An overview of international Place Making
practice; profession or ploy?
© Kylie Legge 2008
Director, Place Partners, Australia
0414 377677, [email protected]
Iʼve always been interested in words and their meaning – what one person believes,
versus another – and how our understanding of words changes over time as they are
picked up by various people for uses not originally intended. Years ago, during my
undergraduate thesis research in architecture, I became enamoured by an older
definition of aesthetics that I found in my grandmotherʼs 50 year old dictionary at her
home. It went something like this…
Aesthetics – perception by all the senses, but most particularly by the emotive
sense
A couple of weeks ago, the internet gave me these definitions:
“The branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly,
the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to
establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works
of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.”
aesthetics. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 04, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aesthetics
“An underlying principle, a set of principles, or a view often manifested by
outward appearances or style of behavior”
aesthetics. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September
04, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aesthetics
In the first definition we have a much more complex definition and the other is far
more shallow… but I know which of the three resonates most for me.
Its funny how these things happen and that I, as a self professed place maker, find
myself back considering a question that I posed to myself as a student.
How do we, as design professionals, provide a built environment that provides
emotional and sensory nourishment for the people who will use those places
that we are responsible for creating?
I use the word responsible, purposefully because I think there isnʼt enough
responsibility being taken for the quality of the built environment in terms of basic
human needs. Sure we may be responsible in terms of our clientʼs budgets, risk
management, structural integrity… we feel responsibility to the design approach of
our employers, perhaps even to getting published… we probably even feel
responsible for the environment.
But do we feel the true weight of responsibility for the fact that our designs, our
places, are going to be around for decades, maybe even centuries and that they
really need to work for people if they are going to last that long?
So the big question is…
© kylie legge 2008
Place partners
Is place making the answer?
It may well be but I think we need to go back one step to make sure that we are all on
the same page…
What is place making?
Over the last three years that I have been a place making consultant, this question
has repeatedly arisen. Is place making about installing public art or undertaking a
community art project? Is it holding a market or encouraging street performers? Is it
designing more playgrounds or making a place pedestrian friendly?
Here are some of the definitions that I have uncovered…
“The official definition of placemaking is the design of a building or area to
make it more attractive to--and compatible with--the people who use it.” (2005
New Partners for Smart Growth)
"the way in which all human beings transform the places they find themselves
into the places where they live." (Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building
Communities)
“The essence of place making is the creation of economically vibrant,
aesthetically attractive, lively and engaging, pedestrian-friendly places.” (ULI
2007 Conference)
“Placemaking is a term that began to be used in the 1970s by architects and
planners to describe the process of creating squares, plazas, parks, streets
and waterfronts that will attract people because they are pleasurable or
interesting.” (Wikipedia)
What is important here is not so much having an ʻofficialʼ definition but understanding
what has to be achieved or at least aimed for in order to be defined as ʻplace
makingʼ. I do not think that place making has to become its own profession but I do
think that we can guarantee much better results through a more rigorous and
professional approach.
The commonalities between the definitions show that place making needs to:
•
•
•
•
•
involve people
respond to peopleʼs needs
attract people
create pleasure
be interesting
Place making needs to provide for a mix of both emotional and physical human
needs as well as intellectual needs.
I did miss another definition, perhaps the most important for the fact that it very well
could be the first. The term place making didnʼt emerge for the first time in the 1970s
in New York but in the mid 1700s in England and like my grandmotherʼs dictionary
definition with deeper potential. In the 1700s Lancelot ʻCapabilityʼ Brown called his
own landscape design ʻplace makingʼ.
“He saw himself as Nature's partner, striving to remove the accidental defects
and to reveal the ideal character of a place, which would then stimulate the
imagination of the beholder.”
© kylie legge 2008
Place partners
Ruth Stungo, "Christmas Books: What Capability did," The Times (London),
November 30 1985
So we can add another point to our list and we begin to see not just commonalities
but potentially principles. Place making should:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
reveal and respond to the true character of the place
involve people in the planning and activation of the place
respond to peopleʼs emotional needs and aspirations
be ʻattractiveʼ to people by providing them with multiple experiences
create pleasurable experiences that evoke ʻaestheticʼ delight
So if these are the fundamentals of place making why are we finding it so hard to
create places with these qualities?
There are so many new places around the world that are not working and we are
continuing to create them – many as a result of massive master planning efforts.
In Melbourne, we have seen a renaissance of place planning in the city grid, with the
regeneration of laneways into bustling retail and hospitality precincts, the
pedestrianisation of major streets and the micro detailing of many small public
spaces. However, just outside the grid we have the major Docklands project that
neither reflects the character of the city nor provides a human scaled environment
that encourages participation at any level.
There is an old adage ʻgood architecture is a reflection of a good clientʼ so if we keep
engaging with a particular design approach then are we not really getting what we
asked for? Interestingly in a new book published by the Place Leaders Association
ʻPlace Making for the Futureʼ the Docklands chapter is headed ʻFrom blank canvas to
design showcaseʼ, I question whether with such a title place making is really on their
agenda.
On the other side of the world we can look at what we can learn from Dubai. Its
grandiose master planning achievements all look good from space but again, down
on the ground they are generally abysmal places to be in – that is if you can actually
access them on foot.
On a positive note, changes in their approach are happening. My colleagues at
Village Well have developed a Place Making Strategy and Overlay for the old town
around Dubai Creek and Roberts Day have been involved with the Dubai Waterfront
project. Both are providing alternatives to the aerial master planning approach that
only looks great on plan – what they are doing, and what place making should be
doing, is transforming the plan into a place that people want to inhabit – a place that
stimulates the imagination.
Some of the commonalities of these new places that arenʼt working for people on the
ground can be summarised by the following. They have:
• been designed for the macro
• been designed around icon buildings in a landscape
• lack of activation on building edges
• prioritised the car
• a lack of activities in the public domain
• idealised human behaviours
© kylie legge 2008
Place partners
We know some of the principles, we know some of the mistakes and we can also say
pretty clearly the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Master planning alone does not make good places for people
Architecture alone does not make good places for people
Landscape design alone does not make good places for people
Big ideas like ʻfractal geometryʼ do not make good places for people
Public art alone does not make good places for people
Our cities are full of great places, so we must be getting it right in some way.
Unfortunately many of the best are the result of many years of hard work or natural
evolution rather than by intentional design. They are the product of both design and
programming, of public participation and management, of history and the future. To
achieve this kind of symbiotic relationship in a formal development a new process is
necessary. For me this process is called place making…
The principal difference between place making and the individual design professions
involved in creating places is that the physical attributes of the place, while important
to creating the identity or personality of a place, are not considered the critical
measurement of success in its own right. Place making is not design, if anything it is
about relationships. Relationships between people, and between people and their
environment.
At its best place making can be used to deliver a strategic approach to a
collaborative system of relationships, triple top line thinking that integrates the social,
environmental and the economic to deliver environments that nurture their natural
assets, inspire and welcome their communities and strengthen local economies.
It is the cultural glue that provides an authentic foundation for any project, the
mechanism that allows the visions of all the contributing professionals on a project to
become unified through a common vision of the unique culture of each place. Place
making draws together community engagement, urban design, local economic
development and cultural planning into an inspirational framework that stewards the
development process.
It isnʼt just place activation, although that is an important consideration, nor is it
community development, which is also an essential outcome. Place making has
evolved to become a much more sophisticated process, one that focuses on
facilitation, collaboration and inspiration across multiple disciplines and over a long
period of time.
A place that knows the value of relationships is Federation Square. Yes it has iconic
architecture, but it a good example of how the role of iconic architecture does not
necessarily improve or reduce the ability of a place to attract people. Melbournians
and visitors alike have mixed reactions to the look of the buildings, however,
everyone still goes there. There wasnʼt a day over the nearly 3 years I lived and
worked in Melbourne that something wasnʼt happening in Federation Square,
whether it was people just sitting around in groups talking, waiting to meet someone
or something as large and emotional as the Federal Government apology to
Australiaʼs indigenous people. It is emotionally owned by the people, they are
comfortable in it and feel free to use it as a public space – even though it is owned by
a private company.
Management plays a huge role in this. In the last year alone there were 1855
planned events in the public spaces, around 70% of which were free, and many more
© kylie legge 2008
Place partners
activities that were not planned. The management has a strongly held vision for the
site and engages with it in all the decisions it makes – it knows the character of its
place and builds on that to create a strong identity that is understood by the people
who use the spaces.
Federation Square brings to light perhaps the most significant aspect of place making
– in the lifecycle of a place the design and construct phase is the shortest. At the
pointy end of the stick we need to ensure that the places we create have the space,
detailing and flexibility to allow for future uses we can only imagine – and we should
be imagining them at the master planning phase, not waiting until detailed design to
realise that the only way for people to sit is by installing benches somewhere.
Some of the simple questions I consider when reviewing a master plan in terms of its
ability to support natural human behaviours are:
• Is there enough places to sit integrated into the ground plane and is there a
choice of different experiences in that seating?
• Is it easy to get to where I might want to go? Are there both direct pathways
to support repeat movement patterns as well as leisurely paths?
• Are there places that are physically comfortable? Sunny, shaded, protected
from the wind?
• How are the land uses connected? What is the relationship between the café,
play area, outdoor seating and book store?
If we donʼt get these basics right, the management of these places, becomes a
constant battle to activate unwelcoming places rather than supporting growth of
activities and the placeʼs natural evolution.
This presentation is called “An overview of international Place Making practice;
profession or ploy?” and I am not sure that I have actually done that. What I do
hope is that I have raised some questions in your mind about integrating formal
processes, measurements and standards in your place making. If place making is to
have the respect from the community that it deserves then we need to ensure that
they are getting what they expect – places that they want to be in, over and over
again.
I will finish with what Place Partners considers the key elements in any place making
approach:
1. Having the clear intention to create a good people place
Not a wow factor, not a marketing ploy…
2. Understanding the unique character of that place and building on that
story
And knowing that different people want different things at different times…
3. Sharing the vision with all the team and requiring that all team members
put the first two points, well first
An interdisciplinary approach brings people together…
4. Working together to ensure that the whole = more than just the sum of
its parts
A great place is like a system with interdependent parts
© kylie legge 2008
Place partners