Changing London. David Robinson

Jamie Audsley, in one of the first contributions to Changing London.

      Dozens of contributors shared Jamie’s passion. They included children and young people, who mourned the paucity of sweetshops and the cost of games consoles but were forceful in demanding decent schools, better transport and housing, more to do, reduced inequality and more opportunity; in this their views differed little from those of our adult contributors.

      London can be a wonderful place to grow up. Some can take advantage of the opportunities to learn, to play, to experience culture from all around the world, living in safe communities with supportive neighbours, good services, and a loving family. Yet low pay and high costs consign a third of children to living in poverty.23 Densely packed, often-poor-quality housing damages health. Cars dominate public space, leaving little room to play. Insecurity and transience stop neighbours getting to know each other. Violence and fear blights the lives of a minority. We are a young city – a quarter of us are aged under nineteen – yet we don’t want to grow up here: a poll asked Londoners where they would rather spend their childhood if given the chance again, and most opted for elsewhere.24 Asked if London was a good place to bring up children, only 39 per cent of people in the poorest areas said yes, compared with 81 per cent in the richest.21

      The former mayor of Bogotá Enrique Peñalosa said:25

      We know a lot about the ideal environment for a happy whale or a happy mountain gorilla. We’re far less clear about what constitutes an ideal environment for a happy human being… If we can build a successful city for children, we will have a successful city for all people.

      He is right. Our infrastructure, services and systems are not designed with the happiness of children and young people in mind. They leave many desperately struggling to thrive, and it is to them that a civilised society must turn first. It also traps many in a childhood that is good but not the best it could be, and even the luckiest children would see their lives improved if the streets and communities around them were thriving too.

      The Rights of Every London Child

      When they are growing up we expect a lot of our children and young people. In return they should expect more from us. In her contribution, Ellie Robinson suggested a set of expectations each child and young person could demand of their mayor and their city: the rights of a London child, spelt out because many are denied them at present. Based on the contributions to Changing London we propose six.

      1 For every child: a fun, friendly community.

      2 For every child: experience of all London has to offer.

      3 For every child: the extra help, whatever it takes.

      4 For every child: the first steps into a good career.

      5 For every child’s family: a decent income and a good home.

      6 For every child: the right to be heard.

      There will be many other ideas and more to add but we will know we have succeeded when the next generation are able to say: ‘These are the birthrights of a London child; the best place on earth to grow up.’

      (1) For Every Child: A Fun, Friendly Community

      Ten Thousand Play Streets – and a Presumption of Consent

      In 1972 a group of children living in central Amsterdam decided to reclaim their street from cars. With a calm, playful resolve they set up barriers at either end, organised petitions, took on irate car drivers and world-weary adults. ‘Impossible! You cannot ever close a street! Out of the question!’ said one. He was wrong. Local leaders took notice, they began rerouting traffic away from residential neighbourhoods, and introduced a 30 km/hour speed limit. Eventually the young campaigners won the right to a permanent play street, which still exists today.26

      ‘Playing out’ was a fond childhood memory for several of our contributors, but it barely features in the lives of today’s children. ‘For us it was fresh air, friends, games. For our parents it was a community, an excuse to chat, a sense of shared responsibility,’ said Sally Rogers. Christian Wolmar recalls ‘inter-war pictures where residential roads, with barely a car in view, were the site of a multitude of activities, ranging from women gossiping and cleaning the pavement, to children playing cricket or football on the cobbles.’

      A bucolic vision perhaps, a victim of modernity. Not necessarily. In the 1930s children played on every street but cars were already taking over: the Street Playground Act of 1938 was introduced after thousands of children were killed in road accidents. It allowed local authorities to close residential streets between 8.00 a.m. and sunset. At their peak there were 750 around the country but by the 1980s most had disappeared. Until 2011, that is, when a group of parents in Bristol decided to use legislation intended for street parties to close their road for the day. Their play street was such a success that they set up Playing Out to support other parents in their efforts, and there are now hundreds around the UK, including many in London, after a campaign led by London Play and local residents’ groups.27 Once a week, or once a month, the street is closed to through traffic, with a few volunteers ensuring that residents can drive safely in and out.

      At first glance play streets don’t seem to deal with the tough stuff that should surely concern a mayoral hopeful: crime, transport, housing, health. A nice-to-have, perhaps, but a priority?

      Yes. We think, a priority.

      Public space in which to meet and play is the lifeblood of a thriving community, particularly for our children. Parks and playgrounds are vital but, astonishingly, roads make up 80 per cent of our public space in London.28 We have surrendered them almost entirely to the car. Some are major trunk roads where cars undoubtedly belong but most are the local, residential streets along which neighbours used to meet and children used to play.

      This affects our environment and our safety but also our community life. Pioneering studies as far back as the 1960s have shown that roads with more cars have fewer community activities.29 Busy streets mean fewer chats over the front wall, fewer impromptu gatherings in the road, and fewer children playing out and drawing adults in. It is no coincidence that cul-de-sacs sustain the highest levels of social cohesion.30

      These community relations themselves might seem inconsequential but – as the next chapter explores – the strength of our ties to friends and neighbours is vital to our health and happiness, our graduation rates, our chances of being a victim of crime and even our IQ.31 Close-knit, supportive communities are core to the ‘tough’ challenges mayors grapple with.

      Play streets bring another health benefit too. When originally introduced in the 1930s they were intended to prevent children dying in traffic accidents. Today we have evolved different responses to the same problem – the TV screen and the computer console – which have themselves caused a different kind of health crisis. Some have linked rising obesity levels to the decline in spaces to play.

      Play streets are not difficult to implement: a barrier at either end of the road, a few volunteers to keep things in order, perhaps a few games to play with, and the children will do the rest. Legally very little stands in the way – as the trailblazers in Bristol, Hackney and elsewhere have shown – although there are legislative changes the mayor could make that would ease the process. Richard McKeever suggested a ‘presumption of consent’ whereby local authorities would have to justify to parents why a street could not be closed once a week or once a month if there was local enthusiasm for it to become a play street.

      We suggest that 1000 new play streets could emerge in London within the first year of a new mayoralty. At around thirty per borough, it is not unachievable: Hackney has nearly twenty already. Within a four-year mayoral term sights should be set even higher: Angus Hewlett suggested a minimum of 10,000 – about five per primary school and enough that most children would have a chance to take part. Sally Rogers suggested every borough could have a Play Street Activator, driving the adoption of play streets within their local authority.

      Using the voice and visibility of the mayor to engage local councils and encourage willing volunteers, the campaign would draw heavily on the knowledge and enthusiasm of groups like Playing Out and London Play, who are pioneering the resurgence.32 The barriers are not financial