Definitions

Whilst reviewing the literature relating to the topic of shopping centres it became clear that the definitions associated with these developments varies between studies and authors. For example, Liverpool One is described as an inner-city regional shopping centre however the definition of regional differs throughout the literature. Similarly, the definition of shopping centres also varies between studies, therefore it became apparent that there was a need to explore the differences between these various definitions.

‘Regional’ Definitions

Regional Shopping Centres (RSCs) are defined in both current and previous government policies as “out-of-town shopping centres which are generally over 50,000 square metres gross retail area, typically comprising a wide variety of comparison good stores” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, p.32). The definition of RSCs is however very general and uses the difference in size as the main comparison between RSCs and town centre retail development. Robertson and Fennell (2007, p.151) however highlight that the differences are not merely one of size stating that other key characteristics include “the range, style and selection of goods and services, the physical form and the broad offer under a single roof, the location and the type of accessibility”. RSCs are also typically high profile with large landmark buildings offering high levels of car parking as well as good transport links provided by either their own railway or bus stations (Robertson and Fennell, 2007).

Although the definition in government policy draws its main comparison between RSCs and town centre developments through size, it also fails to consider the differences through the functions of RSCs. For example, Robertson and Fennell (2007, p.151) comment further that

“RSCs function differently from town centre developments as they draw from a wider catchment area, drawing a different sort of shopping trip”. It may therefore be argued that the government’s definition of RSCs is far too general and fails to consider the different type of shopping experience on offer by simply characterising RSCs by the size and volume of stores.

34 Oughton et al., (2003) also highlight that the definition of RSCs used by some authors in terms of size has also changed over the years which suggests that there are no fixed boundaries associated with their classification. For example, Oughton et al., (2003) cites Schiller (1987) who states that shopping centres which are deemed as regional comprise of at least 500,000 sq. ft. of comparison retailing. However, Guy (1994) observes that the lower size limit associated with an RSC can be as small as 300, 00 sq. ft. Furthermore, Oughton et al., (2003) state that the largest shopping malls in North America are described as consisting of over 400,000 sq. ft. of retail space and are commonly referred to as ‘regional centres’. Therefore it is worth highlighting that in terms of describing RSCs, although the size is an important characteristic, it cannot be regarded as the only defining factor.

Location characteristics have also been used to define RSCs by outlining that they are developed away from existing city centre retail areas such as out-of-town locations (Guy, 1994). These opinions suggest that RSCs cannot exist alongside inner-city retail areas however this definition pre-dates certain planning policies and initiatives in the UK. Guy (1994) also suggests that the methods used for the classification of RSCs may have to change to provide for new forms of retailing which means that the current definition of an RSC could take into consideration an inner city location. Some commentators such as Howard (1999) note that definitions regarding RSCs should also take into consideration the tenant mix of the shopping centre which sell a wide variety of products and usually include an anchor store alongside a range of other stores selling comparison goods. A variety of retailers is imperative to the success of RSCs as that is what draws custom to the centre from a wider region (Howard, 1999). It is however important to note that the literature suggests that the number of stores or the residence of an anchor store in terms of the definition of an RSC, when compared to that of other types of shopping centres is still debatable (Oughton et al., 2003).

Howard (1999) also elaborates on the point of the catchment area being an important characteristic of an RSC outlining that for a centre to be truly regional, its purpose must be to serve a regional catchment area so as to draw custom to the centre from wider regions and that customers are drawn to the RSC because of the size and the range of different retail on offer. Oughton et al., (2003) also supports this view suggesting that the planning approvals for the White Rose Centre in Leeds and Braehead Shopping Centre in Scotland were supported on the basis that the centres offering 600,000 sq. ft. and 1 million sq. ft. of retail space respectively meant that the public would perceive them as being regional shopping

35 centres. This point also leads onto the argument that some consideration should also be given as to how both customers and retailers perceive RSCs not only by the retail offering in the centres but also their physical format, for example, if the shopping centre is in a different location (non-traditional, a waterfront setting). It has therefore been suggested that if a centre differs from the formal and traditional characteristics of a shopping centre it could be classed as regional (Howard, 1999). It could however be argued that this view lacks substance as any new retail centre in an unusual or non-traditional location could then be described as regional.

Given the various definitions and features of RSC’s, Liverpool One offers many of the characteristics highlighted by authors and commentators throughout the literature. It can therefore be suggested that Liverpool One does offer a regional function and can therefore be described as a regional inner-city shopping centre.

‘Shopping Centre’ Definitions

The meanings related to the term ‘shopping centre’ have been shown to differ throughout the literature. As Schiller (1985) notes, the term ‘shopping centre’, especially in the UK, has been the source of some ambiguity for some time. Guy (1994) suggests a possible reason for this explaining that in the UK and Europe, unplanned retail areas are sometimes deemed as ‘shopping centres’ whilst in the US, the term is solely used for planned centres.

Unplanned retail areas are “locations with several outlets that are in close proximity to one another and have evolved over time with a store mix that has resulted without any long-range planning and with no centralised management” (Levy & Weitz, 2009, p.195). Planned centres on the other hand are “retail locations that have been architecturally planned to provide a unified theme for a number of outlets (Gilbert, 2003, p.288). These are developed intentionally and usually have “large anchor stores and a number of smaller retailers to add diversity and special interest” (Levy & Weitz, 2009, p.209). The term ‘shopping mall’ is also used by various authors as a definition of a planned shopping centre however this term is much more common within literature focused on the US.

In line with the research conducted by Lowe (2005) and Oughton et al., (2003), on the impacts of an inner-city retail development in Southampton and Reading respectively, the

36 definition of what constitutes a shopping centre in the UK in relation to this study was taken from the study on Eldon Square in Newcastle.

A shopping centre is a purpose-built facility either in a precinct or mall form which contains several retail units and has been developed as a distinct complex from surrounding shopping streets. It does not include large store expansions along traditional high streets or those sections of streets which may have been redeveloped (Bennison and Davies, 1980, p.10).