We all rejoice in such places and many of us want to copy them. We write whole essays about them, trying to teach each other about what appears to be an elusive art of Placemaking.
The concept originated in the 1960s when writers such as Jane Jacobs offered ground-breaking ideas about designing cities that catered to people, not just cars and shopping centres. Other people soon followed, including Jan Gehl who proclaimed, “First life, then spaces, then buildings – the other way round never works’’. Not forgetting Aristotle, who several thousand years ago stated that, “a city should be built to give its inhabitants security and happiness’’.
How can we achieve better places, better communities and better living?
So today, we have a multitude of noble approaches – Anne Hidalgo’s (or should it be Professor Carlos Moreno’s) 15-minute city, Barcelona’s Superblocks, Melbourne’s 20-minute neighbourhoods, and, many years ago now, the Dutch Woonerf, a social-architectural concept which considered new ways of living.
Even Tirana’s Kid Friendly Urban policy represents the spearhead of a grand plan to refashion Albania’s capital city as a more sustainable, better place. All these different methods are striving for the same thing – and they have all resulted in approaches which move away from standard engineering formulae and closer to what one might call the ‘’human’’ angle.
Therefore, we have the Liveability Index in Melbourne, the Healthy Streets Index which had been developed at TfL, the Walk Score in America, and so on.
What ingredients are essential to successful Placemaking?
In my discussions with many people and in reading different books in an effort to answer this question, I have come across words which are familiar to and often quoted by individuals who are more knowledgeable in this subject than myself – words such as Vision, Long-term Strategy, Quality, Public Engagement, Stewardship, and the Environment.
Below, I identify five which are my personal favourites.
Leadership must be at the very top of any list. Leadership provides direction and inspiration. It requires courage and someone who is prepared to lift their head above the parapet to do what is right. A leader must not waiver; their conviction will bring all others along. There are several such examples, but it will suffice for me to mention the regeneration of London’s Docklands under the command of the ‘Tarzan of English politics’, Michael Heseltine.
Time to successfully implement a particular project is of paramount importance, because nothing can be achieved overnight. It therefore requires patience and a long-term strategy with different pieces falling in place on the way. Often, a long-term strategy is sacrificed for the sake of short-term opportunistic policies. But reassuringly, we still have many examples where different cities have avoided the temptation of short-termism in order to deliver something? exceptional.
An integrated approach is also required. What does this mean? It means architects, planners, engineers, and economists working together rather than separately. A significant obstacle to that is the existing compartmentalisation of professions. It is high time that all the Built Environment disciplines came out of their silos and worked collegiately as a team of builders. This will spark various (and surprising) ideas, and will undoubtedly deliver a project which will have been considered from any number of different perspectives.
It is probably as a result of this more integrated approach that several northern European countries are now giving greater prominence to nature in the places that they build. Their landscape architects (and their sociologists) are having a greater say in the design process.
Partnerships between a number of key stakeholders will provide focus and momentum to any project. Partnerships should be created at different levels from grassroots (engaging meaningfully with the people that will be using and living in that space) all the way up the hierarchy to different government departments, institutions, funders, and developers. A notable example of this has been Eindhoven’s Triple Helix partnership which consisted of the mayor’s office, the local university, and private sector.
Cars is the big elephant in the room. The nominal report, Traffic in Towns, had long ago warned that we needed to “tame this beast that we all love’’, for otherwise it would come to dominate our lives – and it has done.
Cars are a key factor in everything that we build, as so much is shaped by their requirements. Thankfully this dependency is evermore now being questioned and having had a period of introducing carrots (more cycle lanes and better bus provision), councils in England are now wielding the stick – whether this is in the form of congestion charging, Clean Air Zones (as in Birmingham,? Bath, Bristol and many more), Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) as in London, or more recently, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs).
There are countless more schemes around the world attempting to curb the influence of the car. Notable amongst these is Pontevedra in Andalucía where the mayor had boldly banned cars from most of the city in 1999. The city has since been reaping the rewards in reduced car accidents, reduced air pollution, plus an influx of some 15,000 residents into the city.
A recipe for successful Placemaking?
Somehow I do not think so! My recipe breaks down when one considers London’s Borough Market and thousands of other similar places. Borough Market is in most respects a very successful place as it is often thronging with (happy and loud) people; it is vibrant and very popular. And yet, it did not come about through any particular leadership or as a result of a long-term strategy, nor is it in any way a green project or one that is endowed with good quality materials. It is just a place under a few railway arches, next to a busy highway. Nobody really planned it in any sense that we know; it just grew organically, almost of its own accord.
Does London’s Borough Market mean that we (the designers of places) have no role to play?? If good places simply happen, why don’t we just give up? The answer is that, notwithstanding Borough Market (and several other similar places), there are countless more places that prove the opposite. An obvious such example is the regeneration of Kings Cross / St Pancras which by the late 20th century had become a symbol of blight and decay with derelict buildings, railway sidings, and contaminated land. How was the subsequent successful regeneration achieved? In addition to the vision for the site (encapsulated in the document Principles for a Human City), success came as a result of a strong partnership between the developer Argent and the landowners who were London and Continental Railways and DHL.
This point also identifies the huge significance of Land Ownership and its assembly: Every masterplan starts with many good intentions, but inevitably all of them will be confronted with the Herculean task of multiple land ownerships. This leads not only to delays, but crucially to the complete dismantling of the idea of a unified project; hence the breaking up of what space is available.
