You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 2, §3.2.2 Changing Places — The role of players in shaping and contesting places; how places are made, remade and represented by different agencies and groups; the conflicts that arise over the character, use, ownership and future of places, and the differential impacts of change on different groups. This concluding lesson synthesises the whole unit: it brings together players and power, representation, sense of place, gentrification and regeneration into the analysis of contested placemaking. It links to §3.2.1 (global forces driving local conflict) and §3.2.3 (urban conflict and contested space). Assessment objectives: AO1 — placemaking, participation and conflict concepts (Arnstein, NIMBYism); AO2 — application to named contested places; AO3 — evaluating contested representations and the differential impacts of change.
Placemaking is the deliberate process of creating, shaping, and managing places to make them more attractive, functional and meaningful. But placemaking is rarely uncontested — because every decision about how a place should look, work and who it is for involves choices about whose vision will prevail, it inevitably produces winners and losers. Conflict over place is therefore not an aberration but the normal condition of placemaking, and analysing it draws together every concept in the unit: players and power, representation, sense of place, attachment, gentrification and regeneration. Wherever a place is changed, someone's vision is realised and someone else's is overridden — so the geographer's job is less to ask whether there is conflict than to map who is in conflict, over what, and with what relative power. This lesson examines placemaking strategies, the spectrum of community involvement, contested spaces, NIMBYism, and the enduring tension between preservation and development, using case studies including HS2, the Colston statue and contested London developments. As the concluding lesson, it deliberately draws the whole unit together: every conflict over place is, at bottom, a contest between players with unequal power over the character, use, ownership and meaning of a place — exactly the synoptic understanding the examination is designed to reward.
Key Definition: Placemaking is the collaborative process of shaping public spaces and places to maximise shared value — creating places that promote health, happiness, community interaction, and economic vitality.
The term "placemaking" rose to prominence from the 1990s, but the concept originated in the earlier work of urbanists Jane Jacobs (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961) and William H. Whyte (The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, 1980), who argued that the best places are created by and for the people who use them, not imposed from above by planners or developers. Jacobs in particular mounted an influential attack on the top-down, modernist planning of her era — the bulldozing of dense, mixed, sociable streets to make way for expressways and tower blocks — arguing that this destroyed the very qualities (active street life, mixed uses, "eyes on the street," fine-grained diversity) that make places safe, vibrant and loved. Her insight reframes placemaking as something that should work with the existing social life of a place rather than override it, and it underpins the modern emphasis on human-scale, community-led design. But it also exposes the core tension of the whole lesson: "good" placemaking requires power to be shared with the people who use a place, whereas the development industry and the state more often hold and exercise that power from the top down.
| Principle | Explanation | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Community-centred | Local people should be involved in designing and managing their places | The Granby Four Streets project in Toxteth, Liverpool — residents renovated derelict terraced houses rather than allowing them to be demolished |
| Mixed-use | Places work best when they combine residential, commercial, cultural, and recreational functions | Borough Market, London — combines food retail, restaurants, residential, and cultural events in a single place |
| Human-scale | Design should prioritise pedestrians, cyclists, and social interaction over cars | Exhibition Road, South Kensington — converted from a conventional road to a shared space (2012), prioritising pedestrians |
| Identity-preserving | New development should respect and enhance the existing character of a place | The restoration of Victorian arcades in Leeds (Thornton's Arcade, Grand Arcade) preserved historical character while attracting modern retail |
| Inclusive | Places should be accessible and welcoming to all — regardless of age, disability, ethnicity, or income | The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, Stratford — designed with extensive accessibility features and free public spaces |
Community involvement exists on a spectrum from token consultation to genuine empowerment:
graph LR
A[Manipulation] --> B[Informing]
B --> C[Consultation]
C --> D[Involvement]
D --> E[Collaboration]
E --> F[Empowerment]
A -.->|Less power for community| F
A -.->|More power for community| F
This spectrum is based on Sherry Arnstein's (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation, one of the most enduring and examinable frameworks in the whole unit. Arnstein's central argument is that there is a world of difference between the empty ritual of participation and the real redistribution of power that lets the have-nots genuinely shape decisions — and that much of what is presented as "involving the community" is actually located on the lower rungs, where power is withheld. Her ladder rises from non-participation (manipulation, therapy), through degrees of tokenism (informing, consultation, placation), to degrees of citizen power (partnership, delegated power, citizen control). The table maps these onto UK placemaking examples:
| Level | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Manipulation | Community is told a decision has been made; no real participation | LDDC in Docklands — local councils' planning powers were removed; residents were presented with fait accompli decisions |
| Informing | Community is told about plans but has no power to change them | Public exhibitions of planning proposals where feedback is collected but may be ignored |
| Consultation | Community is asked for views, but decision-makers retain all power | Typical planning application process — residents can object, but the council decides |
| Involvement | Community has some influence on decisions through structured participation | Neighbourhood Planning (Localism Act, 2011) — communities can create their own planning policies, but within a national framework |
| Collaboration | Community and authorities share decision-making power | Community Land Trusts — communities own land and control development (e.g., Granby Four Streets CLT, Liverpool) |
| Empowerment | Community has full control over decisions about their place | Very rare in practice — some community-owned assets (village halls, community pubs) approach this level |
A-Level Analysis: Arnstein's ladder reveals that most "community involvement" in UK planning sits at the consultation level — residents can comment on proposals but rarely have the power to shape them fundamentally. Genuine empowerment requires a transfer of power from planners and developers to communities, which conflicts with the market-led approach to development that has dominated UK planning since the 1980s. The ladder is an invaluable evaluative tool in the exam: faced with any scheme that claims "community engagement," you can ask which rung it actually reaches. A glossy public exhibition that gathers feedback it is free to ignore sits near the bottom (informing/consultation); a community land trust that owns the land and controls development sits near the top (delegated power/citizen control). Distinguishing the rhetoric of participation from its reality — and recognising that the gap between them is itself a form of power — is exactly the critical analysis examiners reward.
Places become contested when different groups hold competing visions for their character, use, ownership or future. Because places carry meaning, identity and value, almost any significant change to them is liable to provoke conflict between those who gain and those who lose, those who belong and those who arrive, those with power and those without. Conflict arises across several recurring axes — land use, identity, access and control — and recognising which axis (or combination) a particular dispute turns on is the first step to analysing it:
| Conflict Type | Description | UK Example |
|---|---|---|
| Development vs preservation | New development threatens heritage, green space, or existing character | The proposed demolition of the Brutalist Robin Hood Gardens estate in Poplar, London (designed by Alison and Peter Smithson, 1972) — heritage campaigners fought to save it; it was demolished in 2017 despite a campaign by the Twentieth Century Society |
| Local vs national interest | National infrastructure projects override local concerns | HS2 — government argued it was nationally vital; local communities along the route objected to noise, visual intrusion, and habitat destruction |
| Gentrification conflicts | Incomers vs established residents over the changing character of a place | The "Cereal Killer Cafe" in Shoreditch, East London (opened 2014) — attacked during an anti-gentrification protest (2015); it became a symbol of the conflict between hipster newcomers and the existing working-class community |
| NIMBYism | Residents oppose development "Not In My Back Yard" while accepting its general necessity | Opposition to housing developments in the Green Belt; opposition to wind farms in rural areas; opposition to traveller sites |
| Cultural contestation | Competing claims over the identity and meaning of a place | The debate over the Colston statue in Bristol — a memorial to a slave trader that was pulled down during a Black Lives Matter protest (June 2020), exposing fundamental disagreements about Bristol's identity and historical memory |
Key Definition: NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard") describes the phenomenon where people support a development in principle but oppose it being located near them.
| Proposal | Support Argument | NIMBY Opposition | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wind farms | Renewable energy is essential for meeting climate targets | "They're ugly, noisy, reduce property values, and kill birds" | Planning approval rates for onshore wind farms fell from 74% (2010) to 37% (2023) in England due to restrictive planning rules |
| Social housing | The UK has a chronic housing shortage; 1.2 million households on waiting lists | "It will lower property values, increase crime, and change the character of the area" | Section 106 requirements for affordable housing are frequently reduced through viability assessments by developers |
| Traveller sites | Local authorities have a legal duty to provide sites for Gypsy and Traveller communities | Fierce local opposition; sites proposed in over 50 local authority areas have been rejected following community campaigns | Dale Farm, Essex (2011) — Europe's largest Traveller site was violently evicted despite a decade of legal battles |
| HS2 | Improved connectivity between London, Birmingham, and (originally) the North | "Destroys ancient woodland, disrupts rural communities, costs too much for too little benefit" | Northern leg cancelled (2023); Euston terminus scaled back; project remains contested |
A-Level Analysis: NIMBYism raises fundamental questions about democracy, power, and place. Affluent communities are more effective NIMBYs — they have the social capital, legal knowledge, and financial resources to mount effective campaigns and to navigate the planning system. Deprived communities, by contrast, often have unwanted development imposed on them (waste facilities, incinerators, major roads, concentrations of social housing) precisely because they lack the power to resist — a pattern sometimes studied as environmental injustice. NIMBYism therefore does not merely reflect spatial inequality; it actively reproduces it, steering "good" land uses toward those with power and "bad" ones toward those without. There is also a live counter-argument — the YIMBY ("Yes In My Back Yard") movement — which holds that NIMBY obstruction, dominated by existing (often older, affluent) homeowners, has throttled housebuilding and deepened the housing crisis at the expense of the young and the would-be resident who has no current voice in the local planning process. Weighing NIMBY against YIMBY — the rights of existing communities to shape their place against the needs of those excluded from it — is a sophisticated way to evaluate conflict over place.
HS2 (High Speed 2) is the UK's most significant infrastructure project and one of its most contested:
| Argument | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Economic rebalancing | Reduce economic dominance of London by improving connectivity to the Midlands and North; Birmingham HS2 station area expected to generate 36,000 jobs |
| Capacity | The West Coast Main Line is at full capacity; HS2 would free capacity for freight and local services |
| Speed | London to Birmingham in 49 minutes (currently 82 minutes); original plan: London to Manchester in 68 minutes |
| Regeneration catalyst | Station areas in Birmingham (Curzon Street) and (planned) Crewe would attract major investment |
| Argument | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Cost escalation | Original budget: £33 billion (2010); revised estimate: £66 billion (2015); current projection: over £100 billion |
| Environmental damage | Route passes through 32 Sites of Special Scientific Interest; 108 ancient woodlands affected; 693 wildlife sites impacted |
| Community disruption | Over 300 properties demolished; communities along the route in Buckinghamshire, Warwickshire, and Staffordshire have experienced years of construction disruption |
| Questionable benefits | Northern leg (Birmingham to Manchester) cancelled in 2023; eastern leg (Birmingham to Leeds) already cancelled; benefits dramatically reduced |
| Opportunity cost | £100 billion could fund upgrades to existing rail networks, improving connectivity across the North — the "Northern Powerhouse Rail" alternative |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.