Kerb Your Enthusiasm: Why Shared Space Doesn’t Always Mean Shared Surface, and Other Stories

Based on an initial interview process, shared space has therefore been defined as ‘a multi-understood and somewhat controversial term which exists across a number of fields including urban design, engineering and traffic management and which implies new direction in thinking about the public realm.’

Shared space schemes in England have often been the subject of media, public and industry interest. Proponents and opponents are split over the potential benefits or disbenefits of a number of design approaches associated with shared space.

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.

In the absence of substantial evidence, research, guidance or practical examples, observers of shared space have tended to latch-on to the more tangible elements of schemes and national debate has centred on specific design techniques.

However, a closer look at the origins of shared space and the theories developed during the European Shared Space Project show that this design-centred focus risks clouding a much wider contribution.

PACTS has identified the potential which shared space has to offer. The central theory, built on a series of key elements (disaggregation of the road network, speed and tolerance, behavioural understanding and so on) is developed into five ‘lessons’ shown in the model below.

This report calls for a shift in thinking which moves from shared space being an objective towards shared space being a process. PACTS has developed a model which builds a theoretical process which could help to maximise the contribution made by the public realm towards societal objectives.

A shift in thinking and a shift in process of this kind are not expected to be automatic. In fact this is unlikely. PACTS has identified a number of hurdles which will need to be considered if public realm approaches are going to be pushed forward. The final chapter looks at issues such as engaging with communities, risk and liability, the weakness of private/public sector links and so on.

It is hoped that the stakeholders, policy makers and planners will act on the recommendations made in this report. Smarter governance, joined-up working and shared understanding could make our public realm work harder and should make an important contribution to improving the quality of public life.