It
must be occurring everywhere: corporations are taking over, or are
wanting to take over, public space, and governments can only see
dollars and the passing over of responsibility to others. It is what
governments see in their sly jargon as a 'win-win' situation:
governments get money, give away onerous tasks and all
responsibility, and the public space is still there for all to use!
It is usually argued that the area will be 'improved'! Now, one might
ask, "What is wrong with that?"
As
with security and incarceration, governments are keen to pass day to
day responsibilities over to corporations, to do away with all
problems and concerns by the signing of contracts that let
governments 'pass the buck.' In Australia, large corporations like
Serco take on what governments see as difficult tasks, under very
lucrative, lump sum contracts. Immigration centres across Australia
and on Christmas Island are managed by Serco; detention centres in
Papua New Guinea and Nauru are run by G4S and Transfield: see -
http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/02/25/meet-the-companies-that-run-our-immigration-detention-camps/
In the UK, the same company, Serco, runs the ferries to the remote
Scottish islands. Companies exist just to take on these roles,
whatever they might be, tasks that governments are keen to readily
hand over for large sums of money just to see the problem 'attended
to.'
We
are seeing the same situation in the certification of building work
in Australia. Governments have passed this responsibility on to
private individuals and companies so that governments remain in
control, but at arm's length, free from all immediate criticism and
the responsibility that certification involves. One has to ask why we
have governments if all they do is to pass on their responsibilities
to others. Is this how taxes should be spent? Is this how pubic
matters should be managed?
The casino proposal for Brisbane
Now
public space seems to have become subjected to a similar strategy of
'fund-raising avoidance.' Who could believe that the Queensland
government would want to give a large riverfront portion of the CBD
of Brisbane to a foreign company to develop for a casino, shops and
hotels? - but it is so, and few are screaming out against this idea
that is promoted vigorously by the the developer with slick graphics,
smart words and grand promises: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/new-brisbane-casino-reviewed.html
There will, of course, never be any problems, only benefits for
all! The 'What if?' question is mocked by the promotional euphoria.
Casino shopping
The
Guardian has recently published two articles on this problem in
Britain: see -
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/will-self-mass-trespass-london-protest
and
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/11/granary-square-privately-owned-public-space
Joshua Saunders has called for the co-operation of the public in
the drawing up of a map of Britain that would show just how much land
is under corporate control. Australia needs to do likewise, but
governments are reluctant; they constantly see 'investment' as an
easy way to get income, even if this means selling property to
anyone, anywhere, from anywhere. It has to do with 'the economy' and
'the country,' or so we are told. Where might the public come into
this equation – its sense of place and experience of quality open
space? Streets and dedicated open spaces are all that we have: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-importance-of-street.html .
. . but for how long? Even the streets have been included in the
casino precinct proposed for Brisbane's CBD.
Springbrook National Park
Even
National Parks are not free from this attack. Governments are keen to
lease off areas of our pristine regions to developers. The commitment
seems to be only to increasing income and enjoying an easy life. The
old idea of 'living off the sheep's back' seems never to have been relinquished, even when sheep numbers have dwindled and wool prices
are so variable. Mining has taken over and has boomed for a while,
but no longer. Now it seems that we only have land to hand over; and
governments are just too keen to participate in these transactions
that keep easy dollars rolling in to maintain the lazy life.
It
is a serious issue. The notion of public space being managed by a
corporation or a private company changes the whole sense of place.
This has been commented upon in The Victor Gruen Vision:
see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-victor-gruen-vision-false-hopes-and.html It
is alarming to hear a landscape architect spruik on about open
sporting fields being quality open space – Plummer at Bond seminar
Catalysts, Connections and Interventions in Landscape: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/catalysts-connections-and-interventions.html These
spaces that are usually leased zones excised from public parkland,
have the same problems as private public space.
So
it is that the full texts of the two Guardian articles are reproduced
here. This issue needs much more attention. A recent report in BBC
news told of growing problems with children's play spaces with the
development of areas where children have to pay to play! Alas, even
childhood recreational space is not immune from the possibility of
profit and the passing off of responsibility: see -
THE
ARTICLES
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.