The joys of privatized land, part MDCXLI

I have often railed at what seems to me to be the wholly-inappropriate siting of the Mayor of London's office in the More London development, which includes a raft of shiny offices and restaurants.  Not that there's anything wrong with the location; no, the problem I have with it is that More London is private land.  That nicely-maintained 'public space' along the south bank of the Thames that people stroll along?  You think you have free rights to access it?  Think again.  It's private space, and don't think of locking up your bike there, or skateboarding, or panhandling.  The private security guards won't stop tourists taking snapshots as they walk along the river, but try setting up with your tripod to take pictures of the buildings and you'll soon find out that there's a very real difference between public space and this.

Of course, the fact that it's private land means that folks could be excluded from it without any rhyme or reason, at the whim of the freeholder.  Which means that there is no right of assembly or protest outside City Hall.  Sure, the powers that be could let people demonstrate outside City Hall.  But they could just as easily have protestors charged with trespass.

I'm not the first person to mention this; a quick Google search will throw up plenty of photographers' rants about More London, and it's been getting my goat for years.  But I thought it would be a good preface to something I read this morning in the Guardian:  "British Airways strikers face terminal five ban".  It turns out that Heathrow's Terminal Five is on private land, so strikers against British Airways can't picket there.  There are only about seven sites in Heathrow where picketers *can* stand, including the police station and Hatton Cross tube station, according to the story.  Needless to say, since voyagers don't tend to either go to the police station or to Hatton Cross on their way to or from a flight, I doubt the pickets will be much use to anyone.

So, we in America and Britain continue to privatize land willy-nilly, creating only pseudo-public spaces, worshipping land value and retail spend, at the expense of real public spaces where all have the right to congregate and express themselves.  Is it any surprise citizens feel disconnected from their democracies?

Some sense on public space!

Boris Johnson's administration has just published a new strategy for public space, London's Great Outdoors (yeah, it's a cheesy name).

It includes these obvious, but very welcome, sentences:

There is a growing trend towards the 

private management of publicly accessible 

space where this type of ‘corporatisation’ 

occurs, especially in the larger commercial 

developments, Londoners can feel 

themselves excluded from parts of their 

own city. This need not be the case. At 

Kings Cross it was agreed that the London 

Borough of Camden will adopt the streets 

and public areas. Elsewhere unrestricted 

24-hour access to the area has been 

agreed. This has established an important 

principle which should be negotiated in 

all similar schemes. 

Many of London’s larger public parks are 

fenced and locked at night. This can create 

severance as sections of the city are  

literally decommissioned. It can also turn 

many surrounding streets into inactive  

cul-de-sacs. The main reason for locking 

London’s parks at night is fear of crime and 

antisocial activities. However many parks, 

such as Highbury Fields and Streatham 

Common, are not fenced or gated. This  

suggests that 24-hour access could be  

made to work in more of our parks and 

green spaces with the right design and  

right lighting and management regimes.  

High quality, creative lighting can increase 

feelings of safety and encourage  

ownership and use. 

Right on!