The Land : Public or Private - Who Cares?

22/12/2017

(image: BWPI)

barrySays

The idea that land and its resources should be owned or held by individuals, families or companies is a relatively modern idea. Land was traditionally seen the world over as a common asset for use by everyone. However, as populations have increased, the grab for land and its control has become a primary generator of wealth. Private land ownership, coupled with its inheritance over generations, has exacerbated inequality. Once again, the global wealth divide has reached staggering proportions and inevitably social stability is threatened, meaning changing land ownership and management solutions are inevitable.

---

THE COMMON OWNERSHIP

Conjectural map of a medieval English manor. The part allocated to 'common pasture' is shown in the north-east section, shaded green. (image: William R. Shepherd)

The short period of just a few hundred recent years has seen most of the world’s land privatised, in so much as it has been taken out of some form of collective ownership and management and handed over to individuals. "The idea that one man could possess all rights to one stretch of land to the exclusion of everybody else" was outside the comprehension of most tribespeople, or indeed of medieval peasants.

Land reform started slowly, in Britain, about 500 years ago, with the ‘enclosure’ of agricultural lands; the subdivision and fencing of common land into individual plots which were allocated to those people ‘deemed to have rights to the land enclosed’. The king, or local lord, might have claimed ownership of an estate in one sense of the word, but until enclosure the peasant enjoyed all sorts of so-called "usufructuary" rights which enabled him, or her, to graze stock, cut wood or peat, draw water or grow crops, on various plots of land at specified times of year.[1]

Schematic diagram demonstrating the results of enclosure (image:wiki-commons )

The idea of divine rights of land ownership, ‘god given’ to a human representative on earth, became all-pervasive following the invasion of Britain by France in 1066, having been first introduced by the Romans for their deified Emperors, from whom all land in the empire was held. By the time of the expansion of the British empire in the 19th Century, this version of the feudal system was imposed on about a quarter of the world.

Village cricket on Downley Common, Bucks. Shared land use continues on common land. (image: BWPI)

The relationship between humans and land begins with a fundamental claim by people or countries to "own" land. On that basis, the world divides into two simple categories: those countries that allow citizens to own the land to which they hold legal title and those that grant only tenancies, permitting the state to claim a total prior right to the use of all land within its borders.

People have been farming millet in northern China since about 4500 BC.(image:cultural-china.com; )

In Imperial China, communal and customary rights were, like Britain, invested in landlords, nobles, religious institutions, and village communities whereby landlords traditionally paid taxes in return for debatable ‘land-owning’ rights, known as subsoil (田骨) rights, but did not have the right to actively use the land which was rented by the peasantry for agricultural purposes, topsoil (田皮) rights. The socialist revolution saw dramatic changes in ownership and control over land in China. Regarding rural land, these changes began with the establishment of the Higher Agricultural Production Cooperatives in 1956. Thereafter rural private land ownership was effectively abolished through Land Reform, which left land in the hands of the state or the collective. In the cities, whist residential property was initially left untouched, policies chipped away at the rights of landowners until private ownership existed in name only. Since 1982 state ownership of urban land has been considered a pillar of Chinese socialism.[2]

Prior to the Communist Party's takeover, landowners hired peasant tenant farmers to work the land, as in a feudalistic system. After the civil war, land belonging to landlords or wealthier peasants was redistributed among poorer peasants, and under the Five-Year Plan, farmers were encouraged to organize large, socialised collectives to improve efficiency. (Image: laurenream.github.io. )

THE GRAB FOR LAND

Communal farming of open land, which dominated the central counties of England throughout the late medieval and into the modern period, is a classic common property system that can still be seen in many parts of the world because it affords large economies of scale to small farmers. As England progressed to modernity however, communal land use came under attack from the wealthy gentry who wanted to privatise its use and used their power and influence to benefit directly.

​English history is a succession of rural uprisings and depopulated villages as the peasantry responded with a series of ill-fated revolts, starting with the 1381 Peasants' Revolt and Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450 where land rights were a prominent demand.[3] By the time of Kett's rebellion of 1549 enclosure was the main issue, as it was in the Captain Pouch revolts of 1604-1607.[4] Between 1760 and 1870, about 7 million acres (about one sixth the area of England) were changed, by some 4,000 acts of parliament, from common land to enclosed land, whereby the beneficiaries were frequently the very members of parliament enacting the legislation.[5]  The people had not only customary and legal access to lands snatched away from them but the very basis of their livelihoods.  The census of 1873 exposed the inequity of land ownership in Victorian Britain - that all land in the UK was then "owned" by just 4.5 per cent of the population.  Most land was by then the property of a very small network of aristocratic families, most of which had dual links to the House of Commons and the Lords. Those who owned everything also had political control of everything.

Britain set out, more or less deliberately, to become a highly urbanised economy with a large urban proletariat dispossessed from the countryside. It wascharacterised by highly concentrated landownership including farms far larger than any other country in Europe. Industrialisation and urbanisation tripled the population of cities in just 50 years between 1851 and 1901. At the same time the rural population declined by 1.4 million people whilst the total population of England and Wales' rose by 14.5 million.[6] By 1935 the rural population was spread remarkably thin, with one worker for every 12 hectares in the UK compared with one for every 3.4 hectares across Europe.[7] Enclosure of the commons and privatisation of land use, more advanced in the UK than anywhere else in Europe, played a key role in Britain's urbanisation at the time, and was consciously seen as a main driver of transformation. The aristocratic families and traditional landed gentry, having withheld the longstanding common land usage rights from the peasantry, were able to sell long leases given by the Crown for building development. Today just 36,000 people (0.06% of the population) have the rights to more than half of the rural land in England and Wales. [8]

As China rapidly industrialises and urbanises it has also had to develop ways to marketize land use and raise money. It has similarly addressed this by selling long-term leases on urban land, known as land-use rights (LURs) for an up-front payment whereby the land will theoretically revert to the state at the end of the term. These rights are currently set at 70 years for residential land and 40 years for commercial property that are tradeable, subject to basic planning restrictions, and compensable if expropriated by the state. However they have been issued without clarity on what will happen at the end of the leases. Last year, following the National People’s Congress, Premier Li Keqiang suggested Beijing will permit perpetual free renewals, and that the government is in the process of drafting the relevant legislation. Perpetual free renewals could mean that people who paid for a 70-year use right now find themselves with what could be otherwise simply called ‘private land ownership’.

​DISAPPEARING PUBLIC SPACES

Huge areas of upmarket Belgravia and Mayfair in London are owned by the Grosvenor Estate. (Image: Daily Mail)

One percent of the world’s population now owns over 50% of the world’s wealth.[9] In London, large swathes of the capital are owned by six “great estates” such as the Grosvenor Estate, dating back to 1677. England’s old aristocratic fiefdoms have now rebranded themselves as large corporate enterprises and are now in competition with global players to gain further control of public space in cities.

King's Cross Development, London - Although it feels like public space it is privately owned and managed. (image: BWPI)

First appearing in the 1980s, privately-owned public space (POPS) has been steadily growing. Although the spaces are seemingly accessible to members of the public and have the look and feel of public land, these large squares, parks and thoroughfares are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers. Examples include Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park’ which is managed as a private site by the London Legacy Development Corporation, ‘King’s Cross Estate’ – one of the largest redevelopment projects in London which includes more than four acres of open and publicly accessible space as well as Birmingham’s canal side development, ‘Brindleyplace’. As local governments look to make cost savings and relieve management burden they allocate such responsibilities to developers, but such sites are not subject to ordinary government bylaws but rather governed by restrictions drawn up by the ‘landowner’ and usually enforced by private security companies. 

What are the rules of behaviour in Private Owned Public Space? - Kings Cross Development: (image: BWPI)

​Private control over large open spaces in London is not in fact unusual. The new developments formed in the 19th century, including those of the ‘great estates’, saw many areas created effectively as gated communities, sealed off from the general public and policed by private entities. It was subsequently through long public struggles, waged to force open land and ensure streets, squares and parks and be adopted by local government to enable all the public to exert a measure of control. 

Under existing laws, public access to pseudo-public spaces remains at the discretion of landowners who are allowed to draw up their own rules for “acceptable behaviour” on their sites and alter them at will. They are not obliged to make these rules public and unless landowners choose to volunteer such information, the public have no way of knowing what regulations they are bound by or enjoy a legal right to, be it taking photos, holding a picnic or even simply sitting down and having a rest, without resulting in removal by security guards.

Portland Crescent, Marylebone, in 1822. During the 19th century many areas of London were sealed off from the public. (image: Heritage Images / Getty Images )

---

---

The Private Owned Public Space at Times Square, Causeway Bay in Hong Kong contributes to the open space plannning requirements. (image: Jonny Chan )

In Hong Kong, which still retains land lease arrangements based on the British system, open space does not even have to be open to the public. Areas such as shopping mall plazas and private gardens in residential developments are counted as recreation open space and contribute to the key figure of two square metres of open space provision per person required in the planning guidelines, even if the public cannot access them. Only just over a quarter of open space provision in private development is publicly accessible. Essentially public space has become privatised.  

​COMMUNITY MANAGED CITY SPACE

The adoption of gated residential communities in China’s development boom has been a standard model. The system has its roots in the country’s ancient, medieval cities, but the idea really took off with the advent of the centrally-planned work units of the communist economic system in the 1950s. These compounds are generally open to pedestrian access, but many forbid cars of non-residents whilst others even prevent passers-by from entering.

Entrance gate at gated community in Shanghai. (image: BWPI)

​However, a 2016 urban planning directive issued by the China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development declared that internal roads in private housing estates should “gradually open up” to the public, primarily in order to ease traffic congestion whilst “no new gated communities can in principle be built in the future”. The directive does not go as far as suggesting the “knocking down the walls” of private compounds, merely containing “general guidelines” whereby local governments would be required to cautiously draw up plans to implement this with public consultation, however it does underline the essential convictions of public above private access.

​How far should public access go? The British public remains well used to ‘rights of way’ a term used to describe "the legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another".[10] In Northern Europe, under ‘freedom to roam’ the general public's right to access public or privately-owned land for recreation and exercise may not be restricted to specific paths or trails. The public typically expect to be able to stroll their dog on a golf course or hike through a woodland.

Luxury gated community set around a golf course in Guangdong province. (Image: BWPI)

One cannot quite however anticipate being granted the same access to roam unfettered across leased land in China, such as an exclusive city golf course for instance, the public don’t perhaps even consider such rights exist. But why should unfettered access to land not be a common right and essential to the new urban populations? Why should terms of use and behaviour agreeable to a majority not be clearly established? Why should the common land resource be available to just the few? As the cities have swollen through urbanisation, what was once cheap, accessible land outside the city has now become hugely valuable urban open space, forming land banks that are held by large corporations or developers for future benefit. 

A map of the Grosvenor Estate as it was in the year 1723. Hyde Park can be seen in the top right. (image: The British Library)

In 1677 the London heiress Mary Davies married Sir Thomas Grosvenor, bringing with her the ownership of 500 acres of swampland, pasture and orchard, but more importantly it was unencumbered from common use by a public then disenfranchised from their historical land use rights. This today is some of the most expensive real estate on the planet where more than half of that land in London’s Mayfair and Belgravia is still ‘owned’ by Mary and Sir Thomas’s descendants as Grosvenor Estate.

Lithos Road Housing Co-op, which includes 13 rental units and nine shared equity units in London, follows the example of tenant ownership co-ops in Sweden where the tenant-members build equity through their monthly payments. This mixture of rental and shared equity is how MHOS are likely to function in big cities. (image: BWPI)

Today in Britain, as well as globally, community ownership and land management models are becoming increasingly utilised, suggestive of a return to the direction of sharing in land assets and the wealth they can create as the benefits of “the commons” starts its renaissance. Facilitated by digital technology and the internet, such models can provide more affordable housing ownership, increased community use of facilities, and opportunities to shape specific services that respond to local aspirations and needs. Stakeholder involvement and the sense of ownership that delivers responsible, shared land management can also improve community cohesion where projects help to build a stronger sense of local identity, pride, confidence, achievement and belonging.
​

The key to the success of the ‘commons’ is, like all business, rooted in good management. It is essential to ensure that the governance of any community assets is transparent and accountable to the stakeholders and that those managing assets on behalf of the group are supported to fulfil their role successfully.

​

(Image: Lewis and Conaty; )

CLBs could help democratise economies. Land speculation would give way to a positive and structured incentive to invest in transparently productive businesses, to which the cost of urban land would prove less of a hurdle. By capturing rising property values and surpluses, CLBs would pool investment assets which could be applied to local transition challenges. (Image: Don McNair)

Barry Wilson is a Landscape Architect, urbanist and university lecturer. His practice, Barry Wilson Project Initiatives, has been tackling urbanisation issues in Hong Kong and China for over 20 years. (www.initiatives.com.hk). 

---

2017/11/10
​Hong Kong to Benefit by Revitalising Water Bodies​​

2017/10/17
Return Healthy Streets to the People

2017/09/20
Has Housing Reached a New Tipping Point?

2017/07/18
Superficial Beauty Conquering Urban Substance

Wechat

Reference:
​[1] 'A Short History of Enclosure in Britain' - The Land Magazine, Issue 7, Summer 2009

[2] Has China Restored Private Land Ownership? The Implications of Beijing's New Policy, Foreign Affairs Magazine, May 16, 2017 - Donald Clarke.

[3] Jesse Collings, Land Reform,: Occupying Ownership, Peasant Proprietary and Rural Education, Longmans Green and Co, p 120; and on Cade p138.

[4] WE Tate, The English Village Community and the Enclosure Movements, Gollancz,1967, pp122-125;W H R Curteis, op cit 10, p132.

[5] G Slater, "Historical Outline of Land Ownership in England", in The Land , The Report of the Land Enquiry Committee, Hodder and Stoughton, 1913.
​
[6] Institut National D'Etudes Demographiques, Total Population (Urban and Rural) of metropolitan France and Population Density — censuses 1846 to 2004, INED website; UK figures: from Lawson 1967, cited at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/thursday.handleigh/demography/population-size/...population nearly tripled.

[7] Doreen Warriner, Economics of Peasant Farming, Oxford, 1939, p3.

[8] Who really owns Britain? Country Life November 16, 2010

[9] Credit Suisse, the 2017 Global Wealth Report

[10] New Oxford American Dictionary.