Shared space or segregated space?

The lockdown that the Covid-19 pandemic triggered emptied streets, closed premises and kept commuters home-bound. Cities have been afforded a unique window to collectively reimagine and transform their public spaces and transport infrastructure, making their communities healthier, happier and more sustainable post-pandemic. Many are turning to the concept of ‘shared space’, an idea centred around equity and safety. Yet, in adopting its principles and doing away with physical barriers, it can create insurmountable obstacles for others.

In the late 70s, Dutch traffic engineer, Hans Monderman, coined the concept of ‘shared space’; a simple idea that not only seeks to make cities safer, but more friendly and more attractive too. His insight? ‘That barriers, railings, kerbs, crossings and even traffic lights - all intended to keep pedestrians and motorists apart - actually discourage both groups from engaging with each other, making life more dangerous.’ Having first been implemented throughout Monderman’s native Netherlands, shared space designs have since spread around the globe, being adopted in hundreds of towns and cities.

Promoting the integration - rather than segregation - of different users and functions created a sense of shared ownership and accountability. Traffic flow is based on engaging with one another, making eye contact, negotiating and being flexible. Increased human interaction typically yields a more enjoyable urban environment. 

Monderman’s insight was ‘that barriers, railings, kerbs, crossings and even traffic lights - all intended to keep pedestrians and motorists apart - actually discourage both groups from engaging with each other, making life more dangerous’

However, for people who are blind or with partial sight, the opposite is often true. For the two million people in the UK who suffer from sight loss, shared space schemes often become ‘no-go areas’, as Zoe Courtney, Policy & Campaigns Officer at the Royal National Institute for Blind People (RNIB) explains, ‘key tactile and safety features blind and partially-sighted people rely on are removed’.

Guide dogs need kerbs to navigate. As do long cane users. And when the colour or material changes of paving aren’t detectable, many different forms of sight loss suffer. Tactile paving only works in specific contexts. Coming to the edge of a pavement works in conjunction with an incline – no level change makes it hard to locate or determine what it means. Without this information, people with partial sight are taking a leap of faith.

Steadfastly following the principles of shared space with the intention to engender it’s thoroughly-recorded and widely-documented benefits simultaneously runs the risk of making cities even more exclusive. They remove features essential for navigation, accessibility and inclusion and offset significant advantages for one section of society with a detriment to another.  

For the two million people in the UK who suffer from sight loss, shared space schemes often become ‘no-go areas’ – Zoe Courtney, Policy & Campaigns Officer at the Royal National Institute for Blind People (RNIB) 

In 2019, following petitions, campaigns and lobbying by a number of concerned organisations, the Government decided to officially recommend that local authorities pause the development of shared space schemes while they review and update their Inclusive Mobility and Tactile Paving guidance as part of their wider Inclusive Transport Strategy. Ultimately, until evidence-based research proves that those suffering from sight loss aren’t excluded from shared spaces, they are being actively discouraged.

Decades of global research into shared spaces suggest a considerable array of statistically-supported benefits: it reduces journey times for all transport, which has the coupled benefit of reducing carbon emissions; it saves money by doing away with barriers, lights, road markings and their maintenance; it also reduces policing costs. It’s easy to see why they are so desirable, despite frequently making areas exclusionary.

An alternative to ‘shared space’, that provides comparable positive outcomes, are ‘simplified streetscapes’, a more moderate concept that retains features important to those with partial sight.