Is it really right to use public parks for private commercial events?

Somewhere under there is Hyde Park: the British Summertime Festival. Image: Getty.

During the summer, London is abuzz with large-scale cultural and sporting events – many of which are held in public parks. This season, Formula E motor races will be held in Battersea Park, while music festivals will take over Victoria Park, Finsbury Park and Hyde Park.

Events like these are enjoyed every year by thousands of people, both locals and tourists alike. But they also shut down public spaces, and have a significant impact on park environments. There is growing resistance from local residents and campaign groups, who have instigated legal challenges against the use of public parks for commercial events.

These cases give us cause to think about who, and what, parks are for. They also help us to understand the wider challenges currently facing public spaces around the world.

Why is this happening?

City parks have always been used for events – but now they are being used for larger and more commercially-oriented events than ever before.

This is mainly due to reductions in government funding: a recent Heritage Lottery Fund report found that 86 per cent of UK park managers have had their budgets cut since 2010, with a third facing cuts of 20 per cent or more. Many parks need to supplement grant income with revenue from commercial activities.

Fenced off. Image: Andrew Smith/author provided.

Glen Searle identified how parks can raise money by staging smaller, private events such as weddings and corporate functions. But now, big event companies are seeking distinctive venues and new audiences. They are keen to use urban parks, and are willing to pay large sums to hire them. For instance, Formula E paid Wandsworth council £2.85m to use Battersea Park for their events in 2015 and 2016 – a figure which includes compensation for the fact that future editions have been cancelled, due to local opposition.

The financial incentive to use parks for commercial events is clear. Events like these are also seen as valuable tools for “entrepeneurial” cities – to generate investment and to promote the city as a whole.

But there are more subtle justifications for park events, too. Professionals who represent parks feel that new events can help to diversify park users and uses. They think that music festivals, sport events and film screenings can make Victorian parks seem more relevant to modern life. Park officials also feel that they now have the technology and expertise to effectively minimise negative impacts such as noise pollution and environmental damage.

Warning: temporary closure

As we saw recently in San Francisco – when residents forced authorities to back down on plans to rent out park space – there is growing opposition to the privatisation of public spaces. Londoners are also beginning to push back against major events, which temporarily privatise parks by restricting when the public can use them.

Closed for business. Image: Andrew Smith/author provided.

For instance, Battersea Park is closed to the public for four full days during the Formula E events, and there are partial closures scheduled on 15 more days while the event is set up and dismantled.

Disruption to normal park use is heightened by damage to turf and the timing of events. These tend to take place on summer weekends – the times when parks would be more heavily used by residents.

Hiring out parks to event companies has a symbolic impact too. It normalises the idea that public space can be “bought” and fenced off. Sanctioning commercial events sets a worrying precedent, which could be used to justify more permanent installations in the future.


A way forward?

The controversies, legal challenges and general disquiet surrounding the use of parks for major events suggest that a new approach is needed.

Park managers need to work with local organisations to consider what types of events are appropriate for parks – and what types of parks are appropriate for events. Clearer guidelines on what proportion of time and space events are allowed to take up will help to avoid the legal challenges and bitter conflicts seen in London this summer.

Better enforcement of existing laws could help to maintain the balance between public and private park use too. My ongoing research suggests that awareness of these regulations is low, even among events managers and park officials.

Of course, another way to avoid these conflicts is to provide more generous public funding for parks. This may seem idealistic in a time of financial austerity. But parks are much loved by the public; they enhance the urban environment, and the well-being of citizens. If their value was fully recognised and parks properly funded, local authorities would not be forced to use them for commercial events.The Conversation

Andrew Smith is reader in tourism and events at the University of Westminster.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

There isn’t a war on the motorist. We should start one

These bloody people. Image: Getty.

When should you use the horn on a car? It’s not, and anyone who has been on a road in the UK in living memory will be surprised to hear this, when you are inconvenienced by traffic flow. Nor is it when you are annoyed that you have been very slightly inconvenienced by another driver refusing to break the law in a manner that is objectively dangerous, but which you perceive to be to your advantage.

According to the Highway Code:

“A horn should only be used when warning someone of any danger due to another vehicle or any other kind of danger.”

Let’s be frank: neither you nor I nor anyone we have ever met has ever heard a horn used in such a manner. Even those of us who live in or near places where horns perpetually ring out due to the entitled sociopathy of most drivers. Especially those of us who live in or near such places.

Several roads I frequently find myself pushing a pram up and down in north London are two way traffic, but allow parking on both sides. This being London that means that, in practice, they’re single track road which cars can enter from both ends.

And this being London that means, in practice, that on multiple occasions every day, men – it is literally always men – glower at each other from behind the steering wheels of needlessly big cars, banging their horns in fury that circumstances have, usually through the fault of neither of them, meant they are facing each other on a de facto single track road and now one of them is going to have to reverse for a metre or so.

This, of course, is an unacceptable surrender as far as the drivers’ ego is concerned, and a stalemate seemingly as protracted as the cold war and certainly nosier usually emerges. Occasionally someone will climb out of their beloved vehicle and shout and their opponent in person, which at least has the advantages of being quieter.

I mentioned all this to a friend recently, who suggested that maybe use of car horns should be formally restricted in certain circumstances.

Ha ha ha. Hah.

The Highway Code goes on to say -

“It is illegal to use a horn on a moving vehicle on a restricted road, a road that has street lights and a 30 mph limit, between the times of 11:30 p.m. and 07:00 a.m.”

Is there any UK legal provision more absolutely and comprehensively ignored by those to whom it applies? It might as well not be there. And you can bet that every single person who flouts it considers themselves law abiding. Rather than the perpetual criminal that they in point of fact are.


In the 25 years since I learned to drive I have used a car horn exactly no times, despite having lived in London for more than 20 of them. This is because I have never had occasion to use it appropriately. Neither has anyone else, of course, they’ve just used it inappropriately. Repeatedly.

So here’s my proposal for massively improving all UK  suburban and urban environments at a stroke: ban horns in all new cars and introduce massive, punitive, crippling, life-destroying fines for people caught using them on their old one.

There has never been a war on motorists, despite the persecution fantasies of the kind of middle aged man who thinks owning a book by Jeremy Clarkson is a substitute for a personality. There should be. Let’s start one. Now.

Phase 2 will be mandatory life sentences for people who don’t understand that a green traffic light doesn’t automatically mean you have right of way just because you’re in a car.

Do write in with your suggestions for Phase 3.