The Commoners of Soho Square
To What Extent Can the London Garden Square be Considered a Common Space?
Introduction
Since their first appearance in 1631 (Wade, 2021), the London garden square has acted as a microcosm of social changes in London, reflecting wider shifts in the fabric of the city. Disputes around the enclosed gardens, from who owns them to who can access them, have attracted lively debate and continue to cause conflict today. This essay unpacks the fraught history of the London garden square and analyses them through the lens of the urban commons.
The London Garden Square
The first iteration of the enclosed square in London was developed alongside the urbanisation of Covent Garden (Lawrence, 1993). In the 1630’s, the Earl of Bedford (with the approval of King Charles I) built the Covent garden square in order to create a ‘high quality urban residential area for the upper classes’ (Sakai, 2011). This first iteration was paved and functioned more as a piazza as inspired by European cities in France and Italy (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012) (see figure 3). However, the first square to have a properly laid out garden at the centre is thought to be Soho Square, built by the Richard Frith on the land of the Earl of St Albans in 1681 (London Gardens Trust, 2023). The form of Soho Square is how the typology is generally understood today; an enclosed square with a communal garden separated from the houses that it served by a road. In a report written to evaluate the social benefit of the London square in 1927, they were defined by The Royal Commission (RCLS, 1927, see figure 2) as follows:
Gardens have been provided as part of a building lay-out for the amenity of the house
overlooking them, from which they are generally separated by public road. Squares have usually public roads on all sides, and in hardly any case on less than three sides. Enclosures have most frequently streets on two sides only, and in some cases on one side are internal gardens, enclosed on all sides by houses.
The squares are quintessential to London and according to the report there are more than 457 garden squares (RCLS, 1927), all of which still stand today thanks to their preserved status. Described in 1927 by the London Society as the ‘pride of London’s planning’ (Rowlinson, 2021), the squares make frequent features in literature with Virginia Woolf celebrating the activity ‘square haunting’ in her diary in 1925 (Wade, 2021).
Urban Commons
The urban commons are relevant to the London garden square, as although they were built as exclusive enclaves for nobility, many of the events and practices of the communities that have used them through history align with practices of commoning. The urban commons are not understood
as static spaces, but rather processes and practices that are ‘created, maintained and defended’ (Gillespie et al, 2018) through the everyday activities of citizens. Spaces and goods in the public domain become urban commons when citizens appropriate them through collective action (Harvey, 2012). As explained by Williams (2017), ‘urban commons are characterised in the literature as collectively shared property in the city shaped by a context of scarce resources, population density, and the interaction of strangers.’ The garden square functions significantly differently from the traditional understandings of a garden and a square. In London, a garden is usually understood as a private space attached to a home, whilst the word ‘square’ conjures up the image of a civic space (LongstaffeGowan, 2012). The garden square sits in the middle of these two definitions whilst it is also decidedly outside of them. The open spaces were traditionally attached to homes surrounding them in terms of their use and in maintenance; but physically separated by a road. Also, they were the site of public life; but only for the select few who could afford the surrounding residences. These contradictions create a fertile ground for practices of commoning, defined as ‘practices which define and produce goods and services to be shared’ (Stavrides, 2016).
History of the Commons
Historically, the term ‘commons’ referred to natural resources that are collectively owned or owned by no one, such as the ocean or forests (Eizenberg, 2011). Conversely, the term urban commons has only gained popularity over the past 20 years, with the majority of literature available being from 2000s and 2010s. The notion of ‘urban commons’, which is associated with the
work of David Harvey (2012), focusses more closely on public, civic spaces and their design. Between 1750 and 1850 in England, over 4000 ‘enclosure acts’ saw the majority of common land become private property under the ownership of large landowners (Rosenman, 2012). Agriculture in England had relied on this common land for centuries and these enclosure acts completely changed the social fabric of England and created the definitive working class. At the same time in the urban realm, the London garden square (which served people of the same class as the landowners) was in its heyday, with the majority built in this time period (London Gardens Trust, 2023). There has been much theoretical discussion of the commons in the rural context (Rosenman, 2012), but academics are yet to apply urban commons theory to the garden square and Victorian London.
This essay asks to what extent can the London garden square be understood as a common space? In order to unpack this question, I will use the commons identi-kit created by Gibson-Graham et al. (2013) to analyse whether or not the London garden square fits the criteria of a common space. The identi-kit establishes commons depending on how the access, use, benefit, care, and responsibility of/for the commons are enacted:
+ access to property must be shared and wide
+ use of property must be negotiated by a community
+ benefit from property must be distributed to the community and possibly beyond
+ care and responsibility for a property must be performed by community members
Property is also included in the matrix, but as any form of ownership can work for a commons and no form is better than another, this is not pressing to analyse. The article by Gibson-Graham et al. (2013) that accompanies the identi-kit, largely focusses on the natural world commons, but they note that the framework can also be applied to the urban commons. The essay is structured through these themes: with a section focussing on access, use, benefit and finally care and responsibility. The time frame of this essay spans nearly 400 years, examining the square from its initial appearance to its current use, but in each section a particular story or element of the square is scrutinised. Historical references in the form of both primary sources (for example looking at original policy documents and reports) and secondary sources (e.g. Todd Longstaffe
Gowan’s book, The London Square (2012)) are used alongside contemporary literature on the commons, both in the form of Gibson-Graham et al. (2013) and also other contemporary writers who focus on the commons (such as Stavrides (2016)). In most sections, the essay uses Soho Square as a case study, as it is thought to be the first square built in the square’s typological classic style, and it’s creation and use has been well documented (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012) (see figure 6 and 7).
Soho square was constructed and fenced in with high palisades of wood with no locked fence
Cast-iron railings were implemented as wood enclosure fell into disrepair, now only keyholders could access the square
Since the appearance of the London garden square, the question of who holds the keys has been a source of conflict. The possibility of access to the green oases in crowded London changed alongside the rules of land access throughout England. In order for the London garden square to be considered as urban commons, access to the square must be shared and wide. Initially built to create a sense of ‘rus in urbe’ (a feeling of the countryside in the city) (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012) for the wealthy, squares were enclosed to protect the space from the ‘rudeness of the populace’ (Ralph, 1734) and to create ‘a wider space between the genteel and the vulgar race’ (Clare, 1827). From this, we can understand that the square acted as a form of social control, to keep classes of people separate. The wealthy were allowed in, whilst the working classes were kept out. Soho Square was the first square that was built with a central garden and an enclosure already intact, making it a particularly illustrative example of this form of social control (London Gardens Trust, 2023).
The Railing and The Enclosure Acts Railings are the gardens’ mode of
Inhabitants unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the Duke of Portland to give them the freehold rights, so that they could open the garden to the general public
enclosure. Initially, Soho Square was fenced in with ‘high palisades of wood’ (LCC, 1966) that were easily penetrable by intruders. In one story from the local newspaper in 1682, there were trespassers who easily bypassed the fence and came in playing music. Subsequently, they ‘clubbed down’ and mugged two of the residents (The Story of Old Soho, 1893). But by 1748, the enclosure had become ‘ruinous and decayed’, and even the wooden fence wasn’t providing any protection (LCC, 1966). This led to the construction of iron railings and the provision of keys to the residents to ensure proper security of the square. Also, gardeners were often said to double as watchmen to keep out intruders (Wade, 2021). To gauge the significance of the implementation of the iron railing it is important to understand the wider context of enclosure simultaneously happening across England. In 1750, agricultural land previously managed as ‘commons’ was being divided up and handed over to large landowners (Rosenman, 2012). The fence was also used as a device to control access to fields (Friar, 2004). This suggests that the enclosure acts, which are usually focused on for how they affected the commons in rural setting, also had
Iron railings were taken to aid the WW2 effort to gather scrap metal for weapons, leaving the square open to the public
Soho Square garden leased by the committee to Westminster City Council, together they reinstated the iron railings and controlled timings of public entry
an impact on the urban commons at the same time in the mid 1700’s. The iron railings still stand today in Soho Square and across the majority of the squares of London. In order for the London garden square to be seen as an urban commons, access must be shared and wide. However, the implementation of the iron railings alongside the wider enclosure acts, imply an additional enclosure of the commons occurring in the urban realm.
Enclosure as Management
However, there are some benefits to the enclosure of the square regarding its status as a common space. Elinor Ostrom (1990), a leading academic in commons
Garden remains fenced in with iron railings but accessible to the public at seasonally changing timings by control of Westminster City Council
theory, stated that commons must be managed to function successfully to avoid the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons, outlined by Hardin (1968) argues that all resources held in common would be exploited due to over-use. This theory is supported by the two instances in history when Soho Square Gardens sat without a proper form of enclosure. Firstly, as discussed in the previous paragraph, when the square was only enclosed with a wooden fence the gardens eventually became ‘ruinous and decayed’ (LCC, 1966). Secondly, the iron fences were removed from Soho Square at the outbreak of WW2 in 1940 (Wade, 2021) (see figure 8), so that the scrap iron could be used for weapons. The garden then sat open to the public with no control over access until 1954, by which point the garden committee were forced to hand over management to Westminster City Council as it fell into ruin and they lacked the funds to restore it. The council quickly reinstated the iron railings along with the restoration of the garden, and began to control the timings when the public could access the square (LCC, 1966). According to Ostrom’s theory (1990), the fence could be seen as simply a form of management
to avoid the destruction of the commons, rather than a form of exclusion. As the garden became ruined during both time periods where it sat without a proper form of enclosure, perhaps the fence is needed to ensure the benefit of the square to the community.
Common Space and Newcomers
Today, Soho Square sits open to the public under the control of Westminster City Council. However, this is not the case with the majority of London’s 457 squares. Many remain private, with entry only permitted to keyholders. The highest concentration of these private squares is also in the most expensive and exclusive borough of London, with 89 private squares sitting in Kensington and Chelsea (Gardner, 2004). Stavros Stavrides, a leading contemporary theorist on the urban commons, argues
that newcomers must always be welcome in a common space (Stavrides, 2016). ‘Commoning has to do with difference, not commonality, it should always be expanding those who can participate’ (Stravrides 2015). As it stands, passersby of private gardens can only peer through the iron gates of the squares and imagine what it would be like to have access, whilst those who can access the square represent a homogenous class of people who can afford to live in the expensive houses surrounding the enclave. In 1944, as the squares of London sat open during the war, George Orwell wrote in the Tribune replying to a comment on a news article of his regarding the opening of the squares:
If giving the land of England back to the people of England is theft, I am quite happy to call it theft [...] Except for the few surviving
commons, the high roads, the lands of the National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of England is ‘owned’ by a few thousand families. These people are just about as useful as so many tapeworms [...] For three years or so the squares lay open, and their sacred turf was trodden by the feet of working-class children, a sight to make dividend-drawers gnash their false teeth. If that is theft, all I can say is, so much the better for theft. (Orwell, 1944)
Orwell was campaigning for less social division in London 80 years ago, and this conflict is still pertinent today. Even Soho Square, publicly accessible in the day, is locked at night to keep people out and control access. If a square sits under lock and key, with the dominant authority dismissing newcomers and controlling
access to it, it cannot function as an urban commons.
2. Use
The garden squares of London were initially built as a place for the nobility to experience ‘rus in urbe’. The squares were originally used by the aristocratic class of London who could afford one of the surrounding houses, and their construction was supported by kings and queens (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012). In fact, Soho Square was formerly known as ‘King’s Square’ after King Charles the II, and a statue of him still sits in the square today (Thornbury, 1878) (see figure 12 and 13). The use of the squares was intended for a particular class of people, and they have been described as the ‘organs of class segregation’ (Wade, 2021). David Harvey (2012) stated that spaces enter the urban commons when people are actively appropriating them. Despite the intent for the squares being the antithesis of the commons, the ways in which they have been and continue to be used in reality, often aligns with the goals of the urban common. ‘The are no commons without incessant practices of commoning, of (re) producing in common’ stated De Angelis (2016) in the magazine The Commoner. Practices of commoning describe the ways in which people are negotiating the use of a space with the aim of creating a common space (Stavrides, 2016). This section evaluates to what extent the use of the London square is negotiated by a community, by looking at the practices of commoning that have been present on London squares with a focus on Soho Square.
Debauchery in the Square
Although during the day the squares were used by the upper classes, by night they became a hotspot for salacious activity. Without the watchful eye of the day guards, the fences were easily
figure 12: King Charles I Statue in Soho Square, 2023
figure 13: King Charles I Statue in Soho Square, 1725
passable and the thick bushes became screens to hide transgressive behaviour which was frowned upon in the 18th and 19th centuries (Thornbury, 1878). The suggestion of the London Garden squares as sites of romantic dalliances can be seen from artwork and literature from the time (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012), for example in Thomas Sandby’s ‘A Sceen in the Park’ from C1780 (see figure 11). There are also examples of this reputation of the square from more recently, for example in A. A. Gill’s Sap Rising (1996) and Alan Hollinghurst’s The Line of Beauty (2004), which both use the central garden as the setting for sexual encounters. Interestingly, although the fences discussed in the previous chapter are used to exclude people, it seems that they also create a quiet setting for private activities to take place, for which there would have been no other designated space at the time (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012).
Present Uses
In the present day, the squares of London are used for many different activities, particularly the ones which are publicly accessible. Although protests normally happen in paved civic squares like Trafalgar square, garden squares such as Soho Square still play a role in civic events. Soho Square is the largest open space in Soho, an area known as the epicentre for queer activity since the 1600s (Kheraj, 2022). Therefore during London Pride every July, the square becomes host to events celebrating the LGBT+ community. The square is also used for other events, for example the vigil for Brianna Ghey in February 2023, a 16 year old trans girl who was murdered in Warrington (Beever, 2023) (see figure 14). These events are collectively organised and mediated by
the community, and change the meaning of the square from a space of exclusion to a forward looking space for change. Debauchery, celebration and acts of protest were certainly not the intended uses of the square when it was built in 1681, and all of these acts are easily described as practices of commoning. Therefore, the use of the square has clearly been negotiated by the community, in spite of the intentions of the 17th century.
3. Benefit
This section focusses on the public view of the benefit of the London garden square in the late Victorian era (1906-1930), and how this led to two preservation acts in 1906 and 1931. The squares provide benefit to the community living around them in the form of open space in a densely built up city. Spaces were created to ensure better light, views and quality of air for locals (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012) and have been described as ‘the lungs of the city’ (Wade, 2021). However, their public social value doesn’t align with their status as financial asset and this has led to many conflicts about their preservation as open space (Sakai, 2011). In order to support the idea of the London garden square as urban commons, the benefit of the spaces must be widely distributed to community members.
Squares in Threat of Development
According to Sakai (2011), ‘the rapid capitalistic growth and urban development in 19th century London meant that its urban open spaces were continuously under threat of commercial and residential developments.’ At the same time, the garden square fell out of fashion and the public social value of square
was called into question. Soho Square was said to be ‘at its zenith’ in mid 1700s and on decline through the 19th century (The Story of Old Soho, 1893). Over the late Victorian era, many London squares sat deserted as they fell out of fashion, whilst newer squares were barely used as suburban living became more popular and the houses surrounding them weren’t inhabited (Wade, 2021). However, there were individuals and organisations who fought the view of the square as redundant such as the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association (MPGA). Lord Meath (see figure 15), who led the organisation, was particularly concerned about the needs of the local population, and his ambition was to create a better urban environment for Londoners (Sakai, 2011). Octavia Hill (1883) also promoted the preservation of open spaces, and campaigned for the ‘gardens for the poor’. Thanks to the work of these two influential people and others, the general public had become increasingly concerned about the protection of open spaces and community initiatives were introduced to try and protect them. One case of this happening is with Edwardes Square, in Kensington and Chelsea. In 1904, Lord Kensington sold the square
to private developers, who aimed to transform it into new residential dwellings (Sakai, 2011). This caused outrage from not only the resident garden committee, but also the wider public on the grounds of public health and became a court case. By 1912, the high court delivered its verdict and was in favour of the garden committee (Sakai, 2011). This presented that despite
being only privately accessible, keeping the squares as open space rather than as built developments was in the name of public interest.
London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill, 1906
This case exposed the vulnerability of the London garden square to development, and similar threats were occurring with other squares at this time, for example with Albert Square, Ford Square and Sidney Square in Stepney (RCLS, 1927). These events led to the creation of a preservation act. The first act was passed in 1906 and was promoted in Parliament by the London County Council (LCC) and the Metropolitan Borough Councils (London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill, 1906). The London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill (1906) principal aim was ‘[p]reventing by agreement with the present owners of certain lands in the administrative county of London the future erection of buildings and structures on such lands and for other purposes’. A significant part of the 1906 act was the recognition that most of these urban enclosures were owned and managed privately, yet their preservation
was a matter of public interest (Sakai, 2011). However, only 64 squares were included in the act. Many of the garden committees didn’t agree to it as there was no financial compensation for pledging to not build on the land.
Pressure put by Citizens on the LCC to Protect the Squares
Over the next 20 years, conflict over the open spaces continued and more squares came under threat. In 1922, Mornington Crescent was bought by a developer, who intended to redevelop the open space for commercial purposes (RCLS, 1927). This caused alarm bells with the public organisations who were promoting the social value of open spaces in London in the 1920s. The London Society, originally formed to consider ‘civic welfare’ (Beaufoy, 1997) in London in 1912, was pushing the LCC to introduce another bill to protect open spaces similar to the 1906 act (The London Society, 1927). William Simpson, of the New Health Society, also became concerned with the potential development of Mornington Crescent, and wrote an article titled ‘Open spaces for public health’ in the November issue of the society’s journal, campaigning directly for the protection of the garden square (Simpson, 1927). These are just two examples of the involvement of individuals and organisations in the protection of the spaces other than those who lived directly on the squares, and argue that the open spaces did have a wider public benefit.
London squares Preservation Act of 1931
These pressures put on the LCC in the 1920’s led to the introduction of a bill preventing building or alternative uses on any of the enclosed squares. The London squares Preservation Act was passed in 1931
(Sakai, 2011) (see figure 16). Before creating the act, the LCC commissioned the Royal Commission to write a report examining the question of the preservation of the squares as an open space. One benefit of the preservation of garden squares that the Royal Commission identified were their role in the city as a public amenity (RCLS, 1927):
[g]ardens which are entirely surrounded by houses can not be regarded as part of the town plan to the same extent as gardens which are open to the public view. And although the former are valuable to all as air spaces, yet their preservation is not of equal importance to the public as the latter. But gardens which are designed and maintained as a common amenity for neighbouring houses and which are open to the public view even on one side, do form an integral part of the town plan, and the public enjoys them and gets benefits from them.
The commission acknowledged that although privately accessible squares were not of the same level of benefit as public gardens, the view of the square still provides a benefit to the public. In 1931, the London Squares act received royal assent and its main aims were stated as being ‘[a]n Act to provide for the preservation and for restricting the use of certain squares, gardens and enclosures in the administrative county of London and for other purposes’ (RCLS, 1927). The introduction of the act cemented the protection of the London garden square as being of public interest. In order to be a common space, the benefit of the squares must be shared and wide. This has been proven by broad social action that resulted in legal acts to protect the squares as open spaces.
4. Care and Responsibility
Soho Square residents paid 10 shillings per annum to Richard Frith
The Garden Committee was created and they took charge of the maintenance
Each of the 457 garden squares in London has its own idiosyncratic history regarding it’s care and the responsibility of community members. Soho Square has gone through three iterations of who holds this responsibility since it was built in 1681. Initially residents paid a tax to the housebuilder, then a garden committee was created, and today it is operated by Westminster City Council. Looking at these three distinct time periods in detail, this section uses Soho Square as a case study to understand to what extent the care and responsibility of the garden square is assumed by the community members. When there is collective responsibility for the care and maintenance of the square, it can be identified as common space.
Garden Rents per Annum 1681-1734
Soho Square gardens and the surrounding houses were built by Richard Frith who obtained a license directly from the landowner, the Earl of St Albans (Allen, 2020). Initially, the leases of the houses in the square contained clauses with garden rents of ten shillings per annum. The lease of No. 3, for instance, which was granted in January 1680/1, stated that the object of this rent was ‘towards the makeing
Soho Square leased to WCC, who now assume the responsbility of the care and the maintenance
and keeping in repaire the Rayles, Payles, Fountaine and Garden in the middle of the said Square’ (LCC, 1966). These charges went directly to Richard Frith who took on the responsibility of the central garden and used this money to pay groundskeepers to care for garden for the first 5 years of its existence (Allen, 2020). This early arrangement of responsibility and care resembled a tax, and there is no evidence that the community members were actively involved in the decision making regarding it’s spend. This model doesn’t align with the urban commons, as the residents don’t hold any decision making power.
The Creation of the Garden Committee
By 1734, the Earl of St Albans’ lease of the square from the crown had expired and the Duke of Portland took over. At this point, the garden had fallen into disrepair. Frith no longer had any connection to the square by the mid 1680’s, and there is no evidence of any further maintenance tax being paid to either the Earl of St Albans or to Frith. It is likely that at this point no one was taking responsibility for the square (LCC, 1966). Once the Duke of Portland took the leasehold from the Crown, he
reintroduced the garden rents, varying from ten shillings to two pounds per annum per house (Portland MSS, 1734). But by 1748, the fence and enclosure had become ‘ruinous and decayed.’ Residents demanded a meeting with their landlord and the Duke agreed to support the setting up of a garden committee made out of residents to oversee new improvement works (LCC, 1966). The committee, made up of the primary users of the space, now had control over the garden rents, and were collectively responsible for the care and maintenance of the garden. The changes in the first works involved installing iron railings and a new landscape design for the garden, which can be seen in Sutton Nicholls’ view of Soho Square, published in 1754 (see figure 17). The committee continued to take care and responsibility
of the garden square up until it was handed over to Westminster city council in 1954. During this time period, from 1734 to 1954, the decision making regarding the square was in the hands of the residents. This type of organisation aligns with the notion of the urban commons. As Harvey (2012) explains, the urban common can only exist when mediation from the immediate community is present.
Westminster City Council 1954-present
Despite the fact that the freehold for the square was never knowingly relinquished from the Portland family, once the majority of the houses were sold in the late 1700s they seemingly lost interest as the success of the garden was no longer of financial interest to the family, and the land was useless for development due to the preservation acts of the early 1900s. Therefore, the responsibility of the garden fell entirely to the Soho Square garden committee. During WW2, bomb shelters were constructed under the square and the iron railings were taken off as scrap metal for weapons (Longstaffe-Gowan, 2012). After the war, the garden was in disarray, and as they lacked the funds for repair, the garden committee leased the garden to Westminster City Council in 1951. Initially, this was for 21 years but it still remains under council control today. The garden was reopened in 1954 following restoration entirely funded by the council (LCC, 1966). From 1954 up until the present day, the mediation of the care and repair of Soho Square gardens is no longer down to the local community, but the council. In this time period, Soho Square gardens can be defined as public
space rather than common space. In common space, the maintenance of the space will be mediated by users whilst in public space the governing body will make decisions based on public interest. However, this is not without problem, as public interest in local authorities isn’t without bias (Löw, 2015), and whose public interest the council is acting in must be questioned. Therefore, the regime of care and maintenance of Soho Square Gardens most clearly resembled an urban commons when the community-led garden committee took the reins between 1734 and 1954.
Conclusion
Commons are always imperfect, becoming, and always in process
The London garden square has undergone many changes since its first appearance in the 17th century. Whilst its reasoning for being built and original structure acted as the antithesis of the urban commons, the ways in which communities have appropriated and mediated the spaces through time aligns them towards the designation as a common space. The essay used Gibson Graham et al’s identikit (2013) to evaluate the London garden square as an urban commons through the themes of access, use, benefit and care and responsibility. Whilst the squares are not all open access, the first section found that the implementation of a fence can actually act as a mediation of the common. In the section looking at use, community members and beyond were seen to appropriate the square for unintended uses, committing practices of commoning. In the third section, the public benefit of the squares is proven by the collective acts that resulted in the policy change that gained their status as protected open spaces. Whilst finally, the care and responsibility of the squares often falls to a garden committee made up of the community members, suggesting that they do qualify as urban commons
according to the identi-kit. Overall, the London garden square is a space that has been in constant flux, and has represented wider social changes in English society. Whilst it isn’t the perfect example of a common space, Eizenberg (2011) tells us that this can never exist anyway. It is through the collective actions of users and beyond, which can be described as practices of commoning (Stavrides, 2016), that the London garden square can begin to be understood as an urban commons.
Commons Identi-kit
Access
Use
Shared and wide
Negotiated by a community
Widely distributed to community members (and beyond)
Care and responsibility
Benefit Property
Performed by and assumed by community members
Any form of ownership (private, state or open access)
Bibliography
Allen, L. (2020) ‘The Story of a Square 9: Soho Square’, 3 November. Available at: https://janeaustenslondon. com/2020/11/03/the-story-of-a-square8-soho-square/.
Beaufoy, H. (1997) ‘Order out of chaos: London Society and the planning of London 1912–1920’, Planning Perspectives, 12(135–64).
Beever, S. (2023) ‘Brianna Ghey remembered with “Over the Rainbow” sung as vigils are staged across UK’, 20 February. Available at: https://www.mirror. co.uk/news/uk-news/brianna-gheyremembered-over-rainbow-29251325.
Clare, J. (1827) The Shepherd’s Calendar. London: James Duncan for John Taylor.
De Angelis, M. (2016) ‘Introduction’, The Commoner. Available at: https:// thecommoner.org/wp-content/ uploads/2020/06/issue-11-springsummer-2006-introduction.pdf.
Eizenberg, E. (2011) ‘Actually Existing Commons: Three Moments of Space of Community Gardens in New York City’, Antipode, 44(3). Available at: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00892.x.
Friar, S. (2004) The Sutton Companion to Local History. Sutton: Sutton Publishing.
Gardner, A. (2004) ‘Do Fence Me In’, The Daily Telegraph, p. 02.
Gibson-Graham, J., Cameron, J. and Healy, S. (2013) ‘Take Back Property: Commoning’, in. London: University of Minnesota Press.
Gillespie, T., Hardy, K. and Watt, P. (2018) ‘Austerity urbanism and Olympic counter-legacies: Gendering, defending and expanding the urban commons in East London’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(5), pp. 812–830. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0263775817753844.
Hardin, G. (1968) ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, 162(3859), pp. 1243–1248.
Harvey, D. (2012) Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.
Hill, O. (1883) Homes of London Poor. London: Macmillan.
Kheraj, A. (2022) ‘A History of Soho’s LGBTQ+ Bars’, Londonist. Available at: https://londonist.com/london/history/ lgbt-soho-history.
Lawrence, H. (1993) ‘The greening of the squares of London: transformation of urban landscapes and ideals’, Annals of the Association of American Geography, 83, pp. 90–118.
LCC (1966) Survey of London: Volumes 33 and 34, St Anne Soho. London: London County Council. Available at: http://www. british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/ vols33-4.
London Gardens Trust (2023) A Short History of London’s Garden Squares. Available at: https://www. londongardenstrust.org/history/ squares1600.htm (Accessed: 5 April 2023).
London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill (1906). The Times.
Longstaffe-Gowan, T. (2012) The London Square. London and New Havent: Yale University Press.
Löw, M. (2015) ‘Managing the urban commons: Public interest and the representations of interconnectedness’, in Urban Commons: Rethinking the City. Oxon: Routledge.
Orwell, G. (1944) ‘As I Please’, Tribune, 18 August.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambrdge University Press.
Ralph, J. (1734) A Critical Review of the Public Buildings, Statues and Ornaments, in and about London and Westminster. London: James Wallis.
RCLS (1927) ‘Royal Commission on London Squares (Londonderry Commission): Minutes and Papers’.
Rosenman, E. (2012) ‘On Enclosure Acts and the Commons’, Britain, Representation and Nineteenth-Century History [Preprint]. Available at: https:// branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=ellenrosenman-on-enclosure-acts-and-thecommons.
Rowlinson, L. (2021) ‘Fair and square: London’s prized communal gardens rise in value’, 6 January. Available at: https:// www.ft.com/content/35dc61c8-4dc54951-9043-cc0620d18f95 (Accessed: 5 April 2023).
Sakai, A. (2011) ‘“Re-assessing” London’s squares: the development of preservation policy 1880–1931’, Liverpool University Press, 82(6). Available at: https://doi. org/10.3828/tpr.2011.36.
Simpson, W. (1927) ‘Open spaces for public health’, New Health, 2 May.
Stavrides, S. (2016) Common Space. London: Zed Books.
The London Society (1927) ‘London Squares and How to Save Them’, The London Society Annual Report.
The Story of Old Soho. Picturesque Memories of Mid-London ... With an account of the Bazaar and Garden Fête in ... Soho Square, June ... 1893, etc, (1893). London: T. Pettitt & Co. Available at: https:// access.bl.uk/item/viewer/ark:/81055/vdc_ 000000002454#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=38
&xywh=-45%2C123%2C3720%2C2229.
Thornbury, W. (1878) ‘Soho Square and its neighbourhood’, in Old and New London. London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin, pp. 184–186.
Wade, F. (2021) ‘A Common Inheritance’, in In the garden : Essays on nature and growing. Daunt Books.
Williams, M. (2017) ‘Urban commons are more-than-property’, Geographical Research, 56, pp. 16–25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.1226.
Image Credits
Soho Square as it stands today
Own illustration
LCC designation of a London square garden: RCLS (1927)
Available at: https://www. jstor.org/stable/41300365
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Covent Garden (1660)
Available at: https://www. thehistoryoflondon.co.uk/ the-creation-of-coventgarden/
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Garden Squares of Kensington and Chelsea (2010)
available at: LongstaffeGowan, T. (2012) The London Square. London and New Havent: Yale University Press.
Enclosure acts of fields of England
available at: https://www. alamy.com/stock-photo/ enclosure-act-england. html?sortBy=relevant
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Soho Square, 1725 available at: https:// alondoninheritance.com/ london-streets/soho-square/
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Map of Soho, Rocque, 1746 available at: https:// alondoninheritance.com/ london-streets/soho-square/
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Removal of railings from a square, 1940
available at: LongstaffeGowan, T. (2012) The
London Square. London and New Havent: Yale University Press.
Soho Square in ruin, 1939 available at: LongstaffeGowan, T. (2012) The London Square. London and New Havent: Yale University Press.
Soho Square operated by WCC, 2023 available at: https://pantip. com/topic/41537329
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
‘A Sceen in the Park’, Thomas Sandby, 1780 available at: LongstaffeGowan, T. (2012) The London Square. London and New Havent: Yale University Press.
King Charles I Statue in Soho Square, 2023 available at: https:// alondoninheritance.com/ london-streets/soho-square/ [Accessed 11 April 2023]
King Charles I Statue in Soho Square, 2023 available at: https:// alondoninheritance.com/ london-streets/soho-square/ [Accessed 11 April 2023]
Brianna Ghey vigil in Soho Square available at: https://www. mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ brianna-ghey-rememberedover-rainbow-29251325
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Lord Meath of the MPGA, 1897 available at: https://www. jstor.org/stable/41300365
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
London Squares Preservation Act, 1931 available at: https://www. legislation.gov.uk/ukla/ Geo5/21-22/93/enacted
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Soho Square, 1725, Sutton Nicholls available at: https:// alondoninheritance.com/ london-streets/soho-square/
[Accessed 11 April 2023]
Soho Square, 1964 available at: https://www. layersoflondon.org/map/records/soho-square-1964
[Accessed 11 April 2023]