Back to index of Nerve 24 - Summer 2014

Questioning the Privatisation of Public Space

Nerve opens a debate about how our common land is used

Jean Grant, Val Walsh and John Daly

Liverpool history from its beginning is one of privatisation of public assets. In 1208 King John created Liverpool with an income, so that it could be managed by a council of its residents, independent of its neighbouring Lords. King Henry III, needing money, forgot the contract and sold the town to the highest bidder, so the income necessary to maintain the town was forfeited to the new owner and the town could not flourish. It took several hundred years and the Civil War to give the townspeople the courage to argue and win their rights back again.

What does 'public' mean in this context?
Dictionary definitions indicate the word's Latin roots (poplicas, populous): maintained at the expense of, serving, or for the use of a community (e.g. a library or park); and open and accessible for all, the people as a whole. So 'held in common' may be a more meaningful term.

Do we (still) have identifiable public spaces? For instance, is there a difference between Sefton Park and Chavasse Park in Liverpool 1?
At a time of great wealth in the City, Sefton Park was originally established on land bought by the City Council, which put the project out to competition and commissioned a French landscape designer to establish the site as a park for the people, with income-generating houses around the perimeter. The smaller Princes Park, the first park to have public access (but which was not publicly commissioned), was also ringed by big houses, designed to cover the costs of the maintenance of the park. After the 1914/1918 war, these households could no longer afford to cover these costs, and the park was given to the City Council to own and maintain.
Parts of this park are now being sold off.
Glendale now manages every park across Liverpool. So does this put the parks virtually into private hands?
As for Chavasse Park, the public don't have a 'legal' right to walk through it, or anywhere else in Liverpool 1, because the area belongs to the Duke of Westminster's Grosvenor group and private businesses. But have some of threats to our free movement here been exaggerated? There was a fear that Liverpool 1 would have heavy handed private security keeping out undesirables, but you don't get this sense when you walk through it.

Is common right similar, different or more powerful than public ownership?
Certainly, the understanding of community ownership of our assets is not understood by the Council. Maybe this is because the residents have little financial credibility compared to, for instance, the level of discussion in Curtiba (Brazil), where residents have control of at least 30% of the budget, via what is called 'participatory budgeting', or Middlesbrough and Wrexham (UK) with similar arrangements.

Are there any innovative examples of maintaining public spaces, in the UK?
Between the 1930s and 1950s (Beveridge/NHS/ education/transport/mining/utilities, etc.), an ambitious programme of concerted public ownership was established for the benefit of society as a whole. This contrasts sharply with the neoliberal shift of the last 30+ years, with its emphasis on individualism, competitiveness, consumerism, fragmentation and privatisation, which has supplanted and disparaged ideas of social ownership and public ownership, with private ownership as the singular and individual virtue and goal.

What are we denying ourselves if we give up on public space / open space?
The importance of opportunities for being outdoors, in open (green) spaces, is now well accepted, regarding its value for mental health and wellbeing, as well as physical fitness, though there remain doubts that those most in need use these spaces or their facilities. We also note the relevance of human rights: to education, play, recreation and enjoyment, for example. In these terms, in Liverpool we need every open space we have.

1. In what other ways does the design of privately owned consumer streets control behaviour?
2. How can we protect and get back our public spaces? Comments please

Printer friendly page

Comments are closed on this article