1. Edinburgh Knowledge Environment Partnership
21 June 2012
Place-making and place-keeping of open spaces – MP4 Harry Smith – Heriot-Watt University

2. MP4 Project Aims ( )
Funded by EU – Interreg IVB North Sea Region
Demonstrate how positive socio-economic impacts of open space improvements can be maintained in long term
Provide solutions for maintenance & management needs
Mainstream best practice in place-keeping across North Sea Region
Embed place-keeping innovations into policy
Develop shared agenda for long-term open space improvement
HafenCity, Hamburg
Firth Park, Sheffield
Temalekplats playground, Malmö

4. Place-making
Creation of high-quality places that people want to visit, experience and enjoy
Implies a people-centred approach
Health and wellbeing
Sense of belonging and attachment
Welcoming and inclusive places
HafenCity, Hamburg; River Don, Sheffield; Hailes Quarry Park, Edinburgh.

5. Place-keeping
What happens ‘after’ high quality places have been created
Retaining, maintaining and enhancing the qualities and benefits through LTM
Long-term management of places
to ensure that the social, environmental and economic quality and benefits can be enjoyed by future generations
E.g. trees in park growing to maturity (increased biodiversity/ aesthetic value/ interest)
‘after’ to indicate that it is not a simple matter of ‘place-making’ leading to ‘place-keeping’. But will refer to this in two slides’ time.
Woesten, West Flanders; Leuven, Flemish Brabant; Manor & Castle, Sheffield.

6. Place-making and place-keeping
A process leading to a product?
A process influenced by the type of product required?
A two-way relationship between process and product where place-keeping is considered at the beginning?

7. MP4 Activites Assessment of current practice
Case studies
Literature review
Demonstration – pilot projects
Assess partnership and agreements
Evaluate process and product
Identify ways to improve, share good practice
Information sharing, influencing
Outputs – knowledge transfer
Changing practice and policy
Grassmarket, Edinburgh, Scotland; Bürgerpark, Bremen, Germany; Aarhus, Denmark.

8. Policy
Widespread area-based policy initiatives are based on place-keeping ideas
Place-keeping often included in policy guidance, but not in statutory legislation
some aspects may be covered by policy (e.g. health+safety)
Rules/ regulations may influence use + behaviour
e.g. through signage
aims to support long-term positive use of and behaviour

9. Policy Gothenburg Strategic Park Programme
5 strategies for the landscape of Göteborg:
1. Identify and enhance the characteristics
2. Make sure that green areas are accessible and within reach
3. Make sure every place is taken care of (=place keeping)
4. Make places and spaces available for the residents to use
5. Create diversified environments

10. Governance & engagement
The processes of interaction between public, private, third sector and community partners involved in place-keeping
Government does not work in isolation, but through the above relations with a range of stakeholders
Participatory model of decision-making:
is underpinned by democracy
puts emphasis on consensus

11. Governance & engagement Shared space in Barger-Compascuum, NL
Town Council
Residents
(Comm. Group)
Reflection group
(centre group)
Project team
Project group
Communication
Design
Implementation

12. Partnerships Agreed shared responsibility for place-keeping
Partnerships are effective in achieving place-keeping, especially:
a combination of public-private-third sector
where the local community is involved + engaged
Emmen, the Netherlands; Steilshoop, Hamburg; Woesten, Belgium.

13. Partnerships Ripples in the Pond, Firth Park, Sheffield
Joint partnership project between Friends of Firth Park and Parks & Countryside Service
Friends Group – highly involved in consultation, securing funding, design development, tendering
Ownership/Empowerment
Identity – local identity & site history fed into design
Design – innovative and adventurous, bespoke to the site
Sustainability – ongoing maintenance and community use

14. Funding/ finance Funding is crucial for place-keeping but limited
ideally in place from the outset/ place-making stage
Funding easier to access for place-making
place-keeping costs often not considered
Tends to come from the public sector
the funding of place-keeping is not statutory
place-keeping is particularly at risk when budgets are cut

15. Funding/ finance From BIDs to NIDs, Hamburg
Business Improvement Districts
Joint financing of public realm improvements via obligatory levy
Additional to public provision
Landowners in Germany; businesses in UK
Neighbourhood (Housing) Improvement Districts
Legislated for in Hamburg in 2007
Pilot project in Steilshoop

16. Evaluation
Wide range of existing tools: e.g. awards, competitions, user counts, surveys but…
not a statutory obligation & not carried out regularly
Evaluation often not a priority
it can be costly and time-intensive
but can lead to secure funding for place-keeping (e.g. Green Flag (UK))
Can everything be measured?
e.g. quality/ aesthetic value…?
increasing attempts to give landscape/ green space a monetary value

17. Evaluation Sociotope mapping, Gothenburg
Lövgärdet and Eriksbo: two deprived 1960s/70s housing estates with under-used adjacent nature areas
Identified high priority areas through sociotope map and park plan

18. Challenges
Policy: How can we improve the current policy framework for place-keeping?
Governance: What can and should the role of government, business and communities be in the place-keeping of open space?
Partnerships: How can long-lasting partnerships be formed that ensure access to resources and deliver place-keeping that meets the needs of different stakeholders?
Funding/finance: How can the economic benefits of open spaces be harnessed to secure funding of place-keeping?
Evaluation: How can barriers be overcome to ensure more widespread evaluation of open space that contributes to it its long-term management?
Design: How can open space be designed to facilitate long-term management?

19.
Temalekplats playground, Malmö