Our Director of Planning and Regeneration Mel Clinton unpicks what it takes to make great places.
Placemaking is obviously not a new concept, but over recent years it has become more widely adopted in relation to development projects, as well as strategies for whole towns and neighbourhoods.
But why is it that placemaking initiatives so often don’t result in great places? The reasons are complex but to a significant degree seem to relate to what we mean by placemaking and the process of delivering it. If our view is too narrow, we might end up with a great looking masterplan but little idea of how to make it happen.
The components of placemaking
Placemaking has come to be viewed primarily through the lens of professional planning and design disciplines and, of course, the physical planning and design of places is clearly of fundamental importance. However, successful placemaking also needs to incorporate an understanding of the socio-economic and natural environment characteristic of places and the value and meaning attached to the various components of a place by the people who live in and use it. Valued attributes are likely to include character and identity, green space and clean air, good quality homes and jobs, convenient access to amenities and services by walking and cycling and spaces where people can meet and community activities can happen.
Placemaking, crucially, also needs to incorporate an understanding of the various forces and factors at play in determining what does and doesn’t happen.
Understanding places
Collecting information and data is important to building a picture of the social, economic and physical characteristics of places. There are also the broad societal mega-trends that need to be responded to at a local level, most notably climate change and the loss of habitat, as well as changing patterns of working, an ageing population, public health challenges, online retailing etc.
Equally important to recording and understanding the story of places is talking to local people and organisations to understand their experiences, perceptions, needs and aspirations. Well-established placemaking principles and learning from other places are a valuable part of the process. However, these need to be interpreted and articulated in a way that reflects the specific characteristics of each place and its community rather than simply applying generic ‘best practice’ planning and urban design principles or placemaking interventions.
Understanding a place, its community and its assets are important to identifying opportunities for the future.
Delivery and stewardship
Thinking through delivery from an early stage is vital. Its complexity will vary according to the scale of the placemaking project – whether it is a large site or a whole town, for example. However, there will always be a range of forces and factors that shape places and it is important to identify what these are and to consider how they can be harnessed and influenced.
For some elements there will be a relatively high degree of direct control, such as the design process. For other elements there will be much less control, such as market perceptions and values. But even where direct control is limited, there is often the opportunity for influence.
The dynamics of delivery
Money is self-evidently a key driver – somebody has to put up the cash and will expect a return, normally adopting a cautious approach to anything that is considered outside of market norms. This is often a primary reason why regeneration initiatives, despite a masterplan or placemaking framework, end up delivering standardised types of development that not only don’t create good places but can often reinforce established problems.
Public sector funding, land acquisition and community interest project leadership can help to support more bespoke approaches, tailored to the needs and opportunities of a particular place. A placemaking vision, temporary uses and incremental delivery can also help build confidence to alter market perceptions and grow values in support of delivery. Creative approaches to the issues of value, viability and quality are vital, especially for the places most in need of rejuvenation, which otherwise either do not receive investment or experience poor quality development.
The process of dialogue that is so important to ensuring that the vision and the ‘plan’ are tailored to local circumstances can also help with delivery, through uncovering ideas, resources and partners who can help make things happen. All places have a level of community and creative energy, however varied that might be, and it is important to a successful placemaking process that this is identified and fostered. This will help build the organisational networks and social capital that enable places and communities to thrive.
Long-term stewardship
Long-term management and stewardship are also critical elements of placemaking that need to be embedded in the process from an early stage. For example, Highway Authority resistance to incorporation of street trees because of stretched maintenance budgets is quite common. On the face of it, this is a relatively minor issue. However, the importance of street trees is highlighted in the National Design Guide and the issue is symbolic of the variety of factors that can have a big impact on the quality of a place, notwithstanding the best efforts of the design process. The solution is not putting trees in private gardens to circumvent the challenge, because trees planted in this way often simply do not have the civic presence of those placed in the street. Instead, it must be recognised as a component of placemaking which needs a solution that puts the quality of the place first.
The long-term stewardship of green infrastructure is therefore a central placemaking consideration. Similarly, other placemaking ‘infrastructure’ such as local energy supply, mobility hubs, community space for meetings and storage of shared equipment, etc are all assets that need arrangements to manage and sustain them over the long term.
Strategic measures
Placemaking delivery is also affected by measures at global, national and local levels.
International and national actions on climate change and habitat loss will affect places at the local level, but the urgency of these challenges has reached a point where local placemaking must also step up its contribution to reducing carbon emissions, mitigating climate change impacts and contributing to the recovery of nature. This need presents opportunities for enhancing the quality and success of places through, for example, improved green space.
Nationally the shape and nature of the economy is a key determinant of the quality of places, the wellbeing of their communities and the potential to bring about change that creates new and sustainable environments that people cherish. In respect of development, it greatly affects land values and the quality of what the market is prepared to deliver. There is, therefore, a need to transition to a more productive and regenerative circular economy which harnesses the resources and potential of each place more equitably across the country.
Similarly, funding for investment in services, facilities and infrastructure that serve the common good within each local area looms large in determining the quality of places. There is therefore a central government role in considering spending priorities and how they impact on the quality of places – for example spending on strategic transport infrastructure or first improving connectivity within places? Related to this is the issue of devolution of power to local areas. It is a topic that seems to wax and wane on the national agenda but, to really empower places to shape their future, significant devolution is surely required, including devolution of funding and fiscal powers rather than centrally controlled pots of money which have to be bid for.
At the local level, strategic measures are necessary to provide the context for successful placemaking. These include strategies for the pattern of development, transport and movement, sustainable heat and power infrastructure and for provision of community services and infrastructure.
In this respect, the number of local authorities setting up Place Boards or similar is notable. It would be no bad thing if local authority decision reports included a heading, as they do for finance and equality, that requires the consideration of ‘place impact’ for all relevant decisions. For example, a decision to amalgamate local leisure provision into a central facility might bring efficiencies but at the cost of significant negative impacts on local places, as well as increasing travel and its associated carbon emissions.
Joining things up
Placemaking, then, is an important endeavour and is central to the ambition to ‘level-up’ across the country. Properly understood and applied, it is a conceptual approach that can help create environments that provide the setting for a good quality of life and contribute to the urgent need to repair and restore the natural world.
Town planning and urban design are central to good placemaking. However, they need to be part of a wider view that both considers the physical and the less tangible elements of places and which also effectively engages with the range of forces and factors that ultimately determine what is delivered. This is particularly important for the so-called ‘left behind places’, where it is often the case that a conventional placemaking framework or masterplan and its accompanying viability assessment will not deliver the vision. In these circumstances more creative, bottom-up approaches are needed first to set in motion a process of change that can help set the conditions for delivery of the placemaking vision.
If you’d like to know more about what it takes to make great places, please get in touch with our author Mel Clinton.