Thinking about how even more massive names have gone from the high streets & town centres.

We must not be tempted by temporarily filling the void with “pop-up” consumption to “suspend” property value in hopes of a “bounce back”.

1/7

In fact, sometimes pop-up is a terrible idea. It risk/suppress a markets value - such as “artist studios” or “start-up work space”.

Those two examples work successfully because of the community around them. The bricks and mortar are usually a secondary factor

2/7

Equally, filling the voids with more consumption, like bars and restaurants, isn’t the answer. It’s part of the mix needed! Such what @Metquarter are doing - but if that happened two or three more times it would dilute everything and just “shift around” a sector.

3/7

What’s needed is less consumption aspects of the economy, and more production & services.

Those offers would already find their own way there, where it not for prohibitive costs and other factors.

4/7

Some challenges to overcome:
inflated values make for unaffordable medium-long occupation.

business rates creating disproportionate overheads.

dilapidation “broken window theory” lowering confidence.

ownership crisis. Too much owned by absentee landlords.

5/7

Role of local authorities & @mhclg is: help people, of a place, design its future.

ENABLE: Create *conditions* for change.
DIVERSIFY: in particular land&prop ownership, such as more local & social owners.
INCENTIVE: Unlink business rates to council income & scrap it.

*all of this is on top of the other things that need to happen: more housing, reducing footprints, improving transport, etc.

The overall theme could be “let the people regenerate” and make plans for a person approach, not just a property approach. In reality, bits of both needed