Over the course of the last ten years, shared space has increasingly been discussed in and beyond transport and design circles. Research conducted for this report found large divergence of opinion about the implications of the term. Quite logically, observers have relied upon the most tangible elements of the concept, and tended to define shared space based on some of the design techniques used in public realm schemes to which it has been applied. The term has recently become synonymous with the conflict and controversy associated with some of these design techniques such as the removal of kerbs, signage and crossing points. This report aims to move the debate on from the design elements it currently centres on, which will be shown as locally rather than nationally relevant issues, towards a focus on community-led maximisation of the role which the public realm can play. Good public realm planning is shown to act as a catalyst in the achievement of a community's needs, desires and objectives, whilst poor public realm planning is shown to act as a hurdle. The public realm is seen as a key player in the balancing of the mobility objectives (economic growth, improved local economies, reduced congestion and so on) and civility objectives (healthier communities, cleaner air, safer roads and so on) of a community and of society at large. Shared space is viewed as a recent attempt to balance the mobility and civility objectives placed on the public realm. This report looks at the experiences, at the local level, of planners and stakeholders of so called 'shared space schemes' to highlight the kinds of issues being raised. This report calls for a shift in thinking which moves from shared space being an objective towards shared space being a process. For the full text of this report see: http://www.pacts.org.uk/docs/pdf-bank/Kerb%20Your%20Enthusiasm.pdf
Abstract