ABSTRACT
In the last 20 years, the city of Birmingham in the UK has been rebranded into a forward-looking regional centre that is embedded within Europe and the global economy. The first phase of Birmingham’s reinvention involved the construction of flagship developments, such as the National Exhibition Centre, the International Convention Centre and Symphony Hall. These prestige developments, although instrumental in enhancing Birmingham’s international profile, have been heavily criticised for being spatially and socially out of reach for many local residents (Lister 1991; Fretter 1993; Smyth 1994; Duffy 1995; Loftman and Nevin 1996). However, with the second phase of Birmingham’s reimagining the local authority has sought to involve a much wider constituency through building a new ethos for the city (Bhattacharyya 2000). This has included a selfconscious effort to involve and reflect the city’s cultural diversity in the regeneration of what has officially been described as a cosmopolitan urban environment:
To consider how such a cosmopolitan urban environment could possibly be built, a conference called ‘Highbury 3’ was held in
February 2001. Made up of planners, politicians, voluntary sector workers, local business people, academics and representatives from Birmingham’s ethnic minority communities, the conference featured a number of discussions on healthy living, communication links, the provision of education, neighbourhood management, the new economy, crime, the urban environment and cultural development. Each of these discussions was, in the words of Councillor Bore, ‘to meet the challenge of diversity’ and sought to establish ways in which the city could peacefully manage its cultural differences. To quote one of the key sound bites scattered amongst the conference proceedings:
Amongst the many participants was Charles Landry of Comedia, whose organisation was commissioned by Birmingham City Council to produce a research report to assist further dialogue. Entitled Planning for the Cosmopolitan City, this report was composed by the highly respected urban commentators Jude Bloomfield and Franco Bianchini (2002). In it, they refine and elaborate upon many of the sentiments contained in Highbury 3 such as: ‘making the most of assets presented by the city’s many different communities’, ‘forging a vital bond between the city’s entrepreneurial tradition and its new ethnic diversity’, ‘[living] interculturally’ and ‘welcoming . . . all groups from within and visiting the city’.
