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

MP4 Project Aims (2008-2012) 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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

http://mp4-interreg.eu Temalekplats playground, Malmö