Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMMENT
The rise of the quasi-public space and its
consequences for cities and culture
Andy Pratt1
ABSTRACT This article argues that whilst appearing new, quasi-public spaces have
emerged from a process of investment restructuring over the last 50 years. The profound
change that is set in motion is a loss of control of public space and its cultural uses in cities.
The tensions set up in this transformation are illustrated by the cultural fortunes of the largest
such space in London, Granary Square; and, that of the City of London that has little, if any,
public space.
DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6 OPEN
1City, University of London, London, UK. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to A.P. (email: andy.pratt.1@city.ac.uk)
PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS |3: 36 |DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6 |www.nature.com/palcomms 1
1234567890
The rise of quasi-public spaces and urban culture
Anew phenomenon is emerging in London: quasi-public
spaces. These are open spaces that look and feel like
public places, open to all; however, they are in fact private
spaces that are only conditionally made available to the public.
Hence, the other common usage coined with respect to New
York: ‘Privately owned public space’(Kayden, 2000). This paper
argues that whilst appearing new, quasi-public spaces have
emerged from a process of investment restructuring over the last
50 years. The profound change that is set in motion is a loss of
control of public space and its cultural uses in cities.
There is a long history to the notion of providing public spaces
in cities, often linked to the notion of the agora, symbolising
democratic processes (Sennet, 1999). Furthermore, public spaces
have commonly been a means of the local state (often supported
by a local mercantile group seeking cultural and political legiti-
macy) articulating the ‘civilising’values of culture. Commonly
such sites have been developed as part of a grand civic vision
associated with libraries, galleries and museums, as well as the
signifiers of democracy such as town halls, and public open
spaces. In the UK the mid/late-18th century gave us examples in
Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester to mention a few.
There has been an accompanying debate about land use in
cities: one strand arguing that ownership, regulation and planning
have eroded access for particular groups, and in so doing have
restricted the ‘right to the city’to privileged groups; another
strand, argues more about the restriction of access to public
spaces via physical barrier, police or surveillance that impedes the
possibility of assembling crowds in public expressions of political
dissent (Mitchell, 2003).
The new quasi-public spaces are a subtle hybrid, which offer
deceptive access that can be revoked at any time. However, in the
short-term developers have invested significant sums in such
sites, with landscaping and design of a high quality; moreover, as
reported here, some have also programmed cultural events (in
fact providing what cash-strapped local authorities cannot; Pratt,
2017a). When proposed and developed these sites are seen as
enabling, and cost-saving, for public authorities; many promises
are made regarding access: but, these are often legally weak, or
malleable. This is the nub of the problem: public open spaces are
being passed over to private control, and public cultural provision
is defaulting to the private sector. In the context of the severe
financial cut backs to cultural departments this outcome might
seem positive. However, it disregards the fact that in the longer-
term developers, who commonly see such developments as a loss-
leader in long-term project development; as the site reaches full
letting, the ‘public space’is under threat. Moreover, the pro-
gramming of the site is always going to be in the interest of the
land owners or investors, they are not accountable to the tax-
payers and general population and to represent a wider cultural
diversity.
This paper is illustrated by the case of Granary Square, located
directly north of the Kings Cross/St Pancras main rail stations in
North central London, a former goods yard, a site that has been
‘in development’for twenty years or so, but is now rapidly being
built out. In this sense, it is the latest iteration of the ‘quasi-public
space’. In the 20th Century the development of new towns,
especially the second phase in the 1960s gifted cities a modernist
version of the agora, linked to new civic spaces, which were
characterised by retailing. I want to argue that such a further shift
took place subsequently, which is the precursor of the current
quasi-public space.
Quasi-public space: retail and industrial gentrification
In response to both the suburban residential trends of cities, and
de-industrialisation, retailing has undergone a massive
transformation signalled by the out of town shopping centre, and
‘hyper’-market development. In turn, this has impacted upon
traditional urban cores, which have been put in competition for
retailers (Guy et al., 2002). The first step left a significant mark on
provincial city centres, the development of in-town covered
shopping centres. What is significant for the current argument is
the fact that in effect inner city shopping streets were ‘enclosed’.
What appears to be a convenience against inclement weather and
in favour of transport flow also led to the whole scale ownership
of large prime urban space by private investors, and shopping
centre operators. These third-party operators then took on
‘policing’via private security guards, who could eject ‘undesir-
ables’for simply loitering: shopping centres are not public spaces.
Interestingly, the dominant new owners of these new centres were
insurance companies and pension funds. Ironically, the end-
owner of this new quasi-public space is the public; however, it is
an atomised and unorganised public compared to the previous
state ownership. Access rights and use is now linked auditors’
concerns to the increase pension earnings of investors; but not to
the wider well-being the state and society.
The second phase of de-industrialisation has been the large-
scale transformation of derelict inner-city industrial spaces. Here,
just as in the case of housing, the shift to private development has
displaced public development and ownership. The resulting for-
profit schemes which are also, in the end, financed by pension
funds other major investors inevitably favour higher land values
and force out those who either have no stake, or minimal income.
Housing regeneration does not necessarily mean gentrification, it
can me improvement. As with housing, and retail, the transfor-
mation of industrial space is being financialised. The victims are
users of industrial space (commonly either micro enterprises,
cultural or art workers), who are forced out in redevelopment
either by premium office or residential users thus completing a
cycle of recalibrating the ‘right to the city’another notch (Pratt,
2017b).
Herein we can see another dilemma: cities seeking to chase the
‘creative city’dream have sought to attract high-tech companies
with the patina of a rough edge of art and creativity; however, the
normative Flordia (2002) model, is focused on the consumption
desires of the ‘high tech millennial’-as has been shown many
times this process simply drives our artists as land values increase.
In the end, the creative city is a hollow shell unless it sustains and
supports creative workers.
Granary square, London: the new public space
The largest, and arguably most successful, urban regeneration
project in London in recent years that has decisively created a
sense of place, as well as a cultural and innovative fission is
Granary Square (Moore, 2014). Granary Square is the most
apparent manifestation of the redevelopment of the swathes of
disused goods marshalling yards behind King’s Cross and St
Pancras railway stations. The site, extending way beyond Granary
Square, has been mired in planning enquiries and public con-
testation over the lack of public housing in the plan (Edwards,
2009). Granary Square is the largest new public space in London,
with dancing fountains, surrounded by street level restaurants
and food trucks, and backing onto the major building that houses
world renowned Central St Martins School of Art. Google is due
to begin building its London HQ on the opposite side of the
square. This seems like an artful confection of the Richard Flordia
(2002) style ‘Creative City’: indeed, it is, in the sense that such
developments are socially and economically divisive pandering
disproportionately to the desires of the ‘creative class’.
One would have expected that the local authority, Camden,
would be the progenitor of such a development. In fact, this
COMMENT PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6
2PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS |3: 36 |DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6 |www.nature.com/palcomms
development is private, and the ‘public’space is private too. The
developer has worked on behalf of the owners (Australian Super)
in promoting access and public cultural programming; far in
excess of the total annual cultural budget of Camden.
1
Is this then
a neo-liberal success? The answer is conditional, as the developers
can, and will, revert to the normal rules of property ownership
and access as, and when, it suits them. In the meantime, the
public does gain much from this development. This is just as well,
because the cultural budget of Camden, like most other local
authorities under the imposition of austerity, has been slashed to
close on zero. However, it is the long-term consequences for sites
such as this, culture and the city that we need to highlight.
The culture mile: the lack of public space
We can perhaps see the logical end-point of this type of devel-
opment, and some negative consequences, especially for the
cultural sector. A couple of miles south of Kings Cross lies the
City of London, nominally a ‘local authority’, but in fact the City
of London has power and resources beyond the normal local
authority backed by the power of the medieval (but modern
investors) Guilds. The City of London and Culture have always
had a particular relationship; an elite idealism, and the reductive
‘value for money’attitude that lies at the back of many local
authorities, finds full voice from the financial community and the
City of London. In a sense, with such a small resident population
one might expect little of the City, aside from a sprinkling of elite
arts venues. The City is certainly not a cultural hot spot, nor one
that appeals to a wide audience, and neither has it aspired to be so
until recently.
The City’s cultural backbone is the Barbican: this development
occupies a former Second World War bomb-damaged site in a
prime position; the development is a classic sixties style (neo-
modernist) with a large public space at its core (although turned
away from the neighbouring streets). It seeks to create a public
agora with the City of finance. The City of London has woken up
to the potential role that culture can play in innovation, inclusion
and transformation. The City has recently launched a cultural
hub branded the ‘The Culture Mile’. It has teamed The Barbican,
The museum of London, The Guildhall School of Music, and the
London Symphony Orchestra (who are planning to build a new
concert hall for their conductor, Sir Simon Rattle) as part of
London Cross-Rail redevelopment. The challenge that the City
faces is that people do not want to go there (unless it’s to work),
and it lacks a cultural buzz. By default, the City in effect has
rejected the role of public space in favour of ‘productive’real
estate, the streets are empty of cultural life as workers hurry from
A to B. It was instructive that during the Occupy London pro-
testers (2011-12) could find nowhere to ‘occupy’that was public
space: Paternoster Square in front of the London Stock Exchange
is another quasi-public space (owned by the Mitsubishi Estate
Company). Ironically, the space that was eventually the site of the
encampment was outside St Paul’s on church land, traditional
sanctuary; although, in the end they were evicted from this site
too.
The initiative of the ‘Culture mile’aspires not just to brand but
to create a public space for culture. In its absence, the institutions
have had to pursue a strategy of opening ‘quasi-private space’;
they have sought to open up their foyer and internal circulation
spaces to be an internal agora; to bring the street inside: illus-
trating the presence of an absence of public space. In effect, The
Culture Mile is the other side of the paradoxical coin from
Granary Square. Nominally public, unable thus far to develop a
public realm, and forced to internalise it; whereas at King’s Cross
a private body owns an apparent an ‘public realm’.
Losing control of public space in cities
By framing quasi-public spaces in the longer-term process of
financializing land and property in cities we can see how it has
‘crept up on us’. What is of particular concern has been the
seeming lack of response from policy makers to counter the
consequential impacts on cultural diversity and gentrification.
Public space is a critical component of how we have tradi-
tionally understood ‘the city’; especially its civic and cultural
virtues, which were presented as a counterbalance to uncontrolled
acquisitive behaviour. However, the nature of public space is
being challenged. Fundamentally, cities are in danger not simply
of taking the wrong policy direction, but of literally losing control
of the public realm and a crucial opportunity to shape public
culture. Today, culture is often an instrumental hook to ‘place
branding’and attracting foreign direct investment. Understood in
this way, consumer culture, and retail consumption (or increas-
ingly the experience of shopping) is the end point. However,
irreducibly this must mean that the market is for the richest and
most privileged, it is not profitable to promote the cultural
diversity that would appeal to the whole community, non-elite
shopping experiences, or non-‘high’culture venues. Diversity in
style, in culture, in income and experience is what the city stands
to lose.
Public spaces have, as noted, always carried a democratic
symbolism. However, the non-economic exchange of ideas and
knowledge that is increasingly becoming an important part of
‘open innovation’rely upon a ‘rich mix’of ideas, cultures and
people. Just as the ‘big science’style of innovation based upon
secrecy and closure has suffered, we need more than ever the
possibilities offered by open and public spaces. As we have seen in
the traditional cultural realm the ‘public’has to be created ‘in
spite of the city’. We can also point to the inevitable privatised
agora of many creative organisations that have constructed pri-
vatised public spaces within their building or campus.
Received: 24 July 2017 Accepted: 15 November 2017
Note
1 The UK Government sale of £371 m of the 63-acre site in 2016 was promoted as a
critical part of bringing the UK deficit down.
References
Edwards M (2009) King’s Cross: renaissance for whom? In: PUNTER J (ed) Urban
design, urban renaissance and British cities. Routledge, London
Flordia RL (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work,
leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York, NY
Guy S, Henneberry J, Rowley S (2002) Development cultures and urban regen-
eration. Urban Stud 39(7):1181–1196
Kayden JS (2000) Privately owned public space: the New York city experience. John
Wiley & Sons, London
Mitchell D (2003) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space.
Guilford Press, Lodnon
Moore R (2014) All hail the new King’s Cross–but can other developers repeat the
trick? The Guardian
Pratt A (2017a) Beyond resilience: learning from the cultural economy. Eur Plan
Stud 25(1):127–139
Pratt AC (2017b) Gentrification, artists and the cultural economy. In: Lees L,
Philips M (eds) Handbook of gentrification studies. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham
Sennet R (1999) The spaces of democracy. In: Beauregard R, Body-Gendrot S (eds)
The urban moment. Cosmopolitan essays on the late 20th century city. Sage,
London
Additional information
Competing interests: The author declares no competing financial interests.
PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6 COMMENT
PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS |3: 36 |DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6 |www.nature.com/palcomms 3
Reprints and permission information is available online at http://www.nature.com/
reprints
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2017
COMMENT PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6
4PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS |3: 36 |DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6 |www.nature.com/palcomms