Joe Holyoak News Blog

  It was the late Jane Jacobs who first awoke my interest, in the 1960s, in the ordinary things that ordinary people do in ordinary streets, and made me realise that these were important, and that they could and should be a source for the decisions that designers make about public space. Since then there have been others who have also excited my interest, and given me principles, standards and methods to use; notably William Whyte, Jan Gehl, Richard Sennett.  What the work of these writers collectively represents to me is the powerful idea of the urban street as the living room of the citizen, where social and political life takes place, a place of free encounter governed by democratic principles. The old Hanseatic city slogan Stadt luft macht frei expresses a similar ideal – the freedom of the city street. But this democratic ideal is constantly under attack. The private sector has continued to acquire more of the public realm and privatise it, often with the positive support of the municipality, keen to divest itself of expensive responsibilities. Privatisation is augmented by the formation of Business Improvement Districts, where the private business sector gains more control over public space, and can manage it in the interests of retail and commerce. In addition, our towns and cities have the greatest concentration of CCTV cameras in the world, with unknown and invisible authorities watching us through 4.2 million cameras. Now the integrity of the space of the res publica is under threat from a new direction. Middlesbrough Council has given the power of speech to nine of its 160 cameras. Council officials can give verbal instructions and reprimands through loudspeakers to anyone in the street whom they suspect of antisocial behaviour. Already one woman has received an apology after having been publicly reprimanded, mistakenly, for dropping litter. The Home Secretary, John Reid, foolishly believes that this Orwellian misuse of authority is “interactive”, and is proposing extending it to Derby, Norwich and Southwark.  I think we should be very worried by this latest expression of illiberal politics, which brings reality frighteningly close to the fictional fascism of Airstrip One in 1984. But beyond the politics, I also think that as urban designers we should be concerned about the consequences of this innovation for the quality of the public realm. CCTV cameras, for all their ubiquity, are rarely registered by our senses. They may be sinister, but they are discreet and do their work quietly. Our streets are already loud with uninvited music from shops and passing cars. Now we are to be threatened by voices of faceless authority booming out of loudspeakers. It matters not whether the instruction to behave is directed at us or another; we all suffer from the noise and the intrusion, and the inevitable sense of civic diminishment, of being mere proles under the direction of the Outer Party.   In Birmingham recently we have had a similar infringement of the integrity of public space, also promoted and defended by the City Council. While the Town Hall was wrapped in scaffolding for its renovation, a big TV screen was placed next to it on

. One could turn one’s back on it, but the noise was inescapable, rendering the square an intolerable place to stay. It had temporary planning permission for the duration of the renovation. Now the scaffolding is down, but despite opposition the Council wants to extend the planning approval, even though the screen is an ugly visual intrusion next to the Grade I listed building. I wrote in UD100 about the delight of peace and quiet in the city. Some hope of that!   

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm and is filed under Endpieces. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.