How successful has rebranding been in Southampton?

Our class visited Southampton in October 2010 with the intention of researching the extent to which the city had been rebranded. Naturally, parts of the city had been affected dissimilarly e.g. Above Bar, was almost the complete opposite of St. Marys. We wanted to find out whether Southamptons rebranding techniques had been successful or not and to do this we carried out 6 different surveys including land use, crime and vulnerability, and environmental quality, in the three main areas of the city, The Waterfront, Above Bar, and St. Marys Street. The first technique, land use surveying, mapped out two areas of Southampton in terms of the uses of individual buildings. They could be categorised as Independent Retail or Cafes and Bars etc. In St. Marys Street, properties were mostly Independent Retail and Commercial businesses, implying that the area is predominantly, a trading suburb. The second, most common use was Food Retail and the other categories like Cafs, Bars, Chain Retail, and Entertainment were about 2 or 3 in number respectively. The proportion of figures at St. Marys could perhaps indicate a shortage of disposable income for its residents. There were no sports facilities or open areas in St. Marys and the majority of properties were residential .This has resulted in a high population density, with few communal resources like a park or leisure centre. The most common use in Above Bar was Chain Retail (unsurprisingly). The area serves the town as the shopping district in which most shops can be found. The second most common use was Independent Retail at about 17 in number. Overall though, 49 out of the 83 properties were for shopping and commercial use. The construction of West Quay (that started in 1997) has brought larger, more substantial companies like John Lewis, River Island and Schuh to the centre with the hope that people will repeatedly return to Above Bar. Building West Quay would imply that public spending on the area has been reasonably large and this is reflected also in Environmental Quality and Crime and Vulnerability. Investment will continue to occur as the shopping centre attracts larger numbers (including tourists) each year. We measured the Crime and Vulnerability of all three areas of Southampton by recording statistics like the crime rate, and violent crime rate, prominent business type, and outside lighting. The survey is based on the perceptions of safety among people living in poverty. The prominent business type at The Waterfront was commercial property, and its crime rate, per 1000 was relatively low at 43.3, with violent crime at 13.7. The main entity in the area is the port which is vital in the UK for shipping and container ships. The walk-in traffic was also classed as low, In St. Marys, the prominent business type was Independent Retail and crime was slightly higher at 73.7 per 1000. Although, not the most unsafe of places, there was a large police presence in the area when we carried out our studies. At Above Bar the prominent business type was chain retail. Most property was privately owned and outside lighting was frequent, which implies that the area

is safe at night. On the other hand though, the overall crime rate for the area is a huge 203.3 per 1000. This is most likely to be a result of the student leisure and nightlife in the area. On the day we visited, there was a huge police presence with a large number of community support officers patrolling the outside shops. The third technique we used to evaluate rebranding in Southampton was a Housing Survey. We used a bi-polar method of investigation which is reliant upon the opinion of the surveyor. One rates an area in certain categories on a scale of 5 (being positive) to -5 (negative). This makes the results limited in some senses. The survey could only be carried out at The Waterfront and St. Marys since there is no or very little housing at Above Bar. At The Waterfront, the majority of people (6) decided that the area had a lack of gardens or open space, although an additional 5 said the opposite. The most common vote in General Appearance (7 votes), was a score of 3 in that the area was generally pleasant and reasonably good looking. 11 people gave The Waterfront a -5 score for Distance from the road. In St. Marys the majority of people decided that there was an excessive lack of garden provision with 4 votes of -5. 4 people also decided that housing was relatively close to the road with a -1 score. This technique is based on peoples perceptions of the different areas of Southampton. St. Marys received a total score of -74 which is low in comparison with The Waterfront at -51. The cause of this is probably that the housing a terraced and affordable and so doesnt include any parking or garden space. The distance from road landslide vote at The Waterfront is a result of the main roads that drive through the district and the fact that the buildings were high-rise apartment blocks. Fourthly, we carried out Sustainability Surveys in all three areas of Southampton. This technique is most of all dependent on peoples perceptions of Southampton. We collected a wide range of results but there are certain valid trends such as that at The Waterfront area, where most people valued the cultural heritage the most over the landscape and open space. At St. Marys, access to a full range of shopping facilities and services seems to have been perceived as important by surveyors. The area did admittedly have a wide range of shops and take up a large amount of space. At Above Bar, the most valued category was shopping facilities (again) as much investment has gone into making West Quay one of the most competitive shopping regions on the south coast. We also carried out additional secondary research. It was undertaken to a find both a wider variety of opinion, and also a broader range of statistics as ours may not have been fully representative of the norm. It is limited in that we cannot prove its validity since it is from second-hand sources. The main information deduced from the secondary research includes the following points: HMV rebranded itself by branching into live music. People think that: o Car parking is expensive.

o The shops are great. o The dedicated food floor at West Quay is an advantage. o West Quay is recommendable. A 155-bed hotel, 7 storey office block and restaurants, cafes and bars have all been proposed. o The scheme brings the prospect of 400 jobs. More than 75% of the area of the 800,000ft West Quay is for offices. West Quay has created more than 3500 jobs fro Southampton.

The most in-depth and detailed results we gained from our Southampton trip came from the Questionnaires. This was because we could ask questions that were based on what we wanted to find out. We were limited in that we only asked people in the Above Bar area and not in St. Marys, The Waterfront or West Quay itself. The largest proportion of people of those we surveyed were under 15, or at least under 30 (14 people). Possibly this is a result of the authorities trying to target the younger generations or just that Southampton is mainly a student population. None of the people we surveyed were 70 or over, and perhaps the area has lost the loyalty of elderly because of its attraction to young people. Most of those asked were visiting Above Bar for shopping (12 of 25). 6 people said they visited the area once a day, and 8 said they visit 2-3 times a week. These figures would suggest Southamptons dependency on the area and is an indication of the success of rebranding here. 9 people asked had lived in Southampton for under a year and this could be representative of either the temporary, student residents of the city, or of the visiting tourists (who tend to visit in summertime). Residents of Southampton said theyd like improvements in the traffic/ congestion of the city (6 people) but also in the Port, St. Marys and housing (all 4). When asked the final question, How much do you think Southamptons image has changed over the past 10 years?, the result was satisfying but unsurprising. 12 out of 25 (just under half) of those asked replied with a lot saying theyd recognised a huge change in Southampton. This illustrates the fact that Southamptons rebranding has been noticeable and significant enough for the general population of the area. The sixth and final survey we carried out was the Environmental Quality Index. We went to three different areas in Southampton and assessed them on twelve different fronts that included Smell and Building Quality. Using a bi-polar system, in groups, we rated each area (Above Bar, St. Marys, and The Waterfront) in each of the twelve categories from a negative score of -5 to a positive score of 5. Above Bar scored most highly in most categories with an excellent +5 score in Construction, Smell, Sky Vision, and Street Furniture. On the other hand, St. Marys scored the worst in most fields, even receiving a -5 score in Vandalism (as there were extensive examples of graffiti and loitering in the suburb). From this data we can conclude that Above Bar has received the best environmental help from the authorities, whereas St. Marys doesnt show many signs of cleanliness. Obviously the majority of spending has occurred in

Above Bar, and it receives the most visitors of any of the other districts in Southampton.

Env ironmental Quality Index (Southampton) 6

2 W aterf ront Rating 0 Smell Litter Environment Pavements Construction Sky Vision Noise Pollution Advertisements Street Furniture Building Quality Air Pollution Vandalism St. Mary 's A bov e Bar

-2

-4

-6 Category

In evaluation of our field trip I think most of the techniques that we implemented (to survey the extent to which Southampton had been rebranded) were efficient and successful. Land use surveys were beneficial to the study in that they demonstrated the types of buildings that occupy particular regions of the city and the main features e.g. residential properties, or commercial businesses. The findings were slightly flawed in that we didnt have previous statistics (from say, a decade or so ago) to compare. This would have proven the change in the citys infrastructure and how it has been affected by efforts from the authorities to rebrand. Crime and Vulnerability investigations showed the varying crime rates of the city, and produced surprising results. The Above Bar overall crime rate was far too high for an area that has undergone massive regeneration in the last decade. Housing Surveys allowed us to compare St. Marys and The Waterfront, although were also flawed in that they didnt involve Above Bar (which doesnt generally contain houses). The results proved that The Waterfront area generally had a better quality of housing than St. Marys although both were fairly poor. These results were limited in that they were opinionated and so would probably vary if carried out by different people. However, we did try to work in groups so that we would be taking a shared, mediated result. In my opinion, Sustainability Surveys didnt really help when deciding whether an effort had been made in rebranding the city. I think they more so suggest how it should be rebranded. Our secondary research in my opinion was also

carried out poorly, and involved the sole use of the internet. I think to have produced more balanced data from books, newspapers and town records, as well as from the internet would have been broader and more unbiased. Our Questionnaires were very effective in producing a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative data. We asked questions that were relevant to what we wanted to find out and so we received accurate, valid data that could be easily collated into graphs and tables. The Environmental Quality Index, in my opinion was an excellent indicator of the success of Southamptons rebranding and its success. Excellent environmental quality in Above Bar was representative of the amount of money and time that had been invested in the area, whereas poor environmental quality in St. Marys implied that little effort had been made in rebranding its streets.

Southamptons authorities have obviously made a considerable effort to transform certain areas of the city. Above Bar has easily scored the highest in all surveys except Crime and Vulnerability where its total crime rate and violent crime rate were considerably higher than other areas. I think this is likely to be from the student presence from the university. If the city is to become the most popular destination on the South Coast, it needs to iron out this crime to attract Above Bar has the most shops of any region of the city, and by far the most Chain Retailers, resulting in a huge number of visitors and large proportion of public spending. This is unsurprising since the area is the CBD (Central Business District) in which most trade occurs. For Southampton, West Quay would place highest on the modern shopping hierarchy as a central shopping centre. The shopping centre has been successful in attracting a younger target market with more disposable income that is a result of few teenagers having full time working jobs. Through secondary research we have also established that Above Bar is becoming increasingly developed and an example of this is the proposed 155-bed hotel scheme. The Environmental Quality Index is also in my opinion a very good indicator of Southamptons concentrated spending in the Above Bar region, and it scored very highly in comparison with The Waterfront and St. Marys. On the day we visited, I noticed the presence of council-hired cleaners who operate in that area regularly. In St. Marys our initial perception was poor. This was mostly because of the types of people who inhabit the area (which hopefully doesnt sound too elitist). Obviously, the residential suburb needs to desperately improve in some areas such as in environmental quality or crime and vulnerability. Its community is sustainable and it continues to provide for itself, but doesnt necessarily provide for other areas of Southampton. Environmentally, St. Marys did the worst as it scored the lowest in all categories. This is probably because of the lack of funding the area receives from the council which in effect reduces the number of hours that are spent cleaning its streets. In terms of housing, we found that there was a huge lack of garden space, and that houses were too close to the road. When we visited, I noticed fairly new apartment blocks which can act as a source of lowcost housing for the citys student population or the young.

On the Waterfront, most of the land has been allocated to apartment and flat blocks that shadow a main road. There are some shops and commercial businesses in the suburb, but properties are nearly all residential. The districts overall crime rate was the lowest of all at 43.3 per 1000 although there wasnt an obvious police presence on the day we visited. Overall though, people valued the areas historical heritage which I cant say has been preserved by the authorities. By branding the area as the historical district of Southampton, the authorities may be able to attract tourists, especially in the summer, when the majority of visitors holiday there. In my opinion Southampton has made a considerable effort to rebrand the Above Bar area. It is almost one of the largest attractions on the south coast but needs to lower the huge crime rate through improvements in policing and promotion of good behaviour. The predominantly residential district called St. Marys has received investment in the form of the construction of new apartment blocks. It still isnt valued by Southamptons residents as a very nice place and the authorities need to change this perception through more rebranding. In essence the area already has a strong foundation on which to build attractions. The environmental quality in the area is very poor, and through investment in dedicated cleaning staff (similar to Above Bar) the suburb will be able to compete with The Waterfront, which also needs rebranding. Housing and accommodation is in place and there are available public green spaces, but the council needs to build upon the ports historical elements in order to attract external investment.