A while back I linked to the Evening Standard report on the new and improved ring of steel and the topic also game up both on the last little walk I went on and in comments about it. so it’s interesting to note that the London Assembly Planning and Housing Committee are “reportedly” going to be talking about private management of public spaces. I saw “reportedly” because although the press release mentions that the “private management of public space can mean Londoners are excluded from parts of the capital or subject to arbitrary rules around activities like filming” , there’s no explicit mention of it in the actual agenda. The actual agenda only talks about a “feeling of exclusion”, the main areas the committee may wish to consider are listed as:
- What are the key characteristics of successful and accessible public space?
- What models are there of managing public space in London?
- What benefits and disadvantages are there to the different ways of managing public space?
- What lessons can be learned from recent London examples of master planning? What are the necessary skills for planners?
- When and how can local communities be involved in the decision making to ensure the design of public space is not an afterthought?
- How are the Mayor’s policies having an impact on London’s public realm?
So whilst it’s heartening to see the question of the loss of rights in public places being considered in public statements, the frame of reference seems to be merely concerned that we don’t feel excluded and how best to ensure that. This is reflected in the concerns expressed by Boris, who only talks about feelings and also says:
“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”
Which inherently suggests that we don’t have a right of access to these aforementioned public spaces (which according to the terms laid out is basically anywhere we can in principle go).
There is some hope in that the initial proposal for this report mentions:
“4.2 Some commentators believe that the growth of privately managed public space, produces over controlled,
sterile places which lack connection to the reality and diversity of the local environment, with the result that they all tend to look the same. They also raise serious questions about democracy and accountability as well as the displacement of social problems into neighbouring districts”
Emphasis mine. Apparently activists are listed amongst the “Key stakeholders”, so it might be worth getting in touch with them so that they’ve got more stakeholders to ignore.
