Leeds Kirkgate Market: progress with plans for the future

Back in July I wrote this post about the plans for the future of Leeds Kirkgate Market. Four months later things have moved on a bit so I thought I'd take a look at how things have progressed.

Here is what I thought was likely to happen back in July:

• The market will be substantially reduced in size through closure of the 1976 and 1981 halls.
• Management of the market will be moved to an arms length organisation, profit making or otherwise.
• Any investment will come from the private sector, and therefore probably work out more expensive in the long run.
• There will be a general drive upmarket with what remains, but we won't see a 'Corn Exchange' scenario. I don't fully agree with Friends of Leeds Kirkgate Market (FLKM) on this. I don't believe that the council are daft enough to think it's going to become the new Borough Market. 

Things have progressed, and generally in line with the above. It's even clearer now that the market will be reduced in size, and almost certain that it will be transferred to private sector management, even if NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.

The council have appointed Quarterbridge Project Management Ltd to consult on various matters. Quarterbridge, in case you are wondering, are experts because they also develop, manage and operate markets that were previously in local authority control. Quarterbridge will be providing the following 'deliverables' (here is the quotation specification document):

1.  an assessment of and written advice on the optimum size for the Kirkgate indoor and daily markets and the necessary steps to achieve that optimum size,
2. advice,  following soft market testing (to be undertaken by the Consultant), on the likely interest from the private sector in investing in the market or forming a partnership with Leeds City Council;
3. written advice on the possible ownership and management models for Kirkgate Market to ensure the sustainability of the market and maximise potential investment into, and returns from, the market. The advice will include governance arrangements and will be based on the Consultant’s knowledge and experience, including summaries/studies of existing models and their success;
4. advice to support the development of a methodology to evaluate submissions from private sector or other organisations who wish to invest in the markets or enter into a partnership with the council to own and or manage the market;
5. a programme/stage plan which sets out, and sequences, the actions required to reach the best ownership/management model for the Market and the optimum size for the market as identified above.

As FLKM correctly point out that's a lot work to be done for just £12,400 in only three weeks, and the potential conflict of interest is wholly apparent.

For my own amusement I've predicted what the responses provided by Quarterbridge will be for each of these 'deliverables'. Imagine these to be the 'behind the scenes summary' rather than what's likely to go on the public register.

1. As per the detailed brief the 1976 and 1981 halls are in very poor condition and the Council has no funds to repair or replace them, nor the inclination or resources to investigate this further. As such Quarterbridge concludes that the optimum size of the market will be achieved by closing them down.
2. Soft market testing indicates that Quarterbridge would be an ideal partner to assist Leeds City Council in realising their vision for the market.
3. The consultant's knowledge and experience indicates that the market ownership and management models successfully implemented by Quarterbridge in partnership with X, Y and Z councils could be implemented in Leeds resulting in equally successful synergies.
4. See answers to questions 2 and 3. It may also be beneficial to seek the involvement of Arup.
5. Project plan: January-March 2012 - run down the operations in the 1976 and 1981 halls, closing them permanently by the end of March. April 2012 - sign management and operation contract with private sector market operator (preferred bidder - Quarterbridge). May-June 2012 - do some cool marketing stuff, tart up the remaining market a bit, increase rents.

That's my not entirely literal interpretation about how things will turn out, but I'm fairly confident that I have the gist of it right.

All of this can be inferred by information that is available, but it can be difficult to work out exactly what's going on as the debate has become increasingly polarised. In one corner are the Council and their various representatives, and in the other corner the campaign group Friends of Kirkgate Market. As far as I'm concerned neither party is covering themselves in glory.

The Council indulge in many of the traits that put people off involvement in local democratic processes and governance these days. They obfuscate and issue dubious re-assurances, and publish documents rife with loaded management speak, deliberately obscuring any specific meaning.

As well as in the market strategy and consultation tender documents there's plenty of this on display in the information provided to the actual market traders. The photo above shows a newsletter I spotted on display at a stall a couple of weeks ago, issued by the Markets Manager. For starters it's not dated (kind of important on a newsletter) and includes the faintly patronising 'or correct' in brackets by way of explanation as to what 'optimum' means. If I was being pedantic I might point out that 'correct' and 'optimum' don't mean exactly the same thing.

It then proceeds to say 'we think we know what the options might be, but we could not progress this work further until the Council gave us the go ahead'. The rest of it explains reasonably enough that they will push for the work to be undertaken as quickly as possible, but the whole is completely ineffective at its desired aim of 'mythbusting'. You think you know what the options might be? That's two qualifications in one sentence, and reveals absolutely nothing.

I understand this to some extent, as the Council have to be seen to consult on things like this, even when it's wholly apparent some (if not all) of the decisions have already been made. The requirement to hold consultations for anything and everything has effectively degraded the process of public participation to a large extent. The most loaded of all the phrases in the market strategy is 'determine the optimum size for the markets. Everyone knows that's a euphemism for 'decide to close down the 1976 and 1981 halls', but the illusion of proper consultation must be maintained.

Unfortunately Friends of Kirkgate Market are no better, unwilling or unable as they are to review any document, publication or press release on its actual merits without resorting to polemic about gentrification of which there is little actual evidence.

I agree with Friends of Kirkgate Market on a lot of points. It is pretty shocking that the firm awarded the consultancy work to 'determine the optimum size of the market' is also a property developer and manager working in the field of markets. I can't see how the potential for conflict of interest can be avoided here. But then they go and spoil a perfectly legitimate, rational argument about this conflict of interest by making out the consultants (Quarterbridge) to be some sort of social cleanser, devoted solely to pillaging markets of their honest, working class, salt of the earth character. They specifically describe Quarterbridge as a business specialising in turning traditional local authority markets into high-end food halls.

I just don't buy this argument, for two very good reasons. Firstly both the Council and whatever private firm ends up with a stake in the market will expect it to turn them a profit. There is no precedent for an entirely gentrified permanent indoor daily market. Even in London nothing really fits this bill. Borough, the grandaddy of all the gentrified markets is only open Thursday, Friday and Saturday and still operates at least partially as a wholesale fruit and veg market on weekday mornings. If the Council was really planning on turning Leeds market into a permanent middle class gastrodome they're running a high risk strategy because there's nothing comparable with that in London where all the money is, never mind anywhere else in the country.

The second reason is that there is also no evidence that Quarterbridge are 'a business specialising in turning traditional local authority markets into high-end food halls'. I thought I'd take a look at their website to see what they've been up to. Obviously that's going to say that everything they're involved with is wonderful, so I used it to get a general idea, took it with a pinch of salt, and headed off into the web for further details. Taking a look at the places I'm familiar with they've been involved with the design and build projects for new market halls in Bury, Bolton and Blackburn, all of which are categorically proper markets and not 'high-end food halls'.

Bury and Bolton are both award winners, and Blackburn, the newest of the three seems to be a success so far. There have been mixed reports, but issues raised by those against the development relate mainly to the increase in rents and the change in trading days from three to six. Legitimate concerns of course, but I'm generally of the view that an increase in trading hours and days is one of the things markets need to do to attract more custom, and if you're open six days rather than three then rents are likely to be higher. Taking a look at the list of stalls at Blackburn, it's also apparent that there's a genuine mix of proper market traders. There's even a tripe stall, not something you'll find at Borough even if nose-to-tail eating is fashionable.

The whole upmarket/downmarket thing is a false dichotomy anyway. What do FLKM actually mean when they say turn it into an 'high-end food hall'. Are they inferring that everything currently sold in the market is downmarket, cheap, poor quality? Are they saying the market must remain downmarket, peddling low grade goods to the deserving poor? This doesn't reflect reality anyway. A lot of stuff on the market is very cheap, but not everything. Most of the butchers provide excellent value, decent quality meat for example, but if you look for the budget brands or head to the discounters you can often get cheaper in supermarkets.

Snobbery works both ways. Just as there are people who wouldn't dream of shopping there because they see it as scruffy or chavvy or downmarket, there are also people who like to scaremonger about an impending influx of hordes of poshos. It's not going to happen.

To summarise, I still think what I said will happen in July is going to happen. I think it's sad that the market will be greatly reduced in size, and it's disappointing (but seemingly inevitable) that private sector management will result in the removal of potential investment in the form of profit. On a more positive note I think what's left of the market will thrive, and isn't going to become some great big hollowed out gastro-mistake.

Most of this will become apparent in the next week or two as Quarterbridge are due to submit their final report to the Council on Monday.

.... and finally a quick plug for two new stalls that have opened recently. Katie over at Leeds Grub has been to the Little Yorkshire Pie Company and last week I discovered a little Turkish food stall down in the doomed section (may as well support them while you still can!). I think there used to be a Polish food stall there before. I had a lahmacun, which is a flatbread topped with spicy lamb mince. Warmed up in the oven and rolled up with tomatoes and onions they make a great snack or light lunch. Only £1.50 too.

Scholars Restaurant, Barcelo Stirling Highland Hotel, Stirling

Someone in Stirling has got a nasty case of cheffy-itis. Hotels seem to attract chefs with this particular ailment. The most obvious symptom is a tendency to favour ridiculous presentation at the expense of sound cooking skills, which in turn causes the secondary symptom of charging far too much money for mediocre food. Last week during a work trip to Scotland I encountered a particularly serious case.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you scallops with Parmesan risotto, ham hock and pea puree. Before we tackle the food itself, let's discuss the vessel upon which it rests. It was a polished black marble tile, reminiscent of what you might find on the toilet walls in a glammed up Indian restaurant. Personally I'd have preferred a plate. Polished tiles don't tend to hold sauces very well.

The food, to be fair, wasn't all actively bad. Both scallops and risotto were reasonably well cooked, but the whole thing was too salty. The chunks of ham hock were salty, the risotto was salty, the bacon antenna (maybe I wasn't supposed to eat it?) sticking out of the risotto was very salty, and the pea puree was very salty indeed. Fortunately there wasn't very much of the pea puree, which could be best described as a pea wet skid mark on the right hand side of the tile. I'm not sure what the sauce on the scallops was, perhaps it was supposed to be a foam. Whatever it was it had split, resulting in unappetising fatty globules and watery patches shimmering on the tile as if someone were mopping it down at the end of the night. All told a bit of a mess.

I should note at this point that not everyones dinner was being served on a tile. Other people were getting plates. I can only assume the tiles must have been reserved for the specials, from which list my scallops were ordered. Those lucky enough to receive their dinner on a plate, however, were also lucky enough to have their dinner brought to the table under a cloche! Yes that is one of those big silver domes, as if this were dinner with the Queen.

Unfortunately the tiles made a return at dessert. A whisky cheesecake with bourbon soaked strawberries didn't contain any discernable whisky or bourbon, which was probably a good thing. I'm not sure what the strawberry (for there was only one, hiding at the back) had been soaked in, but it was so wizened it must have been soaked in it a long time ago. The cheesecake base was also past its best, being soft and mushy. No-one likes a soggy biscuit. The cheesecake filling was actually rather nice, being light and creamy.

Prices, as you might expect, were high. The two courses, a glass of crap wine and a small tip topped out at over thirty quid. The service was fine.

Why do so many hotels do this? It's as if there's a special checklist for rubbish hotel restaurants. Overpriced? Check. Overwrought, silly presentation? Check. Mediocre food? Check. Pointless service fripperies? Check.

Here's an alternative idea. How about: buy some good food, cook it properly, put it on a plate, bring it to me, charge me a fair price for it. Maybe one day it will catch on. Unfortunately I fear that's wishful thinking. Too many expense accounts, too many people are easily impressed, too captive an audience. I met two of those three criteria. I won't eat there again, but once is enough to keep the coffers ticking over.

4/10

Barcelo Stirling Highland Hotel
Spittal Street
Stirling
FK8 1DU

p.s. for an even worse hotel meal see here.

The London riots and Leeds Market: some thoughts

This week I had planned to write an update to my previous post about the debate over the future of Leeds Market. In light of recent events in London I thought about not bothering. Is it not all a bit trivial in comparison with the scenes of mass disorder and chaos coming from our capital? In one sense, yes. No-one's lives are put in imminent danger by the success or otherwise of Leeds market. In another sense, no, because in some ways these things are all interconnected.

Back in March I commented on a piece on the Culture Vultures blog entitled 'What's the matter with Kirkgate Market?'. The article drew a great deal of comment, much of it discussing the pro's and con's of gentrification, much of it using London-based examples to argue a particular point. On the subject of Brixton I had the following to say:

I agree that Brixton is great, and I think it has managed to achieve a pretty good balance between gentrification and retaining a traditional market shopping environment. I would love Leeds to manage something similar, but I just can’t see it happening. I don’t know of anywhere in this country like Brixton markets outside of London, and I think that’s a reflection of the differences between London and the rest of the country.

London is much less segregated geographically between the wealthier middle classes and the urban poor. Brixton is a prime example of this, it has significant areas of poverty and deprivation but plenty of young well-to-do professionals as well. It makes people more accustomed to interacting with, or at least sharing space with others from different social backgrounds. Franco Manca, a feted pizza place and about as middle class as it could be, is in one of the arcades pretty much surrounded by discount hardware stalls and butchers selling cow foot. No-one bats an eyelid.

In an ideal world people could think beyond the constraints of places not being for them (e.g. the markets full of undesirables/wino’s, but just as much oh the Corn Exchange has gone all snobby).

In the context of recent events that sounds like a hopelessly naive vision of social cohesion. Everyone scraping along merrily together, irrespective of differences in their cultural and social backgrounds or financial status. The thing is, I more or less believed this to be true. I lived in Woolwich for three years and never once felt threatened or ill at ease. There were occasional news stories of youth violence in the area, occasional blaring sirens as a couple of police vans headed off somewhere-or-other, but you become blasé about these things assuming it to be just a part of big city life.

Last night, the violence reached Woolwich. So far it has hardly featured in the national press, but it looks just as bad there as any other part of London. The Wetherspoons pub on the main square was burned to the ground, and the path I used to walk home along from the station was blocked by burning cars. Terrible scenes in a deprived area, but one that was on the up, at least on the surface. Millions are being pumped into regeneration schemes and developments are ongoing despite the recession and government cuts.

It all seems different in tone to notorious riots in previous decades. I'm too young to remember the riots of the early 1980's, but from what I've read it appears there was usually a focal point. Perhaps the police or a police station in a particular locality attracting the anger of protestors for a particular reason, justified or otherwise. This just seems wild and spontaneous, disconnected completely from the initial trigger point in Tottenham. As a consequence it's very easy to dismiss the whole thing as being perpetrated by mindless criminal thugs, with no context or backstory by way of explanation, which is what much of the political establishment appears to be doing.

This isn't going to turn into a defence of looters and arsonists. I believe that the perpetrators of this are mindless criminal thugs. They absolutely do deserve to face the consequences of their actions. But surely to ignore the context would be foolish. Restore order, catch and try as many culprits as possible, but then please don't carry on as if nothing ever happened, mindless criminal thugs dealt with. Mindless criminal thugs are not some separate entity, distinct from the rest of us human beings. They are just people, and something has obviously gone very wrong with people who feel the need to destroy their own towns. People, many of them children don't just become mindless criminal thugs for no reason at all.

What would lead someone to turn so readily to violence and looting I'm not entirely sure. It's beyond the limits of my own experience. I wasn't brought up in urban deprivation, I'm certainly no longer a youth and I'm gainfully employed. I know nothing about social work or community organisation.

If I could hazard a guess at what maybe the biggest factors are I'd say inequality and a sense of disenfranchisement are near the top of the list. Taking inequality first, London is a city where a single flat sold for £136 million and the average house costs over £400,000, but where you'll find 4 of the 20 most deprived boroughs in the country. I don't think envy of the rich is the issue here, but the startling size of the gap between those at the top of the tree and those at the bottom. One person can buy one flat for the price of 340 average London properties, but for hundreds of thousands of Londoners that average London property is an unattainable dream, even for those in work. That can't be a sign of a healthy society.

Looking at disenfranchisement, I can understand why people might feel the political system will never work for them. It may just be a fluke of history but Britain seems to have regressed in terms of opportunity for all. No political party has done anything substantial to address inequality, and the politicians themselves no longer set much of an example. Say what you like about the policies of Major and Thatcher, but neither of them came from a particularly privileged background, both of them were schooled by the state, and both of them had a hinterland beyond politics. At least they had the mandate of life experience. Nowadays it seems that only a combination of privilege (Cameron), independent schooling (Blair and Cameron) and virtually a whole career spent solely in politics (Blair, Brown and Cameron) will get you to the very top. I don't feel that these people have much of value to say to me, their experience feels remote and irrelevant to my life, and I'm nowhere near the bottom of the metaphorical pile.

What to do about all this? How do we prevent people from descending so readily into criminality? I'm way out of my depth here, so I'll just stick to three brief suggestions. I don't doubt that there are many more, probably better ideas.

The first would be relatively easy to implement: make voting compulsory. Some years ago I was involved in a local election campaign in Australia, where voting is compulsory. What struck me was the sense of occasion, that this mattered to people, the young included. Contrast with the almost universal disinterest in local elections in this country. A legitimate complaint against young people in this country is that they don't tend to bother voting, the defence being that they're not interested because there's no-one to vote for who will represent their interests. It's a lose-lose circular argument. Those seeking election don't bother courting young votes, because young people don't bother voting, so the young people don't vote, because they feel no-one represents them. Make voting compulsory and the entire electorate becomes the target market.

Secondly, and a much bigger challenge. Take genuine and substantive steps to tackle inequality. Don't ask me how, but it can be tackled as we currently live in one of Europe's most unequal societies.

Finally, the little things matter. Which is where Leeds Market comes into all this. Inequality and lack of opportunity will only become more entrenched if amenities used by the less well off are allowed to decline or disappear through neglect or lack of funding. Local community campaigns to protect and support important assets like the market can only be a good thing, provided they're backed up with action. And by that I mean shopping at the market, not burning it down.

What I said about Brixton is still true to an extent, it and other London communities really are a melting pot of social backgrounds. What I didn't realise is the level of resentment felt by many of those at the lower end of the scale. All the more reason for supporting community facilities I'd say, the situation would only be made worse by increasing ghetto-isation of rich and poor. Brixton wouldn't be better off if all the wealthier folk disappeared from its streets, and Clapham wouldn't be improved by demolishing its estates and leaving it to the middle classes. The same applies to Leeds, whose city centre must be a resource for all its residents, and the market is a fundamental part of this.

I still think the strategy for the market will result in the same outcome as I did a fortnight ago, some of which will be bad news. But whatever happens, whether the market is reduced in size or not, please keep shopping there. Oh, and please don't avoid London either, I'm sure they'll be wanting visitors as the recovery from this takes place.



Footnote 1: Anyone who says the quality of produce on the market is uniformly low isn't looking hard enough. Today I bought 10 donut peaches (the little flat ones that supermarkets charge a fortune for because they look special) for £1 and a bundle of fat, live razor clams for £3.50. The peaches are sweet, ripe, fragrant and utterly delicious. I've not eaten the clams yet but they look damn good.

Footnote 2: This is all a bit serious so tomorrow I'll be writing a post about how I stuffed my fat face on Sichuan food over the weekend.

Leeds Kirkgate Market: Plans for the future

Today Leeds City Council Executive Board will discuss plans for the future of Kirkgate Market in Leeds city centre. Having become rather interested in the market in recent months, I thought I'd have a read through the draft strategy report. Now that I've done so I feel like putting my thoughts into writing, so here they are.

There are three particular things that concern me most with the strategy. The first of these is the money issue. The charge levied by Friends of Kirkgate Market is that the council have neglected the markets and siphoned money away from them for decades. The information in the reports would seem to support this argument. This statement in the facts and figures section of the scrutiny report is key:

In 2010/11 projected income is approximately £4.2m. Expenditure and other charges amounts to £2.1m, leaving £2.1m to support the Council’s budget.

So the market was projected to generate a surplus of over 50% for the last financial year. A 50% gross profit margin would be considered pretty good in most businesses. This doesn't really fit with the image of an institution in perpetual decline.

The implication is that the entire £2.1m was diverted away from the market for use in other areas of the council's budget. Now I don't know whether this is common practice or not, it may be that markets are usually expected to provide an income source for local councils, but it seems strange to me for a couple of reasons.

The primary reason being that the draft strategy considers lack of investment to be one of the key challenges facing the market. It is noted that the 1976 and 1981 halls have far exceeded their planned 15 to 20 year life span and are in very poor condition. Now if my maths is correct, that means the most recent possible year that either of these was designed to last until was 2001, a full ten years ago. It's not unusual for structures to last far longer than originally intended, but they need maintaining.

The current dire state of affairs could have been avoided if some of the surplus generated by the markets had been re-invested over the last decade. It is also worth remembering that most of the last decade was a time of plenty in the public sector, with budget cutbacks only a very recent phenomenon. It is also worth remembering that the strategy suggests that the market has been in decline in recent years, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the surplus generated in previous years was larger than the £2.1 million projected for the last financial year.

So, on the face of it this is how it seems to me. The council probably generated at least £20 million in revenue from the market over the last decade, most if not all of which it diverted to spend in other areas even though it knew that sections of the market were a rapidly depreciating asset in dire need of investment, and that the longer that investment was delayed the more investment would ultimately be required. At best that makes the council's actions over the last decade indifferent to the plight of the market, at worst grossly negligent.

All of which is in the past, and therefore largely irrelevant. We are where we are, so I'll move onto the second thing that seems strange to me about using the market as a cash cow. The strategy wants to see the market become a top destination for residents and visitors, and to be one of the five 'must do's' for people visiting the city. But the strategy also wants the market to return a tidy sum of cash back to the council. What other council funded 'top destinations' and 'must see' places in the city are expected to generate revenue? Surely places of inherent cultural and social value to both residents of, and visitors to any city are worth investing in.

After money, my second (very much connected) area of concern is the inference from the strategy report that the market will be made smaller. There is a great deal of waffle about 'determining the optimum size for the market'. For this read 'getting rid of the 1976 and 1981 halls'. Clause 7.5 of the stratgey states:

Therefore the sensible option is to use the £200,000 to carry out repairs needed on the 1904 and 1875 halls, whilst the Council determines the optimum size for the market.

I know this is hardly an explicit statement, but despite the dire state of repair that the 1976 and 1981 halls are in, the plan is to spend the available maintenance cash on the other bits whilst 'the council determines the optimum size for the market'. The remainder of this section of the report explains how the market is the biggest in the country, and how tenants and the public are supportive of proposals to reduce the market size.

I'm not in favour of reducing the market size. Call me a dreamer or fantasist but I believe that Leeds needs to think big for once. The implication is that Kirkgate market is the biggest in the country, so that's not sustainable. Why not? Leeds is the 4th or 6th or thereabouts largest city in the UK (depending which stats you use), so I don't think it's unreasonable to have the biggest of something-or-other. Why the hell does this matter, you might ask. What about quality over quantity? I think it does matter if you want to promote the city on a wider scale. Leeds sometimes seems to lack the confidence of our other great cities. Manchester, for example is always banging on about having the tallest (building in the North), first (industrial city) and best (music) of something-or-other. Everyone laughed when Manchester bid for the Olympic Games, but in a roundabout way that laid the foundations for the Commonwealth Games which ultimately led to the city having two football clubs in the Champions League (I'm a Leeds fan so this fact sickens me by the way). A bit of chutzpah can bring benefits in the long run.

I don't wholly buy the argument that the current size is unsustainable due to the vacancy levels either. The strategy gives the current vacancy level as 14%, and states that this is unlikely to improve. This actually compares very favourably with the Leeds city centre retail unit vacancy rate which was reported as 22.1% back in February. And why is it unlikely to improve? Surely this statement disregards the plans for achieving the objectives in the strategy, one of which is 'better promotion of available units, flexible terms and better business support', presumably to get new tenants in and reduce the vacancy rate.

Which leads me back on to investment. The strategy estimates the cost of imminent and essential works as between £2.1 and £2.3 million. Not an inconsequential sum, but not that huge given that the market generates that much in surplus every year anyway. If just 50% of the surplus (£1 million per year) could be re-invested in the market over the next few years, problem solved. I understand the argument about budget pressures for the council, but £1 million equates to around 0.17% of the annual council budget of around £580 million. To my mind this would be money well spent, and could actually help to increase council revenue in the future.

The alternative to this, if they really want to be bold (as the strategy claims) would be to entirely replace the 1976 and 1981 halls. I don't claim to know anything about the feasibility of this, but it would certainly be bold, and market halls needn't be the most expensive or complicated of structures. The new market hall in Wakefield apparently cost only £3 million.

The final thing that concerns me is how the market is going to be managed going forward. The strategy recommends that the market should be moved from direct control by the Council to an arms-length organisation, possibly a limited liability partnership. I don't have a problem with this, but the strategy doesn't make clear whether this should be a not for profit organisation. If a profit making entity takes control an additional layer of cash removal would be introduced, with the management company taking their cut as well as the council. I can't see how this would be anything but a bad thing.

In summary, here is what I think should happen:

• Retain the market at its current size, through renovation or replacement of the 1976 and 1981 halls.
• Renovation or replacement should be financed using the surplus generated by the market itself, or by public sector (i.e. the council) borrowing.
• Move management of the market to an arms length, not for profit organisation.
• Promote and improve the market by the means detailed in the strategy (see section 6), including innovative means like The Source.
• Aim to improve the mix of stalls, including more upmarket offerings, but absolutely not at the expense of existing traders.

In summary, here is what I think will actually happen:

• The market will be substantially reduced in size through closure of the 1976 and 1981 halls.
• Management of the market will be moved to an arms length organisation, profit making or otherwise.
• Any investment will come from the private sector, and therefore probably work out more expensive in the long run.
• There will be a general drive upmarket with what remains, but we won't see a 'Corn Exchange' scenario. I don't fully agree with Friends of Leeds Kirkgate Market on this. I don't believe that the council are daft enough to think it's going to become the new Borough Market.

The relevant documents can all be found via the Friends of Leeds Kirkgate Market site here:

http://kirkgatemarket.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/the-councils-long-awaited-strategy-for-the-market-out-now-our-comments-will-follow-shortly/

It will be interesting to see how things pan out.