What is the role of governance in delivering successful inclusive placemaking? In part one of a two-part interview, Fae Sarshoghi and Joanne Taylor discuss the value of good place governance and exemplar governance models.
Once you understand the role of governance you see how it can become a powerful enabler of inclusivity and diversity. Places have a whole range of assets including community skills, talents, knowledge, stories, memories and networks. Governance models should be able to enable those assets. Diversity is a huge asset for communities, and this is how governance and inclusion link with each other.”
Joanne Taylor, Principal of Cities, WSP
This interview touches on place governance and collaborative decision-making; place management and how it differs from place governance; the ownership and funding of place governance; current governance models and the potential for new models, technology and training. Also see part 2 – Inclusive placemaking: the role of government.
Place governance
Fae: In simple terms, what is place governance?
Joanne: Place governance is a relatively new term, which refers to the governance of a specific place that has multiple asset owners, users or operators. It focuses on collaborative decision-making for the sustainable future of a place, addressing aspects such as vision, identity, strategy, financial administration and funding.
This recognises that a place is more than a geographical location. Places typically embody the social, cultural, historical, economic and political characteristics of an area and their identities are formed by the local users.
Typically, local and state government bodies are responsible for managing public places, including budgeting, funding, maintenance, activation and ensuring safety. These places are civic assets, but often share borders with other asset owners, such as private owners, businesses and other operators. Each entity is responsible for maintaining their respective boundaries and quite often the distinction between these boundaries are visible in the built environment. For example, in the City of Port Phillip, we found a noticeable difference in the cleanliness of the pavers in areas owned by Yarra Trams and those owned by the Council, revealing varying maintenance procedures. When governing a place, it’s essential to understand the place as an integrated system that operates holistically. This helps to eliminate such disparities.
I advocate for governance models that are specific to the particulars of the place. Local councils, for instance, have their own organisational structures and governance models for managing their council operations and assets. These often follow a one-size-fits-all approach. For example, multiple parks in a municipality are typically managed with the same regime, regardless of the specific location, community needs or activities taking place.
Implementing a governance model tailored to each place, makes it possible to individualise how these places are managed, funded, owned and operated. The Council then becomes one of the stakeholders or asset owners, maintaining ownership of the civic area. Many stakeholders become involved in the governance process – the private sector, including property developers and business owners, and the community, as well as civic and community organisations.
What is the difference between place governance and place management?
Place management primarily involves overseeing the maintenance, activation, marketing, economic viability and business retention within a place as it undergoes various cycles. It can also contribute to building identity, fostering a sense of community and ensuring safety. Place management involves a coordinated effort from various stakeholders, but the decision-making authority typically resides with the organisation owning the assets, such as the local or state government.
Place governance, in contrast, is a framework for helping multiple owners – including government, the private sector and the community – to make decisions for the future sustainability of that place as a holistic outcome. It is both a process and an outcome and collectively addresses matters such as the vision, identity, strategy, decision-making authority, financial administration, and funding of places.
What is the role of governance in delivering successful outcomes as opposed to focusing on project outputs?
Governance plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between community needs, private industries and public resources. It entails adopting a systems-level approach to places, considering the dynamic relationships at play to deliver social, environmental and economic outcomes. Working within statutory planning, legislation and regulatory environments can often lead to an output-focused mindset, where compliance with regulations is the primary concern. Place governance takes a broader perspective – envisioning and understanding a place as a whole; emphasising outcomes rather than outputs.
An output model is typically linear, driven by a problem-solving mindset that seeks the most efficient and effective solutions. It involves moving step-by-step and ticking boxes to finally arrive at a solution. Output models tend to lack vision and support a one-size-fits-all mentality. They promote silo operations and prioritise regulatory compliance over creating places with specific character.
In contrast, an outcomes model embraces systems thinking and involves reframing the problem and questioning the desired outcome and impact. A governance model focused on outcomes addresses complex place-related issues and surpasses the limitations of an output-focused approach.
Who should take ownership of place governance? Who should initiate and fund it?
Ideally, the start-up funding could come from contribution streams or federal funds and grants. This helps ensure that the management and organisation of the governance model are not influenced by vested interests. It wouldn’t be ideal for either a council or a state government to take the lead alone. One of the biggest challenges is finding an independent entity to oversee the governance model’s operation or to establish an arrangement that benefits the partners.
Likewise, the execution of the governance model needs to be entrusted to an unbiased party. It shouldn’t be solely run by the state government, the council, or any single entity invested in that place, as this would create a conflict of interest.
A good example is By & Havn, a commercial organisation that oversees the coordinated development and delivery of holistic city outcomes for Orestad and the port of Copenhagen through the Copenhagen City and Port Development Association. It is owned by both Copenhagen Municipality and the Danish Government, but runs commercially and feeds the profits back into social outcomes.
Governance models
What are some of the current governance models and what is the benefit of understanding those?
Exploring existing models can help us envision potential new ones. Let’s begin by examining the current models from the ground level and progress towards a potential new model.
At the ground level, we have the Town Team Movement, which is an informal and bottom-up approach that brings together businesses, communities and councils. It operates based on a charter that outlines the principles and values that the town team stands for. This allows them to communicate their vision and needs to the council, creating mutual support. Leederville Connect is an exceptional example of this self-organised model.
Another intriguing model is the Salt District in New Zealand, which received private funding. In this case, businesses formed a trust and adopted a destination developer mindset, shifting away from individual development. Laura Taylor, the placemaking advisor at the time, played a key role in leading this initiative under Otakaro, the development and regeneration organisation in Christchurch.
Wentworth Point in the City of Parramatta was developed under another model known as Community Titles, where the community comes together to create a title for the land and assumes responsibility for specific assets such as roads or lighting. This model has its own governance structures and successfully collaborates with councils. There is a single Community Association, which functions as a legal entity, akin to an Owners Corporation under strata legislation. This association is responsible for the management and maintenance of its designated Association Property. To finance the upkeep of the Association Property, the Community Association must maintain both a sinking fund and an administration fund. The Community Management Statement, registered alongside a community plan, encompasses the by-laws for the community scheme and outlines the necessary particulars governing how the scheme is to be administered.
The ideal scenario, however, is to have an independent body, potentially financed at the federal level, supporting the administration and development of these governance models. This independent body would provide the necessary structure, initial financing, and budgeting while remaining detached from ownership of the place.
How does a good governance model ensure the inclusion of vulnerable and marginalised groups in place-shaping activities? What are some good examples of this?
Once you understand the role of governance you can see how it can become a powerful enabler of inclusivity and diversity. Places have a whole range of assets including community skills, talents, knowledge, stories, memories and networks. Governance models should be able to enable those assets. Diversity is a huge asset for communities, and this is how governance and inclusion link with each other.
The ownership and responsibility of places are crucial. When we solely focus on asset ownership, we overlook the concept of people’s ownership and the fact that public assets are actually owned by the public. These assets are maintained and developed for the people’s benefit.
Inclusion of vulnerable and marginalised voices requires recognising their equal role in decision-making and their responsibilities regarding their places. Community-led governance models play a significant role in achieving inclusivity. Models like the Town Team Movement prioritise community involvement, allowing the community to shape, design and plan their places, thereby encapsulating inclusivity.
Many councils undertake community engagement to capture diverse voices and ensure their representation in public outcomes. Governance models take it a step further by addressing who makes decisions and how places are planned, designed and managed. Active, ongoing participation from the community is essential for governance that allows for inclusivity.
There are different approaches. Top-down enabling, facilitates community voice and inclusion from the top. A bottom-up approach focuses more on implementing community-led models. When these approaches converge, a higher level of inclusivity is usually achieved. Ultimately, this ensures the inclusion of minority voices in place outcomes through engagement and active decision-making.
Various governance models have successfully enabled inclusivity in community planning and development. A good example is the Place Plans model used in Town of Victoria Park, WA, spearheaded by David Doy, Manager Place Planning. A place leader is allocated to each place and is responsible for bringing the council disciplines together. The council acts as the organisational glue, and is responsible for responding to community aspirations. Each neighbourhood has a charter that promotes community voice in planning, designing and managing places, and each plan guides the funding and resources for the neighbourhood.
In the Salt District in New Zealand a collective trust encourages and enables community and business involvement in shaping their places.
The AMCV (the Association of Town Centre Management in Belgium) utilises a town centre management model that fosters collaboration between businesses, government and civil society to deliver shared outcomes.
Overall, these governance models demonstrate the strong currency of inclusivity in creating enabling environments for community development.
Governance and technology
How do you see technology and place governance coming together?
Technology is a powerful tool that can facilitate and enhance our efforts. It enables us to explore new possibilities and solutions in creating and managing our urban environments.
I strongly advocate for the use of technology to enhance the governance and operation of places. By implementing transparent and open systems that integrate complex data sets, we can gain a better understanding of how places function within an integrated system and measure outcomes. Technology plays a crucial role in enabling this integration. It facilitates data collection, processing and synthesis in ways that were previously unimaginable.
The power of information and data allows us to make more informed decisions based on evidence, rather than relying solely on narratives or possibilities. By leveraging data, we can even measure intangible aspects such as people’s sense of attachment or identity to a place. This capacity to integrate and analyse data becomes vital in understanding our values and making decisions that align with them.
Governance, training and support
Is there appropriate training available for place managers and development managers about good governance in general and particularly governance models that ensure inclusivity of public places?
During my time as CEO of Place Leaders, we released a series of Place Leadership micro-credentials through the University of Notre Dame, including a focus on place governance.
The Town Team Movement provide informal, action-based training and the Institute of Place Management, in Manchester, UK, may offer training programs.
This field is relatively new. There is not extensive literature to support empirical research and existing models are not widely known.
Overall, we need additional development and exploration. It is crucial for models to evolve alongside practical training programs to address these gaps effectively.
Joanne Taylor is the Principal of Cities at WSP. She is a senior leader with a focus on creating inclusive, sustainable and equitable communities. Joanne is an expert in evidence-based research, emerging technologies, and place governance. She holds a Masters of Architecture from the University of Technology Sydney and possesses an extensive experience in co-design, cross-sector partnerships, and program delivery. Joanne is equipped with multiple years’ experience in industry, including as CEO of Place Leaders Australasia. She operates at the intersection of research, policy and practice, driving contemporary methods for liveable communities.
Fae Sarshoghi is passionate about the interrelations of architecture and social sciences, with a focus on social sustainability and inclusive placemaking. Fae was born in Iran and spent much of her life there, where she practised interior design. Coming to Australia a decade ago, Fae worked in the interior fit out space for a few years and then started pursuing her passion in urban design while working on wayfinding and placemaking projects. Fae excels in analysing spaces holistically, integrating innovative practices into projects. Currently studying her Masters in Urban Design at University of Technology Sydney, her ultimate goal is to transform cities into harmonious and inviting spaces, where everyone feels connected, valued and welcome, while fostering a positive impact on the environment.
