton, Bury, Oldham and Rochdale were setting up their museums in 19th century bursts of municipal pride.
Instead, first out of the blocks was the University of Manchester (unless you count the artefacts the Manchester Lit & Phil gathered together from its own history as a proto-museum). The Manchester Museum opened in 1867 as an academic museum housing the university's archaeology, natural history and anthropology collections. In more recent years its collecting has expanded to include social history, with a focus on Manchester.
It took another century for the North Western Museum of Science and Technology (currently known as the Science and Industry Museum) to be established by UMIST. It was an attempt to preserve the history of science and technology in the north west as traditional heavy industry in the region declined. Many of its early collection items came from UMIST's History of Science & Technology Department teaching collections, others directly from companies that were closing down. Its first public site opened in 1969, its current site in 1983. It has never been a museum dedicated to the history of Manchester. Its focus has always been industrialisation and scientific discovery in the north west, but Manchester played a large part in that story. The perception that, since it joined the Science Museum Group, its focus has drifted further away from Manchester is understandable, but it's not entirely true. Having worked there for almost 20 years, I'd suggest that its focus has shifted away from the social history of industry in the region towards an increased focus on science, sometimes with little connection to the local area. My former colleagues who still work there might disagree with me. At least in public.
The People's History Museum started life in 1975 as the collection of the Trade Union, Labour and Co-operative History Society, housed in Limehouse Town Hall in London. It moved to Manchester's Mechanics Institute building in 1990 and then to the Pump House in 1994. Its collections focus on workers' rights and democracy for the whole of Britain, not just Manchester, although again Manchester has an important place in that national story. PHM also houses the archives of the UK Labour Party.
Urbis opened in 2002 as a "Museum of the City", but not the city of Manchester. It focused on global cities and how they develop. It later became more of an exhibition venue focused on popular culture and eventually closed in 2010. The Football Museum moved into the Urbis building from Deepdale Park in Preston in 2012 - another museum with a broader focus than the city in which it's located.
I love my adopted city but it has a strange relationship with its own history, preferring to see itself in a wider context than focusing precisely on itself. I'd also argue that, for most of its history, it has been a forward looking, mercantile city focused on advance and improvement. Its nostalgic bent arguably only really developed after its global economic relevance declined, and it has latterly developed a nostalgia for its popular music history. John Rylands is now taking up the job of preserving that history through the British Pop Archive. Largely because the Science and Industry Museum didn't take up the opportunity to do the same when it was offered it. Not enough science in the music industry, apparently. I'm delighted to see John Rylands make the most of the collections that used to be at SIM and the creative ways they're using them to support the music scene in the city (ref the Kick Starter story in this Mill edition). Rylands is also now the home of Granada TV's company archive, so is further expanding the accessibility of the city's creative industries history.
While there is no single museum in which to discover the city's history, it is possible to piece together a history of Manchester by visiting each of the museums we have in the city. Does it matter that you have to visit more than one place to do that? Isn't it great that we have such a variety of history in our city, that stretches beyond its civic boundaries? I think of New York and its range of museums that together tell the story of that great city and I think of it as a positive. Why should Manchester be any different?
Interesting that the new acceptable joke seems to be to do down Warrington. Any new multi Centre urban region would have to recognise that places other than Liverpool and Manchester exist in their own right rather than as suburbs of the big boys. This is why Bolton, Wigan and Southport are all uncomfortable in their respective "city regions". In the Netherlands, Utrecht doesn't have to be part of Greater Amsterdam.
As someone who lives in Manchester but worked for 10 years in Liverpool ( and had 2 Liverpudlians in my team prior to that) this article was almost spot on. It just ignored that Mancs need to be less miserable ( is it the rain??) and Scousers less sensitive. However, when I started working there I was shocked by the amount of anti Scouse “ jokes” aimed at Liverpool by outsiders. Substitute “woman” or “black” for “ Liverpool “ and these non Liverpool “ jokers” would have been up in Court.
Will Alsop's "SuperCity" exhibition at Urbis in 2005 springs to mind. The M62 as an 80-mile-long and 15-mile-wide city, running from Hull to Liverpool.
Randstaat (= Ringtown) is exactly the model to go for. I've done some study of it in transport and housing terms and it has brought huge benefits for all the parties involved. While the transport links in the Randstaat are impressive (almost everything electrified and integrated), the transport links from Liverpool to Manchester are a mess - the roads are full and the rail links slow and uncoordinated. It is also instructive to look at airports - LCR cling to the notion of John Lennon as a major airport, which is isn't and will never be even if it was easy to get to, which it isn't. In fact Manchester is the main airport for Liverpool, and faster links there from Merseyside should be a priority.
However, it is probably in housing that the Randstaat has had most benefits. They had a similar housing crisis to our own, and they have solved it by some really high compact city development around the Randstaat, linked together by decent public transport (and a few new roads). Worth a Ryanair flight over to have a look at a few random examples.
Over 30 years ago, I jested with a colleague in the Liverpool office of my firm that there was a simple way to regenerate Liverpool. Rename the city as West Manchester, since foreign investors would ignore the 30 mile gap. He took it amiss.
Much can be achieved by closer ties. However Liverpudlians need to recognise that Liverpool will be the junior partner, because the two cities are not equal.
I think this business about ‘soul’ is nonsense. Much of old Manchester is still standing (if that’s what meant by ‘soul’, but in any case I don’t think cities have ‘souls’. Most of them are made up of small different neighbourhoods, each with their own different ‘soul’. The fact is cities are, and have been for hundreds of years in some cases, corporations. Failure to accept financial realities leads to failure of a city. Simple. I think though that I’d like to see the strength of the north firmly allied as a bulwark against the continued preferential funding of the south, but if enlightened self interest can’t do it wittering on about souls has no chance.
Thanks for dredging up some bitter-sweet memories, David! With the late John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister, as its star turn, the launch of the Liverpool Manchester Vision study made a minor splash twenty-odd years ago but it never got much support within the two cities. Ironically it was two former allies in the regeneration game, one since rejected (the European Commission) and the other (the Northwest Development Agency) abolished, that provided all the funding. And the spirit of togetherness it invoked lasted only until Manchester officers refused to travel to Liverpool to attend the second planned meeting of the group set up to progress practical inter-city collaboration. At that point the Vision was quietly laid to rest. I’m not convinced we’ll see its like again.
This is not to deny that the local stars are better aligned now given the existence of the Combined Authorities and the personal bond between the two current metro mayors. Having a national government that broadly shares their politics should also help, in theory. We even have the modern variant of JP as DPM, for goodness’ sake! In practice, though, two big barriers that are really two sides of the same coin continue to stand in the way. Notwithstanding the warm words from all corners about devolution, the insanely centralised environment in which leaders of England’s places continue to work means they are often forced to compete even when that makes no strategic sense. In my experience, though, centralisation occupies the minds of those who suffer it just as much as those who impose it. As a result, for all the prompting of the Profs and the think tankers, you have to look hard for any evidence that city-regional mothers and fathers have thought very deeply about what it is that Greater Manchester is or can be good at which can benefit the Liverpool city region and vice versa.
It would be nice to think the time is ripe for a Liverpool Manchester Vision Mk2, hopefully pointing the way to something a bit more substantive than the US and Dutch initiatives you mention as potential models. As your piece and the responses it has generated suggest, there are folk at both ends of our stretch of the M62 who are chipping away at the baleful effects of centralisation. In the meantime, though, I think we have to see the limited clamour for greater collaboration for what it is: as a case unproven in the minds of those whose support would be needed to make it work.
This article is imbued with a Scouser sense of victimhood:only confident collaboration can yield results.London predominates in both political and economic terms and there is no doubt that the entire North needs a unified economic strategy which doesn't depend upon piecemeal projects that are cancellable at the whiff of a Whitehall spending review. I surmise that unless the current government changes the model of funding then fine words about devolved government will not cut it with disillusioned voters.
Good piece, but what I really want to know is where this mystical train that takes 30 minutes between Liverpool and Manchester runs? The best I can manage frm Oxford Road to Lime Street is 48 minutes...
Lime Street to Victoria via Transpennine is between 35-38 minutes.
As sevenstreets mentioned, there is one that takes 30 (well, 31) minutes once a day at just after midnight. Handy to get home after an evening partaking in Liverpool's excellent cultural scene, followed by several large libations.
Much of the economic imbalance could be eliminated by greatly improved rail links. However, this doesn't have to be an entirely new high-speed line, which would have little benefit given the proximity of the two cities. An enhanced and electrified Cheshire Lines route, ideally using the currently abandoned direct line to bypass Warrington Central, would add much needed capacity. Ensure services run at least every ten minutes, set the price of a ticket at, say, £5 one-way and £7.50 return (or cheaper) and we could start to cultivate one urban area with two centres.
The capacity problems on the CLC are at either end, i.e. Lime Street and approaches, and the Castlefield Corridor. The CLC also suffers from woeful performance given the mix of local stoppers and inter-regional long distance stuff. Electrification would be beneficial, but only gets you so far.
Who's doing this othering? I was brought up near Liverpool, then studied in Manchester and lived here since. I never heard of this so called animosity. The Dutch model sounds good - include the West Yorkshire conurbation and east Lancashire and Preston.
Regarding the lack of a Museum of Manchester, I think it was suggested/proposed that the new museum in the restored Town Hall would be something like that.
Perhaps The Mill could enquire about this new museum for which preparation is underway?
This is a slightly strange article.
It calls for greater cooperation between the two cities while largely ignoring the collaboration that is already happening. It is also oddly unspecific in what a closer relationship would mean in practical terms.
If we’re talking about more interconnected labour markets then improved transport links are crucial. But these are dismissed as either unrealistic or unimportant. The Liverpool-Manchester Rail Board was established as a result of Northern Powerhouse Rail being downgraded (abolished, in reality) by the previous government - its role is to develop alternatives.
If we’re talking about governance, does the author want to see a return to North West regional structures? Or is something else being proposed? He talks about Dallas/FW and Minneapolis/St Paul but relationships in these cities are largely managed bilaterally at the mayoral level and using state mechanisms.
If we’re talking the economy - to what extent can government at any level divvy up industries between places? Path dependence matters - Liverpool has a port, it has long standing strengths in manufacturing and life sciences, it is beautiful and has an incredibly strong brand internationally. Manchester is bigger and has a stronger heritage of knowledge industry, tech and finance.
I’m not sure this animosity the author identifies actually exists at any real level beyond football rivalries and a bit of banter about accents and purple bins. The two mayors work incredibly closely together, the two red brick universities have just signed a concordat to align research priorities, and proximity means there are significant overlaps in supply chains and labour markets. Beyond that we’re getting into the realm of a more formal combined administration which don’t seem particularly realistic as city-regions are the clear spatial preference of this government (as they were the last one) and earlier attempts to develop North West structures lacked public and political support.
Agree with all the above. Given the antipathy towards even pan-Manchester governance expressed by some (admittedly fringe) groups, I doubt that chucking Liverpool into the mix would particularly help. Look at the complete and continuing disinterest in regional assemblies of any sort.
The correct way forward is continuing alignment and co-operation between the existing functional areas in making the wider case for investment and/or greater powers in deciding our own destiny. The Mayors and the underlying Combined Authorities have already demonstrated they are getting pretty good at this, as well as acting as a general counterweight to Whitehall.
The idea of greater cooperation between Liverpool goes back decades in planning policy but was revived as an economic concept by NWDA including the Mersey Belt in its first regional economic strategy and given added impetus by Prescott’s Northern Way and Will Alsop’s Super City. The barrier has always been Manchester which has wanted to prioritise the city centre for development. This came to a head when Peel, who are significant players because of their ownership of the Ship Canal and the Port of Liverpool, proposed the concept of the Atlantic Gateway which had buy in from NWDA, GONW and parts of GM (Salford) but not the City. AG lives on in spirit in the LCR freeport, which stretches to Salford.
There has been more cooperation as a result of Manchester becoming much more interested in science (Daresbury lying within the LCR, the bioscience facilities at Speke, as well as the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) and a shared interest in improving transport links between the two, but the underlying dynamic hasn’t really changed.
As you say, governance is a key issue here for two reasons: first there are three unitary authorities lying between LCR and GM that might reasonably expect a voice in discussions; second, you can’t have a serious discussion about how resources and facilities are shared between the two city regions without some overarching accountable governance structure. MCAs aren’t a substitute for that and probably make it harder to achieve. It’s significant that ministers have referred to the creation of “regional councils” to facilitate links between MCAs and their surrounding areas.
I visit Liverpool once a year, usually at Christmas, and find that it’s done a fantastic job of marketing itself internationally as a tourist destination.
Rather than waxing lyrical, I remember being stood inside the, frankly fantastic, Museum of Liverpool and thinking “Why don’t we have a Manchester version of this?” I took out my phone and tweeted Andy Burnham that very same question. My futile effort of trying to roll a snowball down the hill, to try and bring something like *this* to Manchester.
I could almost physically feel the absence, it was so stark. Yes we’ve got Manchester Museums, but not a museum of Manchester - and having one would be glorious!
- All of Manchester’s amazing musical history and influence
- It’s role in the global stage of industry and computing
- Greatest hits from TV and Film, both in terms of the talent and shows it’s made, and the international talent it’s hosted
- It’s storied and constantly changing architecture
- Much much more
The Museum of Liverpool is a template that needs to be copied - a stunning location, amazing building, and the entire cultural history of the area packaged up and served into discrete enjoyable courses. It sets a celebratory tone that the rest of the city follows.
This article suggests Manchester does better tourism wise? It doesn’t feel that way? A visitor to Manchester might cobble together some sort of greatest hits for themselves, but I don’t think Manchester necessarily makes it easy, nor celebrates itself in quite the same way.
Dang, I am waxing lyrical after all.
I want a Museum of Manchester! Anyone fancy helping make one?
Exactly, Colin, I've long thought that Manchester needs a museum dedicated to the city (or to the wider conurbation). The Museum of Science and Industry did have a small gallery dedicated to the city's history, but now that it's been absorbed into the Science Museum, MOSI has been lost to Manchester.
Some of the existing institutions cover certain aspects (such as the fire museum in Rochdale, or the Transport Museum on Boyle Street) but there's nothing to bring it all together. Crucially, there's no central body or organisation to rescue items which may otherwise end up in the skip. Granada spent over sixty years in its building on Quay Street; it must have accumulated a treasure trove over that time, but much was presumably discarded during the move to Media City. Similarly, most of the northern archives of the newspapers were probably lost when the so-called nationals retreated to London in the late-eighties.
It could be more than just the history, though, it could explain how the conurbation works, such as water, sewerage, transport.
I would have suggested the London Road fire station as potential location but that's now spoken for, and the rapacious developers make finding a suitable site ever-more difficult.
A bit like the 19th century industrialists that made the city, different organisations have seen gaps in the market for the public presentation of history in Manchester and sought to fill them, which is possibly why the city's museum landscape doesn't include a municipal museum.
I used to work at MSIM/MOSI/MSI/SIM and the question of why Manchester doesn't have a city museum was asked so often that I decided to learn something of the history of the city's museums. What can I say? I'm an archivist.
Unlike other towns and boroughs around it, Manchester didn't establish a municipal museum during the 19th century. It did open the municipal art gallery in 1823 and its Free Library in 1852, but I've never come across a reason why the city council didn't set up a museum. Maybe I haven't read the right books. Maybe the answer is in the City archive collections at Manchester Archives and Local Studies. I'd be surprised if the council didn't at least discuss it when places like Bolton, Bury, Oldham and Rochdale were setting up their museums in 19th century bursts of municipal pride.
Instead, first out of the blocks was the University of Manchester (unless you count the artefacts the Manchester Lit & Phil gathered together from its own history as a proto-museum). The Manchester Museum opened in 1867 as an academic museum housing the university's archaeology, natural history and anthropology collections. In more recent years its collecting has expanded to include social history, with a focus on Manchester.
It took another century for the North Western Museum of Science and Technology (currently known as the Science and Industry Museum) to be established by UMIST. It was an attempt to preserve the history of science and technology in the north west as traditional heavy industry in the region declined. Many of its early collection items came from UMIST's History of Science & Technology Department teaching collections, others directly from companies that were closing down. Its first public site opened in 1969, its current site in 1983. It has never been a museum dedicated to the history of Manchester. Its focus has always been industrialisation and scientific discovery in the north west, but Manchester played a large part in that story. The perception that, since it joined the Science Museum Group, its focus has drifted further away from Manchester is understandable, but it's not entirely true. Having worked there for almost 20 years, I'd suggest that its focus has shifted away from the social history of industry in the region towards an increased focus on science, sometimes with little connection to the local area. My former colleagues who still work there might disagree with me. At least in public.
The People's History Museum started life in 1975 as the collection of the Trade Union, Labour and Co-operative History Society, housed in Limehouse Town Hall in London. It moved to Manchester's Mechanics Institute building in 1990 and then to the Pump House in 1994. Its collections focus on workers' rights and democracy for the whole of Britain, not just Manchester, although again Manchester has an important place in that national story. PHM also houses the archives of the UK Labour Party.
Urbis opened in 2002 as a "Museum of the City", but not the city of Manchester. It focused on global cities and how they develop. It later became more of an exhibition venue focused on popular culture and eventually closed in 2010. The Football Museum moved into the Urbis building from Deepdale Park in Preston in 2012 - another museum with a broader focus than the city in which it's located.
I love my adopted city but it has a strange relationship with its own history, preferring to see itself in a wider context than focusing precisely on itself. I'd also argue that, for most of its history, it has been a forward looking, mercantile city focused on advance and improvement. Its nostalgic bent arguably only really developed after its global economic relevance declined, and it has latterly developed a nostalgia for its popular music history. John Rylands is now taking up the job of preserving that history through the British Pop Archive. Largely because the Science and Industry Museum didn't take up the opportunity to do the same when it was offered it. Not enough science in the music industry, apparently. I'm delighted to see John Rylands make the most of the collections that used to be at SIM and the creative ways they're using them to support the music scene in the city (ref the Kick Starter story in this Mill edition). Rylands is also now the home of Granada TV's company archive, so is further expanding the accessibility of the city's creative industries history.
While there is no single museum in which to discover the city's history, it is possible to piece together a history of Manchester by visiting each of the museums we have in the city. Does it matter that you have to visit more than one place to do that? Isn't it great that we have such a variety of history in our city, that stretches beyond its civic boundaries? I think of New York and its range of museums that together tell the story of that great city and I think of it as a positive. Why should Manchester be any different?
Interesting that the new acceptable joke seems to be to do down Warrington. Any new multi Centre urban region would have to recognise that places other than Liverpool and Manchester exist in their own right rather than as suburbs of the big boys. This is why Bolton, Wigan and Southport are all uncomfortable in their respective "city regions". In the Netherlands, Utrecht doesn't have to be part of Greater Amsterdam.
As someone who lives in Manchester but worked for 10 years in Liverpool ( and had 2 Liverpudlians in my team prior to that) this article was almost spot on. It just ignored that Mancs need to be less miserable ( is it the rain??) and Scousers less sensitive. However, when I started working there I was shocked by the amount of anti Scouse “ jokes” aimed at Liverpool by outsiders. Substitute “woman” or “black” for “ Liverpool “ and these non Liverpool “ jokers” would have been up in Court.
Will Alsop's "SuperCity" exhibition at Urbis in 2005 springs to mind. The M62 as an 80-mile-long and 15-mile-wide city, running from Hull to Liverpool.
Nice re-cap here: https://architecturetoday.co.uk/learning-from-will-alsop-supercity-manchester/
Randstaat (= Ringtown) is exactly the model to go for. I've done some study of it in transport and housing terms and it has brought huge benefits for all the parties involved. While the transport links in the Randstaat are impressive (almost everything electrified and integrated), the transport links from Liverpool to Manchester are a mess - the roads are full and the rail links slow and uncoordinated. It is also instructive to look at airports - LCR cling to the notion of John Lennon as a major airport, which is isn't and will never be even if it was easy to get to, which it isn't. In fact Manchester is the main airport for Liverpool, and faster links there from Merseyside should be a priority.
However, it is probably in housing that the Randstaat has had most benefits. They had a similar housing crisis to our own, and they have solved it by some really high compact city development around the Randstaat, linked together by decent public transport (and a few new roads). Worth a Ryanair flight over to have a look at a few random examples.
Over 30 years ago, I jested with a colleague in the Liverpool office of my firm that there was a simple way to regenerate Liverpool. Rename the city as West Manchester, since foreign investors would ignore the 30 mile gap. He took it amiss.
Much can be achieved by closer ties. However Liverpudlians need to recognise that Liverpool will be the junior partner, because the two cities are not equal.
It’s just that “ jest” that gets up the noses of Scousers! If Mancs could be less “ jesting “ of Scousers there would be less animosity.
I think this business about ‘soul’ is nonsense. Much of old Manchester is still standing (if that’s what meant by ‘soul’, but in any case I don’t think cities have ‘souls’. Most of them are made up of small different neighbourhoods, each with their own different ‘soul’. The fact is cities are, and have been for hundreds of years in some cases, corporations. Failure to accept financial realities leads to failure of a city. Simple. I think though that I’d like to see the strength of the north firmly allied as a bulwark against the continued preferential funding of the south, but if enlightened self interest can’t do it wittering on about souls has no chance.
Thanks for dredging up some bitter-sweet memories, David! With the late John Prescott, then Deputy Prime Minister, as its star turn, the launch of the Liverpool Manchester Vision study made a minor splash twenty-odd years ago but it never got much support within the two cities. Ironically it was two former allies in the regeneration game, one since rejected (the European Commission) and the other (the Northwest Development Agency) abolished, that provided all the funding. And the spirit of togetherness it invoked lasted only until Manchester officers refused to travel to Liverpool to attend the second planned meeting of the group set up to progress practical inter-city collaboration. At that point the Vision was quietly laid to rest. I’m not convinced we’ll see its like again.
This is not to deny that the local stars are better aligned now given the existence of the Combined Authorities and the personal bond between the two current metro mayors. Having a national government that broadly shares their politics should also help, in theory. We even have the modern variant of JP as DPM, for goodness’ sake! In practice, though, two big barriers that are really two sides of the same coin continue to stand in the way. Notwithstanding the warm words from all corners about devolution, the insanely centralised environment in which leaders of England’s places continue to work means they are often forced to compete even when that makes no strategic sense. In my experience, though, centralisation occupies the minds of those who suffer it just as much as those who impose it. As a result, for all the prompting of the Profs and the think tankers, you have to look hard for any evidence that city-regional mothers and fathers have thought very deeply about what it is that Greater Manchester is or can be good at which can benefit the Liverpool city region and vice versa.
It would be nice to think the time is ripe for a Liverpool Manchester Vision Mk2, hopefully pointing the way to something a bit more substantive than the US and Dutch initiatives you mention as potential models. As your piece and the responses it has generated suggest, there are folk at both ends of our stretch of the M62 who are chipping away at the baleful effects of centralisation. In the meantime, though, I think we have to see the limited clamour for greater collaboration for what it is: as a case unproven in the minds of those whose support would be needed to make it work.
This article is imbued with a Scouser sense of victimhood:only confident collaboration can yield results.London predominates in both political and economic terms and there is no doubt that the entire North needs a unified economic strategy which doesn't depend upon piecemeal projects that are cancellable at the whiff of a Whitehall spending review. I surmise that unless the current government changes the model of funding then fine words about devolved government will not cut it with disillusioned voters.
Wouldn’t ‘Greater Warrington’ be a better name than Manpool or Livchester? 🤔
Good piece, but what I really want to know is where this mystical train that takes 30 minutes between Liverpool and Manchester runs? The best I can manage frm Oxford Road to Lime Street is 48 minutes...
Lime Street to Victoria via Transpennine is between 35-38 minutes.
As sevenstreets mentioned, there is one that takes 30 (well, 31) minutes once a day at just after midnight. Handy to get home after an evening partaking in Liverpool's excellent cultural scene, followed by several large libations.
When the Oxford Road Tap opens there'll be even more chances of a swift one!
Depends if you'll be able to squeeze in - the Oxford Road Tap will make Victoria look like a Wetherspoons in size!
Ha! There was one. Once. One day. Unless it’s an implanted memory.
Much of the economic imbalance could be eliminated by greatly improved rail links. However, this doesn't have to be an entirely new high-speed line, which would have little benefit given the proximity of the two cities. An enhanced and electrified Cheshire Lines route, ideally using the currently abandoned direct line to bypass Warrington Central, would add much needed capacity. Ensure services run at least every ten minutes, set the price of a ticket at, say, £5 one-way and £7.50 return (or cheaper) and we could start to cultivate one urban area with two centres.
The capacity problems on the CLC are at either end, i.e. Lime Street and approaches, and the Castlefield Corridor. The CLC also suffers from woeful performance given the mix of local stoppers and inter-regional long distance stuff. Electrification would be beneficial, but only gets you so far.
Who's doing this othering? I was brought up near Liverpool, then studied in Manchester and lived here since. I never heard of this so called animosity. The Dutch model sounds good - include the West Yorkshire conurbation and east Lancashire and Preston.
Thank you David Lloyd for a very thought provoking piece.
Regarding the lack of a Museum of Manchester, I think it was suggested/proposed that the new museum in the restored Town Hall would be something like that.
Perhaps The Mill could enquire about this new museum for which preparation is underway?