Just a shy of two years after Henrietta Williams mapped out the ring of steel to high light the social engineering taking place in the City of London and Eighteen months after the London Assembly started debating the privatisation of public spaces, the Guardian has finally noticed that public spaces are being quietly eroded. One thing I think the Guardian (and possibly Henrietta Williams) fails to differentiate is between places where a right of public access has been removed and where a right of public access never existed. Whilst there are an increasing number of pseudo public places that are privately owned I fear that lumping them all together would actually weaken the case against the instances where public land has actually been removed*. To consider the Guardians example does it matter if a shopping centre is enclosed or not? Does the fact that a developer decides that open air and plaza type developments make more sense, make that property any less private? Likewise a private road or square that has been so for centuries getting new fences or signs or even closing isn’t an erosion of liberty is merely a removal of largesse. However the selling of public roads to private ownership, the privatisation of public rights of way and the encroachment of security architecture to control our movements is and should be resisted. Confusing one with the other though either weakens our fight against the panopticon state or gives the state excuse to remove the rights of property owners on the grounds that they’ve allowed people use of space in the past. The latter actually happens unless private property is closed to the public on an annual basis, something most modern estates at least are careful about.
However having noticed that public spaces are being increasingly eroded, they’ve started a mapping project to record where such spaces have been created. Interestingly (to me at least)the map doesn’t include some of the places mentioned in the article and some of the public submitted locations are private locations to which the public have for a long time been given access, rather than being public locations which have been privatised.
Oh and I’d also notice that the Guardian have a quote from the “Charity” – London Sustainibility Exchange, who judging by their supporters page seems to be a prime candidate for being labelled as a fake charity.
* Yes I’m arguing for rigour in protests yet again, yes I know this is doomed.
