0:00:08 > 0:00:11Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, the tram proposal voted on by Edinburgh
0:00:11 > 0:00:16councillors which has left everybody stand. No road past
0:00:16 > 0:00:21Haymarket, nothing to St Andrews Square, complete waste of time of
0:00:21 > 0:00:25the words that spring to mind. Is there no end to the farce? And the
0:00:25 > 0:00:29man from Harvard that is here to tell us that what we really need
0:00:29 > 0:00:31are more high rises. And he says that cities are better for the
0:00:31 > 0:00:34environment and rural areas and suburbs.
0:00:34 > 0:00:38When you have a straight choice between competing your plan or
0:00:38 > 0:00:41abandoning it, why not surprise everyone and make a preferred
0:00:42 > 0:00:46choice that nobody wants? That happened in Edinburgh today went
0:00:46 > 0:00:50councillors voted to spend �700 million on a tram system that takes
0:00:50 > 0:00:55you from the airport very nearly to somewhere you want to go, and the
0:00:55 > 0:01:03new terminus at Haymarket means that passengers will be lugging
0:01:03 > 0:01:12their suitcase onto a bus or track -- taxi. The SNP failed to back the
0:01:12 > 0:01:18Liberal Democrats on this. It should have been a project to
0:01:18 > 0:01:25make a capital city proud. It should have brought some civic
0:01:25 > 0:01:29pride. The like the construction of the New Town in the 18th century.
0:01:29 > 0:01:36The completion of Waverley station in the 19th century. Those are
0:01:36 > 0:01:39trams on Princes Street, by the way. But instead, today's trams project
0:01:39 > 0:01:49has brought bigamy and disgrace, just like the national monument
0:01:49 > 0:01:53
0:01:53 > 0:01:57The councillors got the costing wrong. It was then agreed not to
0:01:57 > 0:02:01approve extra spending of 230 million, it would have allowed
0:02:01 > 0:02:05trams to run from the airport to the city centre, St Andrew's Square.
0:02:05 > 0:02:09Instead they will run only as far as the West End, Haymarket, well
0:02:09 > 0:02:16short of allowing air passengers this death on step of service into
0:02:16 > 0:02:20the heart of the city. -- stepped on, step off. Is this the worst
0:02:20 > 0:02:25possible solution? What you always feared would happen has just
0:02:25 > 0:02:29happened. They could have cancelled at a cost and buried the whole idea.
0:02:29 > 0:02:33Or they could have invested more and provided a link to Princes
0:02:33 > 0:02:38Street which would have generated usable revenues. One estimate is
0:02:38 > 0:02:42that this new limited line will lose money. The vote ensured that
0:02:42 > 0:02:45the Lib Dems wanted the extra borrowing, the coalition partners
0:02:45 > 0:02:52the SNP abstained, and the Labour motion was approved with the help
0:02:52 > 0:02:56of the Tories. It is a devastating decision for the city. Either
0:02:56 > 0:03:03people wilfully misunderstood the information they were given, or
0:03:03 > 0:03:09they genuinely did not understand the repercussions of the decision.
0:03:09 > 0:03:16Lines are laid on Princes Street, and as for taking the line down
0:03:16 > 0:03:22Leith Walk, the original plan, you will need to get the bus.
0:03:22 > 0:03:26Completion in 2014 will mean 700 million has been spent, and the
0:03:27 > 0:03:31original estimate was half that. Will they be able to strike a deal
0:03:31 > 0:03:34with the contractors on the shorter route? We believe the Haymarket
0:03:34 > 0:03:37option can be negotiated with the contractor. We gave that to the
0:03:37 > 0:03:44official to get on with that and get the contract sorted out before
0:03:44 > 0:03:48the end of August. And then there are the voters. It will be
0:03:48 > 0:03:53problematic. The initial plan was there. Why have we wasted the
0:03:53 > 0:04:00money? Where has the public expenditure gone? It is a joke. So
0:04:00 > 0:04:04much money wasted. They should have thought about it years ago. I have
0:04:04 > 0:04:09seen trams, but I am not for them. They should have asked us and we
0:04:09 > 0:04:15would have said no. Who will they blame in the local elections next
0:04:15 > 0:04:24May? Edinburgh city Council's transport
0:04:24 > 0:04:30councillor joins me from the capital, along with the F S -- SNP
0:04:30 > 0:04:33MSP Marco Biagi. Presumably you agree that this is devastating?
0:04:33 > 0:04:37is potentially the worst of all possible options to take this
0:04:37 > 0:04:42decision. Labour and the Conservatives have come together
0:04:42 > 0:04:46today and it beggars belief. Explain the implications from a
0:04:46 > 0:04:51financial point of view. Do you agree that building a line to
0:04:51 > 0:04:55Haymarket will not be profit- making? Yes. They are going to have
0:04:55 > 0:05:02to borrow �170 million. They are going to make an annual loss on
0:05:02 > 0:05:07that, and it will be something like �7 million per year. The option to
0:05:07 > 0:05:13go to St Andrew's Square was less, �4.8 million per year. Even if the
0:05:13 > 0:05:16contract debt agrees to play ball, and we are talking about a �161
0:05:16 > 0:05:19million gamble that Labour and Conservatives are taking, even if
0:05:19 > 0:05:23they agree to play ball, the Edinburgh public will be more out
0:05:23 > 0:05:31of public than if we had gone to St Andrew's Square. Just explain what
0:05:31 > 0:05:37the risks are here. What did she mean after the meeting when she
0:05:37 > 0:05:41said that if the contractor walks away they will have to find �161
0:05:41 > 0:05:46million this financial year, which would be impossible? What did she
0:05:46 > 0:05:50mean? The cancellation costs for this are �161 million, which is the
0:05:50 > 0:05:54figure we have got from the contractor to walk away. It is not
0:05:54 > 0:05:58a binding cost. It could go up but it is of that order. We don't have
0:05:58 > 0:06:03an asset to borrow against. Local Government rules so that you have
0:06:03 > 0:06:08to have an asset or you cannot borrow. We would then have to pay
0:06:08 > 0:06:12it this year, which would mean an 18% hike in council tax. It has an
0:06:12 > 0:06:17absolute nightmare for us to we are at the mercy of the contractor. If
0:06:17 > 0:06:20they play ball, then as I say, we will be building a loss-making tram.
0:06:20 > 0:06:24Is it up to be contracted to decide whether they want to go along with
0:06:24 > 0:06:31it now? A have to get a deal with the contractor in something like
0:06:31 > 0:06:36five or six days. I just want to be clear. Can the contractor now say
0:06:36 > 0:06:42that they are fed up with it all and they are leaving? Therefore
0:06:42 > 0:06:47would you have to pay the �161 million. Is that in their gift?
0:06:47 > 0:06:51is potentially there. We have got to examine the detail of the Labour
0:06:51 > 0:06:55amendment today. It is potentially there. It is very difficult to see
0:06:55 > 0:07:00how we can get to an agreement in six days when it has taken a couple
0:07:00 > 0:07:04of months and more to negotiate the agreement that we got to go to St
0:07:04 > 0:07:08Andrew's Square. There is going to have to be a lot of give and take
0:07:08 > 0:07:12on the side of the contractor first to make the deadline. I hope that
0:07:12 > 0:07:16they do and I hope they will work within it. We have been working
0:07:16 > 0:07:20hard to build relationships with them and this test will be severe.
0:07:20 > 0:07:26Marco Biagi, everybody seems to agree that this is about the worst
0:07:26 > 0:07:29of all possible worlds. You are the council leadership in Edinburgh,
0:07:29 > 0:07:33along with the Liberal Democrats. Why did you not support of the
0:07:33 > 0:07:39council officials were suggesting? The tram project has ever been a
0:07:39 > 0:07:46question of council leadership and council administration. -- never.
0:07:46 > 0:07:53The tram project is backed by Labour, the Lib Dems and the
0:07:53 > 0:07:57conservative. Am I wrong in thinking you are in the leadership?
0:07:57 > 0:08:01We are part of the coalition but we have agreed to disagree. And as a
0:08:01 > 0:08:05coalition why are you not supporting council policy? We did
0:08:05 > 0:08:08not believe in a tram project from the start. We voted that way. It
0:08:08 > 0:08:13would be hypocritical to take up a position of backing it just as soon
0:08:13 > 0:08:18as we get into power. Hang on. You are seriously trying to tell me
0:08:18 > 0:08:22that you have formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but
0:08:22 > 0:08:26that you refuse to take responsibility for the main project
0:08:26 > 0:08:33that the city of Edinburgh is engaged in? And you think that is
0:08:33 > 0:08:37what the SNP think political leadership is? The political
0:08:37 > 0:08:43leadership from the SNP was to send this tram project into the bin at
0:08:43 > 0:08:48the start. It would be in a better position right now if we had.
0:08:48 > 0:08:52this is going beyond absurd now. This is like Nick Clegg and the
0:08:52 > 0:08:55Liberal Democrats when David Cameron eventually does a
0:08:55 > 0:08:59compromise on his health proposals turning up in Parliament and saying
0:08:59 > 0:09:03they will abstain because they don't care what happens to the
0:09:03 > 0:09:10coalition, even though we are members of it. I don't agree with
0:09:10 > 0:09:14your analysis at all. If we had supported the trams, it would be
0:09:14 > 0:09:19more like the Lib Dems and what they did on tuition fees. The
0:09:19 > 0:09:22council works on this basis, they set up the project that managed the
0:09:22 > 0:09:26tram and we stayed out of that organisation because we thought it
0:09:26 > 0:09:30was the wrong decision to take. you explain to people watching this
0:09:30 > 0:09:36in Edinburgh in what meaningful sense the Scottish National Party
0:09:36 > 0:09:42is in any sense a leader of Edinburgh city party? There are
0:09:42 > 0:09:45many aspects to the Council's budget where the Lib Dems and
0:09:46 > 0:09:50ourselves are in agreement. We have been working to improve the city
0:09:50 > 0:09:54for the last four years. We have disagreed over the trams. The way
0:09:54 > 0:09:59the council is split, four evenly sized parties, it was the only way
0:09:59 > 0:10:05to have any leadership at all. it code for you will end to the
0:10:05 > 0:10:10wheelie bins but you will not take responsibility for the most
0:10:10 > 0:10:19significant construction project in the city's history? People have a
0:10:19 > 0:10:23dim view of people that compromise on key principles. We work through
0:10:23 > 0:10:27each issue and look at where we agree. That is the approach we have
0:10:28 > 0:10:32taken largely and there is only one major issue on which we disagree.
0:10:32 > 0:10:35We have offered the councillors in the city of Edinburgh Council four
0:10:35 > 0:10:41separate opportunity to hold this project and they have not backed us
0:10:41 > 0:10:44on any occasion. Gordon MacKenzie, why are you still an alliance with
0:10:44 > 0:10:54the Scottish National Party? You have conspicuously failed to be
0:10:54 > 0:10:57backed up by then. Our coalition deal excluded the tram. There is
0:10:57 > 0:11:02something like a �1.5 billion budget that we have and the tramp
0:11:02 > 0:11:08was something like �15 million, so we cover a huge range of services
0:11:08 > 0:11:12of. Can you see the absurdity of this? The tram project is a
0:11:12 > 0:11:16national joke another city politics are a national joke. We give very
0:11:16 > 0:11:19clear leadership on this. And Liberal Democrats, we said the
0:11:19 > 0:11:23right deal was to go to St Andrew's Square and we said the same thing
0:11:23 > 0:11:27back in June. It is for other parties to answer why they have not
0:11:27 > 0:11:30gone with this. The decision today is a result of the Labour and
0:11:30 > 0:11:34Conservative Party getting together and choosing perhaps the worst of
0:11:34 > 0:11:39all possible options. You heard Marco defend his position for the
0:11:39 > 0:11:44SNP. It is not for me to defend the SNP. I am very clear. The Liberal
0:11:44 > 0:11:51Democrats put before the Council the best option, in my opinion, and
0:11:52 > 0:11:56it was supported by the Green Party and the Edinburgh businesses.
0:11:56 > 0:12:01is clearly something dysfunctional going on here, to put it mildly. As
0:12:01 > 0:12:04Liberal Democrats, why don't you walk out of this coalition? You
0:12:04 > 0:12:08have had your proposals voted down. You have told me it is a
0:12:08 > 0:12:12devastating decision that does not work. Why are you still the
0:12:12 > 0:12:17transport convenor? The tram project was not part of the
0:12:17 > 0:12:23coalition agreement... But you don't want to be a transport on the
0:12:23 > 0:12:26enough. It was agreed that we would go separate ways. This was a
0:12:27 > 0:12:31decision by the Labour and Conservative parties. It is for
0:12:31 > 0:12:35them to ask the people of Edinburgh why they made this appalling
0:12:35 > 0:12:43decision. You are not taking this in the right way. I am not
0:12:43 > 0:12:48suggesting you are a disgrace and you should set -- step down. Why as
0:12:48 > 0:12:54somebody whose policy has been voted down by the council and your
0:12:54 > 0:13:04politicians' partners... You cannot possibly want to stay on in your
0:13:04 > 0:13:04
0:13:04 > 0:13:09job implementing a policy that you We have a great responsibility to
0:13:09 > 0:13:13get the best position for Edinburgh. It was a very bad decision. We have
0:13:13 > 0:13:18got to try to rescue the position for the people of Edinburgh, for
0:13:18 > 0:13:23the damage that potentially has been done to the city. We have to
0:13:23 > 0:13:26leave it there. Thank you very much. For those of you living in urban
0:13:26 > 0:13:32areas he would rather be sunning yourself in the countryside, here
0:13:32 > 0:13:37are a few propositions to cheer you up. Big cities, not computers, are
0:13:37 > 0:13:42the engines of creativity. The idea we can thrive on ebusiness set in
0:13:42 > 0:13:46the countryside is bunk. What's more, big cities are better for the
0:13:46 > 0:13:50environment than rural areas. And the ideas that troubled areas can
0:13:50 > 0:13:56save themselves with projects like the Commonwealth Games, for example,
0:13:56 > 0:14:00is bunker, too. All ideas from the latest book, Triumph Of The City,
0:14:01 > 0:14:04from the Harvard economist, Edward Glaeser.
0:14:04 > 0:14:08I met with Professor Glaeser at the top of Calton Hill in Edinburgh.
0:14:08 > 0:14:11With its panoramic views of their high price city eighteenth-century
0:14:11 > 0:14:15style, and its memorials to the architects and philosophers who
0:14:15 > 0:14:20inspired it. His argument is that eighteenth-century Edinburgh is a
0:14:20 > 0:14:26better model for the 21st century than developments like Prince
0:14:26 > 0:14:30Charles' Poundbury. First of all, you write about bigger cities,
0:14:30 > 0:14:39saying they are the way of the future. We should concentrate more
0:14:39 > 0:14:46on them. It reminds us of how challenging cities are. Cities are
0:14:46 > 0:14:53capable of creating incredible miracles, like the wonders of the
0:14:53 > 0:14:58Scottish Enlightenment, to Facebook. They also require management. If
0:14:58 > 0:15:03people are close enough to exchange an idea, they are also close enough
0:15:03 > 0:15:07to give each other and infectious disease. Riots are a long-standing
0:15:07 > 0:15:11urban phenomenon and they are a curse that cities have had to deal
0:15:11 > 0:15:17with four centuries. Sometimes good things can come out of things like
0:15:17 > 0:15:23riots. Think about the revolution that just formed in Cairo. But the
0:15:23 > 0:15:27current rates in England remind us of how enormously challenging
0:15:28 > 0:15:36density can be, and when cities are not manage property, -- properly,
0:15:36 > 0:15:39when they do not have enough good Government. What are the big -- one
0:15:39 > 0:15:43of the arguments in your book appears to be that some cities have
0:15:43 > 0:15:49just outlived their usefulness. Detroit is an example you focus on,
0:15:49 > 0:15:53and to some extent New Orleans. Are you saying that in places like that
0:15:53 > 0:15:59it would be better to build a few parks and allowed the population to
0:15:59 > 0:16:05decline? The important thing is to invest on the population. Every
0:16:05 > 0:16:10city rests on human capital. Skills, not structures. Every time Detroit
0:16:10 > 0:16:14invest in a monstrosity like the monorail, that glides over an
0:16:14 > 0:16:18essentially empty street, it is neglecting the children of the city.
0:16:18 > 0:16:23The important thing is that those children have a brighter future,
0:16:24 > 0:16:29whether or not it is in Detroit or Atlanta. A crucial point of your
0:16:29 > 0:16:33argument seems to be that we should not be trying to necessarily save a
0:16:33 > 0:16:38city like Detroit. It might be better if people just moved out.
0:16:39 > 0:16:43is there that need the case that we have often -- it is certainly the
0:16:43 > 0:16:48case that we have often engaged in projects thinking we could bring
0:16:48 > 0:16:54Detroit back as if that was crucial. It is not crucial that any spot on
0:16:54 > 0:16:58this planet be an economic hub of activity. It is crucial that every
0:16:58 > 0:17:07child has an economic future. When we put places ahead of people we
0:17:07 > 0:17:11are making a crucial mistake. We should not think that the goal is
0:17:11 > 0:17:16just to erect a shiny building and declare that Cleveland is back.
0:17:16 > 0:17:19would not be a big fan of projects like building all the
0:17:19 > 0:17:23infrastructure for the London Olympics, or building the
0:17:23 > 0:17:26infrastructure for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow? I think when you
0:17:26 > 0:17:30think about infrastructure projects you really need to look at all of
0:17:30 > 0:17:34them on a cost-benefit analysis bases and ask whether or not the
0:17:34 > 0:17:39added advantages in terms of enabling people to move around
0:17:39 > 0:17:44quickly offset the tremendous cost. Often, and I do not want to make a
0:17:44 > 0:17:52blanket statement, the usual thing is that the cost is vastly higher
0:17:52 > 0:17:56than the benefit. Often these projects are said to help a great
0:17:56 > 0:18:01city began even greater and that often distracts us from the real
0:18:01 > 0:18:06job of counting pounds and pence and figuring out whether or not
0:18:06 > 0:18:12this project makes sense. One of the things in your book that again
0:18:12 > 0:18:21people will find most surprising is your argument that high density
0:18:21 > 0:18:24high rise buildings in big cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York or,
0:18:25 > 0:18:33potentially, here in Edinburgh or in Glasgow, are actually more
0:18:33 > 0:18:37environmentally friendly than the model of people living in Prince
0:18:37 > 0:18:41Charles-style towns like Poundbury with their own individual gardens
0:18:41 > 0:18:46and all the rest. The problem with low-density living is that it tends
0:18:46 > 0:18:50to involve larger housing units and cars and this means that the
0:18:50 > 0:18:53environmental impact of low density living tends to be a lot higher
0:18:53 > 0:18:59than living in high-density skyscrapers. It is not that
0:18:59 > 0:19:03skyscrapers themselves are friendly but they tend to involve smaller
0:19:03 > 0:19:06units and people using elevators or walking to get to work which is
0:19:06 > 0:19:11more environmentally sensitive then taking a car. The fact in the US is
0:19:11 > 0:19:18the average apartment, the average single family detached house uses
0:19:18 > 0:19:2383 % more electricity than the average a pram up. -- average
0:19:23 > 0:19:28apartment. There are dramatic differences in energy the space
0:19:28 > 0:19:32both from driving and high a home energy use. It is important for us
0:19:32 > 0:19:40to seek skyscrapers not as an enemy of the environment but of a great
0:19:40 > 0:19:43way to make sure we move around the less -- move around less and become
0:19:43 > 0:19:47more environmentally sensitive. There is an assumption in this
0:19:47 > 0:19:52country that building more houses means greenfield sites with
0:19:52 > 0:19:55everyone having... Perhaps with mixed density, but the whole idea
0:19:55 > 0:20:00of let's build a few more skyscrapers in London, ebusiness,
0:20:00 > 0:20:05Glasgow or Edinburgh did not even arise. The key here is not to have
0:20:05 > 0:20:09a Government planned skyscraper, saying, we are going to have a
0:20:09 > 0:20:15skyscraper here. The key is to respond to market demand. If you
0:20:15 > 0:20:18look at London, it is clear that people want to live there. The same
0:20:18 > 0:20:23with Edinburgh. Look at the beautiful scene behind us. It is a
0:20:23 > 0:20:29stunning city, a model of how urban areas can be successful, exciting,
0:20:29 > 0:20:34fun. In Glasgow, a lot of people have a bias against high rise
0:20:34 > 0:20:38buildings because in Glasgow high- rise buildings, essentially, apart
0:20:38 > 0:20:42from the 19th century ones, work tower blocks, which were council
0:20:42 > 0:20:46flats, which were part of slum clearance, which were built with a
0:20:46 > 0:20:49low amenities in the area and bludgeons and people hated then in
0:20:49 > 0:20:53a way that the buildings but the blame rather than the social
0:20:53 > 0:20:57environment. Absolutely. It was top-down and did not follow the
0:20:57 > 0:21:02economic needs of the area. There is no reason why that does not have
0:21:02 > 0:21:07to be true. Many skyscraper areas are some of the most exciting areas
0:21:07 > 0:21:12into the world because that density can support amazing entertainments,
0:21:12 > 0:21:16museums, restaurants. Skyscrapers provides and the that is exciting,
0:21:16 > 0:21:25part of the urban environment. Edinburgh was a place with an
0:21:25 > 0:21:30enormous history of height. They were building 11 story buildings
0:21:30 > 0:21:36here. They were part of Edinburgh's past. Building up is so natural
0:21:36 > 0:21:41here that it is hard to imagine you could not do it in make way that
0:21:41 > 0:21:51makes Edinburgh more beautiful. Tomorrow's newspapers. The Scotsman
0:21:51 > 0:21:54
0:21:54 > 0:21:59And a picture of Nick Clegg there after someone threw paint around in