Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 11:06:30 GMT
I'm not sure what I think about this really. Currently I don't think its a particularly bad thing but I guess two aspects or risks spring to mind; 1) What happens if the rules for the use of these areas change to something less reasonable driven by a private or personal agenda? 2) What happens if either all or just free public access is removed in the future for some reason? I guess I knew these areas exist, I just didn't think about it much. I suppose its probably true in most cities. www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 12:51:24 GMT
They do exist and generally no one cares. In more sensitive locations (central London) it will be more of an issue due to the desire of people to protest close to the seat of government or headquarters of international companies. I think the real issue is the lack of control by local authority. It should be a condition of the planning permission that includes these open spaces, that the behaviour rules for those spaces are published and visible within the space. Further it should be clear exactly where are the boundaries of the 'Pops'; perhaps a requirement for there to be boundary features that are at least 1m high?
|
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Aug 11, 2017 13:01:55 GMT
 The provision of (new) public space within erstwhile private land, as a result of development, can generally only be seen as a positive. Bounds and rules need to be made clear, however, and it would probably best if these were incorporated into the overall planning process. |
|
|
|
Post by manatee on Aug 12, 2017 21:14:50 GMT
I am less relaxed about this. These are essentially public spaces, but freedom of association, assembly and expression only apply there at the discretion of the owners or operators.
While such places are the exception that might be of little consequence, but the more it becomes standard practice to privatise public spaces then the more big business becomes big brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Aug 14, 2017 8:46:08 GMT
Wrong way round. These are organisations partly publicing previously private spaces, not privatising previously public spaces, so far as I can tell. If I suddenly decided that the public would be welcome to shuffle through my back garden admiring the dead patches in my lawn, then I'd probably want to restrict what they can and can't do there.
You sound a bit cake-and-eat-it, manatee. Not something which is usually practicable, as current political shenanigans tell us (some of us tried to warn the country about that last year, but hey ho). I would have thought you'd be keen to ensure that any property owner should "take control" of its property and be "independent" so as to be free to make its own rules, and not let the "wrong sorts" in the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by manatee on Aug 14, 2017 9:17:23 GMT
Have you actually read the article?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Aug 14, 2017 9:27:08 GMT
Yes. TNE's comment covers it nicely: "The provision of (new) public space within erstwhile private land, as a result of development, can generally only be seen as a positive."
Am I not looking hard enough to find an enemy infringing upon my personal freedoms?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 9:33:00 GMT
Alanovic may not have done, but he is right. These spaces were previously private (probably had buildings on them) and usually a large site assembly exercise has taken place to enable a major multi building scheme to go ahead. These schemes frequently include an area of public open space, usually to enable the office workers to sit and relax out of the office; restaurants can have open air seating etc etc. If this is the case then the land is private and the owner can do what he wants with it. However, I do believe that in these cases, some public display of rules are required.
|
|
|
|
Post by manatee on Aug 14, 2017 10:30:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 11:21:39 GMT
It is very hard to lose genuinely public space. It involves a great deal of time, documentation and public notices. There is a cost benefit analysis by the local authority which balances such matters with the public good of development in an area which might otherwise languish. Not sure if central London falls into this category, but Canary Wharf certainly did initially.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Aug 14, 2017 11:24:52 GMT
Well that's two separate issues then isn't it, manatee. However much we might like it to be, any reduction in existing public space isn't linked to the appearance of these pseudo public spaces, unless legislation makes it so. You can hardly penalise/criticise property owners who make some of their land pseudo-public because publicly owned land elsewhere is being developed.
Either "My House, My Rules" applies, or the state interferes.
|
|
|
|
Post by manatee on Aug 14, 2017 22:17:34 GMT
No, it isn't separate if it is linked by planning. LAs can develop old areas whose functions are replaced by private developments. And what happens when a town centre is redeveloped in a "public/private partnership"?
I'd like to know how much of the much vaunted public access space in the Earl's Court development will actually be privately controlled, for example.
|
|
