No abstract

No abstract

The value added by better urban design has for some time been contested. Nevertheless, the bene ts of identifying a linkage between better urban design and enhanced economic value, as well as social and environmental value, are potentially signi cant. This article reports on one part of a recent research study that attempted to explore this linkage. It examines a review of stakeholder views on value and urban design on the basis of six case studies of varying urban design quality. The research method and case studies are brie y outlined, before the detailed views of key stakeholders-investors, developers, designers, occupiers, local authorities and everyday users-are presented and conclusions drawn. A key nding is that the bene ts of better urban design are increasingly acknowledged across all key stakeholder groups, albeit in different ways and forms.

During the last two decades the literature on public space has registered the emergence of alternative forms of pubic space provision that depart from the traditional model of direct state ownership and management. The picture that emerges is a complex one, not so much one of privatization, but instead one of complex redistribution of roles, rights and responsibilities in public space governance to a range of social actors beyond the state. This paper discusses an approach to understanding the forms of publicness implicit in alternative forms of public space governance. Issues of rights, access, accountability and control could be examined in public space governance arrangements based on contracts, legal agreements and performance management mechanisms involving private and voluntary entities instead of the traditional public sector processes of policy delivery and accountability. The paper proposes a framework for investigating how 'publicness' is constructed and maintained through these arrangements.

This article discusses the concept of public space management and its evolution in a context of wider changes to urban governance. Public space management is taken as a sphere of urban governance in which conflicting societal demands on, and aspirations for, public space are interpreted through a set of processes and practices. Four interlinked dimensions for public space management are proposed: the co-ordination of interventions; the regulation of uses and conflicts between uses; the definition and deployment of maintenance routines; and investment in public spaces and their services. Within this conceptual framework, the paper looks at recent changes in public space management in England to suggest the emergence of alternative models of management. These are based on the roles ascribed to the state, to private agents and to user organisations, and on different approaches to dealing with the four management dimensions. Although the discussion shows that these models are more than just abstract formulations, and have been used to deal with a variety of public space problems, an important purpose for the paper is to provide an analytical framework through which to examine emergent practices in the management of public space and their potential consequences.public space management, UK public space, privatisation of public space, public space governance, public space services, parks management,

This paper explores approaches to the management of external public space, both now and in the future. The paper is in five parts. The discussion begins with an exploration of why public space management is universally an important concern by drawing from literature that argues that the quality of public space has declined, and that a greater engagement of the public sector in its management is required. Next, the research methodology is discussed which sought to investigate the management of public space in England as an example of trends and responses that point to a broader international concern. The approach included both a national survey of the state of play in public space management and a series of case studies that sought to explore innovative practice. Third, the results of a national survey are briefly outlined, with discussion following the same structure as the survey itself. Next, the results of detailed interviews with 20 local authority case studies that exhibited interesting or innovative practice in the local management of public space are presented. In a final part, conclusions are drawn which confirm that this is an area of public sector responsibility in need of significant investment and reform, but also that top-down initiatives from national government are beginning to inspire a burgeoning range of local government initiatives below. Therefore, although public space management remains a fragmented area of local government activity, a number of local authorities are beginning to establish a corresponding bottom-up agenda that seems to map a potential way forward for the future.

No abstract

In the UK, there has been a noticeable increase in public space management arrangements based on transfer and contracting-out of managerial responsibilities to organisations outside the public sector, whether in the shape of community or private trusts, tenants organisations, Business Improvement Districts, private companies or voluntary sector organisations. Recent cuts in local authority budgets have accelerated this process. Underpinning it there is an underlying assumption that publicness, however defined, can be guaranteed by means other than public ownership, funding and management, and that public sector ownership and direct control might not be in themselves essential features of spaces that are public. This paper reports on a case study research tries that investigates the impact on public spaces of the transfer of management away from the public sector. Based on nine case studies of public spaces in London under a variety of different management arrangements, the paper discusses how publicness is affected by the various contractual forms of transfer and what the main implications of this process are for different stakeholders and for the public realm as a whole. The paper suggests that contracted-out management of public space might not necessarily affect publicness negatively. However, it requires judiciously designed accountability mechanisms and clear decisions by all key stakeholders, including local authorities, about whose aspirations will be privileged and how other aspirations should be protected. In a climate of austerity and spending cuts, this requires a different kind of public management and of policy.