Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Privately owned public space
In 1961 a New York Zoning Resolution encouraged private developers to provide spaces for the public. The resulting spaces are now listed on nyc.gov.
What about London? How do things stand here?
In 2009, The Guardian was moved to comment:
This should have been the decade of public space but, instead, areas are increasing becoming privately owned and controlled.......
Liverpool One covers 34 streets in the heart of the city, while Stratford City, in east London, which will be built in 2011 in time for the Olympics, will effectively be a private city within a city, spanning 170 acres.
Because the streets and public spaces within these new places are privately owned, strict rules and regulations can be enforced. Skateboarding, rollerblading, begging, homelessness and selling the Big Issue are invariably banned. So is taking photographs, filming, handing out political leaflets and holding political demonstrations.
This concern was echoed when in his 2009 election manifesto, Boris Johnson made a commitment that public space should be as accessible and as unrestricted as possible. Apparently he was concerned about the growing corporatisation and the private management of open space and the effect it might have on the public. He said:
There is a growing trend towards the private management of publicly accessible space where this type of ‘corporatisation’ occurs, especially in the larger commercial developments, Londoners can feel themselves excluded from parts of their own city. This need not be the case.
(…) I want to ensure that access to public space is as unrestricted and unambiguous as possible. The needs of different users and age groups can be accommodated through intelligent design. With proper consideration at the outset of safety issues, the usage of public spaces can be extended well into the evening without the need for unnecessary barriers.
Just last November the GLA ran an investigation into the issue. I'm attaching three documents related to that:
1. The proposal.
2. Background.
3. What I think is the transcript.
On the other side of the fence a group calling themselves Space Hijackers are clearly not happy with the status quo. On their website, they explain their mission like this:
The Space Hijackers are a group of Anarchitects which was set up at the beginning of 1999.
Our group is dedicated to battling the constant oppressive encroachment onto public spaces of institutions, corporations and urban planners. We oppose the way that public space is being eroded and replaced by corporate profit making space.
We oppose the way that users of space are being put under increasing scrutiny and control by those who own or run it. Be this via CCTV installed to monitor us, or architectural elements designed to control our moods.
One of their projects focuses on the space outside City Hall. Reading their write-up leaves me wondering whether this project is necessarily the best use of their energies though.
Back to New York. A few years ago the City reviewed the success of its 1961 laws and concluded of the spaces that "41 percent are of marginal utility and inaccessible or devoid of the kinds of amenities that attract public use."
So into the breach has stepped a group called Capitano Incognito with a project called Postal Chairs:
..and here's what NYC Government have to say on their private-public spaces programme today.
Should the whole issue of private-public space be one of concern for us?
Tags for Forum Posts: public space
- Attachments:
-
-
Public Space Proposal.pdf, 100 KB -
Public Space Background.pdf, 74 KB
-
Public Space Transcript. pdf.pdf, 115 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kari Stewart on
-
This issue came to my attention via Paul Kingsnorth (http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/) who has a chapter about this in his excellent book Real England ("A personal journey through a nation whose character is being lost to the homogenising forces of globalisation and a top-heavy state," 2003). The whole book is well worth a read.
-
Permalink Reply by Omotn on
-
Closer to home, the plan below (taken from this document) suggests that the space in front of Hornsey Town Hall remains in public ownership, being left unshaded on this plan. This gives some hope for continued and productive public use, including perhaps a Farmer's Market. The most recent reference I can find to the Farmer's Market on HoL is this - I entirely share Transition Crouch End's concerns about the make up of the formal oversight of HTH - my feeling is that informal and determined oversight is needed to ensure that the terms of the sale and the lease do not extend to exclude the public from either the exterior or the interior of the Hall.
Sorry my snip of the pdf does not have colours - I think these can be inferred from the density of the shading.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Williams on
-
I agree, the Hornsey Town Hall square is a very good example of how public space becomes consumed into privately controlled development projects.
The issues of the Town Hall square came up during the planning application hearing. I (on behalf of Transition Crouch End) and others raised an objection to the published plans which would have seen two new paths run accross the current grassed area; the railings removed from the space and the fountain area re-modelled for vehicle access.
We objected that these changes were unnecessary and not in keeping with the building as well as disrupting a space that was currently used by the public as a mini-park. The objection was upheld and the Hornsey Town Hall Creative Trust were obliged to reconsider the plans for this space.
The problem is their management committee meet in private and do not (as far as I'm aware) publish their minutes or anounce when meetings are taking place. So how are we able to scutinise that they are honouring this planning condition and how are we to interect with and influence the re-design?
-
-
So, Transition Crouch End as an entity, I as an individual, Crouch End for People as (?) website, Chris Setz, elsewhere on this site, and I am sure others want to have some input into the drawing up of the Mountview lease, and the contract of sale to the developers. David Cameron and his government believe in localism. Surely we must be able to put together some coalition with sufficient clout to achieve something?
-
-
That sounds like a fine idea. I would be happy to contribute and know of some others that would be interested. How best to bring this together?
We could suggest intersted people gather at a given time in front of the Town Hall and see who turns up. What do you think?
-
-
I have been making some enquiries about the Hornsey Town Hall and the proposed Farmer's Market. My contact at the council was kind enough to summarise our conversation in some email bullet points:
The main points about Hornsey Town Hall Square:
- The relaxation of the street trading by-laws is a general matter not specifically about Hornsey Town Square
- We have been hoping to see life brought to the Town Square on an interim basis and will be looking for suitable ideas
- Hornsey Town Hall Creative Trust (HTHCT), representing the local community on the Town Hall development, will inform solutions to this issue
- HTHCT have worked with us to find a sustainable solution to the use of the Town Hall and Cabinet approved a proposal that Mountview Academy of Theatre Arts be given an opportunity to develop proposals for their use of the Town Hall. Any ideas about the Town Square will be subject to the wider considerations about the future of the Town Hall.
- A range of options has been discussed with HTHCT and others for the interim use of the Town Square
- No decision has yet been made on what uses can be made of the Town Square both in the interim and in the longer term
- The use of the Town Square will continue to be subject to planning and license constraints, including consultation. I gave you a link to the relevant planning legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/418/schedule/2/made
- Colleagues in licensing and planning will deal with the relevant parts of any application for trading in the Town Square
You can probably guess how much effort I had to put into remaining calm. Consider:
for goodness sake how long do they need? This has been going on for decadesWe have been hoping to see life brought to the Town Square on an interim basis and will be looking for suitable ideas -
in conversation this came out as " we don't yet know the implications of installing Mountview" which opens up the possibility that Mountview may yet demand control over the square
Any ideas about the Town Square will be subject to the wider considerations about the future of the Town Hall -
The entire tone of this encounter was one of indecision, prevarication and handing off problems to other departments.
I'd dearly like to be able to bring some pressure to bear to improve this situation. Any one interested please join the group Hornsey Town Hall.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
There's one of these postal chairs (referenced in the youtube video above) within the, surprise surprise, Coin Street development, at the back of the Oxo Tower building. The Coin Street developers are some of the most forward thinking and radical that we have in the UK, presenting a useful mix of housing, public space, shops, restaurants & galleries.
The LIverpool One development is the polar opposite, a complete nightmare, it's design oppressive and its control is all secruity guards & cctv. Nasty.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Here's some thoughts on this issue from the New Economics Foundation.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
