Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Insidious creep of pseudo-public-space

Manchester’s Spinningfields business quarter, where the parkland is privately owned. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian.

According to a UK Guardian investigation (reported 26 Sept 2017) ..... "Many of Britain’s largest cities are refusing to reveal information regarding the private ownership of seemingly public spaces, the Guardian has discovered, fuelling concerns about a growing democratic deficit within local city government.

"...A Guardian Cities investigation earlier this summer revealed for the first time the spread of pseudo-public space in London – large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers – and an almost complete lack of transparency over secret restrictions imposed by corporations that limit the rights of citizens passing through their sites.

"...The Guardian has since requested data on pseudo-public spaces, which are sometimes known as privately owned public spaces (Pops), from the country’s biggest urban centres beyond the capital.

The relevance of this to Auckland will become more apparent over time. One controversial pseudo-public space is the laneway/shopping arcade link proposed in the redevelopment of land previously known as Queen Elizabeth Square. The land is now owned privately. Auckland Council has secured some sort of easement for public access. It's a pseudo-public space.

In the Guardian investigation..."Councils were asked about the extent of existing pseudo-public spaces in their area and details of any upcoming development plans that will include such spaces in the future. They were also questioned on how local citizens could access information about pseudo-public spaces, and about the nature of any private restrictions imposed by corporate landowners which may prevent members of the public from holding protests, taking photos, or exercising many of the other rights they are entitled to on genuinely public land....

You can read the whole story here.

In July this year I reported two earlier Guardian investigations about this issue: 

No comments:

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Insidious creep of pseudo-public-space

Manchester’s Spinningfields business quarter, where the parkland is privately owned. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian.

According to a UK Guardian investigation (reported 26 Sept 2017) ..... "Many of Britain’s largest cities are refusing to reveal information regarding the private ownership of seemingly public spaces, the Guardian has discovered, fuelling concerns about a growing democratic deficit within local city government.

"...A Guardian Cities investigation earlier this summer revealed for the first time the spread of pseudo-public space in London – large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers – and an almost complete lack of transparency over secret restrictions imposed by corporations that limit the rights of citizens passing through their sites.

"...The Guardian has since requested data on pseudo-public spaces, which are sometimes known as privately owned public spaces (Pops), from the country’s biggest urban centres beyond the capital.

The relevance of this to Auckland will become more apparent over time. One controversial pseudo-public space is the laneway/shopping arcade link proposed in the redevelopment of land previously known as Queen Elizabeth Square. The land is now owned privately. Auckland Council has secured some sort of easement for public access. It's a pseudo-public space.

In the Guardian investigation..."Councils were asked about the extent of existing pseudo-public spaces in their area and details of any upcoming development plans that will include such spaces in the future. They were also questioned on how local citizens could access information about pseudo-public spaces, and about the nature of any private restrictions imposed by corporate landowners which may prevent members of the public from holding protests, taking photos, or exercising many of the other rights they are entitled to on genuinely public land....

You can read the whole story here.

In July this year I reported two earlier Guardian investigations about this issue: 

No comments: