IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cjudxx/v20y2015i5p615-635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Memorial planning in London

Author

Listed:
  • Quentin Stevens
  • Shanti Sumartojo

Abstract

Three London jurisdictions - Westminster, the Royal Parks and the City - employ different policies, decision-making processes and criteria to shape the siting, design and subjects of new memorial proposals, in relation to different stakeholder interests, existing memorials and ongoing urban development. Across these jurisdictions, some new memorials fit well into existing physical, functional and symbolic contexts. Non-traditional 'spatial' memorials are often placed opportunistically wherever they can obtain approval. Other memorials are incorporated into existing commemorative precincts, despite dissonance in form or subject. Varying systems, a densely-developed urban fabric, political influence and compromise all lead to very diverse commemorative outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Quentin Stevens & Shanti Sumartojo, 2015. "Memorial planning in London," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 615-635, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cjudxx:v:20:y:2015:i:5:p:615-635
    DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2015.1071655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13574809.2015.1071655
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13574809.2015.1071655?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Quentin Stevens, 2020. "Decision-making processes for public memorials in Seoul: How well do they reflect and contribute to South Korea’s democracy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(7-8), pages 1328-1347, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cjudxx:v:20:y:2015:i:5:p:615-635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cjud20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.