Elitism vs. populism in the decision-making of a living historic space : the case study of Piccadilly Gardens

Abstract

In the eyes of government officials in developed cities, re-planning of inner urban centres often becomes a challenge. While previously the economic activities in these areas might have been the sole driver of growth, changes in the demographic structure, socio-economic character and political order have rendered the space old and unproductive. Large-scale regeneration projects are often necessary to rejuvenate aged yet historically significant urban spaces. Nevertheless, with the interests of competing parties at stake, redevelopment decision-making is bound to attract heated controversies, especially on the question of “who should be deciding”. Seeking to address the issue of "elitism" versus "populism", this paper presents a case study of the Manchester Piccadilly Gardens redevelopment project carried out after the 1996 IRA Bombing incident. It will be shown that, despite efforts in engaging the public within an eliteled decision-making framework, the redeveloped Piccadilly Gardens failed to address the concerns of the Manchester community, which eventually led to the ironic decision in 2016 to demolish the newly-added elements and undergo another round of redevelopment. Upon discovering that the "elitism" versus "populism" debate is indeed misguided, the paper concludes by providing policy recommendations to future decision-makers in relation to the redevelopment of historic places.