A counterargument is that meaning is intangible from a developer's perspective – it comes from how people engage with and use spaces. Therefore, this is largely outside the developer's remit or control.
Placemaking pushes back against this view. It makes a bold claim for embedding notions of identity, heritage and culture much earlier in the conceptual lifespan of a development. Developers must do more, but they need support, guidance and incentives.
Iconic or idiosyncratic?
Buildings attract labels. A common one is “iconic”. However, a building’s iconic status rarely relates to its use. Iconic buildings tend to be monumental – imposing structures with uniquely identifiable architectural features.
From a placemaking perspective, true idiosyncrasy comes as much from function as form.
A dictionary definition of idiosyncratic is a strange or unusual habit, behaviour or feature. But one person’s idiosyncrasy is another’s norm. For placemakers, this is about specificity – how people use a space to make it their own.
The physical features of a building play a part, but the uses to which it’s put largely determine its role as a place. A good test of this is whether, when photographed, a building looks better empty or full of people and activity.
Here’s the challenge: to understand people’s needs, anticipate them, and then incorporate them into design and planning. The main route for this information is via specific reporting, rather than relying on requirements for nature recovery, health impact and active travel being included in the planning process.
Addressing this challenge requires seeing developments in terms of homes rather than units. Developers need to include amenities and shared outdoor spaces as integral to schemes, rather than afterthoughts.
They should be able to anticipate and address different impacts in the wider proposal as stand-alone items. Simply commissioning further reports is not a sufficient response.
