Read this report by Andrew Smith and Goran Vodicka at the University of Westminster. It is timely precisely because there are no events happening in parks at the moment. Nature and wildlife were given a bit more of a chance to thrive this spring undisturbed for a while, which might mean a rethink on the priorities for some park users (and certainly is raising questions about how often we have to mow the grass which is so good to be talking about!). We also recognise that without any concessions in parks (cafés, kiosks, circuses, funfairs – all the things that are not event but help make our parks busy), there has been no income whatsoever.
parkruns have not been running since lockdown
It was interesting to read that around a quarter of FGs reported NO ticketed events in their parks last year, so it’s not just about paid events in parks which is where much of the contention lies. Unsurprisingly, the free events which celebrate what that park is about brings very positive impacts. And in this way, the report’s 3rd recommendation addresses this: Local community groups should be encouraged to organise free to access events by introducing more user friendly procedures and through training in event marketing / management.
We completely agree that this is about building up the capacity of community groups to be able to organise their own events – which might be more about navigating the rules and regulations and knowing how to fill out the paperwork – is important. The Borough Council does have an important part to play in making that happen and making it easier. After all, they are the ones setting those rules. It was only the other day I was talking about a group who simply didn’t fill out the paperwork and the event went ahead – and we are dealing with that at the moment in terms of illegal events happening – it’d be interesting to hear how that’s being dealt with around London and elsewhere.
Free to access events can bring in revenue for parks…as much as ticketed events?
A finding that we found concerning (and maybe not that surprising) is that a small number of larger municipal parks reported very few ‘free to access’ events (p. 9), suggesting different priorities for these type of spaces. We’re presuming that these priorities are about bringing in revenue from the parks. That makes us wonder: Who sets those priorities? Are they priorities shared by local residents/ community groups?
And when we read the quote from one group saying that they didn’t think that funfair users “benefited from the park experience by going to these events”, this made us think again about this idea of what parks are for. Park can be great settings for events – large space, fresh air, warmth and sunshine (sometimes!) – it’s just lovely to be outside. But when the setting of the park is not important to the event (e.g. a circus), then are questions being asked about whether the pros of holding an event in a park outweigh the cons? This is where we think Recommendation 7 is a good one in theory – in practice perhaps difficult to implement - Consider alternative outdoor venues where park settings are irrelevant to the aims and user experience of events.
For some events, it’s specifically about the green space you’re in such as this urban nature kid’s workshop
However, we cannot ignore the fact that holding events in parks brings in much needed revenue and the thought of losing potential revenue might be unpalatable for a local authority and indeed a Friends Group who want to welcome more people into their park.
We’re intrigued to find out more about the Friends Group who could demonstrate that a local authority did not make any money from mega commercial events, and how the costs and benefits are worked out.
Recommendation 5 - Surplus revenues earned from hiring out space for events should be spent on parks or on dedicated park amenities, including free to access events.
This is a good idea in theory which does raise questions. Would such revenues go back into the park the event was held in? Should it also be put that towards free to access events in other parks (e.g. small urban parks and garden squares) in the Borough, or even in neighbouring Boroughs? Is there appetite from Friends Groups to work together on events? To share the benefits from ‘their’ event more widely in the community? Does it already happen?
Also, would it actually be possible to do in practice? For example, some local authorities put event revenues back into the coffers for all parks, not just the park that held the event. We think this could be a good thing, but some Friends Group we’ve talked to think it should be spent on the park that held the event. Other local authorities put event revenues back into the wider council budget, so perhaps such ringfencing for parks or even a specific park is not possible.
We’re very interested to know What comes next in the project? As well as users (and non-users of course), there are two big groups not involved in this survey – local authorities and the large events organisers. It would be great to see how these findings go down with those groups.
It raises some interesting questions about what local authorities could be asking of events organisers – e.g. “No thank you, we will not have any of that ugly fencing you always use” OR “Please put in better fixes when you damage the parks (churning up the turf)”. Involving user groups in the event planning and management decisions is the main recommendation for us from your report, because it connects all the others. We think where possible, these conversations need to go beyond talking to separate Friends groups about their individual parks to gain Borough-wide benefits from events in parks. That might be about “One year, we hold that big event in your park, the following year, in our park”. Yes, this will raise issues around where the money goes and how it gets accounted, but getting Friends groups from across Boroughs and potentially crossing Borough boundaries will help more residents in a Borough to benefit from events in parks.