Browse
This is the first of three conceptual chapters discussing the nature of public space and public space governance. The chapter proposes a definition of public space beyond idealised archetypal views by exploring considerations about public space as a complex common good with many different attributes with varying characteristics of private, public, club and common pool goods. This, as well as the way those attributes are shared and consumed, defines what it is to be ‘public’. The chapter anchors this discussion into historical, geographical and cultural contexts, and looks at the conceptual and practical issues surrounding the provision of common goods in cities in the 20th and early 21st centuries, how it came into being, and how it has changed over that period, and especially the changing relationship between the public, private and community/voluntary sectors.
This chapter draws together both the conceptual discussions in the first part of the book and the empirical evidence from London and Hong Kong to propose a practical theory of public space governance. It uses the diverse theoretical sources raised in the first part of the book, from law to institutional economics, public administration and urban design, together with the experience of practice as revealed in the case of both cities to propose theoretical underpinnings of public space governance in a way that can bridge scholarly theoretical work and the challenges of practically governing and managing actual public space in cities around the world. The chapter draws on both theory and practice to set out basic principles that acknowledge the diversity and specificity of public spaces but which are sufficiently situated to inform operational decision. Since theorisation of public space governance is still limited, and a significant gap exists between practice and scholarly theorising, the chapter concludes the book by trying to bridge that gap.
This third conceptual chapter refines the concept of public space governance. It examines the mechanisms that govern the allocation and exercise of rights to publicness attributes and how disputes and conflicts between different interests are addressed. The chapter looks at how all those processes are translated into governance tasks and made a part of the daily life of public spaces. The chapter presents public space governance as the constant rearrangement of allocated rights over the attributes of those spaces, responding to pressures from different stakeholders and shaped by sets of rules that regulate that rearrangement. It makes the point that the way public spaces are governed, that is, how the rights over publicness attributes are allocated and managed, and the conflicts that emerge from that process are negotiated, is itself an important constituent of publicness. In doing so, this and the preceding chapter provide the main framework for examining public space issues in London and Hong Kong.
This chapter introduces the book, its context, approach and structure. It starts by discussing the current importance of public space in several fields of policy, and by reaffirming the need to focus on the challenges of provision and management, especially in a complex, fragmented and contested built environment. The chapter puts forward the key arguments that justify the book, around the need to take on board the complexity and variety of public space; to understand publicness in relation to the aspirations and demands of stakeholders in relation to the various attributes of public space; and to look at the life cycle of public space and its management. It discusses why a comparative analysis of London and Hong Kong, with their similarities but also stark physical, cultural and institutional differences can help us understand the challenges of providing and managing public space in contemporary cities. The last section of the chapter presents the structure of the book and explains how its main argument is developed through each of its chapters.
This second conceptual chapter proposes a concept of publicness that informs the operations and operational design of public space management and provision. It starts with a critical review of the various attributes of publicness, including openness, inclusivity, conductivity to encounters, and so forth. It goes on to argue that publicness is space- and time-specific and that the form, type and degree of publicness result from the way rights are allocated to, or appropriated by, those with stakes in any particular spaces. The chapter concludes with the idea that publicness is not a static state of abstract values, but a system of rights that is dynamically interpretable in its context of application. It presents the analytical framework that will be applied to public spaces in later chapters, based on the idea that publicness is a function of the system of rights over three aspects – access, use, collective choice – that characterise a public space.
Increasingly, public space provision and management are being transferred from the public sector to real estate developers, private sector organisations, voluntary groups and community bodies. Contrasting the more historical, horizontal character of London with the intense street life of high-rise Hong Kong, this book tells the story of the two cities’ relationships with non-traditional forms of public space governance.
The authors consider the implications for the ‘publicness’ of these complex spaces and the challenges and impacts that different forms of provision have on those with a stake in them, and on the cities as a whole.
This chapter provides an overview of the recent history of governance and management of the public realm in general and of open public spaces in both London and Hong Kong. It looks particularly at their long-standing history of non-traditional forms of public space governance. The emphasis is on how public spaces in these two cities have been produced and managed over time; the systems and institutional arrangements put in place to produce new spaces and to ensure that many of their publicness attributes fulfil their functions; the governance systems that represent the different interests with a stake in public spaces; how all these have evolved and the reasons for changes. The chapter is divided into two parts, one dealing with London, the other with Hong Kong, both structured along similar lines. The chapter concludes with the quantitative and qualitative challenges to provision and management of public space in both cities.
This chapter discusses the qualitative challenges to provision and management of public spaces. It looks at how London and Hong Kong try to adapt public spaces to meet evolving needs and how users’ aspirations are incorporated into that process. The chapter looks at the issue of diversification, the challenge of addressing different functions of public spaces in different contexts and the inevitable changes in those functions over time. It examines the mechanisms through which public spaces are continuously shaped and reshaped in response to the needs and demands of users and how this affects the allocation of those rights that make up publicness. The chapter looks at the responses from both cities and their impact on the agency rights, the collective choice rights that are at the root of what is to be ‘public’.
This chapter uses empirical cases in London and Hong Kong to examine the quantitative challenges of providing enough public spaces and of finding the resources to maintain them over the long term. In Hong Kong the chapter discusses the ways capital investment on public space has been sought outside public sector budgets and in private property development operations. It looks at the production of public facilities in private developments or on privately leased land, including public passageways and public open spaces and the land leasing and deeds of dedication mechanisms that make these possible. In London, the chapter discusses the use of planning obligations to obtain new public space as a planning gain from development. It also looks at the various forms of transfer of management rights and of outsourcing of management responsibilities to private and voluntary bodies. The conclusion looks at how responses to the quantitative challenges in both cities have affected the rights of access to and use of public space, the operational rights associated with publicness.
In March 2020, when Australia began shutting its borders and non-essential services were restricted due to COVID-19, I took to running outdoors when I could no longer go to the gym. Hitting the pavement at dusk, this ritual would mark the end of my workday. I would follow the same route that would take me past the local McDonald’s, where, without fail, there would be a steady stream of cars at the drive-through. I thought this peculiar given the pervasive fear of community transmission, the government mandate for people to stay at home unless absolutely necessary and tightened household spending in light of escalating unemployment rates and a possible recession. In the face of a pandemic that had left no part of society, and no country, untouched, the queue tellingly indicated daily exhaustion, as well as a desperate holding on to some semblance of normality in a world that had completely changed in a matter of weeks. The activity at the fast-food restaurant was a comic juxtaposition to the No. 212 bus that would, as if on cue on my evening runs, trundle by at that point, carrying no more than a handful of passengers. On some nights, there was only the bus driver.
Extraordinary images of cities appeared in news stories and online videos in the weeks following the start of the pandemic, which showed the impact of lockdowns and partial closures: the cleared skies over Delhi due to decreased air pollution; boars from the mountains roaming deserted roads in Barcelona; and the stillness of Siena’s dormant streets, interrupted by the fullness of voices singing in unison from apartments above.
