ResearchPDF Available

MP4 FINAL REPORT Making Places Profitable, Private and Public Spaces

September 2012

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.24329.70243

Authors:

Tom Wild

The University of Sheffield

Content uploaded by Tom Wild

Content may be subject to copyright.

MP4 FINAL REPORT

Making Places Protable, Private and Public Spaces

CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

MP4 Foreword 2

Executive Summary 3

Introducing The MP4 Partners 4

MP4’S Objectives 8

Main Findings 9

MP4’S Outputs 10

Policy Document 1: Governance 11

Policy Document 2: Partnerships 15

Policy Document 3: Finance 19

Policy Document 4: Policy 23

Policy Document 5: Evaluation 27

Conclusions 31

Place-Keeping Charter 32

MP4 - Next Steps 33

Contacts 34

This report is based on work undertaken for the international,

collaborative research project, ‘Making Places Profitable’

(MP4), funded by the ERDF Interreg IVb North Sea Region

Programme. South Yorkshire Forest Partnership/Sheffield

City Council is grateful for the support of the Interreg IVb

NSR Programme, Jon Jordan UK National Contact Point for

the Interreg IVb NSR Programme, and the Interreg IVb NSR

Programme team in Viborg DK.

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership/Sheffield City Council

would like to thank all project partners, and all those

organisations and individuals who have worked closely with

project partners for their time and support. The project

partners are:

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership/Sheffield City

Council, Sheffield UK

University of Sheffield, Sheffield UK

Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh UK

Lawaetz Foundation, Hamburg DE

HafenCity Universität, Hamburg DE

Vlaamse Landmaatschappij, Bruges BE

Gemeente Emmen, Emmen NL

University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen DK

Göteborg Stad, Göteborg SE

Published by:

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership

Floor 5

Howden House

Union Street

Sheffield S2 2SH

Design by: The Smart Station

www.thesmartstation.com

Print by: Print and Design Factory

104 Fitzwalter Road

Sheffield S2 2SP

www.pdf-print.co.uk

MP4 Final Report © South Yorkshire Forest Partnership

Written by the MP4 partners

Edited by Sara Parratt-Halbert and Tom Wild

Forest Partnership unless otherwise stated.

Photos of ‘Manor Lodge’ reproduced with kind permission of

Chris Senior www.ecoscape.org.uk

Cover photo of Sheffield Railway Station reproduced with

kind permission of Robin Ridley robinrid2@yahoo.co.uk

To download a copy of this report go to

www.mp4-interreg.eu

Barger Compascuum

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4. The Golden Rules of successful

place-keeping are:

4.1. Place-keeping is as

important as place-making

with regard to socio-

economic impact, and should

be accorded the same value

when masterplanning

4.2. Ignoring the importance of

place-keeping can waste

valuable resources, and cost

more money in the long run

4.3. Promote partnership working

to facilitate long-term

stewardship. Successful

place-keeping, just like

place-making, cannot be

aspired to in isolation — and

it doesn’t mean handing

the dirty work over to the

community. It means equal

working together across

all sectors to find a good

solution

4.4. Encourage the long-term use,

and economic exploitation of

spaces as a part of place-

keeping. Think creatively.

Place-keeping is not just

about the physical, it’s about

the place and open space

occupies in the hearts of its

community and in its town

or city. Allowing a space to

become special is half the

battle

4.5. Increase awareness of

place-keeping. This means

Tom Wild, Director

Sara Parratt-Halbert, Project Manager

1. This report provides an

overview of EU Interreg IVb

North Sea Region Programme

funded project ‘Making Places

Profitable – Public and Private

Spaces (MP4). It demonstrates

tested transferrable solutions

to the problem of ensuring

that sustainable long-term

maintenance of open spaces

(place-keeping) becomes

an integral part of open

space planning, design and

development (place-making).

2. Groundbreaking research,

literature review and case

studies were used to help

deliver new models of

sustainable and transnationally

transferrable place-keeping

solutions, which were then

piloted using demonstration

sites across the North Sea

Region.

3. The results show how socio-

economic benefits to local

communities and cities as a

whole can be maintained by

ensuring that funding streams

address long-term maintenance

planning as an integral part

of funding applications.

Programmes should consider

funding the revenue costs of

place-keeping in addition to the

capital costs of place-making.

Planning for place-keeping

should be considered in advance

of designing and implementing

place-making projects and

should be included in future city

masterplans. Veenpark, Barger Compascuum

Winter Gardens, Shefeld

making sure those who

make decisions can see the

importance of place-keeping.

The useful life of a green,

open space goes further

than planting a tree when the

cameras are there to see.

Ensuring the financial and

physical investment of a new

or regenerated greenspace

is protected for the future

wins hearts, minds and votes

4.6. Encourage development of

innovative place-keeping

practice. Learn to say ‘yes’,

and don’t dismiss out of hand

because something hasn’t

been done before or it bends

the rules a little. Allow a little

inventiveness

5. MP4 recommends that the

Region’s towns and cities sign

up to the MP4 Place-keeping

Charter (page 31), and lead the

way in groundbreaking place-

keeping innovations.

6. MP4 is followed on by a

new Interreg IVB North Sea

Region project called SEEDS:

Stimulating Enterprising

Environments for Development

and Sustainability, promoting

the reuse and regeneration of

vacant and derelict sites.

MP4 FOREWORD

It is with great pleasure that we

present the findings of our Interreg

IVB North Sea Region project

“Making Places Profitable – Public

and Private Open Spaces” (or MP4

for short), and I would like to start

this foreword by thanking all of

those that have supported this

important work.

The origins of the Making Places

Profitable partnership and its work

stem back to a formative event

held in Sheffield in 2006, and the

cross-fertilisation of ideas and

practices between projects and

countries supported through various

EU cohesion programmes. At a time

when cohesion and co-operation in

Europe seems more important than

ever, it is apt to reflect on these

challenges and opportunities.

There is now strong evidence that

by working in inclusive partnerships

we can create better places, which

are more attractive, valued and

profitable. It is clear that by coming

together to plan, develop and

manage open spaces, we can deliver

environmental improvements at the

same time as creating local jobs and

growth, by helping to attract and

retain skilled people, visitors and

investors. This is great news for our

communities and citizens.

MP4 has shown how communities

can best come together to develop

and realise long-term plans for

open space management. But

this process of ‘place-keeping’

in partnership should not be

viewed as just a means to an end,

with the ‘product’ being better

open spaces. This would be to

undervalue the importance of the

partnerships themselves. MP4 has

demonstrated how the capacity for

organisation and for communities

to work together is an invaluable

outcome in its own right, enabling

citizens to face new challenges and

exploit opportunities, and making

communities more resilient to

change.

The opportunity provided by the

Interreg IVB North Sea Region

programme has enabled us to work

together in new and innovative

ways, allowing us to learn from each

others’ successes and mistakes,

as well as jointly planning and

delivering improvements. These

MP4 investments and case studies

show how joint work across sectors

to enhance the public realm should

be an enriching and life-enhancing

experience, where local people can

develop new skills and stimulate

opportunities for business to create

jobs and growth.

Speaking at the 2006 conference

in Sheffield Prof Lars Gemzøe of

Gehl Architects in Copenhagen

famously said that we should make

better places “where people can

meet and become citizens”, and

that this process of improving

local environments where people

live and work can help deliver

sustainable socio-economic

growth. Not only does this create

better settings for investment, it

is also a fantastic opportunity for

people to come together around

the locally important issues, and

to put something back into their

community, irrespective of whether

they work in the public, private or

voluntary sector.

Much has changed since 2006, but

we can also take comfort in what

remains constant. Europe’s North

Sea Region has a strong heritage

of attractive and valuable open

spaces, built together through this

collective and inclusive approach.

MP4 has shown how we can continue

this strong tradition, working across

the EU to move forwards faster, with

greater creativity and innovation,

together progressing confidently to

deliver lasting, positive results. This

is MP4’s legacy.

We are extremely proud of the MP4

project and its work, and I would like

to commend this report to you.

INTRODUCING THE MP4 PARTNERS

SOUTH YORKSHIRE FOREST

PARTNERSHIP/SHEFFIELD CITY

COUNCIL, Shefeld, UK

LAWAETZ FOUNDATION

Hamburg, DE

VLAAMSE LANDMAATSCHAPPIJ

(VLM), Bruges, BE GÖTEBORG STAD

Göteborg, SE

HAFENCITY UNIVERSITÄT

Hamburg, DE

Partner City Context

Built across seven hills and five

valleys, with a 12,000 year history

of habitation, Sheffield today is

a thriving city and a Metropolitan

Borough. Located in South

Yorkshire, the city now has an

estimated population of 550, 500.

It built its past wealth on its famed

steel and cutlery industry. Boasting

over 170 woodlands, 78 parks, 10

public gardens and 2.5m trees, it

is the greenest city in Europe. Still

internationally renowned for its

steel, Sheffield is now the fastest

growing city outside London and one

of the best top ten cities in which to

locate business.

Partner Involvement in MP4

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership

(SYFP) is one of England’s

Community Forests, a national

partnership that is regenerating and

revitalising the greenspace in and

around some of our major towns

and cities, creating well-wooded

environments for work, wildlife,

recreation and education. Since its

inception in 1991, the Partnership

has facilitated massive economic

and environmental regeneration

projects within South Yorkshire,

turning ugly and abused land into

beautiful, useful landscapes rich

in biodiversity. SYFP is the Lead

Partner of MP4.

www.mp4-interreg.eu;

www.syforest.co.uk

Partner City Context

Bruges is the both the capital and

largest city of the province of West

Flanders in the Flemish Region of

Belgium. The area of the whole

city amounts to more than 13,840

hectares. The city’s total population

is 117,073 of which around 20,000

live in the historic centre of Bruges

which is listed as a UNESCO World

Heritage site. The first fortifications

here were built in the first century

BC to protect the coastal area

against pirates. Bruges’ wealth was

built on the wool and cloth trade

in the 12th Century and lace in the

17th Century, but its economy in the

present day is built on tourism and

the internationally important port of

Zeebrugge.

Partner Involvement in MP4

The Flemish Land Agency (VLM) aims

to enliven rural and peri-urban areas.

Through projects of all scales,

the agency aims to improve the

environmental quality of rural areas

by developing cycle paths, helping

farmers improve their working

practices, working in co-operation

with the local population and other

governmental institutions and

organizations, making natural areas

more attractive and accessible while

supporting local economy. VLM is

responsible for the MP4 pilot Land

Development Plan ‘Nieuwenhove-

Gruuthuyse’, which includes the

site ‘Oostcampus’, an old coca cola

factory site which has now been

converted into a community site,

incorporating the Oostkamp town

hall and a new public park.

www.vlm.be

Partner City Context

The Free and Hanseatic City of

Hamburg is the second-largest city

in Germany and the seventh-largest

city in the European Union. The city

is home to over 1.8 million people,

while the Hamburg Metropolitan

Region has more than 4.3 million

inhabitants. Situated on the river

Elbe, the port of Hamburg is the

third-largest port in Europe and it

is among the twenty largest in the

world. A media and industrial centre,

it is one of the most affluent cities

in Europe. Hamburg is a popular

tourist destination. Hamburg dates

back to 808AD when the first

permanent building was constructed.

Today, Hamburg offers more than

40 theatres, 60 museums and 100

music venues and clubs. The city’s

latest achievement is the title of

European Green Capital, awarded for

2011.

Partner Involvement in MP4

MP4’s partner is the Project

Development and Project

Management in Urban Planning

section of HafenCity University’s

Department of Urban Planning.

The University is one of the four

research facilities supporting MP4,

and is responsible for the critical

evaluation of MP4’s pilot projects

throughout their lifetime.

www.hcu-hamburg.de

Partner City Context

Hamburg, with its official title of

Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg,

is the second-largest city in

Germany and the seventh-largest

city in the European Union. The city

is home to over 1.8 million people,

while the Hamburg Metropolitan

Region has more than 4.3 million

inhabitants. Situated on the river

Elbe, the port of Hamburg is the

third-largest port in Europe and it

is among the twenty largest in the

world. A media and industrial centre,

it is one of the most affluent cities

in Europe. Hamburg is a popular

tourist destination. Hamburg dates

back to 808AD when the first

permanent building was constructed.

Today, Hamburg offers more than

40 theatres, 60 museums and 100

music venues and clubs. The city’s

latest achievement is the title of

European Green Capital, awarded for

2011.

Partner Involvement in MP4

The Lawaetz Foundation was

founded in 1986 by the Free and

Hanseatic City of Hamburg in

remembrance of Johann Daniel

Lawaetz. It is a charitable

foundation which enables socially

and economically disadvantaged

people to have access to labour,

training and housing markets via

innovative methods of mobilising

the potentials of self-organisation.

The main areas of responsibility

of the Lawaetz Foundation are

neighbourhood development through

supporting local communities,

providing start-up advice, and

supporting young people in training.

Lawaetz Foundation is responsible

for an MP4 pilot site situated in

the neighbourhood of Hamburg-

Steilshoop.

www.lawaetz.de

Partner City Context

Göteborg is the second largest city

in Sweden by population and the

fifth largest Nordic city. Situated

on the west coast of Sweden, the

city has a population of 519,399.

Founded in 1621, the city was

named after the Geats who were the

inhabitants of Gothia, now southern

Sweden. Göteborg is home to many

students, as the city includes both

the University of Gothenburg and

Chalmers University of Technology.

Trade and shipping have always

played a major role in the city’s

economic history, and they continue

to do so. The port is the largest

harbour in Scandinavia, although

the shipbuilding industry has not

survived. Göteborg’s economy

also rests on industry - Volvo was

founded here in 1927 - with major

companies such as SKF, Volvo, and

Ericsson operating plants in the

area.

Partner Involvement in MP4

Göteborg Stad is responsible for

two MP4 pilots situated within the

housing estates of Lövgärdet and

Eriksbo on the outskirts of the city.

www.goteborg.se

Manor Park

INTRODUCING THE MP4 PARTNERS continued

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

Shefeld, UK HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY

Edinburgh, UK

Partner City Context

Built across seven hills and five

valleys, with a 12,000 year history

of habitation, Sheffield today is

a thriving city and a Metropolitan

Borough. Located in South

Yorkshire, the city now has an

estimated population of 550, 500.

It built its past wealth on its famed

steel and cutlery industry. Boasting

over 170 woodlands, 78 parks, 10

public gardens and 2.5m trees, it

is the greenest city in Europe. Still

internationally renowned for its

steel, Sheffield is now the fastest

growing city outside London and one

of the best top ten cities in which to

locate business.

Partner Involvement in MP4

The University of Sheffield is one

of the UK’s leading Universities and

was named UK University of the Year

in the 2011 Times Higher Education

Awards. The University has

produced five Nobel Prize winners,

and many alumni have gone on to

hold positions of great responsibility

and influence around the world.

Its origins date back to 1828

when it was a School of Medicine.

It became a university in 1897

and now hosts 25,700 students.

The University is one of the four

research facilities supporting MP4,

and is responsible for identifying

the scope of MP4’s work, defining

place-keeping, understanding the

role of partnerships within place-

keeping and working with place-

keeping stakeholders to evaluate

partnership capacity. Partner

involvement is led by the University’s

Landscape Department, the UK’s

leading department for landscape

architecture.

www.shef.ac.uk

www.shefeld.ac.uk/landscape

Partner City Context

Edinburgh is the capital city of, and

the second largest city in, Scotland.

Inhabited since the Bronze Age, it

now has a population of 486,120.

Well known for its Castle, Holyrood

Palace and Arthur’s Seat (an old

volcano), its economy is based

upon the services sector – banking,

financial services, higher education,

and tourism. It plays host to the

Edinburgh Festival, Fringe and Tattoo

every year, which bring in over 4.4

million visitors and generate in

excess of £100m for the Edinburgh

economy.

Partner Involvement in MP4

Heriot-Watt University is the eighth

oldest higher education institution

in the United Kingdom. It dates back

to 1821 when it was the School of

Arts of Edinburgh, the world’s first

Mechanics Institute. The university

primarily offers vocational degrees

leading to engineering or business

roles. Scotland’s most international

university, it delivers degree

programmes to 11,800 students

in 150 countries around the world,

has a campus in Dubai and boasts

the largest international student

cohort in Scotland. The University

is one of the four research facilities

supporting MP4. It is responsible

for facilitating transnational learning

between MP4 Partners and

co-ordinating the analysis of model

agreements for partnership working.

www.hw.ac.uk

GEMEENTE EMMEN

Emmen, NL

Partner City Context

Emmen is both a town and

municipality in the province of

Drenthe, in the northeastern

Netherlands. The municipality

of Emmen is one of the largest

in this area of the Netherlands,

and the town is the second most

populous area. The municipality

of Emmen has around 104,000

inhabitants, with 56,000 living

in the town itself. Emmen arose

from the amalgamation of several

small farming and peat-harvesting

communities which have dotted the

province of Drenthe since the Middle

Ages. The expansion of the town did

not happen until after the Second

World War. It is a prime example of

a planned city, its suburbs built in a

clockwise direction around the old

centre of Emmen. There are few

historic landmarks left within the

town. The oldest of these is the

church in the market square, where

a place of worship has stood since

the Middle Ages. An important part

of the town’s economy is the zoo,

Dierenpark Emmen, which attracts

over 1.5m visitors every year.

Partner Involvement in MP4

Gemeente Emmen is responsible

for two MP4 pilots situated in

Barger Compascuum, a village with

a population of approximately 1480

people, located in the municipality of

Emmen.

www.emmen.nl

www.emmenrevisited.nl

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

Copenhagen, DK

Partner City Context

Copenhagen is the capital and the

largest city of Denmark, with an

urban population of 1,199,224.

Copenhagen’s founding has been

traditionally dated to the

construction of a castle in 1167

although many believe the town

was possibly founded by Sweyn the

Forkbeard in the late Viking age.

Copenhagen became the capital

of Denmark in the beginning of the

15th century and was an important

commercial port. The harbour has now

largely lost its importance however,

with the city’s economy now resting

on the service sector, resulting in it

becoming the economic and financial

centre of Denmark. Hans Christian

Andersen, well known children’s writer,

born in Odense, lived and died here.

The iconic mermaid sculpture situated

in the harbour commemorates him.

Partner Involvement in MP4

The University of Copenhagen is

the oldest and largest university

and research institution in Denmark.

Founded in 1479, it has more than

37,000 students. Between 1536

and the late 1920s it was the only

university in Denmark. It is now one of

Europe’s leading research institutions,

is considered to be the best university

in Denmark and Scandinavia and

the 7th best university in Europe.

University alumni include nine Nobel

Laureates and one Turing Award

winner. The University is one of the

four research facilities supporting

MP4, and is responsible for the

research and development of a new

evaluation tool called rec-mapping,

which has been piloted through both

Goteborg’s and Sheffield’s pilot sites.

The University is also supporting

the setup of a new groundbreaking

place-keeping policy in the business

park of Skejby in Aarhus Municipality,

Denmark. as a demonstration of the

MP4 legacy.

www.ku.dk

Loevgaerdet

MP4’s OBJECTIVES MAIN FINDINGS

The main objective of the project

was to create a knowledge base

on place-keeping approaches

– an Agenda for Placekeeping.

To achieve this a multi-strand

approach was required. Partners

were aware that there are several

layers of practice when dealing with

the creation and management of

open spaces which need their own

knowledge tool in the language

particular to their field. MP4 aimed

therefore to inform academia,

practice and policy. Using five

themes integral to place-making

and place-keeping: governance,

partnerships, finance, policy and

evaluation. A book has been

produced for academics which

outlines the lessons learnt and the

way forward. Five policy documents

were written for policy makers, each

one concentrating on one of the

themes, and outlining the reasons

why, and how, policy needs to change

to ensure the benefits of place-

keeping can be shared. Finally, an

online toolkit has been designed to

help those working at ground level.

Another objective was finding a

way forward for durable, efficient

and effective place-keeping. MP4

searched the value of different

approaches within both private

and public spaces, and tried to

document intelligence on how

successful partnerships are created

along with their economic, social

and environmental impacts locally,

nationally and transnationally. To

ensure the efficacy of its findings

the project has tested replicable

scenarios at demonstration sites

in different countries across the EU,

through which it has demonstrated

the benefits of place-making and

place-keeping. Different partnership

models were also tested as a way of

managing open space sustainably.

Evaluation of the transnational

impacts and transferability of

‘on-the-ground’ open space

improvements; analysis of strategic

impacts such as cost effectiveness;

procurement risks; and sustainability

of integrated approaches were

an important part of the testing

process.

Finally, MP4 made full use of partner

networks and contacts within each

participating region as a strategy

for embedding MP4’s ideas and

innovations across the EU. The

continuation of this lies with the

book ‘Making Places Matter: Place-

keeping in Practice’; the five policy

documents; the E-toolkit; and the

Place-keeping Charter.

The work carried out throughout

MP4 – its practical, on-the-ground

testing of new place-making

and place-keeping strategies, and

its background research which

helped to inform our pilot sites –

came together towards the end

of the project like several strong

strands merging into one, robust

rope. It became clear that there

was only one way to go; ensure

sustainable place-keeping is a major

consideration in masterplanning

even before the stage of place-

making is reached. There are

several examples in MP4 where this

was the case – and each example

has led to a real possibility of long-

term sustainable maintenance.

In addition, to ensure place-keeping

is given the same importance as

its more visible, and arguably more

‘sexy’ sister place-making, the

following points must be given a

place in the planning process:

1. Place-keeping is as important

as place-making with regard

to socio-economic impact, and

should be accorded the same

value when masterplanning

2. Ignoring the importance of

place-keeping can waste

valuable resources, and cost

more money in the long run

3. Promote partnership working to

facilitate long-term stewardship.

Successful place-keeping, just

like place-making, cannot be

aspired to in isolation — and it

doesn’t mean handing the dirty

work over to the community. It

means equal working together

across all sectors to find a good

solution

4. Encourage the long-term use,

and economic exploitation

of spaces as a part of place-

keeping. Think creatively.

Place-keeping is not just about

the physical, it’s about the place

and open space occupies in the

hearts of its community and in

its town or city. Allowing a space

to become special is half the

battle

5. Increase awareness of place-

keeping. This means making

sure those who make decisions

can see the importance of

place-keeping. The useful life

of a green, open space goes

further than planting a tree

when the cameras are there to

see. Ensuring the financial and

physical investment of a new

or regenerated greenspace is

protected for the future wins

hearts, minds and votes

6. Encourage development of

innovative place-keeping

practice. Learn to say ‘yes’,

and don’t dismiss out of hand

because something hasn’t

been done before or it bends

the rules a little. Allow a little

inventiveness

These are our conclusions in a

very simple nutshell. The MP4

partnership knows that for things

to change, there needs to be a

new mindset, from policy makers

and decision makers downwards.

How can this be done? Spreading

the word through our five policy

documents, and by towns and cities

signing up to our place-keeping

Charter. Take a look at our Charter

on page 32. Take a good, hard

think of the possibilities this way of

sustainable investment protection

can but benefit your town or city.

And sign up!

Barger Compascuum

Veenpark, Barger Compascuum

1110

MP4’s OUTPUTS

For MP4 to be effective, it was

recognised that several audiences

had to be targeted: planning

students who will become future

town planners and designers;

greenspace practitioners who

work at grassroots level; the policy

makers who agree the local, national

and regional policies which guide

Local Authorities, Municipalities and

National Governments across the

North Sea Region; and the funding

bodies who, while providing capital

funding for place-making will not

currently fund revenue, which would

protect their investment in green,

open spaces through supporting

place-keeping. To this end, MP4

designed and created four separate

publications directed at the most

important audiences involved in

greenspace projects and plans:

a book; an E-toolkit; five policy

documents; and the Place-keeping

Charter.

The Book

Aimed at academics, future planners

and other interested parties, MP4’s

book ‘Making Places Matter: Place-

keeping in Practice’ is a collection

of academic essays and papers on

place-keeping, gathered together

under what MP4 views as the five

most pertinent themes of place-

keeping: governance, partnerships,

finance, policy and evaluation. The

content is based on research and

practice that have taken place

throughout the lifetime of the

project. If you are interested in

buying a copy please pass your

contact details to

sara.parratt-halbert@syforest.co.uk

or team@syforest.co.uk.

The E-Toolkit

Place-keeping is the most important

part of any project, many of which

fail a few years down the line

because place-making has been

considered in the absence of any

consideration for place-keeping.

Place-keeping is the hardest part

of any project because it’s easy

to ignore and difficult to fund.

MP4 feels that place-keeping is

so important it should be given

consideration before a project even

gets to the place-making stage. For

practitioners, the first point of call

for supporting sustainable place-

keeping, should be MP4’s E-toolkit.

Written by MP4’s practitioners, the

E-toolkit offers the golden rules

of place-keeping under each of the

project’s five themes – or what

could be referred to as the principles

of place-keeping.

The website has been designed

by MP4 practitioners. The golden

rules are those they think are most

important for future success; the

big issues are those that faced

them throughout their work with

MP4 – and the answers they found.

The tools are those that have been

highlighted as most beneficial to

them, and what they think will be

most useful to their practitioner

colleagues. Practitioner partners

were keen to ensure there are no

pages of heavy text, but rather

practical information set out in a

user-friendly way that allows the

reader to choose his/her own level

of engagement.

For those with a more academic

interest, MP4’s research papers

are held here. A blog will enable

practitioners to discuss the

most pertinent issues on open

spaces, and keep up to date with

developments across the North Sea

Region. The toolkit can be found at

www.mp4-interreg.eu.

The Five Policy Documents

The five documents are the five

main chapters of this report,

and are available separately as

downloadable PDFs from the MP4

E-toolkit. These documents are

aimed at policy makers and decision

makers working in associated fields.

MP4 considers a change in open

space policies at local, national and

regional level to be a particularly

important part of its work. For

greenspace to be cared for

sustainably and long-term requires

a change in policy which will help to

ensure Local Authorities care for

their investments, and include place-

keeping in the masterplans for their

towns and cities – not something

that happens at the moment.

The Place-Keeping Charter

MP4 felt it was important to provide

a Place-keeping Charter, which

towns and cities could sign up

to. This was drawn up taking into

account research which had taken

place throughout the lifetime of the

project. The Charter can be viewed

on Page 32 of this report, and

accessed as a downloadable PDF

which can be accessed through the

MP4 E-toolkit.

GOVERNANCE

POLICY

DOCUMENT 1

Open spaces are highly relevant

locally and citywide. They can

range from the small pocket-park

in a neighbourhood to a large

park of citywide or even regional

importance. They can be either

grey (squares and streetspace)

or green (parks), and can fulfil

multiple functions for social life:

cultural activities; biodiversity

and ecosystems; and business

environments.

They also have an economic value

for both public and private sectors

through individual and commercial

spending power and the proven

impact on surrounding property

values. So the role of place-

keeping (maintenance, care, joint

responsibility and ownership in the

broadest sense) within the long-

term safeguarding of open spaces

is not only important for cohesion

within local communities but can

create economic benefits as well.

Why must it be sustainable?

Because in economically difficult

times, place-keeping budgets are

the first to suffer, despite their

significant contributions to health,

wellbeing and local economy.

And while funding is available for

construction and retrofitting, it is

not available for maintenance or

staffing; and while political credit

exists for exciting new open spaces,

it does not do so for their day-to-day

management. Poor or non-existent

place-keeping can lead to a waste of

resources due to the cost of future

regeneration when it is cheaper to

systematically maintain.

For place-keeping to become a

integral part of planning, design

and economic improvement at the

most fundamental level, the baton

must be carried by the politician

who has it in his/her power to

ensure it is given the same level of

importance within masterplanning

and regeneration as place-making.

And place-making needs to be

accorded the same gravity as

other dimensions of well planned

urban infrastructure. Economy and

prestige, and health and happiness

have their roots in, and benefit

from, well designed open spaces

sustainably cared for long term.

There is a political choice to be

made: safeguard open space

investments and their positive

effects or condemn them, their

surrounding communities and local

businesses through underfinancing.

MP4 analysed some of the many

good place-making and sustainable

place-keeping examples throughout

Europe which bring together public

and private stakeholders and create

strong, longlasting partnerships.

This process identified five themes

particularly pertinent to quality,

sustainable place-making and

place-keeping, namely: governance,

partnerships, finance, policy, and

evaluation. These are the catalysts

for enduring open spaces and

enriched neighbourhoods.

This document deals with

Governance. Its four sister

documents each discuss one

of the following themes:

partnerships, finance, policy and

evaluation.

1.1 1.2 1.3

PLACE-KEEPING -

AN ISSUE THAT MATTERS WHY IS IT AN ISSUE FOR

POLITICIANS? THE FIVE THEMES

Firth Park Clock Tower

Neuer Wall, Hamburg

1312

GOVERNANCE GOVERNANCE

Governance of open space is key

to its quality and its contribution to

society.

Governance is the sphere of

relations between government and

other actors in civil society or non-

governmental sectors – including

the private sector and community.

It also refers to the processes

of interaction between these in

defining their roles and relationships.

The idea of governance is that

government does not work in

isolation but through these types of

relations. In the context of MP4, the

theme of governance/engagement

refers to the involvement of the

local community and how members

can be engaged and retained. It

is recognised that there is some

overlap with another of MP4’s

themes; partnerships.

The outcome of any open space

place-making project and/or place-

keeping activity is the result of

the combination of purpose of

the project or activity, the setting

(whether a large park or a small

square), the people involved and the

process to involve these. People

and process are what governance

is about. While governance affects

what open spaces are like, in turn

these are a reflection of how they

are governed.

The balance between experts

and users in place-making and

place-keeping of open space is an

important factor. Traditionally, in the

public sector governance of projects

has been technocratic, but there

is considerable evidence of the

benefits of community involvement.

Successful community engagement

in place-making and place-keeping of

open space can yield the following

benefits:

A village community involved

in the creation and long-term

maintenance of a new village

centre:

Emmen Revisited (ER), a joint-

venture organisation between

Emmen Municipality and the

Housing Corporations operating

within the municipality since

1998, aims to improve the

social and living environment

in urban districts and villages.

In the small village of Barger

Compascuum, ER worked with the

local community in a structured

approach, establishing community

representative bodies which

were involved in decisions around

the design of the redeveloped

village centre pedestrian-friendly

shared space. The success in the

place-making stage has led to

continuing collaboration between

the community representative

body and ER in establishing joint

place-keeping. In this case the

trust built up during place-making

laid the foundations for long term

community involvement.

Involvement of a long established

Friends of the Park group in a city

setting:

Friends of Firth Park is a voluntary

residents’ organisation with an

interest in their local park, and

has worked in collaboration with

Sheffield City Council for many

years. Members have been fully

involved in the decision-making

around the redevelopment of a

neglected pond in the park to

provide a multipurpose area.

Different members in the group offer

different inputs according to their

interests, ranging from organising

events to planting. Following

completion of the redevelopment,

Friends of Firth Park’s continuing

involvement in place-keeping is

expected to be channelled mainly

through the running of events in the

regenerated space.

Young participants creating

and maintaining a space for

themselves:

In the large, early 1970s housing

estate of Steilshoop in Hamburg,

young people have engaged in the

development and running of open

space facilities in the neighbourhood

through their participation in a

charity called ‘Get Move’. This is

supported by a non-profit company,

Alraune, which has worked in the

area for a couple of decades to

support youth apprenticeships

and is currently engaged in the

redevelopment of a park to provide

a range of facilities for the young.

Not only has ‘Get Move’ been

fully involved in decision-making

about the redevelopment, it will

also take on responsibilities in the

maintenance of a new basketball

court on completion, and has

engaged in activities which are

focused on the reduction of violence.

The following projects from the MP4 context demonstrate new approaches in

the governance of place-keeping activities across Northern Europe.

3.1 3.2 3.3

GOVERNANCE - KEY ISSUES

EMMEN REVISITED

EMMEN, NL

FIRTH PARK

SHEFFIELD, UK

GET MOVE

HAMBURG, DE

EXPERIENCE FROM THE

MP4 PARTNERSHIP

Valuable insights and

experiences from those who

engage

Community’s understanding

raised by involvement in

technical details

Improved legitimacy of the

project and ‘buy-in’ from the

stakeholders

Improved relationship between

policymakers and the community

Bringing together of local people

through a common interest,

empowering communities

and helping generate social

cohesion

An expression of active

citizenship associated with

greater social justice

Services that are better suited

to local people’s needs

Certain key issues need to be

addressed, however, when widening

engagement in place-keeping of

open space:

The range of community

members who get involved:

the ‘usual suspects’ may

contribute a lot but may get

most out of the system, while

some types of open space user

may be more difficult to involve

and there is a danger of leaving

out some groups

Timescales and nature of

public sector processes:

long timescales may contribute

to people disengaging, and

considerable changes in public

administration have severe

effects on the process – e.g.

budget cuts, staff reductions,

etc

Nature of place-keeping of open

space: the role of residents

in place-keeping has to be

clear, and the involvement of

community members in physical

works needs dedicated support;

there is a danger of putting too

much pressure on community

groups and delegating too much

responsibility.

Barger Compascuum Village Centre

Ripples in the Pond, Firth Park

Firth Park Wetland Area Get Move Boys

Futher information:

Emmen Revisited

www.emmenrevisited.nl

Futher information:

Friends of Firth Park

www.sheffield.gov.uk

Futher information:

Get Move

www.stadtteilbuero-steilshoop.de

1514

After analysing the practice of

place-making and place-keeping

around Northern Europe and

implementing innovative pilots in

five partner cities, the transnational

MP4 partnership has come to

the following key findings and

policy recommendations on the

governance of place-keeping based

on practical experience:

Opportunities should be

created to explore and develop

innovative involvement of

government, businesses and

communities in the place-

keeping of open space, while

being responsive to the context

of the project

Giving a leading voice to local

people and businesses through

a process based on respect

and dialogue can be critical to

the success of regeneration

and ongoing management and

maintenance of open spaces,

strengthening local ownership

and responsibility

Consideration should be

given to the fact that citizen

or community participation

may put pressure on public

organisations, raise public

expectations and cause

disappointment for some.

Realistic possibilities and

limitations of public participation

need to be clear from the start

Engagement in projects by

potential stakeholders depends

on the prospect of mutual

benefits and trust in the lead

organisation. Public sector

agencies need to set out a

clear and transparent position

regarding the issues to be

addressed in place-making

and place-keeping of open

space, and the possibilities and

responsibilities. This includes

defining the standard for which

the public sector is responsible

Consideration should be given

to who may be engaged, how

they may benefit and what

they may contribute. Resident

organisations, especially those

with an already existing interest

in open space, can help draw in

other public funding and build a

4. KEY FINDINGS AND

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

GOVERNANCE

sense of long-term ownership

through their involvement.

Businesses can contribute if

they clearly see the benefits,

and the duration of their

involvement may depend on their

interests

People tend to think that place-

keeping is the responsibility of

the public sector. Collaboration

between the local authority

and the community during

place-making can create a

sense of co-ownership that will

help provide a good base for

continuing place-keeping

If long-term community

engagement is sought, place-

keeping activities need

to be clearly defined and

communicated to the relevant

stakeholders. These can range

from regular clean-ups and

maintenance to the staging

of events. It will depend on

the scale and nature of the

open space, with community

involvement in place-keeping

generally being more possible in

smaller neighbourhood facilities

Community engagement in

place-keeping processes

can help establish trust and

working practices for continuing

involvement in place-keeping.

The issues around place-keeping

should, however, be raised and

addressed as early as possible

in the process. In addition,

community involvement in long

term place-keeping tends to

fluctuate, and needs constant

support from the public sector

Uncertainty within the public

sector (e.g. regarding budgets,

responsibilities, decision-

making, etc.) can be a barrier

to wider engagement in place-

keeping or can increase the

length of the process. Public

sector agencies must seek to

establish the highest possible

degree of certainty in any

place-making or place-keeping

process, though freedom to

innovate is also critical

There is great potential in

adopting a ‘whole place’

approach to the management

of our built and natural

environment, where open

space can complement other

resources such as education,

health, etc. This would require

more complex governance

arrangements, but can be more

cost-effective and sustainable

PARTNERSHIPS

POLICY

DOCUMENT 2

Open spaces are highly relevant

locally and citywide. They can

range from the small pocket-park

in a neighbourhood to a large

park of citywide or even regional

importance. They can be either

grey (squares and streetspace)

or green (parks), and can fulfil

multiple functions for social life:

cultural activities; biodiversity

and ecosystems; and business

environments.

They also have an economic value

for both public and private sectors

through individual and commercial

spending power and the proven

impact on surrounding property

values. So the role of place-

keeping (maintenance, care, joint

responsibility and ownership in the

broadest sense) within the long-

term safeguarding of open spaces

is not only important for cohesion

within local communities but can

create economic benefits as well.

Why must it be sustainable?

Because in economically difficult

times, place-keeping budgets are

the first to suffer, despite their

significant contributions to health,

wellbeing and local economy.

And while funding is available for

construction and retrofitting, it is

not available for maintenance or

staffing; and while political credit

exists for exciting new open spaces,

it does not do so for their day-to-day

management. Poor or non-existent

place-keeping can lead to a waste of

resources due to the cost of future

regeneration when it is cheaper to

systematically maintain.

For place-keeping to become a

integral part of planning, design

and economic improvement at the

most fundamental level, the baton

must be carried by the politician

who has it in his/her power to

ensure it is given the same level of

importance within masterplanning

and regeneration as place-making.

And place-making needs to be

accorded the same gravity as

other dimensions of well planned

urban infrastructure. Economy and

prestige, and health and happiness

have their roots in, and benefit

from, well designed open spaces

sustainably cared for long term.

There is a political choice to be

made: safeguard open space

investments and their positive

effects or condemn them, their

surrounding communities and local

businesses through underfinancing.

MP4 analysed some of the many

good place-making and sustainable

place-keeping examples throughout

Europe which bring together public

and private stakeholders and create

strong, longlasting partnerships.

This process identified five themes

particularly pertinent to quality,

sustainable place-making and

place-keeping, namely: governance,

partnerships, finance, policy, and

evaluation. These are the catalysts

for enduring open spaces and

enriched neighbourhoods.

This document deals with

Partnerships. Its four sister

documents each discuss one

of the following themes: governance,

finance, policy and evaluation.

1.1 1.2 1.3

PLACE-KEEPING -

AN ISSUE THAT MATTERS WHY IS IT AN ISSUE FOR

POLITICIANS? THE FIVE THEMES

Get Move Boys

Elephant Parade, Emmen

1716

PARTNERSHIPS PARTNERSHIPS

2. PARTNERSHIPS - KEY ISSUES 3. EXPERIENCE FROM THE

MP4 PARTNERSHIP

The term partnerships in place-

keeping describes an association

of partners that has developed an

agreed shared responsibility for

the long term management of a

place. Partnerships may be informal,

based on a mutual understanding

of roles and responsibilities

or formal, based on written

agreement. In partnerships roles

and responsibilities are delegated

horizontally rather than the

traditional ‘top-down’ governance,

demonstrating the overlap with the

MP4 theme governance.

Three main place-keeping models

have been identified. In the state-

centred model the local authority

delivers place-keeping with minimal

external input from others. Internal

partnerships may develop within

the organisation but this model can

suffer from excessive bureaucracy

and unwillingness to change. The

market-centred model, such as

public-private partnerships, involves

a profit-driven organisation with

a commercial interest in place-

keeping, whereas the user-centred

model involves user based, not-

for-profit organisations such as

charities and community groups

which are primarily interested in

the quality of the place for users.

Networks and contacts that

make use of local knowledge and

enthusiasm are very important in

this model.

Place-keeping is complex and a

partnership approach is necessary

to ensure an holistic approach,

particularly where the ownership

and management of spaces

becomes divorced. The ability

to apply a combination of state,

market and user-centred models

across an area can be instrumental

in providing effective public space

place-keeping. Involving the public,

private and third sectors (voluntary,

community) makes the most of

a wide range of necessary skills,

knowledge and resources.

Developing an efficient partnership

for place-keeping is not without

its problems. It implies a long-

term commitment from partners

and can be resource intensive.

Involving many partners can make

co-ordination difficult, particularly

if there is no formal agreement in

place. Private partners are still

a threat for many people, so a

dominant focus on public sector

and third sector roles prevails.

Sustaining trust is time consuming,

requires resourcing and can be

difficult as it is often reliant on the

behaviour of individuals. Members

may not be fully representative of

open space users, and may have

differing agendas, making achieving

consensus difficult.

Partners may lack capacity

(skills, motivation, resources,

understanding) and need on-going

support from the public or third

sector. They may be concerned

about taking on the liabilities that

responsibility for place-keeping

can bring. The perception that

responsibility should lie with the

local authority can lead to a lack

of motivation and willingness to

commit to long-term involvement

after the initial ‘place-making’ phase.

Despite the difficulties a partnership

approach to place-keeping can bring

many benefits. Involving partners

3.1 3.2 3.3

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICTS (BIDs), DE LÖVGÄRDET AND ERIKSBO,

CITY of GOTHENBURG, SE THE FLEMISH LAND AGENCY,

FLANDERS, BE

Hamburg, Germany: public-private

partnerships to improve business

areas.

The Business Improvement Districts

model (BIDs) is an example of

a proprietor-led public-private

partnership that has been running

in Hamburg since the introduction

of dedicated legislation in 2005.

Private proprietors that want to

jointly improve the area around

their properties are able to make

a formal application to the local

administration to create a BID for

a maximum five year period. Once

approved, an obligatory fee can

then be collected from all local

proprietors in the affected area

to contribute to place-keeping

activities. These include improved

street cleaning and waste collection,

facility management of the open

spaces, ranging from car park

management to communication with

stakeholders, and ‘place-making’

improvements to the area.

Exploring management transferral

in residential areas

The City of Gothenburg has

developed a practice for transferring

maintenance responsibilities based

on voluntary agreements with third

parties. In residential areas, where

there is split responsibility between

Housing Companies and the local

authority for the management

of publically accessible space

there is often uncertainty about

responsibilities and differing levels

of maintenance, which can be an

issue for residents. The purpose

of transferring responsibilities is

not financial, but rather increased

efficiency and a higher level of

maintenance (value to the public)

through improved organisation

of site management. In the two

city districts of Lövgärdet and

Eriksbo partnership working

has included involving the local

residents, alongside the Housing

Companies, to develop proposals for

improvements and on-going place-

keeping to recreational areas within

the residential areas.

Bringing together private, public

and people

The Flemish Land Agency (VLM) is

responsible for the organisation

and management of open space and

shaping policy within the rural and

peri-urban areas of Flanders. VLM

has no mandate to manage land so

to achieve its aims the organisation

must work in partnership with

others including government

organisations, municipalities,

landowners and farmers. Involving

all sectors in partnerships helps

to ensure the integration of place-

making with place-keeping. VLM

employs a range of negotiated

formal agreements to ensure

ongoing management to improve

biodiversity and raise awareness

of environmental issues. The ‘land

development’ agreement focuses on

cross-sector consultation to build

an agreed long-term vision rather

than focus immediately on built

investment. The co-operation with

many partners, although complex

and requiring careful management,

brings many opportunities, provides

flexibility and adds richness to what

VLM is able to achieve. The fact

that this organisation is able to act

independently of local interests can

be advantageous in negotiations

with landowners other local

stakeholders.

Futher information:

BIDs and NIDs

www.urban-improvement-districts.de

Futher information:

Gothenburg

www.goteborg.se

Futher information:

VLM

www.vlm.be

HafenCity

Sheaf Valley Park

Lövgärdet Oostkampus

from different sectors can enable

complex problems to be solved

and can give access to additional

resources such as funding, skills

knowledge, land or ideas. Agreeing

a shared aim and responsibilities

can improve relationships between

stakeholders and help resolve

conflicts. It may bring partners

organisational or personal benefit

or gain, such as public relations

opportunities, commercial

advantage, developing professional

or social contacts whilst for others

it may be fundamental to the

organisation’s ethos to work with

others to deliver place-keeping.

1918

FINANCE

POLICY

DOCUMENT 3

PARTNERSHIPS

Open spaces are highly relevant

locally and citywide. They can

range from the small pocket-park

in a neighbourhood to a large

park of citywide or even regional

importance. They can be either

grey (squares and streetspace)

or green (parks), and can fulfil

multiple functions for social life:

cultural activities; biodiversity

and ecosystems; and business

environments.

They also have an economic value

for both public and private sectors

through individual and commercial

spending power and the proven

impact on surrounding property

values. So the role of place-

keeping (maintenance, care, joint

responsibility and ownership in the

broadest sense) within the long-

term safeguarding of open spaces

is not only important for cohesion

within local communities but can

create economic benefits as well.

Why must it be sustainable?

Because in economically difficult

times, place-keeping budgets are

the first to suffer, despite their

significant contributions to health,

wellbeing and local economy.

And while funding is available for

construction and retrofitting, it is

not available for maintenance or

staffing; and while political credit

exists for exciting new open spaces,

it does not do so for their day-to-day

management. Poor or non-existent

place-keeping can lead to a waste of

resources due to the cost of future

regeneration when it is cheaper to

systematically maintain.

For place-keeping to become a

integral part of planning, design

and economic improvement at the

most fundamental level, the baton

must be carried by the politician

who has it in his/her power to

ensure it is given the same level of

importance within masterplanning

and regeneration as place-making.

And place-making needs to be

accorded the same gravity as

other dimensions of well planned

urban infrastructure. Economy and

prestige, and health and happiness

have their roots in, and benefit

from, well designed open spaces

sustainably cared for long term.

There is a political choice to be

made: safeguard open space

investments and their positive

effects or condemn them, their

surrounding communities and local

businesses through underfinancing.

MP4 analysed some of the many

good place-making and sustainable

place-keeping examples throughout

Europe which bring together public

and private stakeholders and create

strong, longlasting partnerships.

This process identified five themes

particularly pertinent to quality,

sustainable place-making and

place-keeping, namely: governance,

partnerships, finance, policy, and

evaluation. These are the catalysts

for enduring open spaces and

enriched neighbourhoods.

This document deals with Finance.

Its four sister documents each

discuss one of the following themes:

governance, partnerships, policy and

evaluation.

1.1 1.2 1.3

PLACE-KEEPING -

AN ISSUE THAT MATTERS WHY IS IT AN ISSUE FOR

POLITICIANS? THE FIVE THEMES

4. KEY FINDINGS AND

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

After analysing the practice of

place-making and place-keeping

around Northern Europe and

implementing innovative pilots, the

transnational MP4 partnership has

come to the following key findings

and policy recommendations on

partnership in place-keeping based

on practical experience;

Delivering place-keeping through

partnerships can bring many

benefits, but it may not be the

easiest option. Establishing

and maintaining a strong,

effective partnership with high

capacity that is flexible and able

to evolve to take advantage

of opportunities is a complex

process that requires long-term

commitment

Co-operation is an evolutionary

process, especially if it’s a new

experience for the stakeholders.

Not all countries or sectors have

experience of working in this

way and it takes time and effort

to develop a shared vision,

aims and goals. Stakeholders

need to be involved as early

as possible and treated as

equals, and responsibilities

need to be delegated to help

create a sense of ownership

and to build consensus. There

is an important role for a

trusted mediator or apolitical

organisation which can form

the link between government

organisations and other

stakeholders

The roles and responsibilities

of partners need to be clear

and agreed and formal, written

agreements can help to

clarify these. Many informal

partnerships do work well

if time is given to develop

trust and understanding

between partners. However, if

partners do not deliver on their

commitments there may be no

way to remedy the situation

Partnerships need to be flexible,

able to change over time as

new opportunities arise, partner

commitments or priorities

change and the needs for the

open space evolve. Continuity

however is very important

and this is a role that local

governments can provide

Community partners in particular

can lack capacity to deliver

effective place-keeping on their

own and need ongoing support

from local authorities or third

sector partners to build this

and to develop wider support

networks

The transfer of place-keeping

responsibilities from local

authorities to other partners

raises concerns over liabilities

and that the type and level

of management of a space

may change or deteriorate. In

general there is a reluctance

from community partners to

take on this responsibility. For

such transfers to be effective it

is important to ensure that the

size and type of space matches

the partnership’s capacity and is

one for which they have a sense

of ownership. Ongoing support

should be made available

Good communication between

partners, within a partner’s own

organisation, and with the users

of the open space is essential.

Getting the right information in

the right way to the right people

requires careful thought and

the use of a variety of media,

including an up-to-date website

to ensure that partnership

activities are accessible and

to promote engagement with a

wide range of stakeholders

When involving private sector

partners, there is a need not only

to build trust but to make clear

what the perceived benefits for

them may be.

Allotments, Craigmillar

Sheaf Valley Park, Shefeld

2120

FINANCE FINANCE

2. FINANCE - KEY ISSUES 3. EXPERIENCE FROM THE

MP4 PARTNERSHIP

Futher information:

Emmen Revisited

www.emmenrevisited.nl

Futher information:

BIDs and NIDs

www.urban-improvement-districts.de

Futher information:

Gothenburg

www.goteborg.se

Futher information:

Green Estate

www.greenestate.org.uk

In the MP4 context finance refers

to capital and revenue funding

of both place-making and place-

keeping, budgeting issues and

procedures, core nancing for

capital one-time investments

and additional long-term funding

from operational budgets for

management costs.

In practice place-making

investments are available from

different sources – commonly

from public budgets but

increasingly also from the third

sector (e.g. charities) and the

private sector (e.g. businesses).

Examples of public-private

investments in the open space

are described below. In practice

multiple funding is fairly common

for the creation or redevelopment

of open spaces – with all its

impacts on project management

and decision-making procedures

becoming more complex and

demanding. Regular public

budgets are usually the basis for

the place-keeping of open spaces,

although these budgets are no

longer sufficient. The result is

that place-keeping is commonly

reduced to basic cleaning and

minimum maintenance only to fulfil

mandatory safety regulations

on public ground. The diverse

qualities and potential impacts of

open spaces are often neglected,

and the deterioration of those

spaces is obvious in many places

around Europe.

It’s also obvious that countries

in the North Sea-Region have

different cultures regarding

funding. Countries from

continental Europe still have a

more state-centred approach and

focus more on public funding (e.g.

higher taxes or budget shifts),

meanwhile the Anglo-Saxon

countries focus more on the third

sector (e.g. trust and charities) and

private investments to co-finance

or even replace public funds.

A key problem regarding sufficient

funding for place-keeping is the

fact that budgets for long-term

management are customarily not

calculated at the beginning of

a design process as an integral

part of it. As a consequence open

spaces are quite regularly re-

designed or newly developed with

unsettled perspectives regarding

their maintenance and insufficient

budgets. Another problem is that

Local Authorities have restricted

possibilities to lever additional

funding for place-keeping apart

from other public sources, e.g.

from national or European funding

schemes that usually focus on

capital investments. The situation

is quite often even worse when

new place-making increases the

costs of place-keeping due to

different materials, plants or

additional spaces – although high

quality design could also reduce

costs for maintenance, if it’s well

planned in partnership with all

relevant stakeholders from the

beginning.

On local and regional level

competition between open

spaces can be found quite

often in practice. High-profile

developments in prominent

locations gain more political

support and attendance than

standard open spaces in average

neighbourhoods. If all these

spaces have to compete for

funding from the same limited

budgets, the very prominent

spaces are more likely to receive

the money due to higher political

interest and broader public

awareness.

A multiple funding strategy

for open spaces can lead to a

multiple stakeholder strategy

in the implementation and on-

going place-keeping. This might

complicate the decision-making

process due to intensified

needs for co-operation and

communication and might affect

the democratic accountability of

decisions, but a mix of sources

could enhance the responsibilities

of the several stakeholders for

place-keeping (‘You take care

of what you pay for’ = sense of

ownership). It is worth the effort

to choose the integrative way of

planning and this will probably be

the most effective strategy for

place-keeping in the long run.

3.23.1 3.3 3.4

EMMEN REVISITED

EMMEN, NL

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICTS (BIDs), DE CITY OF GOTHENBURG, SE GREEN ESTATE

SHEFFIELD, UK

Social enterprise doing business

Green Estate Ltd from Sheffield is a

social enterprise with a commercial

arm. It is an unconventional land

management company operating

across a spectrum of neighbourhood

renewal and landscape management

on mixed tenure housing estates.

The social arm focuses on the

place-keeping of existing parks

and open spaces and engages in

‘place-making’ when parks/green

spaces are being developed. To

reduce the former reliance on grant

funding, Green Estate has a number

of enterprises to generate income,

including landscape management,

grounds maintenance, green waste

recycling and composting, green

roof installation and the Sheffield

Manor Lodge Heritage Site. Green

Estate has a highly skilled team

of staff which includes landscape

architects, landscape managers,

qualified arboriculturalists and

Royal Horticultural Society-qualified

staff. Funding comes from a mixture

of public projects and commercial

projects, allowing Green Estate to

move from 100% grant funded in

2004 to 100% self-sustaining today.

Local businesses making a

difference.

Emmen Revisited (ER), a joint-

venture organisation between

Emmen Municipality and the Housing

Corporations operating within

the municipality since 1998, aims

to improve the social and living

environment in urban districts and

villages.

The ER regeneration project in

the village Barger Compascuum

involved local shopkeepers in the

redevelopment of the village centre.

Business people had influence on

the new design and invested private

money in the place-making, e.g. for

lighting, plants and seats in the

open space. Now implementation

is complete, they also now actively

support the ongoing place-keeping

together with residents and the

Municipality.

Hamburg, Germany: private

proprietors taking nancial

responsibility

The legislative model of BIDs allows

joint proprietor investments in

additional place-making and place-

keeping activities on public ground

‘on top’ of public services – with

a spatial focus on commercial

districts and city centres. In

Hamburg proprietors have already

invested 26 million Euros since

2005, of which 45% for place-making

and 20% for place-keeping.

The compulsory BID levy avoids free-

riders (‘No benefit without payment’)

and helps to convince proprietors

to become active in the area-based

initiative.

To date, a prerequisite legislation

for the creation of BIDs is in effect

only in the UK, parts of Germany

and as a model in the Netherlands.

In Hamburg the BID model was

transferred to residential areas

as Neighbourhood Improvement

Districts for the first time in Europe.

This could open new opportunities

for the physical development

of housing estates and similar

neighbourhoods.

Calculation of cost implications

As an integral part of planning

procedures, the Municipal Park

and Landscape Administration

from Gothenburg City Council is

calculating not only investments

for place-making but also cost

implications for place-keeping

from every proposed project and

plan. The estimated budget for

management is calculated at the

end of each year and (usually)

approved the year after. As a result

the responsible administration is

receiving additional money for new

open spaces to cover the raised

costs. This is a result of senior

officials and the politicians in the

Park and Landscape committee

arguing their case in order to

convince other politicians of the

long-term cost implications from

new or additional open spaces.

Barger Compascuum Village CentreDancing Towers, St Pauli, Hamburg Lövgärdet Manor Lodge, Shefeld

The following projects from the MP4 context demonstrate new approaches in

the funding of place-keeping activities across Northern Europe.

2322

POLICY

DOCUMENT 4

FINANCE

Open spaces are highly relevant

locally and citywide. They can

range from the small pocket-park

in a neighbourhood to a large

park of citywide or even regional

importance. They can be either

grey (squares and streetspace)

or green (parks), and can fulfil

multiple functions for social life:

cultural activities; biodiversity

and ecosystems; and business

environments.

They also have an economic value

for both public and private sectors

through individual and commercial

spending power and the proven

impact on surrounding property

values. So the role of place-

keeping (maintenance, care, joint

responsibility and ownership in the

broadest sense) within the long-

term safeguarding of open spaces

is not only important for cohesion

within local communities but can

create economic benefits as well.

Why must it be sustainable?

Because in economically difficult

times, place-keeping budgets are

the first to suffer, despite their

significant contributions to health,

wellbeing and local economy.

And while funding is available for

construction and retrofitting, it is

not available for maintenance or

staffing; and while political credit

exists for exciting new open spaces,

it does not do so for their day-to-day

management. Poor or non-existent

place-keeping can lead to a waste of

resources due to the cost of future

regeneration when it is cheaper to

systematically maintain.

For place-keeping to become a

integral part of planning, design

and economic improvement at the

most fundamental level, the baton

must be carried by the politician

who has it in his/her power to

ensure it is given the same level of

importance within masterplanning

and regeneration as place-making.

And place-making needs to be

accorded the same gravity as

other dimensions of well planned

urban infrastructure. Economy and

prestige, and health and happiness

have their roots in, and benefit

from, well designed open spaces

sustainably cared for long term.

There is a political choice to be

made: safeguard open space

investments and their positive

effects or condemn them, their

surrounding communities and local

businesses through underfinancing.

MP4 analysed some of the many

good place-making and sustainable

place-keeping examples throughout

Europe which bring together public

and private stakeholders and create

strong, longlasting partnerships.

This process identified five themes

particularly pertinent to quality,

sustainable place-making and

place-keeping, namely: governance,

partnerships, finance, policy, and

evaluation. These are the catalysts

for enduring open spaces and

enriched neighbourhoods.

This document deals with Policy.

Its four sister documents each

discuss one of the following themes:

governance, partnerships, finance

and evaluation.

1.1 1.2 1.3

PLACE-KEEPING -

AN ISSUE THAT MATTERS WHY IS IT AN ISSUE FOR

POLITICIANS? THE FIVE THEMES

4. KEY FINDINGS AND

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

After analysing the practice of

place-making and place-keeping

around Northern Europe and

implementing innovative open

space pilots in five partner cities

the transnational MP4 partnership

comes to the following key findings

and policy recommendations on

place-keeping finance based on

practical experience:

The direct and indirect

economic values and benefits

of open spaces need political

acknowledgement and public

awareness – as the other values

of open spaces

To safeguard investments in

open spaces a guaranteed

funding of long-term

management is essential

– otherwise the capital

investment will be in vain sooner

or later

Place-keeping levels should

be defined by the responsible

public authorities (from standard

to advanced) with respective

cost-implications to give a

transparent and comprehensible

overview of the reality in

practice for all stakeholders

involved

A careful cost-benefit analysis

should be carried out at the

beginning of a place-making

process to calculate the running

costs of the new design and the

potential economic, social and

environmental benefits of the

new open space if it’s well-kept.

Although the multiple benefits

of open spaces are difficult to

be measured they should be

recognised and valued at least

Ways in which place-making can

reduce place-keeping efforts

and costs should be identified

without compromising the

quality and benefits that a high

quality design can bring. Quality

design doesn’t have to lead

to increasing running costs in

general

Generated income from open

spaces (e.g. from commercial

uses or cultural events) should

be spent on these spaces again,

e.g. in form of a dedicated

revolving budget for citywide

open spaces in general or for a

specific space

Private investments for

additional activities ‘on

top’ of public activities and

services should be supported

with political decisions and

prerequisite legislation

where necessary, as is the

Lövgärdet

Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh

Vardens Park, Copenhagen

Barger Compascuum

BID legislation in Germany,

Netherlands and UK to support

private initiatives

Mix-funding from different public

sources needs consistent

and simplified regulations for

spending to support its use and

to allow public administrations

to be creative and flexible

2524

POLICY POLICY

2. POLICY - KEY ISSUES 3. EXPERIENCE FROM THE

MP4 PARTNERSHIP

Futher information:

Gothenburg

www.goteborg.se

Futher information:

Green Estate

www.greenestate.org.uk

Futher information:

Emmen Revisited

www.emmenrevisited.nl

Eriksbo

Firth Park, Shefeld

Manor Lodge, Shefeld

Barger Compascuum

Sound policies for place-keeping

comprise a set of decisions

concerning place-keeping goals and

the means of achieving them within

a situation, where these decisions

should, in principle, be realistic to

implement.

The demands for sound place-

keeping policies are born out of the

necessity to maintain the long-

term value of capital investments

and create vital and healthy open

places. Sound place-keeping policy

outputs and outcomes contribute

to attractive, competitive, and

sustainable communities.

Place-keeping policies can

range from international to local

level, or even be specific to an

organisation. The content of

place-keeping policies varies

according to the needs and

possibilities in a specic situation.

Examples include agreements

with a citizen or associations

regarding maintaining public owned

space in a neighbourhood; setup

of permanent or ad hoc local

committees that support decision-

making and formulation of goals;

involvement of volunteers; adoption

of sustainable development as a

mode of working; new principles for

engagement and partnerships; on

strategies and for agreements on

future developments; or law-backed

arrangements that formally transfer

rights to initiate improvements in

public space from city authorities

to the private sector. Policies are

often formalised and embedded in

written documents, but may also be

more loosely structured as in norms

and routines. A place-keeping policy

can also be assembled by drawing

on other EU, national, city-level or

local strategies and policies in

support of particular place-keeping

goals.

It is not difficult to draft innovative

policy goals and content. The key

issues concern decision-making and

how the means for implementation

are facilitated in a realistic way

within a particular situation.

Traditional authority-led policies

and/or place-making without

consideration for place-keeping

has proved less effective than

place-keeping based on working

partnerships with local residents and

stakeholders. New cross-cutting

policy content must be formulated

and implemented through new

integrative policy processes, that

balances top-down and bottom-up

approaches in a context sensitive

manner.

Positive outcomes through strong

policies

The city of Gothenburg, Sweden,

has strong, flexible and consistent

city-wide policies for managing

and developing its parks and open

spaces. Major parts of the policy

setup for place-keeping is the

strategic park and open space

programme, flexible maintenance

operations, and a public partnership

programme for addressing cross-

cutting place-keeping issues. A

sound place-keeping policy is

emerging at the nexus between

the various parts. The setup

has ensured that parks and open

spaces are coherently managed and

developed throughout Gothenburg

and in accordance with the needs

of the citizens in 20 city districts.

Lövgärdet is a social housing

area at the urban fringe where

municipally owned open spaces

have been regenerated in line

with the city-wide policies and

with investment money from the

MP4 project. As a result, the open

spaces in Lövgärdet offer a broad

variety of recreational experiences

of high value that are managed by

both housing companies and the

City of Gothenburg.

Delivering national aims at a local

level

The Green Estate is a social

enterprise and a landscape

consultancy company operating

in the Sheffield area, UK which

concentrates its efforts on

transformation and management

of open spaces. The company was

initially set up as a part of a larger

regeneration programme and as

such forms an example of how an

organisation has emerged from

the delivery of a national policy.

However, the company has a mission

of its own and employs a set of

policies to drive a place-keeping

agenda forward. The policies are

established by embedding proven

best practices in its operations.

This includes adoption of city-

wide plans within Sheffield City

Council, biodiversity action plans,

procurement and buying policies,

and formal and informal community

engagement amongst others.

The company is an example of

how national, city-wide, local,

and organisational policies are

implemented and translated into

practice.

Resident-friendly policy

The city of Emmen, in the

Netherlands, has together with a

range of housing corporations set

up a joint venture – Emmen Revisited

– that aims to improve the social

and living environment in urban

districts within the municipality

of Emmen. Emmen Revisited

seeks to establish collaboration

among the municipality’s many

departments, housing corporations,

and local resident groups and acts

as a facilitator in regeneration

programmes. The collaboration

with residents is organised at

various levels of engagement where

platforms for dialogue and decision-

making are established. The policy

approach of Emmen Revisited

is characterised as facilitating,

democratic and non-hierarchical. In

addition, the Municipality of Emmen

has adopted a supportive policy

whereby the public land is to become

the joint responsibility of the local

authority and the citizens.

The following projects from the MP4 context provide examples of various place-keeping policies and

demonstrate how place-keeping policies can be implemented successfully within particular contexts.

3.1 3.2 3.3

LÖVGÄRDET AND ERIKSBO,

CITY of GOTHENBURG, SE GREEN ESTATE,

SHEFFIELD, UK EMMEN REVISITED,

EMMEN, NL

Sound decision-making for place-

keeping policies involves new

forms of governance, including

engagement, involvement and

partnerships with actors and

stakeholders across traditional

public and private boundaries. A

key challenge is to induce the

necessary political, economic

and cultural support and change

that can integrate concerns for

place-keeping as a vital part of

place-making and urban planning in

general.

In practice place-keeping policies

are agreed upon and implemented

through processes that involve

various arrangements of financial

and economic incentives;

involvement, negotiations and

agreements; partnerships, networks

and collaborations; and valuation

and evaluation. Good and realistic

policies are based on a broad

stakeholder support, legitimised

by involvement in decision-making

processes, and specify the tools and

methods that can secure the long

term perspective of good place-

keeping practices.

2726

EVALUATION

POLICY

DOCUMENT 5

POLICY

Open spaces are highly relevant

locally and citywide. They can

range from the small pocket-park

in a neighbourhood to a large

park of citywide or even regional

importance. They can be either

grey (squares and streetspace)

or green (parks), and can fulfil

multiple functions for social life:

cultural activities; biodiversity

and ecosystems; and business

environments.

They also have an economic value

for both public and private sectors

through individual and commercial

spending power and the proven

impact on surrounding property

values. So the role of place-

keeping (maintenance, care, joint

responsibility and ownership in the

broadest sense) within the long-

term safeguarding of open spaces

is not only important for cohesion

within local communities but can

create economic benefits as well.

Why must it be sustainable?

Because in economically difficult

times, place-keeping budgets are

the first to suffer, despite their

significant contributions to health,

wellbeing and local economy.

And while funding is available for

construction and retrofitting, it is

not available for maintenance or

staffing; and while political credit

exists for exciting new open spaces,

it does not do so for their day-to-day

management. Poor or non-existent

place-keeping can lead to a waste of

resources due to the cost of future

regeneration when it is cheaper to

systematically maintain.

For place-keeping to become a

integral part of planning, design

and economic improvement at the

most fundamental level, the baton

must be carried by the politician

who has it in his/her power to

ensure it is given the same level of

importance within masterplanning

and regeneration as place-making.

And place-making needs to be

accorded the same gravity as

other dimensions of well planned

urban infrastructure. Economy and

prestige, and health and happiness

have their roots in, and benefit

from, well designed open spaces

sustainably cared for long term.

There is a political choice to be

made: safeguard open space

investments and their positive

effects or condemn them, their

surrounding communities and local

businesses through underfinancing.

MP4 analysed some of the many

good place-making and sustainable

place-keeping examples throughout

Europe which bring together public

and private stakeholders and create

strong, longlasting partnerships.

This process identified five themes

particularly pertinent to quality,

sustainable place-making and

place-keeping, namely: governance,

partnerships, finance, policy, and

evaluation. These are the catalysts

for enduring open spaces and

enriched neighbourhoods.

This document deals with Evaluation.

Its four sister documents each

discuss one of the following themes:

governance, partnerships, finance

and policy.

1.1 1.2 1.3

PLACE-KEEPING -

AN ISSUE THAT MATTERS WHY IS IT AN ISSUE FOR

POLITICIANS? THE FIVE THEMES

4. KEY FINDINGS AND

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

After analysing the practice of

place-making and place-keeping

around Northern Europe and

implementing innovative pilots in

five partner cities the transnational

MP4 partnership comes to the

following key finding and policy

recommendations on place-

keeping policies based on practical

experience:

The effects of poor place-

keeping should be considered;

place-making should not take

place without the setup of a

sound place-keeping policy

No coherent formal agenda or

policy framework backed by laws

or regulations for place-keeping

is in place today in the NSR.

However, at the formal level,

partial approaches exist, such

as the Business Improvement

District (BID) Laws in Germany

that have been implemented

at lower administrative levels

(federal level)

Today, place-keeping policies

are often an assembly of other

EU, national, city and local

policies that are transformed

into practice for specific parks

and open spaces. Current

policies are not supporting

place-keeping enough. This

needs to be changed to make

place-keeping an integral part of

place-making

Place-keeping involves cross-

cutting issues that need to

be addressed by inclusive

decision-making and the setup

of decentralised governance

structures

Traditional authority-led place-

keeping policies are likely to

be ineffective due to lack of

appropriate arrangements for

engagement, partnerships,

finance, or evaluation. These

are critical factors for setting

up successful policies that go

beyond traditional public and

private boundaries

Oostkampus Park

Emmen

New cross-cutting policy

content must be formulated

and implemented through

ongoing policy processes that

require intra- and inter-agency

collaboration. Place-keeping

policies should enable bottom

up processes in place-making

and place-keeping. This would

secure crucial local engagement

and the inclusion of valuable

information in the place-

keeping process. It is highly

recommended that policymakers

in the EU at all levels develop

and implement coherent place-

keeping policies in support of

sound long term management of

public and private open spaces

2928

EVALUATION EVALUATION

2. EVALUATION - KEY ISSUES 3. EXPERIENCE FROM THE

MP4 PARTNERSHIP

Lövgärdet

Vardens Park, Copenhagen

HafenCity Hamburg

Emmen Revisited

Evaluation is an assessment

based on the systematic collection

and analysis of data, whether

quantitative or qualitative, in order

to aid decision-making. Evaluation

is not undertaken as an academic

exercise for its own purpose but

is a tool to improve processes and

results, and in effect to improve

public spending or save public

money. The prerequisites for

evaluation and monitoring include an

evaluation strategy, methodology,

instruments, and resources.

In the context of MP4, evaluation

of place-keeping refers to both

the monitoring of the process and

retrospective evaluation of the

results on the ground. Monitoring

the process of place-keeping

involves investigating issues such

as: how are place-keeping activities

developed? Who makes important

decisions? Is it clear who has what

role and responsibility for? Are

decision-makers accountable? Are

all potential participants involved?

The evaluation of the results of

place-keeping, in turn, involves

investigating whether the place is

well-maintained and well-used.

In practice, people often evaluate

open spaces and their maintenance

intuitively, with this evaluation

potentially influencing business

location decisions, property prices

and the overall image of a place, for

example in the media. This can have

social and economic consequences

for an area, and may have political

signicance.

Appropriate measurement of place-

keeping, however, is difficult. Many

indicators measure the quality

of open space, but not the place-

keeping itself. They also often

only measure the results of place-

keeping rather than the process.

And there is the question of how one

measures the less tangible aspects

of place-keeping such as local sense

of identity and wellbeing. Bearing

this in mind, it needs to be said that

a number of indicators are widely

used in measuring the quality of

Sociotop mapping; innovations in

social mapping

Lövgärdet and Eriksbo are two

housing estates from the 1960s

and 1970s with under-used

adjacent nature areas (lake and

green spaces). They are mostly

occupied by a deprived community

and the physical environment

needs to be renewed. The MP4

pilot project aimed to do so in a

sustainable manner, encouraging

socio-economic growth and long-

term improvements to increase

the attractiveness of open space.

New evaluation tools were used in

the planning of the areas, including

the Gothenburg Sociotope map

as background information which

was used in the overall analysis

of the park’s situation within the

city. The methods used show user

preferences in the areas as well

as qualities and weaknesses in the

green structure. The information is

used to choose the most profitable

places for investments. It also

presents ideas about how to direct

the development of these places.

Mapping community capacity

The Friends of Firth Park is a

voluntary residents’ organisation

with an interest in the local

park. The group has worked in

collaboration with Sheffield City

Council for many years, and has

been fully involved in the decision-

making around the redevelopment

of a derelict pond in the park to

provide a multipurpose area. In

order to evaluate the degree to

which community organisations

such as the Friends of Firth Park

can continue to be involved in times

of economic and political flux,

and to aid evolution of roles and

responsibilities, MP4 developed

a suite of community capacity

mapping methodologies. Six factors

of capacity were identified which

affect the community partner’s

ability to contribute to place-

keeping. These are:

capital

commitment

skills base

motivation

communication and

political influence.

Through a focussed investigation

carried out in partnership with

the Friends, Sheffield City Council

and other stakeholders, the

associated importance of network

connections was also revealed.

Recommendations generated by

this work are now being utilised by

Friends groups to guide and sustain

their future development, and by

council partners to understand how

best to target resources to support

this.

Village-wide evaluation

Emmen Revisited (ER), a joint-

venture organisation between

Emmen Municipality and the Housing

Corporations operating within

the municipality since 1998, aims

to improve the social and living

environment in urban districts and

villages. In the small village of

Barger Compascuum, ER worked

with local community in a structured

approach to establishing community

representative bodies which

were involved in decisions around

the design of the redeveloped

village centre pedestrian-friendly

shared space. The success in the

place-making stage has led on to

continuing collaboration between

the community representative body

and ER in establishing joint place-

keeping. Evaluation of place-making

was carried out jointly by specialists

and residents at several points

during the process. Evaluation will

take place again with the same

group, after the project site has

been used for several months. In the

meetings between the community

representative body and ER the

process to establish appropriate

place-keeping arrangements

is continuously monitored and

evaluated through discussion.

The following projects from the MP4 context demonstrate new approaches in the evaluation of

place-keeping activities across Northern Europe.

3.1 3.2 3.3

LÖVGÄRDET AND ERIKSBO,

CITY of GOTHENBURG, SE FRIENDS OF FIRTH PARK

SHEFFIELD, UK EMMEN REVISITED

EMMEN, NL

Futher information:

Gothenburg

www.goteborg.se

Futher information:

Friends of Firth Park

www.sheffield.gov.uk

Futher information:

Emmen Revisited

www.emmenrevisited.nl

open and green spaces, and can be

used in the measurement of place-

keeping (as process and as product).

These include: awards (e.g. the Green

Flag Award in the UK); competitions;

user satisfaction surveys; surveys

of public space use; community

involvement; evaluation of

procurement and contracting;

value for money; cost-benefit

analysis; staff retention and skills

development; and sustainability

indicators.

Evaluation can be based on objective

or subjective measurements.

Objective measurements tend to

be easier to determine, but may

be limited in the information they

provide, particularly in relation to

the less tangible aspects of place-

keeping. The use of subjective

measurements raises the issue of

whose views should be considered.

A key decision is whether to rely

on expert views or user views, or a

combination of both.

Last but not least, evaluation can be

ongoing or a one-off measurement.

In addition, the latter can be done

during the process or after it has

been completed (ex-post). Ex-post

evaluation is possible, and has its

value, for place-making activities.

But place-keeping, by its very nature,

is an ongoing activity, so while

evaluation of place-keeping will

usually be done during the process,

there is greater scope for it to be an

ongoing activity too.

3130

EVALUATION

4. KEY FINDINGS AND

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

After analysing the practice of

place-making and place-keeping

around Northern Europe and

implementing innovative pilots in

five partner cities, the transnational

MP4 partnership has come to the

following key findings and policy

recommendations on the evaluation

of place-keeping based on practical

experience:

Monitoring and evaluation can

be an expensive activity, often

taking lower priority in relation

to actual capital investments

and other budget items.

However, its importance in

decision-making and the scope

for reducing future costs as

a result from lessons arising

from evaluation needs to be

acknowledged, and evaluation

needs to be budgeted for at the

beginning

In place-keeping of open spaces

evaluation can be used to:

promote the space to users;

assist internal determination

of priorities for action; and

ensure value for money. In

addition to generating useful

information for decision-making,

evaluation of place-keeping

can also engender community

commitment if it is carried out

jointly with local residents on a

regular basis

The approaches used should

depend on what the evaluation

is for. It is usually fundamental

to have a baseline, and a

monitoring and evaluation

plan, both of which should be

considered from the beginning.

They should identify what is

going to be monitored and

evaluated. Only relevant

indicators should be employed

in order to optimize efforts and

investments. Indicators need

to be integrated if a meaningful

picture is to be achieved

Robust indicators are needed to

convince people that long-term

investment is worthwhile

Evaluating economic, health

and wellbeing benefits of

place-keeping is important but

difficult. A distinction needs

to be made between direct and

indirect benefits and impacts

Involving users such

as voluntary residents’

associations can provide

on-the-ground monitoring

of open spaces for a limited

cost and can help tap into

relevant personal and cultural

beliefs. Extra attention and

support is needed to ensure the

qualitative level and consistency

between the various monitoring

programmes

Qualitative evaluation can often

be less highly regarded by public

authorities, but using people’s

stories (e.g. video interviews)

to demonstrate social capital

generated by the space can be

a powerful tool in proving to

authorities that the project has

produced real benefits

While baselines are important to

measure against, they are not

always directly applicable, e.g. in

cases where the transformation

of the space and of its users

is substantial, or where the

population may be transient

If frequent or ongoing evaluation

involving residents is set up,

appropriate mechanisms or

intervals need to be found to

ensure that too much detailed

input does not conflict with

project development and

delivery

The process should be evaluated

as well as the end results, in

order to identify how to improve

the process in future

Stakeholders may see

evaluation as potentially

threatening, and this needs to

be considered when designing

the monitoring and evaluation

process in order to avoid it

interfering with the building of

trust

Veenpark, Barger Compascuum

CONCLUSIONS

Funded by the Interreg IVb North

Sea Region Programme, MP4

stands for Making Places

Profitable, Private and Public Spaces.

MP4 followed on from the project

Creating a Setting for Investment

(CSI), also funded by the Interreg

IVb North Sea Region Programme

and led by South Yorkshire

Forest Partnership. Whereas CSI

concentrated on the link between

landscape quality and economic

investment decisions, and the

relationships between environmental

quality and land values, MP4

focussed on the next logical step

of ensuring the continuation of

those long-term economic benefits

through promoting the importance

of place-keeping. Derived from the

term ‘place-making’ - a term widely

used by architects, town planners

and urban designers to describe

the process of creating attractive

squares, parks, streets, and

waterfronts – MP4 remoulded the

phrase into ‘place-keeping’, meaning

sustainable long-term stewardship

of local open spaces. This is an

aspect of regeneration often

overlooked or ignored by decision

makers and funding streams,

frequently resulting in wasted

investment.

MP4 addressed the key challenge

facing communities throughout

the North Sea Region (NSR) to

offer a high quality of life, in order

to attract skilled employees in

the global knowledge economy.

This is a concern shared by areas

in economic decline and in post-

industrial communities, where

the threat of market-failure is

most acutely felt – even more so

now than ever. Key EU policies

supporting the Lisbon/Gothenburg

process confirm the importance

of providing attractive investment

locations. Transnational challenges

presented in demographic change,

patterns of migration caused by

urban expansion and meeting the

needs of migrant population are all

factors that influence the way in

which public space is planned and

managed. These are core themes

for Europe – and the evidence is

that the challenge to build more

sustainable communities needs to

remain central in future programmes

in order to help secure territorial

cohesion.

As well as providing the right mix

of physical development (place-

making), delivering sustainable

communities demands a long-term

commitment to maintain high-

quality places and to manage

the right balance of legitimate

activities. The EU Structural and

Cohesion Funds programmes have

made great progress with the

‘building’ regeneration agenda,

and many Interreg projects have

achieved considerable success

in this respect by embedding

innovations into improved policies

and strategies. Less satisfactory

progress, however, is being made to

sustain those long-term benefits of

regeneration.

Good practice in open space

maintenance by public and private

partnerships remains rare. MP4 has

worked towards highlighting the

importance of place-keeping, and

its delivery in partnership. Future

cohesion programmes could help to

address this by building in long-term

management requirements into the

funding application forms for such

schemes as ERDF and ESF. A clear

plan for place-keeping should then

become a pre-requisite for support

by the EU, as well as national,

regional and local funding bodies.

Thus MP4 combined efforts to solve

the problem that too much emphasis

is being placed on ‘creation’ rather

than long-term upkeep. This is a

concern felt transnationally, at

every level and across all sectors.

In practice, open space managers

increasingly recognise the danger

of cities constantly revisiting

and ‘improving’ previous projects,

which is neither environmentally or

economically sustainable.

This problem is compounded by the

fact that many local authorities and

public agencies face a constant

struggle to obtain sufficient

resources for maintenance, with

budgets being directed towards high

profile and new designs instead.

A key challenge is to make the

most efficient use of the available

resources, through co-operation

between different sectors towards

shared goals.

MP4 has worked towards providing

solutions at a transnational level to

deliver the impacts of investment

across national borders, allowing

lessons learnt in one member state

to be applied throughout the NSR.

The challenge is of such a magnitude

that it required the critical mass

of action that only transnational

co-operation such as that within

MP4 can deliver. The partners in

Making Places Profitable worked

hard together to find strategies

to upgrade public and private open

spaces AND to provide for their long-

term maintenance.

Thus, MP4 aimed to demonstrate

how delivering and caring for open

space improvements in partnership

with local people and businesses

offers positive socio-economic

benefits, and how those benefits

can be sustainably maintained in

the long run. Now more than ever,

this issue is increasingly pertinent

as maintenance of open space falls

prey to swingeing budget cuts and

austerity measures.

MP4 has successfully promoted

innovative partnership approaches

involving private enterprises,

communities and government,

illustrating and disseminating

best practice in place-keeping

transnationally through its

demonstration sites across

the NSR. Through co-operation

across borders, the project has

demonstrated how socio-economic

growth can be both stimulated and

maintained. MP4 has shown that the

most sustainable and successful

projects are those where place-

keeping was considered at the

masterplanning stage, in advance

of design and implementation of

projects.

Be one of the innovative, forward

thinking towns and cities that sees

and understands the importance of

place-keeping, prepared to make it a

part of its strategic approach. Read

MP4’s final report, and please sign

up to the Charter!

3332

The work of MP4 will not stop

at the Final Conference and

the culmination of the project.

As with all good research, MP4

raised as many questions as it did

answers. Across the North Sea

Region (NSR) vacant and derelict

sites pose an increasingly urgent

threat to territorial cohesion and

economic competitiveness. This

deters investment in declining areas,

threatening parity and undermining

economic equity between NSR

regions. Reasons may include:

market failure; inflexible planning

policies; shrinking populations; or

the vested interests of speculative

investors who sit on land-banks of

empty sites until land values rise.

With recent economic developments,

this issue is unlikely to disappear or

resolve itself any time soon. Policy

responses to vacant sites remain

piecemeal and unco-ordinated,

and no structure exists to enable

innovative solutions to be shared

transnationally. The result is

unattractive, high-profile and wasted

sites that deter investment and

undermine NSR regions.

Thus the main aim of our new NSR

project, Stimulating Enterprising

Environments for Development and

Sustainability (SEEDS) is to promote

the reuse of vacant sites, by working

transnationally to implement

innovative spatial planning policy

instruments, and by stimulating

regeneration and sustainability

across NSR to create thriving

locations in which to live, work and

invest.

SEEDS is looking to exert a far-

reaching and durable legacy

by delivering improved and co-

ordinated planning policy. It will

deliver shared strategies covering

key substantive issues in land-use,

as well as addressing cross-cutting

concerns, ensuring and proving

transferability of its solutions.

SEEDS will also deliver an exciting,

advanced and transnational form of

cooperative innovation. Abandoned

land’s serious negative impacts on

growth and cohesion across NSR will

be tackled by cultivating innovative

frameworks and instruments, and

dispersing them like seeds across

the North Sea to stimulate more

rapid progress.

The project will help fulfil ambitions

for sustainable jobs and growth by

restructuring services and amenities

that will be delivered in partnership

with SMEs and social enterprise. The

long-term legacy will be a pan-NSR

Spatial Planning Forum which will

lobby for new co-ordinated spatial

planning policies that have been

adapted and proven through a broad

range of demonstration pilot sites

across the NSR. This will underpin

an important SEEDS result; a new

Charter for Reuse & Regeneration,

with a strong mandate from

stakeholders to effect coordination

across Member States. Beyond the

project’s life, the forum will continue

to lobby for policy development,

new frameworks and fiscal

instruments. Another important

result involves skills development

opportunities for citizens, provided

through transnationally designed

workshops and training. This will

provide citizens with the tools to

use vacant land, reducing their own

worklessness and dependency, and

delivering the economic impulse

needed in deprived areas.

If you would like to be updated

on SEEDS’ progress, or become

involved, please contact Sara

Parratt-Halbert at

sara.parratt-halbert@syforest.co.uk

or team@syforest.co.uk.

MP4 - NEXT STEPS

PLACE-KEEPING CHARTER

Promote partnership working to

facilitate place-keeping by:

Involving all sectors (public,

private, community and third

sector) to make best use of our

individual capacities and skills

Welcoming private partners

as valued contributors to the

development of place-keeping

Developing local and area-based

approaches ensuring both local

knowledge and commitment are

visible and valued

Involving partners from the

start of place-keeping decision

making processes

Agreeing realistic goals and

time scales with partners

to avoid raising unrealistic

expectations

Ensuring place-keeping has

a voice and advocate at a

strategic political level

Encourage the long-term use of

spaces as a part of place-keeping

by:

Supporting and encouraging

community ownership of spaces

through place-based events and

activities

Promoting local spaces to

our schools, health centres,

community groups and other

organisations whose activities

and programmes could benefit

from greater use of open

spaces

We are committed through the Charter to promoting and developing place-keeping, where we understand place-

keeping to be defined as:

“The long-term management of places, which ensures that social, environmental and economic quality and

benets that a place brings, can be enjoyed now and by future generations.”

By adopting the Charter we seek to work with our place-keeping partners to retain and enhance high-quality,

sustainable places, which are valued by users who want to visit them again and again.

This means we will:

Developing patterns of annual

and long-term open space

community use, through

activities such as workshops,

festivals, gatherings,

celebrations, meetings,

presentations, exercise

programmes and play groups

etc

Sharing place-keeping best

practice and outcomes with

other groups, cities, regions,

nationally and internationally

Understanding that each space

and community is different

and valuing the diversity in use

of space - thereby giving our

communities a greater sense of

belonging and spaces a lasting

local identity

Increase awareness of place-

keeping by:

Linking together with those

working in different sectors

(health, education, environment,

social care, policing etc.)

to identify and achieve our

compatible aims, share skills

and agree areas of mutually

beneficial support

Actively promoting our place-

keeping activities and sharing

skills with one another in an

open and transparent manner

Raising community awareness

of place-keeping at a local scale

and how we as individuals and

community groups may become

involved

Simplifying communication

channels, agreeing contact

points and persons for

place-keeping within our own

organisations

Putting pressure on funding

bodies to provide grants for

revenue funding (place-keeping)

not just capital (place-making)

Encourage development of

innovative place-keeping practice

by:

Recognising the added value

that different groups bring to

management and maintenance

of our open spaces and being

flexible in our approach

Taking a long-term, responsive

and locally appropriate approach

to design, management and

maintenance as community

ownership and use of spaces

develops

Providing expert, professional

facilitation to ensure all

stakeholder groups (regardless

of sector) are properly

supported to develop and

sustain place-keeping skills

Ensuring the design and

materials used enable facilitate

sustainable management and

maintenance through focus on

using local materials, knowledge

and skills

Considering place-keeping

before place-making when

producing master-plans

(master-keeping) to enhance the

likelihood of sustainable long

term care

Manor Park

3534

For more information on what we do, please visit: www.mp4-interreg.eu

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership

Sheffield City Council, UK

E: team@syforest.co.uk

T: +44 (0)114 257 1199

Sara Parratt-Halbert

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership

E: sara.parratt-halbert@syforest.co.uk

T: +44 (0)114 257 1199

Tom Wild

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership

E: tom.wild@syforest.co.uk

T: +44 (0)114 257 1199

Alice Mathers

University of Sheffield

E: a.mathers@sheffield.ac.uk

T: +44 (0)114 222 7126

Pieter Vercammen

Vlaamse Landmaatschappij

E: pieter.vercammen@vlm.be

T: +32 (0)5045 8166

Stefan Kreutz

HafenCity Universität Hamburg

E: stefan.kreutz@hcu-hamburg.de

T: +49 (0)40 42827 4545

Ulrich Schenck

Lawaetz Foundation, Hamburg

E: schenck@lawaetz.de

T: +49 (0)40 3999 3656

Wobbe Katoen

Gemeente Emmen

E: w.katoen@emmen.nl

T: +31 (0)65249 0221

Wietse Hermanns

Gemeente Emmen

E: info@hermannsconsultancy.com

T: +31 (0)26379 3872

Helen Svenstam

Göteborg Stad

E: helen.svenstam@ponf.goteborg.se

T: +46 (0)31 65 5787

Harry Smith

Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

E: H.C.Smith@hw.ac.uk

T: +44 (0)131 451 4639

Christian Kjøller

University of Copenhagen

E: cpk@life.ku.dk

T: +45 (0)353 1796

CONTACTS

Disclaimer

The views presented in this report are those of the authors and cannot be taken as indicative in any way of the

position of the partners in the MP4 project or of funders including the Interreg IVB North Sea Region programme.

This document has been prepared solely as guidance for those involved in open space planning, development and

maintenance within the North Sea Region. South Yorkshire Forest Partnership/Sheffield City Council accepts no

responsibility or liability and shall not be liable for or in connection with any use that is made of this document

(whether by a third party or otherwise) other than the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and

prepared. No individual may be held personally liable. Individuals or organisations acting upon the contents of

this document may not hold any individual personally liable in contract, tort or breach of statutory duty (including

negligence). South Yorkshire Forest Partnership is a carbon neutral organisation and makes every attempt to

ensure that carbon emissions from its activities are offset through its annual programme of tree planting.

For more information on what we do, please visit: www.mp4-interreg.eu

Published by:

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership

Floor 5

Howden House

Union Street

Sheffield S2 2SH

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.

MP4 FINAL REPORT Making Places Profitable, Private and Public Spaces

Recommended publications

Procesos políticos en la empresa

Public Space and Private Places within the City

The Effect of Bidding Information in Ascending Auctions

From Private Places to Public Spaces