Young People and Public Space: Developing inclusive policy and practice

Phil Crane
School of Human Services
Queensland University of Technology

Abstract
Issues about young people’s use of public and community spaces are now commonly
raised in many countries. As urban space becomes more intensely used and the patterns
of use of various types of space changes so a range of tensions have emerged for a range
of parties including local government, shopping centre management, youth services and
young people themselves. This article is based on a paper delivered at the International
Conference on Young People and Social Exclusion, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,
10 September 1999.



This article argues for a multidimensional and more integrated approach to public space
policy, design and management in respect of young people. It draws on a range of
projects undertaken by Brisbane City Council in Australia which have attempted to take
an inclusive approach. It concludes that whilst more inclusive policy and practice can be
articulated and implemented at the local level with good effect, there remain substantial
constraints in developing more inclusive public space environments for young people.


Introduction
As the urban landscape becomes more colonised, and the delivery of core services and
sites for interaction move into spaces which are privately owned or affected by the
processes of privitisation, corporatisation and marketisation then problems for young
people in using public space which have been present for a very long time are becoming
more intense.

This in part is due to changes to the way various types of space which provide amenity
and perform commercial and social function have developed. Privately owned shopping
centres have increasingly become sites for the delivery of core public services such as bus
interchanges, post offices, and libraries. Correspondingly there has been increased
involvement of business and the use of corporate models in the development and
management of certain public spaces, such as in pedestrian malls onto which shops front,
and public recreation areas which are managed by corporatised bodies. For example the
previous 1988 World Expo site in Brisbane has been redeveloped as a public facility
operated by the Southbank Corporation under special legislation.

The particular importance spaces may have for people is also dynamic and changing.
Spaces such as parks, disused blocks and creeks which once may have been seen as
having peripheral value are increasingly seen as key social and economic resources to

2
particular interests. Residents living adjacent to a public park may feel that this is ‘their’
park, and see benefit worth fighting for in terms of the peace and quiet, the view, and
improved property value. The outcome can often be that young people’s access to space
is made secondary to other interests.

The traditional public-private space legal dichotomy, is thus becoming less adequate as a
tool for understanding, planing and managing space. Various types of space categories
have been suggested. This paper focuses on two particular types of space, namely state-
owned and open public access areas, and ‘community space’ (White 1996, Heywood and
Crane 1998) which is privately owned or leased space to which open public access is
invited or necessary. Community spaces include shopping centre entrances, aisles and
arcades, and the platforms and circulation spaces of bus and train stations. The term
‘mass private property’ (France and Wiles 1998) has also been used to describe this type
of space.

At the same time there have been significant shifts in how various types of spaces are
managed and policed. Patrolling has in many locations been privatised with commercial
entities such as banks, shopping malls and centres, and sporting arenas using their own or
contracted security forces to protect property and those seen as ‘customers’. Other
strategies which have become increasingly popular include the development of safety
audit and crime opportunity reduction measures in public space design and management,
increased reliance on policies that prohibit or condition access to certain spaces (curfews,
move on powers, admission charges), and the employment of practices such as repeated
questioning of particular ‘types’ of people and electronic surveillance.

A number of themes emerge from an examination of these shifts. The governance
implications of changes in the function and usage of various types of space have not been
adequately understood or responded to. Old logics of rights deriving from property
ownership have not been revised in the light of the privitisation and corporatisation of
core public services. Exclusionary assumptions have tended to underpin responses to the
tensions and contests in young people’s use of public and community spaces. In the
context of public and community space exclusion occurs when people are denied or lack
the means for full access to the spaces that are venues for experiencing social, cultural
and economic life (based on Reardon 1999). Finally young people, particularly those who
already experience other forms of social and economic exclusion, are acutely impacted
on by these changes and responses.

The high level of interest in public and community space issues can in part be explained
through the framework of ‘late modernity’, where risk has been increasingly
individualised whilst life opportunities are still largely conditioned by a persons social
and economic location (Furlong and Cartmel 1997). In relation to what we have termed
community space France and Wiles (1998) contend that:

Feelings of insecurity are increasingly responded to by creating locations of trust and
reduced feelings of risk, termed ‘security bubbles’;
These ‘security bubbles’ are often created through the geographical exclusion of