How does the BBC docuseries ‘Manctopia’ reflect the issues of gentrification within Manchester?

Introduction -

Gentrification: the process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, often displacing current inhabitants in the process.

‘Manctopia’ is an exploration of the benefits and detriments shaped by the powerful force of gentrification in Manchester; a force that is sweeping through cities across the world. The documentary series was first showcased to the public in the summer of 2020 – exploring the rippling effects of Manchester’s ‘billion-pound property boom’ on a range of different communities - as the show describes “property winners… and losers”. For many people within the city of Manchester, who are more negatively affected by the rapid, somewhat unrecognisable development of the place they have grown up in; the news of a show covering the issues that are drastically re-shaping their lives and communities presented itself as a beacon of hope to spark a change in Manchester’s housing and development programmes and protect the city’s identity, however soon after the show was released, they realised this was not the case.

The show takes on an observational style in which none of the characters or situations displayed are demonised in any way for the purpose of entertainment and to cater for the broader audience, as not everyone is ‘negatively’ impacted by the ‘re-generation’ and expansion of cities across the world. However, given the timing of the programme and its huge platform: premiering on national TV and also being the first documentary to delve into the consequences and advantages of gentrification in Manchester itself – many people were left asking after the show was released: does Manctopia ‘do enough’ to raise the voices of locals and their struggles in the ongoing situation of Manchester’s ‘billion-pound property boom’ in a way which exhibits all possible outcomes for the city’s future?

Analysis of Manctopia providing insight into its representation of gentrification -

The programme opens with the same introduction for each episode. As an audience we are greeted with an upbeat, guitar and bass riff matched with slow panning drone shots of the city’s rapidly developing skyline; filled with cranes, skyscrapers and construction. The sun seems to rise in the background of the ever-growing expansion of new buildings as we hear the words “Good morning Manchester!”.

This happy atmosphere created in some ways normalises the city’s gentrification, presenting it in a positive light. The inclusion of establishing drone shots on a scenic, radiant morning as the sun rises and the enthusiastic delivery of the words “Good morning Manchester” signify a new, happier future, rather than the city being stripped of its identity, which is how many people perceive the new high-rises that are being forced into Manchester’s heart – instead of affordable housing or public services that everyone can benefit from, not just the few. On the other hand, the documentary is observational or as described by one of the lead editors of the programme – Tom Dixon-Spain - “non-partisan” and the huge skyscrapers that are taking scope across the city’s skyline, are what the programme is all about. In my interview with Tom, he also went on to explain that the aims of the show were not to create “angels and demons” within, but to provide more of an “even-handed” analysis of the on-going situation and not to be “overly sympathetic towards one side”, but more so “balanced” with what they were presenting. You could argue that this is what the opening of the programme does: simply displaying what is happening in Manchester’s city centre in a non-biased way and introducing the direction the city is taking, however the positive mood created by the inclusion of happy, up-beat music and sunny skies present the rapid development and gentrification of the city as an opportunity rather than a threat.

It is clear from this introduction to the programme and the mood created around the exciting prospect of Manchester’s growth; that it is not the skyscrapers themselves that the director perceives as the real danger to the city’s identity. The mood however changes about three minutes in when we are told by the narrator that it is “not wealthy individuals looking for a home that’s driving the growth”. As this line is said, the song ‘Blue Monday’ by New Order (included in the previous sequence to tie in with estate agent: Jennie Platt’s comments about Manchester’s history, The Hacienda and how things have changed) quickly fades out. Platt then continues to say Manchester is “having a lot more investment, especially from overseas” because the city has “higher yields” on property investment. This line acts as a cue for the inclusion of slightly unnerving piano music as we move into a scene where the estate agent is selling a new high-rise flat to a young, Asian couple. The music fades in further and we witness a shot of the Asian man in a businessman’s coat, looking out towards Manchester’s skyline whilst pointing.

The shot is hand-held and slightly out of focus which is an exhibitory technique often used in film to signify distress and dis-orientation (for example in war films after a bomb has exploded) – almost as if the situation (Manchester’s property boom) is now out of control. The use of this technique whilst the man points and looks out towards the city’s horizon with the music playing over the top of any sound/dialogue that may have been said creates a mysterious feel to the sequence and gives the audience the impression that he is plotting and has further plans to profit from the city despite not even living there.

This change in camerawork and music clearly reveals that this is what the director perceives as the real threat to Manchester’s future and identity – “wealthy individuals looking for a home” are not the problem. This is followed by a high-angle shot capturing small silhouettes of people walking down below.

In doing this, the director separates the potential new tenant from the people down below as they are presented as ant-like figures with their identities removed – merely shadows passing by – thus giving them no power or status at all. This contrast of shots could have been included to symbolise the divide in wealth between the two opposing positions in the city’s gentrification and how powerless the general public/residents of Manchester truly are in a force and global movement that is much more powerful than a few ‘hipsters’ moving in and opening a new vegan coffee shop.

Further research into gentrification & reactions to the show -

After my reading into ‘How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality and The Fight for the Neighborhood’ by Peter Moskowitz, I found that “The coffee shop is (just) the tip of the iceberg” of gentrification and the root causes of a city becoming ‘unliveable’ for the many who help make up its identity are much more systemic and deceitful: “crafted in the offices of real estate moguls and in the halls of city government”. According to Moskowitz, “cities’ real estate and zoning policies are determined by local (and national) … governments” and in order for all “phases” of gentrification to happen - which result in the ‘threat’ presented in this scene (properties being developed and sold off to foreign investors with no one actually living in them) - “governments have to be willing to allow it”. Therefore, presenting the foreign investor in this way where his identity is relatively hidden (compared to the majority of the other characters in the show where we are introduced to their personality/lives in some way) and adding tense music to his introduction somewhat creates a false ‘enemy’ for the viewer and therefore easily passes the blame when the root causes lie much deeper – are foreign investors really to blame for making profit on a property they have no intention to live in when they are being allowed to do so by local councils and governments without any repercussions?

This “absence” of “specific information on which governments’ policies” have created such an imbalance in Manchester’s and more broadly the UK’s property market was mentioned in The Guardian’s review of the programme saying that its “avoid(ance)” of these root causes “feels almost like a moral failure at this point”. However, after my interview with one of the lead editors of the programme, I was told that the idea of a documentary series that goes into detail about the deeper reasons/political decisions as to ‘why’ the situations we see in the show are occurring is “a different film” which I agree with. Manctopia is an observation of the expeditious changes that are taking place in the city’s landscape and identity; told through the lives of individuals and their stories. If the series were to go into depth about the history of the housing market in the UK and all the contributing factors which have led to the current situation that the programme explores, then it would be much more of an educational and more likely polemic documentary – which is not what the show set out to do. In my interview with Tom Dixon-Spain, I was told that “the aims of the film (were) not to be a political rallying point or to lay blame” but more to display to the audience “where (Manchester is) at”.

To many people – even locals who are negatively affected by it in the show – the displacement of local communities and a shift in the city’s identity seems a matter of fate. Single mum Christina (described by Dixon-Spain as “the absolute embodiment” of the “negative effects” of gentrification within the programme) is even pictured saying in the first episode as she searches desperately for affordable housing in the area she has lived her whole life; that due to it becoming “so desirable” and rents across the region being up by nearly 40%; the “likes of” her and other lower-income households are “going to struggle” indefinitely to find a place to live in the community they call home. However, in the book ‘How to Kill a City’; the author goes into detail as he attempts to “solve… the central cause” of the complex, systemic machine that is gentrification and explains that by “identifying” the “players, their policies and effects” it can be made clear that “gentrification is not inevitable” and perhaps “stoppable, or at the very least manageable” – these “cause(s)” listed by Moskowitz all being attributing factors the documentary in some ways failed to explore. Creating a film of “Where (Manchester is) at” and displaying the new developments that are filling the city’s skyline in a “non-partisan” way is not going to do anything to spark a change in Manchester’s and more so the country’s attitude towards the displacement of local communities, which is what those in some ways powerless to the rapid changes of their neighbourhoods desperately need - but as Tom Dixon-Spain said himself: “It’s not a campaign film” and the documentary was more about “reflecting” rather than “promoting” a means of action. The series was not presenter-led and therefore any views/standpoints on the situation that were included by the BBC would be “attributed” to them. The lead editor told me that the BBC is “not a mentor” and therefore it cannot take up the position of “saying what is right and wrong” as it is not their responsibility which is in some ways true, however on lots of other BBC documentaries covering issues such as racism, homophobia and crime we have seen the inclusion of presenters such as Reggie Yates and Stacey Dooley to explain their views, thus enhancing the seriousness of the situations. However, you could also argue that this ‘situation’ is much less aggressive and damaging.

Examples of my own work which relate to Manctopia’s analysis of the city’s property boom -

Previously in my own filming projects I have taken it upon myself to reflect on issues which I am passionate about in a way which influences those watching to make a change: One documentary short being about the potential sale of a community centre and arts space for luxury apartments, the other about a community ran boxing and youth club under threat of closure due to a lack of government funding and rising rents. Both these documentaries were observational, however still led the viewer down the path of thinking that the conditions were unfair, and something needed to be done. These messages were put across through the questions I asked, use of music, what shots were included at what points in the narrative etc. This was also done in Manctopia where for me the overall view in the programme was that despite the consequences the city’s property boom is having on local and working-class communities; it is a process that will go ahead and continue to go ahead in the future and there is not really anything anyone can do about it – as described by Dixon-Spain: “This is the way the city is going, and what are the pros and cons to that” – therefore when I was told by Tom that due to the documentary being “observational” it was difficult to express an “opinion” on the situation; I understood in some ways but also felt this statement was slightly unfair, as through my analysis of the show there was a definite viewpoint put across. I also question whether it’s possible to adopt a neutral position in film.

The main aspect of the series that evidences the director’s overall view of Manchester’s property boom is through the majority of the screen-time for the city’s ‘property losers’ being given to the character Anne – who is part of a 1970s housing estate in Collyhurst that is under threat of being knocked down for ‘re-development’ as part of the new ‘Northern Gateway’ – funded by the Hong Kong based Far East Consortium – which sets out to build 10,000 new homes in the North of the city within the next ten years.

Anne is the apotheosis of the how the director perceives Manchester’s housing dilemma which is signified most blatantly in the sequence where she attends a walking tour of the city centre explaining the rapid developments taking place – as tour guide Jonathan Silver describes: “housing financialization”. Instantly we are able to recognise Silver’s views on the city’s ‘re-generation’ as he is described by the narrator as an “activist who opposes the current re-development of the city”. Later on in the tour when explaining the council’s “new partnership with Abu Dhabi United Group” to build new housing in Manchester, Jonathan elaborates further saying that “they are here to extract from the city” and “haven’t come to make it a better place”, instead they have “come to profit”. He is then, however, quickly interrupted by Anne who argues that they have made Manchester “a better place” suggesting that there wasn’t anything actually in the area prior to its development other than “derelict” land and “no one else was going to put the money in(to)” the city. This is a very valid point, but before we get a chance to hear what Silver has to say in response, he is cut off as the debate the two are having fades out and we hear another take on Anne’s perspective on the situation – despite the tour guide being a university researcher and the only local in the show who has a political standpoint and valid information to support his views. Regardless of Dixon-Spain’s comments that the documentary was completely “even-handed” and “observational” (which it was in a lot of ways); this omission of the tour guide’s side of the argument in the debate was not done by accident and therefore reflects the message that the director wanted to get across: the city of Manchester is becoming a “better place”, but the question is – for whom?

There are obvious benefits to gentrification and the re-development of cities as well - such as increased investment, resulting in an increase in businesses, jobs and capital (which the council can re-invest into the city to improve transport systems, education facilities and public services) as well as reduced crime and increased return on property value for homeowners. Therefore, it would be very biased for Manctopia to ‘demonise’ the rapid expansion of the city and give negative connotations to the many positives that are taking place. The argument is that even without the existence of a documentary such as Manctopia; Manchester’s rapid development and gentrification would continue to grow, and the positives gained from certain communities and businesses would continue to be gained. Gentrification would still exist as it is a product of a Capitalist society and basic economics – increased demand to live in an area results in an increase in price for properties within that area and if some existing communities can’t afford to live there; that is just something they will unfortunately have to accept. As Peter Moskowitz defines it himself: “Gentrification is a system that places the needs of capital… above the needs of the people” and unfortunately for a number of people within Manchester this statement has transpired into reality.

Greater Manchester Savers’ response to Manctopia – Does Manctopia ‘do enough’ to provide a means of action?

One of those people being community activist: Tina Cribbin, who has lived in Manchester her entire life and dedicated the last thirty years to working and volunteering for Greater Manchester’s community. One of Tina’s many lines of community work is within the organisation ‘Greater Manchester savers’: a women-led network who unite residents across Greater Manchester to share ideas and strategies for reducing poverty and creating a balance within their communities. GM Savers were not happy with the show’s “misguided message that uncontrollable investor-driven urban development is the only possible trajectory” despite posing as a series which they thought set out to “analyse the inequalities associated with Manchester’s property boom”. According to the community group “many people tuned into the programme hoping to see some serious journalism interrogating the underlying issues that are increasingly fragmenting communities, displacing people to outer areas of the city region and beyond and ultimately costing lives on the streets through a mental health crisis” which they felt they did not “receive”. My view is that the documentary did cover a lot of the issues that “Manchester’s property boom” has definitely influenced; introducing us to a number of local characters and their situations either under threat of having their homes and communities demolished for ‘re-generation’, being evicted due to rising rents or being left without a home at all. We were also given insights into the characters’ that were included to represent such difficulties’ lives’ which helped the audience develop a bond with the ‘victims’ – for example when we are introduced to the character Donna and her friendship with fellow resident Anne.

Donna, like Anne, is also a resident on the council estate under threat of being demolished. In this scene, we are introduced to Donna in a scenario where Anne is showing her around her garden laughing about how the frost “got” Anne’s hydrangeas. This is a conversation/dilemma that many viewers can relate to no matter what their class or outlook on the current development of Manchester is and therefore humanises the locals; allowing the viewer to connect with them and develop a relationship with the characters on screen. The inclusion of an everyday situation where the characters are being friendly and looking out for one another, rather than only being included when angry about the changes that are happening to their communities – which would conform to a lot of the negative stereotypes surrounding the working class (angry, shouting, swearing, un-educated etc.) personalises the characters and therefore triggers more of a reaction from the audience when we find out that their lives are being drastically affected by the impacts of the city’s property boom in which the uncertainty and lack of protection is causing them a significant amount of distress. Due to the audience’s attachment to the locals as they are now able to relate to them (despite potentially different lives/positions in the force of gentrification) the impact the news of their communities and therefore livelihood being under threat resonates much more deeply and sparks an emotional reaction from the viewer, rather than accepting the displacement of local communities for what it is.

The threat of Anne and Donna’s houses being knocked down, Christina struggling to find a home, the insight into the homeless characters’ journeys into destitution and many more of the situations displayed in the show, however, are only the consequences of gentrification which have in most instances in Manctopia already happened or inevitably going to happen anyway. Therefore, they do not make the viewer feel as if there are any alternative options that the city and its residents can take for a more equitable future. This is one of the main aspects of the programme that led to Greater Manchester savers’ and Tina Cribbin’s “anger” and “disappointment” towards the programme as they felt collectively that the local residents negatively affected by the city’s gentrification in the show were presented as “passive”, and the “activism”, “campaigning” and solidarity between existing communities who “fight daily” against their lack of protection from local councils and the government “wasn’t shown in the programme at all”. This point could be enhanced by the fact that all of the local characters in show included to signify Manchester’s ‘property losers’ were old with no real political standpoint or solution to their problems – the only slight means of action being presented through the mayor of Salford: Paul Dennett and his pledge to build 50,000 new affordable homes in Greater Manchester within the next twenty years.

At the end of the third episode in which Paul is introduced we do find out that he has succeeded in his new, “unique plan” of setting up a council owned development company which is able to bypass the government’s spending caps to build ninety affordable homes across three different sites. Paul very much has the attitude of if people “work with the system” and work with the council then they will “make sure there’s a roof over (their) head(s)”, but unfortunately for locals within desirable places to live near the city centre such as Collyhurst or Hulme (where Tina has lived her whole life) this is not entirely the case. Ninety new “genuinely affordable” homes (as described by Paul) in the region of Greater Manchester is still very much a ‘win’ for his campaign and Manchester’s working-class community which is indicated through the inclusion of heart-warming music and a number of shots of the mayor and the builders involved posing and smiling in front of the site.

However, even Paul realises and accepts himself that this level of development is only a “drop in the ocean in terms of the scale of building” the council “need to do to truly bring forward affordable housing” in the UK and more so Greater Manchester. Across the city’s region, less than twenty percent of the new homes currently being built are affordable, therefore for every 90 homes Paul manages to fight for; 450 luxury apartments are also being built next door – which means for the majority of local residents there will still be a shortage – the show even states themselves that in Salford alone, there are 97,000 people currently on the waiting list for a home they can afford to live in.

Conclusion -

From my reading into the book ‘How to Kill a City’ which goes into detail about “the fight” that is taking place against gentrification in neighbourhoods across America – the author makes it very clear that in order to gain “equitable geographies, for cities in which everyone, regardless of income, can comfortably live”; the people of the communities being affected need to unite and make a stand against the local councils and their developments. The author draws on case studies where individual community activists such as Alicia Boyd from New York have “singlehanded(ly)” stopped the “complete gentrification” of areas by disrupting community board meetings with “outbursts” that are “calculated” to stop the potential “rezoning” of neighbourhoods for new luxury properties which would shift the change in demographic further. This “rise in activism” was something that Tina Cribbin said her, and Greater Manchester savers would have liked to see, if the programme were to be screened again, to showcase “the strength of community, not just (the) victimisation of it” as it seems that locals taking a stand against the Capitalist, money making machine that is gentrification is the only way to stop its “injustice(s)”.

As society progresses and demographics change, with more businesses and investment moving to areas that have a higher ‘rent gap’ (a theory created by geographer Neil Smith in 1979 relating to the potential return on a property)

such as Manchester; the growth and development of cities is inevitable and, in many ways, a good thing. However, there needs to be a balance. Through the somewhat glorification of property developers in the programme such as Tim Heatley who pose as ‘ethical’ despite contributing to the ever growing in-balance of the city’s property market with more un-needed luxury apartments, and the only possible solution provided for locals struggling to find a home being to “work with the system” which unfortunately for many has not worked – the show does not do enough to show alternative strategies to give power and hope to the people at home watching who want to preserve their communities’ identities and the people/support networks that make them so special.

As lead-editor Tom Dixon-Spain said, “it’s not a campaign film” and not necessarily the BBC’s responsibility to provide hope to people without much power in a relatively hopeless situation, however gentrification is a result of too many people from top to bottom (politicians, council members, developers, investors, the public, me myself) not taking responsibility to protect the people who make a city’s identity what it is. Therefore, taking a “non-partisan”, “observational” outlook on the issues that are affecting local communities without providing enough solutions is not enough.

One other factor that has recently arisen and thrown a curved ball in the ‘inevitability’ of gentrification is the pandemic of 2020-2021. Suddenly the march of capitalism has been halted by a force of nature and a worldwide pandemic. The housing market has been turned inside-out and no-one can predict the outcome. Manchester City Council has lost £75 million in revenue from Manchester Airport. The housing market is being kept buoyant by subsidies in/freezes in stamp duty and city dwellers are now moving to rural retreats, where they can work from home, walk the dog and have a nice view. It remains to be seen if the global pandemic will halt the property developers’ and local councils’ grand plans that were displayed in Manctopia.