Public Space and Community Ownership

Back in 2018 when we ran the My York Central public engagement programme, one of our four themed weeks looked at open space – we did walks, we had visiting speakers, we screened films. We rounded out the week with a public workshop and we then produced briefing notes for the masterplanners, and these notes formed part of the raw material which linked with other thinking from the community to shape the public vision and eight big ideas.

One of these was for “public space that enable people to be collectively creative” – spaces for doing things together. This connected with the idea of moving “beyond zoning” and thinking of walkable, mixed -use development and the role which public space plays in that. Connected with that, people wanted to “exploit the benefits of high density” – implying public space which is good to walk/cycle through, and exploring innovative places for public space (eg rooftops). And people wanted space for “people, not more cars” – neighbourhoods which didn’t require private cars, and which exploited the space this would free up.

These ideas cropped up more recently in conversation with one of the shortlisted developers. They are very aware of the importance of public space in spelling out the quality of a place – and the complex questions which arise around ownership and stewardship (a story was told about careful creation of space for nature which was immediately swept away when the local authority took over maintenance).

As with YoCo’s thinking about homes and workplaces, the issue of ownership (and with it thinking around economy and governance) is central to thinking about open space. “Taking ownership” is a phrase often used, but often used to mean “you looking after the space we continue to own”. Back when YoCo’s community plan for York Central was developed, we talked a lot about co-ownership – could the “Great Park” instead be “The Commons” – and the conversations with the developer prompted us to revisit these.

What would be a good proposal for ownership of public space, and what would people want to do there?

We did some research. A development we’ve visited previously, Citu’s Climate Innovation District (CID) next to the Aire in Leeds, has interesting arrangements for co-ownership. The proposal is that each phase of the development will have a CIC (Community Interest Company) within which all residents will have a share. The CIC will own the energy and IT networks (allowing location of PVs to be more logical, and enabling load-sharing across the mixed patterns of use of a neighbourhood) and also the public spaces.

Public space is a key component of the CID. Individual homes have limited private outdoor space – generally roof terraces and small front doorstep gardens, with the rest of the space being designed for shared use. A key driver for this is that cars are largely kept out of the development – there is direct access from outside the CID to parking beneath part of the housing, and as a consequence all of the remaining landscaping and access need not comply with highways design regulations – no cars, no kerbs, no turning sweeps. Emergency access for fire vehicles is created using mesh reinforcement of soft landscaping.

Spaces are designed to encourage activity; there are riverside terraces enclosed by bench seating where informal gatherings take place. Anecdotally there are much softer community boundaries – it’s harder to set out who can and can’t join in your kid’s birthday party if it’s in a public place, and so people quickly adapt. The basketball square outside Citu’s offices gets used by kids who come in from outside the scheme, but tagging of surfaces somehow stops as you move from outside to inside the CID (perhaps in part because there are fewer barriers to tag – the landscaping is generally soft, and open, with stone-filled gabions used for retaining level changes).

Although the fully-occupied first phase is yet to formally take ownership, residents are already making their mark, with a book exchange installed in one of the planters next to a pedestrian route. The doorstep gardens are meeting points – one of the “downsizer” residents (who moved here for a retirement within walking distance of the city centre) was tending hers and had conversations with a number of neighbours just in the few minutes as we passed by.

This creative use of space has a commercial side too; Citu have been able to build to higher density by removing cars and minimising private outdoor space. There is an element of old-school urbanism around reinstating the process of negotiation required for us to live close to each other in the city. As citizens of the CID, there are shared elements – responsibilities, but also opportunities which come with genuine co-ownership.

From Citu’s dense native species planting it felt like a short jump to YoCo’s Open Meeting last Saturday – a chance to exchange plants, discuss and map York’s food networks, and think about York Central’s open spaces and what they might become. We spelled out that public space comes in many forms – from enclosed streets and squares to more open spaces; that they tended to default to predictable types (hard-paved streets with kerbside parking, “parks” with mown grass and planting beds), and that if different types of space were wanted, we needed to spell out what, and why.

Post-Its suggested there should be space where things happen:-

·         Outdoor “rooms” (“I know it sounds a bit artsy, but don’t know how else to describe them”) which encouraged people to occupy and use them to gather

·         Well-designed benches and seating, parking for bikes so visitors can use them – with Vienna cited as a good example

·         “Space for girls” building on work in Rowntree Park and elsewhere in creating equitable public space which isn’t dominated by the pushy

·         Outdoor events which bring people together

·         Outdoor gym

·         Forest school / urban farm

…all of which echoed the stories of future life in York Central which people told in the earlier days of YoCo framing ideas around a mixed-use neighbourhood…

“Plenty of activity – the public spaces are properly wild so there’s a Saturday morning Park Run through the streets, but also public art and playspaces”.

“It’s a place where once you get outside, you hear birdsong. The public spaces are green, and not just at ground level – go up to the rooftops and there are gardens… …there is lots to do; people are neighbourly and impromptu stuff is going on all the time. There are places for public play too – ping pong and stuff like that, or you can just hang out and enjoy the views”

“The things people need are shared, and places are designed to bring people together – a natural amphitheatre to eat lunch in, and shops and bars on bridges that connect us to the rest of the city. Good walking routes and public transport means the place isn’t dominated by private cars, and there are well-lit places for dog-walking after work too.”

Our next step is exploring what form of ownership can best facilitate this sort of place. How do we ensure open space is truly public, but also ensure that making it for everyone avoids it actually being used by no-one. Want to be part of this discussion? Join YoCo!