In Private Hands - Where does the public domain exist? by Adam Tarasewicz

In private hands

Where does the public domain exist?

Adam Tarasewicz 170204813

word count: 6647 1

LIST OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Context & Methodology

Introduction

Ownership

Poli tics of Power

Experience

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my great grati tude to Satwinder Samra for providing bri lliant help during the process of wri ting and his insightful suggestions that included not only books and essays but also addi tional sources that significantly enriched my dissertation. I would also like to thank Russell Curtis and Simon Lea for providing me wi th an opportuni ty to conduct fascinating, thought-provoking interviews that significantly influenced my research. Lastly, this piece of work would not be possible wi thout a phenomenal support from my friends from Levi tt Bernstein: Liam Ashton and Chris Gray. Their insightful comments and suggestions made a great impact on my wri ting and greatly improved the development of ideas.

CONTEXT & METHODOLOGY

The objective of this dissertation is to establish what are the implications of privatisation of public space. I am also interested in understanding how this phenomenon affects the ownership of public spaces, the poli tics of power wi thin them and the experience perceived by their users. Therefore, the study is divided into three chapters, each of them discussing a different aspect of privatisation of public realm: ownership, poli tics of power and experience. To address these questions, I wi ll use aspects of grounded theory in developing my research, as well as phenomenology. The first methodology would help me wi th establishing a close relationship between data collection, analysis and the eventual theory. I would not start wi th a predefined theory in mind - I want the resulted concept to be driven by the gathered data. The phenomenological aspect of the research would aid my understanding of the phenomenon by conducting interviews wi th experts in the field of public realm design and how they find the current state of public spaces. Addi tionally, as an active participant of the ci ty, I wi ll photograph the public areas in different ci ties to depict their current atmospheres. The research wi ll be supported by a quali tative review of existing li terature that involves books and articles varying from poetics and atmospheres to poli tics and policy-making of public spaces.

In order to i llustrate specific perspectives discussed in the main body of work, the dissertation wi ll include two case studies. At first, I wi ll elaborate on the aspect of ownership by examining Aylesbury Estate- a residential scheme in Southwark, London designed by Levi tt Bernstein. The key aim is to explore the relationship between the residents of the current Aylesbury Estate and the design process, faci li tated by archi tects and their expertise. I am interested in establishing a clear understanding of the repercussions of privatisation of public space on the sense of ownership. This particular case study had been chosen a winner of the London Planning Awards as the Best New Place to Live in 2013. In the coming years, numerous nominations and shortlists followed, acknowledging the quali ty of housing and public realm. In the second chapter, the study wi ll analyse the poli tical aspect of privatisation of public realm by looking at the issue on a bigger scale - privatisation of ci ties. In order to elaborate further, I wi ll look at the ci ty of Lavasa, a newly bui lt urban settlement in Western India. It had been erected from scratch by a private firm Lavasa Company Limi ted. By gaining a better insight into the way the ci tyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s governing system works, I believe this particular case study wi ll significantly benefi t the dissertation. Its poli tical arrangements could have a far-reaching effect on ci tizens and the way power wi thin this urban settlement is distributed. The third chapter aims to examine the connections between human body and public realm through the lenses of the previous two chapters. I believe i t is cri tical to comprehend that, throughout history, ci ty planning has privi leged quali ties of public spaces based purely on visual perception. Lack of acknowledgement of other senses in shaping our urban environment only deepens the feeling of estrangement wi thin society. Thus, the chapter addresses two senses which could be perceived as marginal in the design process of public spaces: sense of smell and hearing. I am interested in exploring the relationship between intangible, poli tical realm of public spaces and physical, experiential aspects of them. Through a considerate, rigorous investigation of these relationships, I wish to propose a set of conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

‘ Public space is a place where many activi ties overlap: rich confusion, commerce, seduction and fi lth. Public space works not as a designed element, but is instead carved out by wheeling and dealing, crossroads, and the chance at freedom, where a person emerges from shadows into light that grows into the ever-extending space of public gathering and demonstration, and seeps into every open pore of the ci ty.’ 1 Michael Bell’s description tackles a variety of physical and metaphorical characteristics of public realm. I find i t particularly thought-provoking as Bell describes the physical and economic environments through experiential phrases: ‘confusion’, ‘emerges from shadows’, or ‘seeps into’. These aspects of public realm cannot be treated as separate enti ties - they belong to and rely on each other, creating a holistic depiction of ci ties’ local environments. These elements play a vi tal role in establishing proprioceptive connections wi th our immediate environment. It is difficult to define where exactly public space begins or terminates- i ts borders are in constant flux, tackling issues of ownership, poli tics and individual experience. Nowadays, these thresholds are vi tal as ever. The described notion is tangible in a fi lm directed by Matthieu Kassovi tz called ‘La Haine’.

Michael J. Bell and Sze Tsung Leong, Slow Space (Monacelli Press, 1998), p.458

Fig. 1 La Haine (Paris, 1995); Police guarding the public square

The story of ‘La Haine’ follows three young men in the French suburbs the day after a violent riot, in a 24 hour span. In one of the scenes, we gain some insight into the neighbourhood where Vinz, Said and Hubert live. In one of the blocks we meet their friend who is a selftaught DJ. As a way of expressing himself and presenting his work, he opens a window, puts the speaker up the shelf and starts mixing. Although he is on the third floor, he hopes that his passion wi ll affect the audience below somehow. This scene exemplifies a truly interesting juxtaposi tion of public space and private realm of one’s home. However, simultaneously i t raises certain questions about the roles that ought to be played by people in such si tuations. Do we behave in an intimate way, expressing our feelings and thoughts, or do we alter and restrict our behaviour based on the socially constructed conventions? Simi lar issues arise further in the fi lm’s storyline. In the later scenes, Said observes policemen guarding one of the squares in the ci ty after a violent riot. The picture could be perceived as dystopian, but somehow modern society managed to adopt a simi lar approach to safeguarding public spaces. Addi tionally, all the squares and streets in the fi lm are depicted in a cold and rather uninvi ting manner, establishing further dispari ty between human experience and urban environment. I am interested in exploring this area further and establish what are the implications of sensorial design on public realm. Addi tionally, the power perspective which is depicted in the fi lm appears as an interesting theme to explore - how does the aspect of ownership of public spaces relate to the poli tics of power?

Chapter One Ownership

‘I think my concern is when public realm is given to private developers and controlled. So that was the case of the Garden Bridge, for example. The Garden Bridge would have been funded by public money, yet they would have the right to close i t off for events and you wouldn’t be able to cross i t if you were in a group of more than 6 people. It would be a massive problem!’ 2 The type of si tuation Russell Curtis (one of the founding partners of RCKa and one of the Mayor’s Design Advocates) describes, and is currently prevai ling in London, has had a great impact on the design of public space. Its defini tion has been skewed in order to fi t into the commercially driven idea of public realm. Throughout history, public space meant the right to come together and discuss, to collaborate wi th one another and debate wi th fellow ci tizens. It could be elaborated further that ‘public space enables a poli tical conversation that favours the unforced force of the better argument, the basis of just social order.’ 3 The central public space, the archetypal agora in Ancient Greece, was a place of honour and contributed to ci tizens’ sense of belonging. In there, a variety of poli tical and public activi ties took place- debates, free markets and even theatrical and artistic performances. Nowadays, however, public realm in our ci ties does not operate in a poli tical sphere as i ts significance shifted towards retai l and entertainment. As opposed to the demoli tion of public realm from overuse by individuals, one can observe the notional annihi lation of public engagement as a result of ‘propertarian individualism.’ 4

2 Russell Curtis, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 30th of August 2018 3 Mark Kingwell and Patrick Turmel, Ri tes of Way: The Poli tics and Poetics of Public Space (Wi lfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2011), p. 7 4 Kingwell, Ri tes of Way , p. 7

When we exemplify a shopping street as a typical public space, i t could be argued whether i ts publicness is diminished to one’s pursue of consumption goods. This disintegration of urban spaces and their substi tute wi th commercial uni ts are results, not causes. As Kristine Mi ller, a professor of Landscape Archi tecture at the Universi ty of Minnesota, elaborates further: ‘The quali ties of public spaces we consider essential, including accessibi li ty, public ownership, and ties to democratic life, are, at best, temporary condi tions and often completely absent.’ 5 It is the collective nature of public space and the sense of ownership that, somehow, has been lost in the modern society. In the unfortunate prevai ling view and in the collective mind, public realm is leftover space, the unused sideways between private properties and retai l uni ts - contributing to a misleading portrayal of the ci ty as well as the society. This point has been raised by Curtis. In his view, ‘we’ve got the tendency to talk about some grand projects, Granary Square or Paternoster Square - they’re examples of very large and very expensive bi ts of space. But actually most people inhabi t incidental or pocket gardens, streets or gaps between bui ldings. It’s actually far more important, I think.’ 6

5 Kristine F. Mi ller, Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces (Universi ty of Minnesota Press, 2007), p. 10 6 Russell Curtis, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 30th of August 2018

It is concerning to see such spaces being seen as secondary, wi thout real value to developers. However, i t is worth noting the fact that we are always present in public realm of some sort ei ther on the streets or in concealed work spaces. The threshold between what is public and what is private is challenging to draw. Is i t an external envelope of a bui lding? Or is i t where we talk to our neighbours or strangers on the street? Once privatised, how can we take the ownership of these spaces? We somehow feel safe and intact out in the public realm, believing that we have just entered an outside, shared sphere. However, i t could be argued that we cannot enter the public because we have never left the public. It permeates every aspect of our lives, affecting the public dimensions of human life. Another struggle wi th depicting public realm, and therefore establishing i ts ownership, is i ts representation. It is a space full of human activi ty, embodying aspirations of ci tizens. It is rather troublesome to restrict public realm merely to i ts geometrical constraints as the activi ty i t hosts spreads and belongs in a much wider environment. As a result, archi tects and urban designers have the responsibi li ty to respond to the condi tions present on si te in a sensi tive and thought-through manner. Public realm cannot be merely the embodiment of designers’ ego-centred vision, or a by-product of digi tal manipulations. 7 It ought to relate to not only physical but also immaterial condi tions like culture, taking into account demographics of the area and provide a narrative, a programmatic outline that could enhance ci tizens’ lives. As Adam Caruso articulates further: ‘Ci ties follow a development that is an embodiment of culture, of people’s ambi tions and desires. Thought of this way, rather than being an imperfect manifestation of an abstract theory, the ci ty is a perfect and vivid instance of reali ty.’ 8

7 Mark Kingwell and Patrick Turmel, Ri tes of Way: The Poli tics and Poetics of Public Space (Wi lfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2011), p. 52 8 Adam Caruso, The Feeling Of Things: Wri tings On Archi tecture , 1st edn (Barcelona: Ediciones Poligrafa, 2017), p.38

Fig. 2 ‘Back Lane as Shortcut for Transportation’- Hong Kong, China (credit to Julian Wong)

Fig. 3 Incidental spaces of social activity-children playing; Venice, Italy (credit to Kimbo Sito)

CASE STUDY - AYLESBURY ESTATE

These points have been a prevai ling topic of discussion at the Mayor of London’s office as noted by Curtis. He’s outlook on the public realm design explici tly calls for more diversi ty and a careful consideration of societal condi tions that are present on si te. Curtis specifically advocates for using public realm as a tool for kni tting communi ties together: ‘It’s about using i t as a way of encouraging communi ty cohesion. We [think of i t] at i t as a way of connecting the communi ty. And that’s what the public space should be about!’ 9 In order to elaborate further on the sense of ownership and the role of public realm in establishing meaningful connections in specific locali ties, I wi ll look at the design process of Aylesbury Estate, a scheme developed by Levi tt Bernstein. I believe that wi th a thriving communi ty centre and a considered landscape strategy, the project is an appropriate case study to elaborate on. In order to discuss i t, I have conducted an interview wi th Simon Lea- a Senior Associate at Levi tt Bernstein who was directly involved in the project. The estate has been established just next to the Burgess Park in South London, adjacent to the Albany Road. Previously, i t used to be a canal but during the Second World War the entire si te was bombed. Post-war, the counci l decided to replace the present-at-the-time warehouses wi th tall, elongated bui ldings that formed the original estate. In the 1960s, i t was Europe’s largest single estate. However, the estate became infamous for one of the highest crime rates and wi th deteriorating local communi ty, the bui ldings suffered. 10 Around 1980, only 20 years after the estate was bui lt, the Southwark counci l has already started thinking about re-developing i t. There were numerous masterplans developed by a variety of archi tectsincluding Levi tt Bernstein. The winning proposal, designed by Urban Ini tiatives, included a number of communi ty bui ldings wi th high-densi ty dwellings for residents. As a part of the collaborative process, the counci l asked Levi tt Bernstein to look at the western corner of the side, which became the first phase of the Aylesbury Estate development.

9 Russell Curtis, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 30th of August 2018 10 Simon Lea, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 13th of July 2018

The project became quickly poli tically significant. During the first day of his appointment, Tony Blair made his speech in the estate, promising to provide a solution to the deprived, poor communi ty. This particular act contributes to a strong sense of communi ty in Aylesbury Estate- and therefore a powerful notion of ownership. It became a starting point for the appointed archi tects - Levi tt Bernstein approaches a project by trying to put people first and give residents a voice. As Lea mentioned during the interview, they had been consulting the focus group of around 10-15 people over a period of six months. 11 It was a slow process during which Lea’s team would also talk to groups of people that were involved in shaping the masterplan vision - so that the first phase of the undertaking is integrated wi th Urban Ini tiatives’ plan. Levi tt Bernstein was also challenged to convince the residents to the proposed dwelling sizes and layouts - as a result, together wi th the counci l, they bui lt a 1:1 1 bed 2 person flat in a disused basketball court. The ‘exhibi tion’ was opened for three weeks, each week the layout would change in order to reflect three different internal arrangements: open plan, a separate living/dining space and a separate ki tchen. Later, the people who attended the consultation would vote on the preferred plans, giving the residents a sense of ownership and a sense of belonging since they became part of the design team. These considerations, however, were not reflected in the design of public realm. The archi tect’s involvement in faci li tating these sessions put a much bigger emphasis on private dwellings than on design of public spaces, leading to a disproportionate design process.

11 Simon Lea, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 13th of July 2018

Fig. 4 Aylesbury Estate- entrance of the community centre

Fortunately, later in the project, the collaborative approach to the design of intermediate streets was considered by the archi tects. Levi tt Bernstein spoke to the focus group and established that residents wanted to become part of the ci ty - a neighbourhood rather than an isolated estate. The proposed courtyards, that were much narrower to the existing ones, evoked the feeling of tradi tional London streets. Addi tionally, a careful landscape consideration played a vi tal role in the conveyed atmosphere of these infi lls. What I found particularly captivating in the interview was residents’ longing for more intimate atmosphere wi thin public realm. In a simi lar way to narrow, incidental squares of Venice, such spaces evoke feelings of closure and safety - enabling people to exercise their public activi ties. Addi tionally, Aylesbury Estate was successful in providing a number of ‘green corridors’ in the scheme that consti tuted an extension of Burgess Park. 12 At the end of each of them there would be a bui lding or structure of public significance. In Levi tt’s case, i t was a day centre for the mentally and physically disabled people, alongside wi th a public square. The archi tects considered people’s sensi tivi ty to being out in public, putting their wellbeing first. The front of the bui lding, wi th locally run cafe, would open up to the square, whereas more private areas would benefi t from internal green courtyards. 13 However, as previously mentioned in the discourse, i t is vi tal for archi tects to establish a programmatic outline for the designed public space. In this case, Levi tt Bernstein’s team thought about bringing the East Street Market into the newly designed space. Despi te the generous area provided by the archi tects, the wellestablished market refused to move places, leaving the new square functionless. The alternative outline has not been proposed yet.

12 Simon Lea, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 13th of July 2018 13 Lea

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;green corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; intermediate streets communi ty centre frontage public square

Burgess Park

Fig. 5 Aylesbury Estate- location and key moves

Another aspect of the design that’s worth noting is the prevai ling notion of consumerism as public exercise. In the interview, Simon talked about the new spaces for potential shops next to the communi ty centre: ‘There was potential for other shops next to the square as well. That was our main bi t of the public space.’ 14 A form of diminishing the power of public space to a mere vessel for consumption goods could be observed. As previously discussed by Mark Kingwell, such an approach is sti ll very present in modern archi tecture and urban design: ’In the unfortunate prevai ling view and in the collective unconscious, public space is leftover space, the margins that remain between private holdings and commercial premises, the laneways and parks in which we negotiate not our collective meanings but our outstanding transactional interests, the ones not covered by production and consumption.’ 15 Rather than focusing on providing more retai l uni ts under the cover of ‘public’ space, i t would be great to see areas designated for nurturing the local communi ty. This, however, needs involvement from both archi tects and developers in order to achieve a successful outcome. I believe the analysed scheme developed a good resolution regarding the landscape treatment as part of the local public realm. By using the narrower streets, the architects managed to embody residents’ ideas. Additionally, the inclusion of the day centre was perceived as a successful move as it helped with integrating disabled people with the rest of the community of Aylesbury. However, some further consultations regarding the design of public spaces could have been conducted - there seemed to be some imbalance in consulting the residents regarding private dwellings and elements of public realm. Through the engaging exhibi tion and expansive consultation process, the residents could take the ownership and voice their opinions on the flat layouts. I am convinced the scheme would be stronger if the public spaces consultations were treated in the simi lar manner.

14 Simon Lea, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 19th of July 2018 15 Mark Kingwell and Patrick Turmel, Ri tes of Way: The Poli tics and Poetics of Public Space (Wi lfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2011), p. 16

Chapter Two Poli tics of Power

‘Urban life is public life, the courtyard is the ci ty, and proximi ty inevi tably creates the complicated shared gazes of the unprivate private- which is to say, the always already public.’ 16 Ci ties that we live in, that we occupy wi th activi ties are bursting wi th life. There is exci tement, joy and mystery in everyday encounters. They are spontaneous, unpredictable. The freedom of movement that is granted in ci ties allow for a variety of scenarios to happen, for numerous gatherings to take place. This thought is explained further by Patrick Turmel, a Canadian phi losopher who believes that ‘in a ci ty, everything is affected by everything else, to the point in fact that i ts very existence depends on these spi llover effects of individual actions and private transactions.’ 17 Such freedom is only present in just, sovereign ci ties. This sovereignty of our metropoli tan areas is ensured by the very existence of democratic elections. Using the tax incomes, the counci ls are equipped wi th appropriate resources to listen to people’s demands and bring their proposals to frui tion. The collectively chosen power acts on behalf of i ts ci tizens, ensuring the clari ty and quali ty of management. If the chosen counci l does not perform in accordance to the promises or overuses the given capaci ty, the public has the abi li ty to choose a different set of representatives. When elected authori ties give control of public space to private interests, the character of that space is fundamentally changed. The examples of the influence of privatisation of public spaces from the previous chapters depict a rather worrying si tuation. Wi th a diminished importance of public realm, could the urban settlements follow a simi lar pattern? By analysing the policies shaping the urban environment of today, I believe the interests of privately owned companies are being favoured, whereas nurturing of the sense of public ownership has become marginal. Setha Low, an American researcher, elaborates further: ‘[...] the boundaries of what is private or public have become less clear, and increasingly incursions by privatisation and other neoliberal practices have been transforming public space, placing i t back in corporate or commercial hands.’ 18

16 Mark Kingwell and Patrick Turmel, Ri tes of Way: The Poli tics and Poetics of Public Space (Wi lfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2011), p.151 17 Patrick Turmel, The Ci ty as Public Space (Wi lfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2011), p. 154 18 Nei l Smi th, The Poli tics of Public Space , ed. by Setha Low, 1 edi tion (New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 82

The impact that private developments have on entire communi ties, and therefore on public space is significant- when orchestrated well, i t could lead to a series of legally feasible strategies that hinder public realm: limi ting access by using conservation passages or the purchasing of land which encircles the public space. 19 Wi th these methods, developers are establishing narratives in which they decide who the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is. The discussed issues were also a topic of my interview wi th Russell Curtis. He expressed his concerns regarding a new development that is being finished in Croydon, South LondonRuskin Square. Stanhope, one of the major development firms, has asked MUF Archi tects to develop a new landscape proposal near the East Croydon station. The schemeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proximi ty to this piece of public infrastructure raises a couple of questions regarding i ts accessibi li ty. In order to get to the town centre, pedestrians need to cross a piece of land that is owned by Stanhope. Curtis points towards an interesting aspects of the proposal by asking what provision they have made in the planning approval for making sure that the station is maintained and accessible? 20 Since i t is privatelyowned, the developer may choose to close i t off for maintenance or an upcoming event - making part of the town centre inaccessible from the train station. Such practice is rather detrimental for the ci tizens living in Croydon area, since i t creates confusion and blurs the boundaries between what is private and what is public. Wi thout a clear understanding of the extents of privately-owned land, i t is troublesome for public to take the ownership and make the neighbourhood their own. Lack of this engagement contributes to creating negative externali ties.

19 Nei l Smi th, The Poli tics of Public Space , ed. by Setha Low, 1 edi tion (New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 84 20 Russell Curtis, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 30th of August 2018

Fig. 6 Ruskin Square- location of the square in relation to the station and the town centre

Fig. 7 Ruskin Square in development, view towards the East Croydon station

I believe i t is vi tal to comprehend what externali ties are and how they consti tute urban settlements. By externali ty, we can understand ei ther a posi tive or negative action that affects the urban environment. 21 For example, if we choose to walk or cycle to work, our action contributes to cleaner air in the ci ty and less traffic on the road - demonstrating a posi tive externali ty. It is of paramount importance to recognise the role of these externali ties as a collective commodi ty. Due to their energy and individuali ty, they contribute to social, cultural and economic image of the ci ty. Addi tionally, i t is the externali ties that help wi th forming atmospheres of places - a truly significant aspect of public realm I have discussed in the previous chapters. The atmosphere of a neighbourhood or a park cannot be a mere outcome of someone’s line drawing - i t cannot be planned. It is a clash of externali ties, an uncoordinated gathering of individuals’ hopes and desires that make ci ties unique for one another. These are allowed to happen in a just, democratic ci ty where freedom is granted to i ts inhabi tants. However, the moment the freedom of movement and speech are being substantially hindered, they start violating the basic human rights. It could also be detrimental to sociological and economical si tuations of ci ties, having an impact on all aspects of ci tizens’ lives. Beginnings of such an urban crisis are tangible in the ci ties of India. The country’s urban settlements are faced wi th high costs of housing and office space (which stands in direct opposi tion to slum expansion), deficiency in power and other basic commodi ties and lack of modern planning network, to name a few. 22 In order to tackle these concerns, India’s government has delegated some of i ts work to privately-owned companies, seeing i t as a solution to the urban crisis. As a result, some legal and poli tical arrangements have been made in order to allow corporations to govern ci ties. The model ci ty that is currently being developed in this manner is located in Western India- the ci ty of Lavasa.

21 Patrick Turmel, The Ci ty as Public Space (Wi lfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2011), p. 152 22 Matt Kennard, and Claire Provost, ‘Inside Lavasa, India’s First Entirely Private Ci ty Bui lt from Scratch’, The Guardian, 19 November 2015, section Ci ties <https://www.theguardian.com/ci ties/2015/nov/19/insidelavasa-indian-ci ty-bui lt-private-corporation> [accessed 24 August 2018]

Fig. 8 Conceptual depiction of the idea of a public and a private city

C A S E S T U D Y - L AV A S A

Technically, the government of India does not classify Lavasa as a ci ty- in the official documents, i t is described as a ‘notified area under the Special Planning Authori ty.’ 23 In this case, the authori ty is Lavasa Corporation Limi ted (LCL) which acts as a governing body of the area, ensuring i ts functioning in poli tical and legal structures. The company is a part of a larger insti tution that specialises in expansive environmental undertakings, like nuclear power plants and highways. Lavasa is LCL’s very first attempt at managing an urban settlement. The main advantage of Lavasa, as put forth by LCL, is that ‘i t is a planned ci ty so i t can create enough diversi ty in terms of green zones, educational insti tutes, housing and economic centres to allow for a better quali ty of life.’ 24 Such an exemplar ci ty would stand in direct opposi tion to overpopulated, disorganised and urban centres of India. However, as the LCL is a private company, i t is not obliged by law to share any of i ts structures or policies wi th the public. As a result, the company has not published who the board consists of and how those individuals were chosen - restricting the influence and role of Lavasa’s residents. The limi tations are also present in establishing the amount of affordable housing that the company is to provide. As for now, LCL has not shared any information regarding the location of housing complexes, including the affordable ones.On the company’s websi te, one can read that ‘Lavasa offers spacious studio & 2-bedroom homes wi th sports ameni ties like a swimming pool and tennis courts along wi th a picturesque brook view setting and beautifully manicured lawns. Conveniently located in close proximi ty to educational insti tutions, hospi tals, shopping, dining, recreation and entertainment, the apartments are designed to give you a lifestyle where comfort meets convenience.’ 25

23 Deepa Naik and Trenton Oldfield, Cri tical Ci ties: Volume 4: Ideas, Knowledge and Agi tation from Emerging Urbanists (Myrdle Court Press, 2015), p.164 24 Deepa Naik, Cri tical Ci ties , p.166 25 Lavasa Corporation Limi ted, ‘Welcome to Lavasa!’ < http://lavasa.com/Gulf-campaign.aspx> [accessed 23 August 2018]

Fig. 9 The city of Lavasa as envisioned by an artist, including some futuristic elements

Furthermore, this urban enti ty promotes i tself as a global ci ty, ‘wi th an easy access to nature, a cosmopoli tan lifestyle, good schools, uninterrupted power supply and e-governance.’ 26 This scenario, however, does not address the India’s urban poor. The most affordable dwellings in the ‘notified area’ of Lavasa start between £13,200 and £28,000- a price tag too expensive for most middle-class Indian ci tizens. 27 Wi th a manager’s monthly wage of around £137 per month after tax, i t comes as no surprise that only 10,000 people chose to move here instead of ambi tious 300,000. The ‘sovereignty’ of LCL impacts the lives of i ts ci tizens in numerous ways. Despi te being put forward as an example of a decentralised governance, LCL does not allow for any participation, ci tizenship rights or elections - activi ties that are usually associated wi th local governance. This paradigm of shifting the power to private firms could have even more far-reaching effects. All inhabi tants of Lavasa signed the contract wi th LCL, giving them their ci tizenship. As wi th any contract, the service provider has a number of obligations towards i ts clients- in this case ci tizens. These include ‘public’ spaces maintenance and provision of drinkable tap water.

26 Anto Antony Pandya & Dhwani, ‘How the Unfinished Ci ty of Lavasa Became a Nightmare for Indian Banks’, Business Standard India, 19 June 2018 <https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/howthe-unfinished-ci ty-of-lavasa-became-a-nightmare-for-indian-banks-118061900095_1.html> [accessed 24 August 2018] 27 Matt Kennard, and Claire Provost, ‘Inside Lavasa, India’s First Entirely Private Ci ty Bui lt from Scratch’, The Guardian, 19 November 2015, section Ci ties <https://www.theguardian.com/ci ties/2015/nov/19/insidelavasa-indian-ci ty-bui lt-private-corporation> [accessed 24 August 2018]

Fig. 10 Lavasa’s waterfront - the ‘city’ is still under construction

In return, however, LCL has set a number of rights and privi leges they can choose to act upon - the company is enti tled to alter the fees and prices for provided commodi ties and is even authorised to make changes in people’s houses. 28 Addi tionally, there is no court in the ci ty. If an individual chose to appeal to a higher insti tution regarding the changes in fees, they would have to go through arbi tration processes in Mumbai. The contract wi th LCL also allows the company to choose the arbi trators and may require all the further procedures to be conducted in English. Despi te English being seen as a national language, i t is only the eli te that speaks i t fluently - whereas the majori ty of Indian ci tizens are not confident speakers. The education system puts an emphasis on the wri ting and reading, neglecting the oral aspect of the language. This particular approach also concerns Curtis as he finds the idea of narrowing the demographics rather problematic. 29 The direct exclusionary treatment of a particular group of people contributes to the lack of success of Lavasa. Furthermore, I believe that ci tizenship based on a contract is undermining the basic human rights, especially freedom of speech. Its wri tten requirements are constraining the ci tizens’ abi li ty to act upon any changes they wished to make. Drawing parallels between our freedom as human beings and a phone contract is disempowering and humi liating. The consequences of the approach, however bearable in present time, may have detrimental effects on society and governing bodies of India. Such an approach i llustrates a truly fine line between the collective power and private interests. Wi th the delegation of power described at the beginning of the case study, i t is alarming to see such urban enti ties being bui lt. Moreover, the local authori ties have already started erecting another ‘ci ty’, Mugaon, which wi ll be in close proximi ty to Lavasa. The notion of power that is currently being exercised by LCL threatens the very essence of democracy. Wi th simi lar ‘notified areas’ to come, the previously delegated power may eventually dominate the poli tical spheres of India, resulting in the lack of provision of a prime commodi ty - freedom.

28 Deepa Naik and Trenton Oldfield, Cri tical Ci ties: Volume 4: Ideas, Knowledge and Agi tation from Emerging Urbanists (Myrdle Court Press, 2015), p.171 29 Russell Curtis, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 30th of August 2018

Chapter Three Experience

When I first began to explore sensory deprivation in space, the problem seemed a professional fai lure - modern archi tects and urbanists having somehow lost an active connection to the human body in their designs. In time I came to see that the problem of sensory deprivation in space has larger causes and deeper historical origins. 30 The concern that is tangible in the words of Sennett points towards an issue closely related to sensorial urbanism. In order to fully engage prospective users wi th spaces, designers are challenged to convey the place’s atmosphere. This notion of depicting an ‘atmosphere’ has been further researched by Gernot Bohme. The archi tect depicted i t as a nearly objective quali ty. He has noticed that ‘sensory perception as opposed to judgement is rehabi li tated in aesthetics, and the term ‘aesthetic’ is restored to i ts original meaning.’ 31 It is implied that ‘atmosphere’ presupposes the physical presence of the subject and the object - but most importantly, i t implies a sensory experience. For us as human beings, the holistic stimulation of senses plays a crucial role. In the modern environments dominated by concrete and glass structures, creation of places where our bodies can receive visual, acoustic and olfactory stimuli is paramount. By addressing multiple receptors in our bodies, one can fully connect wi th their immediate surrounding. However, when neglected, i t may lead to a pejorative portrayal of public realm. Christoph Neidhart talks about these quali ties when depicting a PostSoviet society of Russia. Under Lenin’s dictatorship, ‘Soviet streets smelled of diesel and dust, Soviet houses of cabbage and chlorine, staircases were musky and reeked of garbage and cat urine.’ 32

30 Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1977), p. 28 31 Gernot Bohme, The Aesthetics of Atmospheres (New York: Routledge, 2016), p. 114 32 Christoph Neidhart, Russia’s Carnival: The Smells, Sights, and Sounds of Transi tion (New York: Rowman and Li ttlefield, 2003), p. 55

SENSE OF SMELL

I find this description particularly interesting - the author attempts to present us wi th an image, a snippet into the country’s condi tion by describing the present odours. By doing so, readers are exposed to a very strong notion of what Russia smelled like after the Soviet regime. The depicted scene is constructed using solely the sense of smell. Even though the words used are full of richness, allowing readers to imagine the described atmosphere, i t is sti ll in the projection of our mind where the impression lives. Unlike wi th images (for eyes) or recordings (for ears), there is no such means of documentation that would allow us to preserve a scent of historical value. Unfortunately, i t somehow justifies the lack of significance given to the sense of smell. This issue is exemplified in a piece of research conducted in Great Bri tain. In 2008, a UK insurance company issued an advice for claims relating to sensory loss wi th estimated monetary values. Loss of sense of smell was established at £14,500 to £19,100. Even though the renumeration may seem substantial at first, i ts value diminishes the moment we compare i t to other senses. The total loss of hearing was estimated at £52,950 to £63,625 and the loss of sight was valued at £155,250 33 - making the sense of smell the least valuable of all the senses. Even though i ts presence may not be seen as crucial on dai ly basis, i t significantly contributes to the quali ty of experience of space. The marginalisation of the olfactory system in our society has had a staggering effect not only on the way archi tects design public realm but also on the way we value our own health. This belief is shared by a phi losopher, Hall, who argues that archi tectural and urban practices are diminishing i ts importance in public spaces. As a result, ‘a land of olfactory blandness and sameness [is created] that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else in the world. This blandness makes for undifferentiated spaces and deprives us of richness and variety in our life.’ 34

33 Victoria Henshaw, Urban Smellscapes: Understanding and Designing Ci ty Smell Environments (Routledge, 2013), p. 10 34 Tim Hall and Phi l Hubbard, The Entrepreneurial Ci ty: Geographies of Poli tics, Regime and Representation (Chichester ; New York: John Wi ley & Sons, 1998), p.12

Olfactory design has had an impact not only on the public realm, but also on the housing market as well. During the Industrial Revolution, the proximi ty to odour-fi lled industries had an effect on property values in ci ties like Paris and London. As a result, the poor part of society became most likely residents of areas where industry-based stenches were most dominant. The wealthy ci tizens would settle down in the western part of the ci ties in order to ‘benefi t from the prevai ling westerly winds.’ 35 The aforementioned examples consti tute part of the negative atti tude towards smell in archi tecture. This pejorative trend is tangible even in certain aspects of policymaking. When juxtaposed wi th the careful consideration of sight in archi tecture, which is expressed in protection of certain views of prominent bui ldings or skylines, i t is rather daunting to realise that the majori ty of policies regarding urban smellscapes relate only to negative condi tions, hardly ever emphasising the posi tive impact smells could have on the metropoli tan environments. However, there was one ini tiative that took place in Japan that attempted to establish a new view of the olfactory design. The Japanese Ministry for the Environment in their policy outlined and identified several forms of ‘good fragrance’ and the way invasive odours could be managed wi thin public realm. The Japanese government established a series of ini tiatives that were to encourage local residents ‘to participate voluntari ly in local activi ties to understand the importance of preserving a good odour environment and to secure a better living environment through the reduction of offensive odours.’ 36 In the policy, there are several sources of ‘good fragrances’ mentioned: these include ‘vegetation (Japanese beech trees and dogtooth violets), food (gri lled sweetfish or rice crackers) and natural environment characteristics (the scent of rocky coast at Iwami Tatamigaura).’ 37

35 Victoria Henshaw, Urban Smellscapes: Understanding and Designing Ci ty Smell Environments (Routledge, 2013), p. 12 36 Henshaw, Urban Smellscapes , p. 15 37 Henshaw, Urban Smellscapes , p. 16

Fig. 11 Iwami Tatamigaura during summer

SENSE OF HEARING

One could easi ly imagine how the rocky coast of Iwami Tatamigaura looks, and even associate an acoustic impression wi th i t - wi th uneven surfaces of the rocks and deafening sounds of waves hi tting the coast. It is sound that, next to the sense of smell, allows us to fully engage wi th the surrounding environment. Audi tory experience that is created around us has no boundaries, no real obstructions. It is dynamic, fluctuating and always present. We can choose an object to look at, close our eyes and abstract i t- giving us a great control over visual stimuli. Wi th ears, however, we are constantly exposed to the soundscapes of our environment. It is the clattering sounds of subways, the drone of the aeroplane and incessant humming of air condi tioners that consti tute to the overarching urban soundspace. At first, such noises were seen as a sign of industrial progress and advancement in human lives. It wasn’t unti l the beginning of 20th century when artificially-made noises began to be perceived as pejorative. Eventually, American researchers compared them to smoke - ‘a sign of industrial waste, untapped resources and poorly designed processes. The most perfect are the most noiseless machines and this applies to the social organism as well.’ 38 Wi th such a negative atti tude towards sound, i t proved to be difficult for archi tects to convey their ideas that considered acoustic impressions - especially in public spaces, where hegemony of noise pollution was sti ll present. Recently, the significance of acoustic experiences in public realm has been a subject of increased interest. Its impact on ci tizens has been widely discussed and addressed by a variety of designers. One of the exploratory approaches is well depicted by two researchers from Japan- Emi Nishina and Norie Kawai. In their proposal, they aimed to embody their research on sound design in public spaces by projecting recordings of rain forests wi thin public realm in Hikone, Shiga Prefecture, Japan. The project was made possible thanks to the usage of a specialised sixchannel loud speaker system. The researchers sampled sounds of Malaysian rain forest which revealed a naturally occurring HFC (high frequency components) of nearly 130 kHz - a significant difference to 10kHz of the typical urban area of Japan. The main objective of the study was to reinstate the original acoustic atmospheres that people of today are not fami liar wi th. As Nishina and Kawai elaborated further, they strived to ‘establish, nourish and put into practice a systematic strategy by which to bring about a revival in an urban space of the original sound environment imprinted on human genes in the rainforest’. 39

38 Mirko Zardini, Canadian Centre of Archi tecture, and Montreal, Sense of the Ci ty: An Alternate Approach to Urbanism (Baden: Lars Muller Publishers, 2005), p. 192 39 Michael Fowler, Archi tectures of Sound (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2017), p. 36

By creating an immersive soundscape around pedestrians moving across the squares in Hikone, ci tizens could feel truly transported to a different place. It was not only the acoustic experience but also the posi tion of their bodies in space that amplified the whole spectacle. The engaging installation points towards another vi tal aspect of public realm design- proprioception. This notion is voiced by one of the Mayor’s Design Advocates, Russell Curtis as he believes our placement against the squares and streets could contribute to feelings of exclusion. Curtis elaborated on this issue in the interview that I conducted wi th him on the 30th of August 2018: ‘It’s the public space that draws i t all together. If you treat the whole thing as a walled-off enclave, then you’re not making efforts to kni t the communi ties together. It’s not just about the space i tself, i t’s about the routes through and how you encourage people who live locally to use direct routes [...] Example, if you’ve got a big public square, and in the middle of one side you’ve got a route to the station and on the other side where people live - they would have to walk through the middle of the square! It would be really intimidating.’ 40 The experience as we perceive i t depends not only on the senses that are being stimulated but also on who we are as humans. Ethnic minori ties could respond differently to the proposed public realm interventions if designed by a group of whi te men. Diversi ty in archi tectural practices is another consideration that is strongly advocated by Curtis- in his view, more diverse design teams would ensure design of public spaces that are more attractive to a wider range of people. 41 Addi tionally, such an approach would encourage the communi ties that were previously seen as separate to reconnect wi th neighbours to establish a thriving locali ty. I believe the experience wi thin the public spaces is directly connected to the sense of ownership. Wi thin the public realm that is seen as a collective commodi ty, residents may feel more allowed to implement elements of sensorial experience - which could be realised through landscape or acoustic interventions. By using such components, the local communi ties could immerse themselves in squares and pocket parks that provide a variety of sensorial stimuli. As a result, previously unused walk-throughs could be transformed into vibrant, urban hubs.

40 Russell Curtis, interviewed by Adam Tarasewicz, 30th of August 2018 41 Curtis

Conclusion

‘ In a just and democratic ci ty, ci tizens need to be in control of urban externali ties- that is, of public space. The negotiation of space and the control of any urban externali ty should not be left to a particular group- be i t poli ticians, advertisers or developers- and urban insti tutions should be organised in such a way as to prevent i t. ’ 42 Turmel’s words provide a strong opinion on the issue of privatisation of public realm - they could be read as a warning for the expansive purchasing of public land. Repercussions of this action are tangible in Lavasa. Wi th a contract-based ci tizenship and non-transparent poli tical structures, the ‘notified area under the Special Planning Authori ty’ sets up a precedent of an undemocratic and artificial urban enti ty. However, the case of Lavasa should be treated wi th a certain caveat. The societal and economic condi tions of India are different to the ones present in Western countries. For example, Great Bri tain, wi th a generally stable economy and good access to basic commodi ties ensures that the governing bodies of our ci ties wi ll not turn to private firms to establish privatised urban settlements. Yet, I am convinced that the management of public land distribution to private corporations should be taken into a careful consideration. Once overlooked, the si tuation of Lavasa could become a concrete reali ty in ci ties of England. The poli tics of power also influence the aspect of ownership. Wi th privately-owned open spaces scattered across ci ties under the names of ‘public’ areas, i t is challenging to establish meaningful connections wi th other ci tizens or wi th spaces themselves. The restrictions put on the users in these places hinder the very notion of communi ty, contributing to people’s disengagement wi th their immediate surroundings. By involving the ci ty inhabi tants and residents of local areas in the design process of public realm, the prevai ling si tuation could be changed. I believe i t is the small scale places that could ini tiate the new wave of engagement wi th squares, streets and communi ty bui ldings. It is vi tal for the developers and archi tects to address the present potential of neighbourhood. Through public-engaging activi ties and consultations, ci tizens wi ll be enabled wi th tools to develop their own urban identi ties- therefore, becoming active, free ci tizens. 42 Michael Fowler, Archi tectures of Sound (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2017), p. 36

This nourished sense of ownership can be fully exercised only when the experience wi thin the public realm involves all our senses. The shift from public to private ownership resulted in a considerable steri lisation of experience in civic areas. The neglect of acoustic or olfactory stimuli provided ci ty dwellers wi th generic and onedimensional spaces which were perceived as swift thoroughfares rather than centres of collective activi ties. Wi th the previously discussed examples of sound and smell-oriented proposals in Japan, we can observe an upcoming change in approach to the public realm design. Through careful consideration of materials, proprioception, usage of technology and landscape strategies, public spaces could be re-established as humane, sensorial places- through which one could experience the ci ty to i ts full potential. So, where does the public domain exist? As discussed in the essay, the nature of public realm is multifaceted. Wi th an increase in privately-owned open spaces in the ci ties, i t is crucial for developers and archi tects to realise the opportuni ties wi thin the spi llover, intermediate spaces. These would faci li tate the nurturing of the sense of ownership by creating locally-engaging urban ini tiatives. In them, a truly holistic approach towards the senses could be fulfi lled. Public domain has the potential to exist in a form of gathering spaces of local communi ties- once their numbers increase, the ci ties wi ll flourish into a thriving collective of publicly-led spaces.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, Michael J., and Sze Tsung Leong, Slow Space (Monacelli Press, 1998) Blomley, Nicholas, Unsettling the Ci ty: Urban Land and the Poli tics of Property (Routledge, 2004) Böhme, Gernot, The Aesthetics of Atmospheres , ed. by Jean-Paul Thibaud, 1 edi tion (London ; New York: Routledge, 2016) Caruso, Adam, The Feeling Of Things: Wri tings On Archi tecture , 01 edi tion (Barcelona: Ediciones Poligrafa, 2017) Fowler, Michael, Archi tectures of Sound (Birkhäuser, 2017) Gehl, Jan, Life Between Bui ldings: Using Public Space (Island Press, 2011) Henshaw, Victoria, Urban Smellscapes: Understanding and Designing Ci ty Smell Environments (Routledge, 2013) Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Ci ties , Vintage Books ed edi tion (New York: Vintage Books, 1993) Kennard, Matt, and Claire Provost, ‘Inside Lavasa, India’s First Entirely Private Ci ty Bui lt from Scratch’, The Guardian, 19 November 2015, section Ci ties <https://www.theguardian.com/ci ties/2015/nov/19/ inside-lavasa-indian-ci ty-bui lt-private-corporation> [accessed 24 August 2018] Kingwell, Mark, and Patrick Turmel, Ri tes of Way: The Poli tics and Poetics of Public Space (Wi lfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2011) Lupton, Ellen, and Andrea Lipps, The Senses: Design Beyond Vision (Chronicle Books, 2018) Mi ller, Kristine F., Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces (Minneapolis: Universi ty Of Minnesota Press, 2007)

Monroe, Kristin V., The Insecure Ci ty: Space, Power, and Mobi li ty in Beirut (Rutgers Universi ty Press, 2016) <http://www.jstor.org/ stable/j.ctt1b67ws4> [accessed 6 July 2018] Naik, Deepa, and Trenton Oldfield, eds., Cri tical Ci ties: Volume 4: Ideas, Knowledge and Agi tation from Emerging Urbanists (Myrdle Court Press, 2015) Nawratek, Krzysztof, Ci ty as a Poli tical Idea (Plymouth: Universi ty of Plymouth Press, 2011) Neidhart, Christoph, Russia’s Carnival: The Smells, Sights and Sounds of Transi tion (Lanham: Rowman & Li ttlefield Publishers, 2002) Pandya, Anto Antony & Dhwani, ‘How the Unfinished Ci ty of Lavasa Became a Nightmare for Indian Banks’, Business Standard India, 19 June 2018 <https://www.business-standard.com/article/currentaffairs/how-the-unfinished-ci ty-of-lavasa-became-a-nightmarefor-indian-banks-118061900095_1.html> [accessed 24 August 2018] Sennett, Richard, The Fall of Public Man , New Ed edi tion (London: Penguin, 2003) Service, FPJ News, ‘Lavasa Turning into “ghost Ci ty” as Company Struggles to Repay Debt of USD 610 Mi llion’, Free Press Journal, 2018 <http://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/lavasa-turning-intoghost-ci ty-as-company-struggles-to-repay-debt-of-usd-610mi llion/1299967> [accessed 24 August 2018] Smi th, Nei l, The Poli tics of Public Space , ed. by Setha Low, 1 edi tion (New York: Routledge, 2005) Zardini, Mirko, Canadian Centre of Archi tecture, and Montreal, Sense of the Ci ty: An Alternate Approach to Urbanism (Baden: Lars Muller Publishers, 2005)

ILLUSTRATIONS

https://representationsofantiqui ty.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/theworld-is-ours-la-haine-and-the-new-france/ C. H. Julian Wong, The Informali ty of Sham Shui Po in Hong Kong , 2018 Photograph taken by Kimbo Si to, Venice, September 2018

Photograph provided by Simon Lea, Aylesbury Estate, October 2013

Diagram drawn by the author

http://muf.co.uk/portfolio/ruskin-square/

Diagram drawn by the author

http://lavasa.com/assets/images/kuwai t_campaign/gallery/

https://www.theguardian.com/ci ties/2015/nov/19/inside-lavasaindian-ci ty-bui lt-private-corporation/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/114816334@N02/16979085536/in/ photolist-rSofA5-g5vt6s

The layout and the collages for the chapters/ cover page have been designed by the author.

Apendix

Interview wi th Simon Lea, a Senior Associate at Levi tt Bernstein 13th July 2018

Could you please talk to me about the Aylesbury Estate - how did you approach the design of public realm in the scheme? Was i t an important part of the scheme from the outset? This is Southwark, [the si te] is close to Burgess Park, huge park next to the Albany Road. It used to be a canal and during the Second World War, all the canals were bombed. The park i tself was just a bomb side. Where the estates are there used to be warehouses. Post-war, they bui lt an estate that went alongside the park - when i t was bui lt, i t was Europe’s largest single estate. When they bui lt i t, they bui lt these huge long bui ldings going north-south, wi th lower-rise ones going west-east and wi th big [green] spaces in between. The long ones are between 10-14 storeys high!

Substantially! Yes! At the bottom of these low-rise ones, there were garages and parking on street. [Unfortunately] i t all became qui te unsafe, loads of shootings, very bad crime. It was a very big problem. So, in late 80s-early 90s, only after 20 years i t was bui lt they started to think about doing something to i t. [The counci l] had loads of masterplans, we did one as well. There were ei ther six or seven in total, ours got voted out. Tony Blair, the very first day he became a prime minister, he stood on i t and said ‘we are going to sort i t out’. [The estate] became very poli tical - the first Labour prime minister in eleven years chose the estate. They asked us to look at the western corner.

Sorry, when you say ‘they’, you mean the counci l? Yes, so the counci l employed us to look at the corner, to create an infi ll and extend some of the bui ldings. We started talking about knocking some of the bui ldings down to create more homes. We did a lot of meetings wi th residents and after five or six fai led schemes for the estate, basically, the residents on the estate didn’t trust the counci l at all. They thought whatever the counci l were to do, i t wouldn’t be good for residents.

How many meetings in total did you have?

Over a period of six months, I guess we developed a scheme wi th a small group of residents. We also did meetings wi th a wider estate, not just the focus group. There would be residents on the estate that were very active in the other masterplan. Very slowly, we managed to gain their trust! We were asking them: ‘What would you like? We can do small schemes, big schemes, i t’s up to you really’. Southwark were really good in supporting this very gentle process because in all the other ways they’ve tried and fai led. Eventually, we gained residents’ support to knock down all the bui ldings on our si te and to re-bui ld i t.

Which is qui te a change! It is qui te a change; they’ve been trying for 10-12 years to do something but there was nothing new happening on the estate over that whole period. I think they’ve done one communi ty centre which was done under one of the middle bui ldings. To get residents to agree to sweep of whole bui ldings was completely great for Southwark! They saw that as a victory. Once that was going on talks, there was a separate team to look at the whole estate again, not involving us. Whi lst we were developing our si te, we were talking to them behind the scenes to make sure that their idea match our idea. (There would be no point having a road there if i t was to stop in the bui lding.) In the end, our ideas were very simi lar! The masterplanning was lead by a company called Urban Ini tiatives. They were working wi th the counci l for the planning department and they put together a planning document as a vision for the estate- which counci l eventually agreed on. They were investing in a piece of great masterplanning. They didn’t have a developer or anything like that, i t was just purely the counci l saying how they wanted the area to come along. The master planners, they were really good. Our focus group of residents was also talking to them. [The whole thing] is a great undertaking. It is 2000 existing homes, the new would be over 3500! Urban Ini tiatives took some of the residents to Glasgow to look at housing, to Amsterdam, to Holland, to Paris to show examples of great housing. They were just residents, but that group of residents became real experts on how we could do things really well. I think they went possibly to Sweden as well. So, when we met them afterwards, they knew all the language! It was great as they came wi th fresh ideas and i t made our life a bi t easier, actually.

It is great to see some engagement and enthusiasm from the end users. Exactly! So after having agreed to knock all the bui ldings down, we put together an outline planning application for the si te and, at the same time, we did a detai led planning application for the first bui lding- which included a communi ty centre. That was the process - i t was very heavi ly resident-led. When we did the planning permission, we also had to convince them how big the flats are going to be. It was before the mayor had any [prescribed] flat sizes in London. Southwark had their own flat sizes, but they were much smaller than the existing flats. We came up wi th a compromise what people would accept. Strangely enough, that is about what we bui ld now in London! It was before any of the standards were developed. The design was part of setting the standards and the idea was that whatever we bui ld here, the standards would be the same for the rest of the estate.

I assume i t was all agreed wi th the master planners as well? Yes, i t had to be; To agree the size of the flats, we had to convey how i t would feel inside. So, there was a disused sports bui lding on the estate - an indoor basketball court. They bui lt a flat inside the court- they had i t for three weeks. Every week, there would be a different layout. One was completely open plan, the other had a ki tchen/diner and the last one a separate ki tchen. It was all completely furnished! It was an expensive thing to do, they could only afford i t because they were to do the whole estate - offset against 15 years worth of work was okay. 1500 people came to the exhibi tion during these three weeks- i t was the biggest exhibi tion Southwark has ever had! Everyone that came through the door got a raffle ticket and by the end they raffled off the entire furni ture. That gained a lot of support, they were comfortable that the flats are going to be of good standard. We got good feedback that they liked open plan as well and i t defini tely influenced our design.

In terms of public realm, how did the process look like? Yes, coming to the public spaces. Densi ty is a big thing when designing and how you use the spaces in between. You could see that the streets are much narrower, the courtyards are much narrower as well when compared to the existing estate. It was a real change for them to understand how i t might be. However, they were happy because the feeling of the streets and public spaces was much more like tradi tional streets.

Residents really liked the idea that they could become part of the ci ty, not the estate - so i t’s about ci ty and neighbourhoods rather than being associated wi th whatever is going on in the estate. That was really important! The other thing was a real key driver - the park. We wanted to bring some of the benefi ts into the si te. We made this ‘green finger’, which was a wider street wi th more greenery. In the end, the street wasn’t as wide as we would like i t to be - but the master planners implemented the idea in the vision for the rest of the estate. At the end of each of these ‘green fingers’ you get a special moment; In our case, i t was a communi ty centre and a public square. For others, i t may be a public bui lding or a shop, or a nice tree. Each of these ‘fingers’ is to terminate in a special place so that you’ve got a line of key moments along the estate. The primary route by the park, secondary routes on the back wi th the ‘green fingers’ connecting them - communi ty routes. For us, we created a square for that communi ty bui lding because further up there is a big street market called East Street Market. The idea was that the market would be able to move here. Over the life of the project, i t is well established where i t is so i t’s not going to move. People like i t there, i t was temporary we started developing the si te. The square is sti ll big enough to host big events which I think is a nice thing! The communi ty bui lding was located directly on the communi ty route, wi th loads of trees on both sides, opening up to the big space. The bui lding is slightly set back just here. It is actually a day centre for mentally and physically handicapped people. Normally in those places people are not liked to be seen, they’re not public - but when we designed i t, the front was meant to be very public for people who felt okay sat at the front. The back of the bui lding, wi th private courtyards, was for people who were more sensi tive to being in public, and didn’t want anyone to see them. It was qui te a special bui lding. There was also potential for other shops next to the square as well. That was our main bi t of the public space. The other thing to do wi th the public realm was parking. It was very low which makes a huge difference when you design your streets. Our widest street is 15 metres across - which is how you get densi ty; We argued at the time that because of really good access to the bus network we can reduce parking. Since we got permission for this, Southwark decided that i t was a bi t too optimistic so they have higher parking requirements in the rest of the masterplan.

[On the si te] there was no underground parking, no podiums which meant we could get nice, big trees as they were planted right in the ground. But what i t means is that your streets consist mostly of cars and trees. This whole network, i t was all about connecting to the existing streets. This space here, this small pocket park opens up to an old school bui lding. Before we started the work, i t was converted into flats. It was an old Victorian school wi th really nice brick facades. What we did, we deliberately put this park to open up the school’s facade. It became a sort of free background for us, which was great. It’s not a huge bui lding, i t’s around 3-4 storeys. We also put chi ldren’s play area in the middle of i t for the neighbour fami lies. The area was also traffic free for pedestrians to use and connect to Burgess Park. We put fami ly homes there as well. That was our principle play space, the square was our principle public space, wi th shops and the communi ty centre as well.

Do you remember who was the developer? So, the developer was the Housing Association. They own and run all of these bui ldings, some of them are affordable, some of them are private. We and the developer were keen on widening the roads around the scheme. [In the northern] part, the counci l gave them the space, but they didn’t allow any money for that. The bi t of road-widening would have been on the counci l land. Unfortunately, counci l refused to pay for i t. So now, there’s a 4-5 metre wide road and pavement. It looks rather strange. The developer offered to pay half of the cost and counci l said- you ei ther pay for i t all or we don’t do i t.

Why was the counci l so opposed to the idea? Southwark as a counci l has a very specific atti tude towards Housing Associations- they don’t treat them very well. If you spoke to Southwark, I’m sure they would have a different story. But Southwark felt like they could tell HA what to do. HA pointed out that legally they weren’t obliged to do anything at all. They were offering to do them a favour! But Southwark didn’t see i t like that. It felt that Southwark was giving them loads of work and in return i t was a bigger favour. What the Housing Association argued was- well, you might be doing us a favour, but actually we, as a developer, are putting nearly £30 mi llion to bui ld these bui ldings. That’s a reasonably big favour back to the counci l!

Unfortunately, they couldn’t come to an agreement on this one. The other thing that was qui te tricky in terms of public realm was where the cars would go- the counci l wanted to maintain the existing roads. During the project, the counci l changed their mind about how they would work. All of these are now private roads. It does make a difference because they need to now manage the parking. Some of them wi ll always be private roads, but not all of them. There’s some dispute wi th the counci l regarding that.

Was i t because they worried about the lack of parking spaces? There was a couple of issues. It was how you dealt wi th technical things under the road, like drainage and power supplies. Also, if i t’s a public road, i t’s qui te hard to stop people from surrounding bui ldings parking on i t. If i t’s a private road, you cans say i t’s only for people from these bui ldings. There was a change in view in the counci l about how they would deal wi th that. They insisted that [in terms of] the parking management i t should be a private road. It changed things somewhat. Also, we had a lot of different types of spaces: public space, pocket park, public roads, mews. In a small area, you had a lot of different types of streets, which was qui te interesting.

Were we involved in the landscape design as well ? We did all the landscaping, all the courtyards and road layouts. Interestingly, in the northern part of the scheme, there is a very large existing tree. Master planners didn’t care. We said, there’s very few trees in the area that are nice, well-kept, so we think that locally i t is importantand residents liked i t! It’s what you often get when you go to these estatesthe actual street trees are qui te important to local people, they’re usually well-loved! So we kinked one of the bui ldings and the whole road to keep that tree. There’s been a lot of debate about that but the residents thought we were listening, that we were responding to what they wanted. We didn’t lose any uni ts, we just didn’t have urban designers’ neat view. In the end, you get a wonderful view of the tree which we thought was important. That was the key planning issue that we got through.

In terms of occupancy, do you know how people sti ll use the public realm? When each phase was bui lt, (Housing Association) did the residents’ satisfaction survey. There wasn’t much in terms of public realm. Generally, the residents were very happy.

Fantastic, thank you for the chat!

Interview wi th Russell Curtis, a Mayor’s Design Advocate 30th August 2018

Paternoster Square, Granary Square or Bishops Square in Spi talfields are just some examples of public spaces that are run and owned by private corporations. Wi th securi ty representatives in place, such places are loosing their “public” aspect, creating mere imi tations of public realm. What do you think are the reasons behind this si tuation? Was i t a matter of regulatory policies or was i t the issue of land value? That’s interesting! These are very different types of space, I think. Clearly, any scheme, any public realm scheme - I mean not really public, an open space - you need i t for practical reasons. It’s a product of planning. And to things like accessing the bui lding, fire engineering, ambulances etc. So private spaces like that, open spaces like that, are necessary for the functioning of selection of bui ldings. You have to have something. So I suppose the question is - if you have to have something, since i t has no commercial value as you have to pay to maintain i t, and you had to pay to have i t landscaped, why do people do i t? Granary Square is an interesting one because i t’s such a huge project, the whole of Kings Cross development, the planning environment would be such that there are whole range of Section 106 and other legal agreements, or Rights of Way that would impact what’s designed and i ts use. I know that unofficially wi thin the Camden Counci l that are concerned that once - see, Granary Square is a nice thing to have, i t’s full of activi ty, i t hosts loads of events there- and because they’re bui lding all the residential [bui ldings] and office spaces - when you go there, i t’s a great thing to walk through, there’s stuff going on. What happens in 5-6 years down the line? When they’ve sold all the offices, when they’ve sold all the residential [uni ts], wi ll there be incentive for Argent to pay for the management, the ongoing management, all the costs associated wi th policing and securi ty? I think there was a sense, a nervousness that all the exci ting things about i t [may die out]. Because i t is a private space, privately-owned space, i t’s not adopted by the Local Authori ty - the LC has no control over i t. However, these places are vi tal to the character of London! I can see how in the long term they may be less inclined to maintain i t as a thriving space. Wi ll they allow any further events to take place there?

Wi th Paternoster Square i t is slightly different - because if you’re working in an office bui lding, you want to go outside, have a lunch there, buy some coffee etc. It’s not qui te like the Granary Square. There, the offices have their own external spaces - these are the spots for the office staff. And I don’t think many cross over the canal to the Granary Square. They rely on the food outlets to bring some life into the Square. So, yeah, I don’t know i t’s a tricky one! I suppose, ideally, those spaces would become truly public - effectively getting adopted by the Local Authori ty. That would be the ideal solution. But then that places a big burden on the Authori ty to pay for the ongoing maintenance. The securi ty and other stuff. And they’re not necessari ly getting the benefi t in terms of service charge- all they are getting is the business rate Let’s say, the service charge goes to Argent and wi thin this charge there’s payments for the square’s maintenance. When i t’s adopted by Camden, would that service charge be directed to Camden for the upkeep of the square? Probably not. It’s not qui te that simple saying all the spaces should be public. Personally, I don’t have that much of a problem wi th creation of open space by private companies, because i t’s their land. Why wouldn’t they be able to? It allows them to have a degree of control over them. If they want to close i t for an event, for example, you can do that! It is a bi t more difficult in public space. Maybe i t enables more to happen, but then i t does also mean i t’s not accessible to everyone.

That’s the issue I’ve got wi th i t. Maybe i t should be called ‘open space’ rather than public? Exactly! It is all controlled- there’s this whole infrastructure behind i t which is very successful in achieving their aims. Actually, there’s no anti-social behaviour and that’s a very wide-raging defini tion. My sense of what is an anti-social behaviour may be different to somebody else’s. Homeless people may be seen as anti-social in some respect, but clearly that’s just their day- and they have as many rights as anybody else! It’s a tricky one. I think my concern is when public realm is given to private developers and controlled. So that was the case of the Garden Bridge, for example. The Garden Bridge would have been funded by public money, yet they would have the right to close i t off for events and you wouldn’t be able to cross i t if you were in a group of more than 6 people. It would be a massive problem! Does i t answer your question?

I think so, yes! It connects qui te well to the next one: Part of the challenge when designing public spaces is addressing a “narrative” of the proposal so that i t does not become marginal. When I use the term “narrative”, I refer to cultural, artistic and societal values embodied in si te. Do you think this careful consideration of shaping “narratives” of public spaces should become part of a policy or should i t remain as a part of Good Practice? Also, should i t be in archi tects’ or developers’ agendas, or both, to address this sensi tive notion of public space? I think i t is necessary to separate these two - narrative-led design approach can be awful or really lovely, but that really is down to the ski lls of the designer. I think there is a very interesting article in the RIBA Journal by Christine Marie. She talks about the [male dominancy in archi tecture] because a lot of London is designed by a particular demographic, i t tends to be designed by whi te men and therefore, wi th the best wi ll in the world, they’re not necessari ly in the best posi tion to be able to emphasise wi th a mother taking a kid for a walk. There’s also certainly an issue around very few people from the working class or black minori ty ethnic backgrounds involved in archi tecture, generally and in particular landscape design. There’s also an argument, a very compelling one, that landscape design doesn’t really serve the needs of young people, for example. They’re seen as a problem rather than a perfectly reasonable contribution to the social life of London! There’s a sense that somehow kids hanging around is a problem but in a way kids hanging around they’re socialising, they’re contributing to the image of London. As long as they’re not destroying stuff, why haven’t they got the right to hang around together as much as a bunch of middle class archi tects? I think there is an ingrained bias, prejudice in the design of public spaces - I don’t think i t’s a narrative-led thing, not in the sense of what we understand as a narrative - an underlying story. As a demographic discussion, that’s the most important; how do we design spaces that are sui table for a whole variety of people and don’t exclude certain groups, even unconsciously?

It is qui te interesting because this is what’s happening in my project at Levi tt, in Southall. Berkeley don’t seem to address, or be wi lling to address that i t is in Southall - i t’s not the demographic they’re catering for. It feels slightly odd. There’s this massive clash of agendas when we [archi tects] want to address the demographic, the neighbours that is for people of Southall as well as people would like to commute from there.

Yes, this is essentially a cri ticism of gentrification. It is about moving into a place and making i t unwelcoming or inaccessible for the people that already live there. For instance, coffee shops or artisan bakeries, wi th £2-£3 a loaf, people wi th low incomes simply cannot afford that - they’re excluded. It’s not a financial thing, people may feel equally excluded from public space because they feel exposed, they don’t feel i t’s for them or maybe i t’s just too ‘smart’. That is also excluding. There should be a requirement in the schemes like that for public spaces to be designed in such a way that they kni t everything together- that’s the opportuni ty! You know, a new-bui lt housing scheme is a new-bui lt housing scheme, i t’s simply a financial issue- not qui te that simply. But there are big cultural issues around new housing and different ethnical background, but let’s just say that housing is housing, for the sake of the argument. It’s the public space that draws i t all together. If you treat the whole thing as a walled-off enclave, then you’re not making efforts to kni t the communi ties together. It’s not just about the space i tself, i t’s about the routes through and how you encourage people who live locally to use direct routes but they may feel exposed? Example, if you’ve got a big public square, and in the middle of one side you’ve got a route to the station and on the other side where people live - and they would have to walk through the middle of the square! It would be really intimidating. It comes down to the diversi ty of the design team, actually. How do we achieve a more diverse range of backgrounds and opinions in the design teams? Therefore, how do we arrange spaces so they are more attractive to a wider range of people? There’s also a whole issue around play as well! Somehow, play is seen as problem or we don’t make provision for i t. So I know that another MDA (Mayor’s Design Advocate) Dinah Bornet, from ZCD Archi tects, is doing a piece on play at the moment, chi ldren’s play for the Mayor. I think i t’s due to go out soon. She’s wri ting some guidance and solutions on chi ldren’s play spaces. It’s about incidental bi ts of space. You know, we’ve got the tendency to talk about some grand projects, Granary Square or Paternoster Square - they’re examples of very large and very expensive bi ts of space. But actually most people inhabi t incidental or pocket gardens, streets or gaps between bui ldings. It’s actually far more important, I think. Also, i t leads to more abuse.

I did a review the other day of the Sphere in the Olympic Park. It’s on a triangular piece of land between Stratford High Street and Westfield. It’s a 120 metres diameter black sphere that’s there. There was this whole big issue about public realm, but only the last 5-10 minutes talked about the actual object. It’s a very clever way of doing i t. At the moment, i t is a hugely problematic bi t of land - i t’s just vacant. It was used for bus parking for the Olympics and i t’s been empty ever since as i t’s got rai lway lines on three sides. It’s really constrained, you cannot get across i t. There’s a linking bridge from the far east corner that connects to the road, that’s i t. So what they said, we were going to use i t as a way of integrating i t into the surrounding infrastructure- to Westfield and to the rai lway. I commented on i t by saying, i t’s a great idea but would you be able to walk across i t at night? Is i t really going to be ‘accessible’ for people to use i t as a route back home? The response was, yes but we would have the right to close i t down for certain events, for a big concert of some sort, maybe we would close i t at midnight as well. Well, then actually, i t’s not a public space- if you want to sell us this, you should propose a way around this. I understand from programmatic point of view i t is vi tal to control crowds of people. But surely, wi th the amount of money they spending on i t, which is just obscene, there must be a way of using levels to create routes across and inter-weave them somehow. [The client] went away to consider this but I’m they won’t come back wi th anything. It’s an interesting one! You could see why there are pragmatic reasons to block things off, but you could sti ll do i t a public land. If you go to Alexandra Palace for fireworks, which is sti ll a public space, is closed off and monetised - for scrutiny reasons. And that’s fine and possible! It’s the idea of narrowing the demographics that I find problematic- that you really are creating spaces for people that you feel are sui table but excluding those who fall outside that. You cannot monetise homeless people. They’re not going to buy coffee, whereas most of us wi ll.

In terms of addressing the policy side of the question- there’s another scheme I’ve been looking at in Croydon by MUF Archi tects. They’re doing a landscape strategy for the whole development, i t’s really lovely based on Ruskin’s life. It’s very narrative-led, in fact i t’s all about narrative. It gives this richness and i t’s intriguing. It’s all private space. And the thing is, you need to cross i t in order to get to the station. There’s a big station, you come up the ramps and access the main road. If you come out the other entrance, there’s a bridge across by Hawkins Brown I think, and that discharges both sides into privately owned space. You have to cross Stanhope’s land to get to the town centre. All of that would have been signed off by the planners- i t would be interesting to know what provision they have made in the planning approval for making sure that i t’s maintained and accessible? That would be the case in Granary Square as well. If homeless people were to cross the si te, i t would be absolutely fine I reckon- if they wanted to stop or they were begging, are they allowed to do that? Would they be moved on? Or if you were to have a picnic, wanted to si t down and have sandwiches - would that be okay? It’s just qui te hard to know where the boundaries are. Having sandwiches is one things, having a barbecue is another. I was in the park in the old Olympic Vi llage and there were people next to me having a barbecue. The scrutineer came along and made them move. Why is that an issue? I don’t know whether this particular land is privately-owned, i t probably is. The park i tself is owned by LLDC- what would they impose in terms of what is and what isn’t acceptable? Where is i t wri tten down? Wi th public parks, they’ve got by-laws - you are going to a public park and there would be by-laws explaining what is and what isn’t acceptable; for example, you cannot burn tyres but you can have a picnic! I don’t know whether i t is explici tly wri tten down or whether those defini tions vary, depending on the securi ty guard for example. There’s the policy thing here that needs to be clarified. I don’t have the answer but I’m sure this stuff has been thought through. It seems there’s a policy ambi tion that you cannot exclude people. Full stop! If you want to benefi t fully from the development, you cannot be exclusionary. Ei ther crime is not a crime. It may be that begging is a crime. Or the picnic creates fire hazards. There’s a number of legislations to deal wi th that. If you leave li tter around, i t is an offence - you cannot just leave beer cans laying around. So, there are already legislations in place to cover anti-social behaviour. And there’s this addi tional overlay of things that are seen by developers to be unacceptable. It becomes a problem. So I think there are two separate strands: narrative and legislations that are always captured wi thin planning policy, I believe.

Previously, public space meant the right to come together and discuss, to collaborate wi th one another and debate wi th fellow ci tizens. In there, a variety of poli tical and public activi ties took place- debates, free markets and even theatrical and artistic performances. Nowadays, however, public realm in our ci ties does not operate in a poli tical sphere as i ts significance shifted towards retai l and entertainment. In the upcoming policies regarding public realm design in London, are there any strategies that would enable ei ther archi tects or boroughs to re-shape London’s public spaces? I think people don’t really gather these days for poli tical reasons. There are marches and Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park which is a well-known place for exactly that purpose. People don’t really gather for small-scale poli tical discussions. It is interesting what you said about retai l and entertainment, but actually i t is about monetisation, isn’t i t. Certainly, in privately-owned open space all of these things, let’s be honest, developers are interested in monetising things. It’s about making money out of i t. Ei ther i t’s dealt wi th directly, in a form of restaurant or coffee shop wi th seating space outside or in a way of generating footfall. People go to Granary Square because i t’s a nice place to be wi th events going on and you may think, ah I would love to live here. However, their motivation is sti ll commercial, obviously. Protests are an interesting one! They tend to take place in public spaces, not in private ones- otherwise they would be banned. You couldn’t go up to Granary Square and have a protest. They would have moved you on, i t would be seen as anti-social. This happened in Occupy Movement. They were camping outside St Paul’s. They were moved off Paternoster Square and whoever owned the land moved the occupiers off that space. There is a level of control over protests as well. It is kind of worrying, isn’t i t. But you can see [private company’s] logic as well- why would you like people camping in the space you own? It’s no different to someone camping in your back garden. It’s private space but you’re granting people some right over i t. It’s not that simple though. In planning, you grant a permission on the basis of a premise, of something happening. Section 106 Agreement, or Communi ty Infrastructure Level or Planning Gain. There’s plenty of condi tions. Protests are very interesting ones.

It does feel like democracy i tself in underlined, to a degree. I guess that’s why I thought of the poli tical aspect of i t at first. Yes, but I don’t think i t’s a consequence. I don’t think preventing people from gathering and debating is a consequence of lack of space to do i t. I think people do i t in different ways now. Ei ther on Whatsapp or Twi tter. There’s no real need for i t, necessari ly. Historically, in the 19th century people gathered to hear people protest or speak about poli tical issues. For the masses there was not that much access to newspapers - so where do you get the ideas from? People were also not as li terate. So I’m not sure if there’s a correlation between these two things there. But in a way, the fact that people don’t do i t anymore is the fact i t’s not required. [However], the Speaker’s Corner is sti ll there and people use i t. You can go there on Saturday morning, stand on the box and speak. It is now more of a spectacle, really, isn’t i t? It’s not a genuine form of debate. You may disagree wi th someone there just for the fun of i t. I don’t believe people gather there to debate ideas. It’s a bi t like Internet - i t’s just opinions, isn’t i t.

Yes, as you mentioned before, i t’s more commercial-led and i t’s qui te dominant and prominent in public spaces. I just wish we did more provision for communi ty-focused bui ldings that would benefi t people in their neighbourhood. I’m simply not sure whether i t’s the policy or is i t the developers affecting this. The problem is there’s no funding these days. So, any communi ty centres that get bui lt tend to be part of the section 106 agreement wi th the developer. They would usually bui ld some miserable hole wi th a basic ki tchen- i t would be crap. There’s very rarely any consideration for public space wi thin that. I remember we did a communi ty centre project in Lewisham a few years ago. There was loads of people complaining about the idea of having an outdoor gathering space. Our original scheme had some space outside, we wanted the kids to gather and socialise. We had all these complaints that i t would be a magnet for anti-social behaviour. In a way, that would happen. What we are very keen on is creating, both in the bui ldings as well as in public realm spaces where you don’t prescribe necessari ly what particular event happens. We were interested in creating landscape for activi ties so that people could come along and adopt space for a particular reason.

The centre in Lewisham is a series of open spaces, wi th different heights and different characters, but not really trying to determine what happens there. [After i t got bui lt], we turned up and [people] had set up a boxing ring in the entrance hall! We used the level changes to allow these different activi ties. There would be a plug-in point for a microphone so that they can plug in DJ decks. It’s about having an understanding that in 5-10 years time kids and people wi ll have different interests and technology wi ll change. Trying to make i t adaptable wi thout prescribing what happens there. It equally applies to public space. Clearly, a playground wi ll always be a playground but if you were to create an amphi theatre or something, what does i t mean? How wi ll people use i t in the future? More of these public spaces should be subject to design review where such topics could be debated. It often becomes a discussion about narrative which has i ts place, but that’s not the whole picture It is fine if i t leads something of quali ty. If you start wi th a shi t narrative and a shi t designer, you’re going to end up wi th a horrible public space. And most people that use i t don’t care whether i t was based on books of Ruskin. They want somewhere nice to si t, whether i t’s in the sun or in the shade; whether they feel exposed, or comfortable.

The last question was supposed to be about any projects at RCKa that touched upon the public realm or communi ty centres. Yes, we haven’t done much public realm, actually. The Highgate Newtown project, that has a public square in the middle of the scheme. That’s all about opening up routes that existed there historically, but where no longer present. It used to be a dead end - but we are opening i t up in order to encourage using i t as a device to allow people from the southern counci l estate to cross i t north. It’s about using i t as a way of encouraging communi ty cohesion. Because at the moment you’ve got roads to the south and to the north, and you would need to go all the way around. We are linking these two through. We specifically looked at i t as a way of connecting the communi ty. And that’s what the public space should be about! It’s activated as all the front doors of the residential bi t, the youth centre and the communi ty centre - all open up into the space. It’s pedestrian only. It’s owned by Camden Counci l so wi ll be adopted - so i t’s entirely public. That’s the only one that we are doing at the moment wi th a genuine public space as the part of i t. I can send you some diagrams explaining the strategies if you wanted.

That would be fantastic, thank you! And thank you for making some time today, I really appreciate i t.