It is very difficult to get investment in school landscapes – the money is always under pressure and the landscape inevitably comes last and is always vulnerable to cuts. This is because it is not seen as a priority or important enough to invest in. I was talking to my son Sam (14) about this, and these were his thoughts:

Life is about imagination. At my school the amount of imagination used in some areas can be very good but in most areas it’s rubbish. The six and a half million pounds used to make our school more interesting and creative have been used on things that make me want to go and be taught in the toilets of a roadside café. They have built new buildings that have made school feel more like a prison. Being a school in the countryside you would expect there to be stunning veiws and beautiful scenery but the best view is of the car park. The money used to build the new facilities should have been used to create things that children and young adults look forward to when they enter a school but now the only thing you want to do is scream and shout let me out.

If a 14 year old child like myself got a say in what to do with a 12 metre hill that I could do anything with my first idea would be big slide and that would then be the talking point of the school until it has been removed. If it does get removed then another say from the students is needed and the imaginative and creative minds would come up with the most exciting things that no adult could come up with because they don’t know what we really want.

Great to see some of our schemes in the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance document recently released for consultation:

http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/shaping-neighbourhoods-children-and-young-peoples-play-and-informal-recreation-spg

Appearances can be deceptive. Occupy London’s recent attempt to set up camp in Paternoster Square was strategic in its choice – they wanted to use their democratic right to peacefully protest and exercise their freedom of speech in one of London’s public squares, most famous for the power of money. The only problem was that whilst the Square may look public, in fact it isn’t. Much of what seems to be public in our urban realm is actually privately owned. This is a deception that often goes unnoticed.

Were we to make a crude comparison between some of the privately owned public spaces with those that are truly public, the contrast would be stark. For quality, investment, management and maintenance, privately owned space wins every time. It is therefore easy to understand why private investment in public spaces is so beguiling. But behind the manicured lawns and 24-hour surveillance there lies a murky truth that means we cannot afford to hand over our shared spaces to the private sector.

To better understand this, we must look at what democracy means for our cities today. Public spaces that are owned by the state are by nature democratic where everyone is afforded equality, freedom and choice. However, when a public space is privately owned, these core values are lost. What is replaced is a tension between the individual who owns the space and the people who use it. The space is no longer democratic. What follows is a clearly defined set of conditions that protect the owner. The result is a list of can’t do’s, such as photography, cycling, skateboarding, demonstrating or protesting – all things that are central to a healthy society.

With the decline of the public realm as an integral part of our collective national conscience, we have exchanged public socialising, debating and exploration for the perceived safety and control of private places. This has taken the value of the individual and placed it above the needs of our society. The knock on effect is that both our social lives and our urban realm become sterile.

In their struggle to find a patch of ground on which to voice their beliefs, Occupy London has brought to light an unexpected consequence of ownership and power in our cities today. They have highlighted that the cost of selling our public space is too great and it must remain in public ownership. There cannot be a price on democracy and freedom.

The opening of the William Patten Primary School in Stoke Newington has been a great success. The party began with a grand ceremony from the playground’s eye catching fantasy bridge that captures the imagination and hints of fairytales and battles long ago.

This project has been a fantastic example of working in true collaboration with a client to achieve something wonderful. We believe that our children need places that they can explore, invent and discover. This space offers them somewhere to develop their social, physical and cognitive skills in a way the classroom cannot. The school team were very open to our ideas and we are thrilled with the results.

This urban playspace incorporates a range of play opportunities with luscious planting, many of which are edible as well as dedicated growing plots. There is an outdoor classroom, sculptures shaped like houses for role play, a football pitch, a soft play area with wave –like shapes emerging from the ground and a cluster of rocks for clambering on. There is something for every child in the playground, where each individual can find something they are good at and can enjoy.
www.fhaplay.co.uk

The recent riots raise questions about the stability of our society. Many are seeking to understand their own personal disorientation and are trying to re-evaluate the communities in which they live. At this point, I can’t help but feel the government has fallen a long way short. Politicians have described the riots as ‘mindless’ and ‘lawless’ acts, but to label it as such and to simply lock rioters up brings us no closer to addressing the underlying issues.

The Financial Times (2011) Mapping the Riots. September 5.

The rioters did not hail from Hampstead or Mayfair, but rather live in places where the landscape and public spaces are uncared for and unloved. In my work this comes as no surprise. It becomes clearer to me every day that our outdoor public and semi public spaces are where the relevant and societal decisions are made. It therefore follows that the quality of the spaces where people live reflect the lives of the communities they serve. I do not believe that landscape alone can transform a society.  Cities are of course built on complex social dynamics not materiality, but I do think the low-grade environments that characterise our urban and suburban places are an indicator of the malaise.

Recalling the riots of Broadwater Farm in the 1980s the same issues apply today as they did then. These low-grade landscapes critically fail societal needs in two fundamental ways. The first and most obvious is the total lack of investment and quality that reflects an underlying implication that the communities who live there do not deserve better. The second is the connectivity with its surrounding context. Without this, places quickly become spaces of CCTV and high fences leading to isolated places. Unless these landscapes have strong physical connections combined with high quality place making, we limit the ability for our communities to thrive.

So, we ignore the rundown sterile spaces in our cities at our peril. These landscapes represent communities that have become fragmented and disenfranchised. Where we show respect through creating quality spaces that have decent management and maintenance, we will have made a significant step in allowing people to once again come together and thereby strengthen their communities.

Talking Point seminar series launched today with a summer special at Farrer Huxley Associates. We had a great turn out to hear Annie Coombs, Mathew Frith and Merrick Denton-Thompson explore the Built Environment in a Changing World.

The importance of keeping an ongoing, frank and forward-looking dialogue has never been more important than it is today. It is true to say that feeling under threat is a great unifier. All professions with an interest in shaping our landscapes need to come together to positively direct our future. We enjoyed just a hint of that unity in our small office this morning.

Thank you to all who came – it was great to see you!

When I open a letter, I must confess I enjoy feeling the weight of the paper and its overall appearance before I begin to read what it says. I think most people would find they were influenced by these qualities, even if not consciously so. Similarly when a practice has the honour of receiving an award, we are all happier when we get a lovely gong that can sit on a bookshelf, instead of an email of acknowledgment – it’s a chance to celebrate good work and gives a team something to be proud of.

Perhaps the most important award all landscape architects receive is their very own certificate of chartered membership to the profession in recognition of their success at the end of many years of hard work.

I remember receiving my certificate.  It came in a hard backed envelope, it was franked, emblazoned with the red wax seal and had signatures signed by hand with a fountain pen. Its heavy- weight swirling text evoked the requisite honour it bestowed. It is something I have framed and am truly proud of.

Recently our office celebrated the success of a member our team passing his chartership. It was brought to my attention that the equivalent certificates received by this year’s successful crop appear to have lost the care and sense of grandeur that I enjoyed. And so over the past few weeks, I have rightly been the recipient of anger and dismay for which I have no riposte; it is a poor start to professional life.

For the record, the certificate was printed onto about 80gsm paper (the stuff you put into your printer at home), there was no sign of the chartership stamp, the signature was electronic and low in quality and to top it all off – it was creased on arrival!

I believe our profession needs design heroes that can show the world our relevance and distinction. The only way this can happen is by nurturing and celebrating our rising stars with a welcome befitting of their achievement and professional status.

The White Paper on the environment – The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature; Landscapes of the Future from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; and the launch of the National Ecosystem Assessment.

I attended the Landscapes of the Future launch at the House of Commons this week, discussing not only the new ‘POST Note’ on the Future of Landscape but also the Government’s first White Paper on the environment for 20 years. This is a fantastic platform for the landscape agenda and an opportunity not to be missed.

It is clear from the White Paper that the government are taking seriously their pledge to be the ‘greenest-ever’ government and are even using language that demonstrates this.  Caroline Spelman opens by expounding on the basic human need for landscapes that we all ‘cherish’ for individual well-being as well as safe-guarding the inheritance of future generations. They are looking to ‘strengthen connections between people and nature’ – a message I have been advocating for many years. The White Paper also recognises the European Landscape Convention and Green Infrastructure.  So far so good.

There is however, an undeniable tension when understanding the relationship between the economic agenda and that of the social and environmental. The Paper sets out the case that sustainable economic growth goes hand-in-hand with meeting improvements in social and environmental sustainability. Great! I whole-heartedly believe getting the social and the environmental right is central to the economic goal.

My greatest fear, however, is that the drive behind this Paper (as well as the Localism Bill, the NPPF and the NEA) is without doubt, an economic one. So when the economic agenda directly conflicts with the environmental and social, we are left wondering how much the government will truly ‘value’ landscape, as their language at first glance may suggest. I remain skeptical.

So, whilst there is great joy to be taken from the sudden spotlight that our landscapes have received, I do not believe that landscape can simply be used as a vehicle for economic growth. We need to continue to press for changes that will benefit our landscapes first and foremost, recognising that getting this right is important to meeting the government’s long term economic goals.

http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/news/index.php/blog/view/li_policy_chair_noel_farrer_writes_this_weeks_blog/

Today marks the day every landscape architect will find themselves in one of two groups. Those who have voted and those who have not. Our last election saw a staggeringly low 13% of members bothered to pick up a pen.

This statistic, along with countless conversations with landscape architects young and old, leave me with an overwhelming sense of disillusionment and apathy across the profession. I would, however, like to argue that there has been no more crucial time for us to get excited about what we do and truly engage with those standing for candidacy. We need to take responsibility in making sure our votes count towards a bright future for us all.

We cannot deny that we have perhaps the most important and difficult times ahead. We stand in real danger of others beginning to understand more about what we do, and seeking to deliver it themselves. I believe a strong, forward-looking leadership at the Landscape Institute is crucial to ensuring that our voice is not marginalised.

The future is truly in our hands so I hope that many of you have picked up a pen to vote! We wait to see…

As many of you will know, a number of London Boroughs have recently introduced charges for activities within our public parks.  Whilst this is an understandable reaction to the ever increasing need to generate income in our parks, this is simply not the answer to the problem.

Public realm is by definition owned and shared freely by every person, no matter who they are. We all have the right to use, enjoy and express ourselves in public spaces irrespective of wealth, status or education. This is a precious and rare quality that has a premium social value that must be respected.

So at what point does it become appropriate to charge someone for the use of public space? It seems to me that when a space stops being open to unplanned possibilities, the essence of the space is essentially altered. Take for example a group of friends finding an unused space in their local park to play football once a week. This is fundamentally different to a dedicated football area within the park that has been booked for private use each week. The dedicated space is no longer available to be used freely by all, so people must pay for this restriction of the rights of others. The natures of these spaces are different and I believe this is where the distinction must be made.

For me, whether a free bench is used by a personal trainer punishing some willing victim and charging for the pleasure or by someone reading the paper, is fair game in our shared spaces. Let’s instead understand the importance of public space and be clear that any restriction to its use should be opposed for the benefit of all.