Missing: Public Space
Posted on November 15, 2019
THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE
The concept of public space is ambiguous with definitions thereof having changed over time and differing across geography. Still, within one location of time and place what constitutes public space can vary vastly depending on the boundaries drawn and the viewpoint taken.
The need to understand what space is public in contrast to private has been constructed, particularly in the western world. Practices and laws such as feudalism, leases and titles have historically been engineered to claim land for private use or gain. It is difficult in this century to think of land that isn’t owned, regardless of one’s access to it.
This is particularly magnified in cities where the battle for space is forefront with every square foot called for. And yet the definition of public space in cities remains varied.
One can say any space that is generally open and accessible to people is public – sidewalks, streets, squares and plazas, seafronts and promenades, market places, shopping precincts, parks, gardens, canal and riverbanks, libraries and community centres.
Some narrow the scope, qualifying only green outdoor spaces and others broaden it to “consider the virtual spaces available through the internet as a new type of public space” [1].
One unifying principle each definition of public space should arguably include (but often doesn’t), is openness and accessibility “to all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level”[1], as indicated by the word public.
While there is not one definition of public space that is necessarily ‘right’ it is useful to expound the different understandings and approaches in order to highlight the complexity of the notion of public space.
So as to not open the remit too wide, in this piece public space is defined as the physical spaces of parks, plazas and squares. They are spaces that exist across cities in the western world and are, in theory, ‘open’ to all people without a purpose to necessitate being there and ‘unrestricted’ by opening and closing times.
THE IMPORTANCE OF APPEARING
According to the Project for Public Space, there is a demand for better, more ‘public’ space in today’s cities[2]. But why is that?
By 2050 almost 70% of the world’s population is predicted to live in cities. And yet cities are becoming increasingly space starved and segregated (along social, economic, cultural and ethnic lines), threatening the vitality of cities and the health of citizens therein.
The public spaces of parks, plazas and squares have long been known as sites, forums and foundations for political discourse and protest. Hannah Arendt, cited by Judith Butler references the Roman public square when she claims that all political action requires the “‘space of appearance’…the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together” [3]. Countless important (whether memorable or not) moments of civic engagement have taken place through appearance in public spaces.
As referenced, many are now looking to the internet as a new space where political needs can be expressed and debated, where one can appear. However, not least have we seen the dangers of the reliance on online platforms for political information and discussion, but spaces online do not allow for the serendipitous bringing together of diverse populations, with much online content and consumption separated and intentional.
Public spaces in built physical environments allow for the interaction and coexistence between people from different backgrounds and socio-economic conditions in ways that are less obfuscated and sometimes more meaningful than online. Meaningful because togetherness in segregating cities (ideally) builds social cohesion and empathy.
This meaning speaks to ideas of social capital, “those tangible assets [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse”[4]. Social capital fostered through engaging with/in public spaces has been linked to a sense of place in people. Sense of place “is the lens through which people experience and make meaning of their experiences in and with place”[5]. This sense of place has been shown to influence ownership and engagement in a place with positive effects on both environment and citizen mental health.
A case can also be made for the positive benefit on one’s mental health having access to space in a crowded city that is recreational and allows for moments of joy and rest rather than solely being for utility.
Civic participation, social mixing, sense of belonging and recreation are all enabled in ways that are critical to the health of cities and citizens in public spaces.
THE OXYMORON OF PRIVATE PUBLIC SPACE
So far, the definitions and benefits of public space examined have existed in an idealistic vacuum, removed from the systems that public spaces (and the provision, maintenance and use thereof) exist in.
Capitalism and colonialism are two systems that have shaped the way we view and use (or misuse) space. Land, particularly land that was wrongfully and violently seized, has long been a dominant source of wealth and power in these systems.
As sociologist David Madden explains, “in recent years, and especially as a local and spatial consequence of neoliberal policies, a great part of… spaces that are fundamental in the definition of… urban and community life have not been taken care of, have been abandoned or left in disuse or, worse yet, have been privatized…[and left to] ‘the market’ to freely operate the private appropriation of urban spaces, almost without any restriction to real-estate speculation and the creation of exponential revenues”[6].
This colonial privatisation has created pseudo-public or (oxymoronic) private public space, weaponising public space as a further tool of oppression.
THE IMPLICATION OF PUBLIC SPACES IN GENTRIFICATION
The danger of the privatisation and weaponisation of public space is not merely about there being less space but the disproportionate effects on the most marginalised groups in cities.
One example of this is the correlation between the privatisation of public space and gentrification. Not only are privately owned public spaces largely found in gentrified neighbourhoods[7], which begs questions of equitable access, but they are one of the complex factors in influencing the gentrification of an area.
As the Project for Public Space states “when public spaces are more appealing to [rich white] people in terms of the use, function, and overall health of a neighborhood, they also have the potential to make an entire area more valuable – in the same way that historic housing stock, or good public schools do” [2].
Gentrification is a violent process of homogenisation and displacement. One that centres a narrow percent of urban populants, the benefits for which do not ‘trickle-down’ to others in society [6] and public space has become implicated in that.
THE EXCLUSION FROM PUBLIC SPACE
As well as privatised public spaces being enmeshed in the displacement of populations in cities, they also similarly play a role in socio-spatial exclusion.
Sometimes incidentally, mostly intentionally, public spaces have been designed or redesigned to deter certain members of the population from using them. This can be embedded in the physical architecture, such as benches that inhibit lying down, or it can be designed into wider society, such as laws prohibiting begging in public spaces [8]. This exclusion can also manifest more subtly, such as the overprogramming of a space [8], or the positioning of monuments.
What is key here is that those who own and ‘provide’ privately owned public spaces have little obligation or responsibility to anyone (accountability laws are only just being introduced), and can, and do, exclude ‘undesirable’ populations from using their spaces.
THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC SPACE
While compounded by neo-liberal principles, exclusion from public space is not a new phenomena. There are endless examples throughout history of public spaces being designed to intentionally exclude. As critical theorist Nancy Fraser argues, the public sphere, and as such public spaces, have been ”constituted by a number of significant exclusions”[9].
This legacy and trajectory of public space begs one critical question; has public space ever existed in this society? [10].
We have explored that there are many ways to define public space. This provocation can absolutely be debated on that basis. However, if holding to the central tenant that public space allows access to “all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level”[1] the question becomes harder to dismiss.
A NEW VISION FOR PUBLIC SPACE
What does it then mean if public space has not existed in the way we think?
This idea does nothing to extoll the repercussions of a lack of space in cities, gentrification or exclusion. It doesn’t sit well with those of us who see public space as vital.
Perhaps however, what it requires of us is to reframe our definition, understanding and execution in fighting for public spaces. Perhaps it can embolden us to innovate and think bigger, outside of the systems we can feel confined by.
As speculative designers Fiona Raby and Anthony Dunne write, our dreams in and for society have been downgraded to hopes rather than dreams and visions [11]. Operating from a space of hope makes it ‘easier’ to settle for tokenistic concessions from big developers, design short lived interventions or rely on someone else to fix the problem.
And while it is important to work ‘on the ground’ – lobbying for better public policies, supporting libraries, reprogramming existing spaces – creating speculative designs and visions can move us outside of that cliched box.
If public space has not existed we have the opportunity to “create critical designs [that] are testimonials to what could be” and “at the same time… offer alternatives that highlight weaknesses within existing normality”[11].
We can start to ask questions like;
What are our dreams for public space?
How can we improve public spaces for the communities they serve? Without displacing people?
How can we decolonise public spaces?
Or even;
What if all space in cities was public?
There are so many more questions to be asked, lessons to be learnt and action to be taken. But one thing is clear, if public space does not yet exist, we have an immense opportunity to speculate a new vision of public spaces for all.
– Rose
[1] “Inclusion Through Access to Public Space | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” Unesco.org, 2010. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/urban-development/migrants-inclusion-in-cities/good-practices/inclusion-through-access-to-public-space/.
[2] “Does Placemaking Cause Gentrification? It’s Complicated.” Pps.org, 2015. https://www.pps.org/article/gentrification.
[3] Butler, Judith. “Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street.” European institute for progressive cultural policies 9 (2011).
[4] OECD. “What is Social Capital?”. OECD Insights: Human Capital. 2007. https://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf.
[5] Adams, Jennifer. “Sense of Place – The Nature of Cities.” The Nature of Cities, May 26, 2016. https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/05/26/sense-of-place/.
[6] Madden, David. “Gentrification Doesn’t Trickle down to Help Everyone | David Madden.” the Guardian. The Guardian, October 10, 2013.
[7] “Public Spaces in Manhattan by Hannahrosefox· MapHub.” MapHub, 2019. https://maphub.net/hannahrosefox/public-spaces-NY.
[8] “New Public Spaces Are Supposed to Be for All. The Reality Is More Complicated.” The New York Times, November 13, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/nyregion/public-spaces-nyc.html.
[9] Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text, no. 25/26 (1990): 56-80. doi:10.2307/466240.
[10] Merwood-Salisbury, Joanna. 2019. Design for the Crowd. In person. The New School.
[11] Dunne, Anthony., Raby, Fiona. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. United Kingdom: MIT Press, 2013.