Category Archives: Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Bowdoin’s Vibrant Spaces and Portland’s Out-Dated Space

Public spaces are essential to societies, because if all properties were private, then the population would have isolated and homogeneous lives.[1] Imagine if Bowdoin only had dorms and classrooms. There would be little to no interactions with other students. The quad, Thorne, and in some ways college houses create an interactive college experience.  Mitchell describes that public spaces  should be in an “adequate space” with “adequate technology” to create a more “vibrant sphere.”[2] This suggests that a central location is best to serve the public in order for people to interact more. Technology keeping up to date in public space creates a larger utility for people, which would popularize the public space. Bowdoin has wifi across campus and that creates a limitless arena for students to do work, which creates a more interactive scene. Even printing stations could be evaluated as communities coming together through technology, to be fair printing stations are not the most social locations.

Low suggests that public spaces should not be touched by the private sector, because it would “limit participation to those who can afford it and conform to middle-class rules of appearance and conduct.”[3] This is an important statement, because in order to provide a space for the common good, one needs to get rid of all types of oppression. Privatization would mean the space’s priority is to create consumers of people trying to enjoy it. Mitchell states that “property rights are necessarily exclusive”  meaning the owners of the space could oppress or act anyway to maximize profits.[4] Corporations owning the space would appeal and give priority to those consumers who are willing to spend the most. By doing that there is a lost of utility by the other population. Public spaces need to attract all classes, genders, and race to create the most vibrant community.

In my opinion, Portland has a good amount of public spaces including plazas and sitting environment. Portland, in order to develop their public spaces, needs to have adequate technology integrated. Portland is one of the younger cities in New England, which means that a bigger portion of their population is more comfortable with technology. In addition, the start-up scene is growing and is attracting more entrepreneurs. These attributes make Portland one of the few cities in the nation that would greatly benefit by integrating technology into their public spaces. It would make sense because they have a population for it. This technology can include public wifi, charging stations, kiosks, etc. It could also include from what I suggested in my last blog post pathways/sidewalks/plazas that absorb kinetic energy of pedestrians and turning it into electricity thus benefiting the common good. This will help more people in Portland achieve the “the right to urban life, to renewed centrality, to places of encounter and exchange, to life rhythm and time uses, enabling the full complete usage of…moments and places.”[5]

[1] Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 193. New York: Routledge, 2014.

[2] Mitchell 194

[3] Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 164. New York: Routledge.

[4] Mitchell 193

[5] ibid

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Public Space

Progressing Public Spaces in Portland: Security and Privatization

Public spaces are invaluable in that they are capable of converging people from different walks of life. Mitchell writes, “in a world defined by private property, then, public space (as the space for representation) takes on exceptional importance.” [194]1 Public spaces can serve a myriad of purposes, including but not limited to spaces where people can perform recreational activities, play sports, enjoy serenity, connect with nature, and connect with other people. To serve these purposes, Portland need spaces which grass fields, lots of seating areas, and open plazas.

The common good can also be served through maximizing usage of these spaces, while prioritizing security, as to ensure that public spaces do not become magnets for crime. This has long been a concern in New York City, as we discussed in class a girl has been gang raped in Central Park, while Low observes, “fear now pervades the postindustrial plazas of New York City.” [165]2 Surveillance should be everywhere, and police stations should be nearby as to assure quick response times.

When designing its public spaces, Portland needs to consider the commercial and privatization potentials of the space. The argument for this is that public spaces needs a high level of utilization rate and maintenance. One of the reasons that current Portland parks are not currently well designed and kept might be due to the lack of funds. This is why having corporate and commercial presence in the parks would benefit Portland’s community. Initially commercial events would increase the parks popularity and visibility. And then, more people would utilize the parks when the events are not in session.

[1] Mitchell, Don. 2014. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 192-196. New York: Routledge, 2014.

[2] Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 163-72. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Public Space

Access and Adaptability: Allowing the Public to Manipulate their Space

In its ideal sense, the smart city is engineered with efficiency and habitability in mind. Using technology, adaptability, and common sense, the smart city should inherently preempt the public “cry and demand” for change, constantly working behind the scenes to accommodate the people’s needs. [1] In reality, however, the well-intentioned solutions offered up by the tech companies and planners tasked with redesigning cities can often fall short due to their misguided assumptions about the public.

Design issues are all too common in the recent history of establishing public space. Although Battery Park, Zucotti Park, and Portland’s Congress Square Park were not created under the guise of smart design, they share a modern “design vocabulary” that actually suffers due to its own sleekness and limits their use. [2]Continuing to focus on these three examples, one can observe specific issues in each public space. Wealthy inhabitants of the Financial DIstrict almost exclusively utilize Battery Park. Zucotti Park was entirely faceless and useless until it served Occupy Wall Street protesters’ purpose. Congress Square Park was so underutilized that the City of Portland was willing to sell it to a private entity. These symptoms of restrictive design contrast greatly with the success of older public spaces like Union Square and Monument Square, which were designed long before minimalist smart design was even conceptualized.

They may lack modern design elements, but centrality and open design make Monument Square (above) and Union Square (below) popular gathering places.

This reality illustrates an important point about public space: it must serve many purposes in order to truly serve the public. In this sense, designing parks and intuitive gathering spaces for the modern city is more difficult, since even the most diligent smart city planner cannot predict how a space will be used. The “publicness” of space, as described by Setha Low, depends on factors of access, freedom of action, claim, change, and ownership. [3] By this model, a successful space for the public (not just a limited demographic) must be flexible, accessible, and central. In Portland, Monument Square satisfies those criteria with its liminal location between neighborhoods, proximity to public transportation and parking, and availability of city-owned open space. It was an ample home for the Occupy Movement in Portland, whereas Zucotti Park was chosen (despite its limiting design) for its proximity to Wall Street.

Monument Square is superior to Lincoln Park and Congress Square Park in that it allows “various groups to represent themselves” politically, socially, and recreationally. [4] This hierarchy of usability is seemingly backwards; one would expect parks to attract more of the public, but a paved treeless square ultimately wins out. Nevertheless, the square benefits from its centrality and flexible simplicity where deliberate smart designs have failed. Portland could see increased use of public spaces if they were redesigned to be more adaptable and more accessible; taking down the Lincoln Park fence could help, as could more events and flexible seating in Congress Square Park. Allowing the public to dictate the qualities of a space that is rightly their own will naturally lead to increased integration, representation, and recreation.

1. Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 192-196. New York: Routledge, 2014.

2. Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Micheal Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 163-72. New York: Routledge, 2014

3. Ibid.

4. Mitchell, 194.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Public Space, Uncategorized

Park by the Public: using citizen sensing to improve public space

Matthew Arnold said, “without order there can be no society; and without society there can be no human perfection” [1], and used that as justification for the repression and “reigning in” of those who challenged order and therefore society. I do not actually disagree with his statement that a well-ordered society brings us closer to “human perfection” than does a society filled with chaos. However, for those in power to alone decide what constitutes acceptable chaos is a setup for large-scale injustice, inequality, and apathy. To achieve “order” Arnold advocated employing techniques of repression and tighter control of public space, to control the public from above by limiting their capacity to damage society.

What if the public had some established power in ordering society? Crowley et al define the term citizen sensing as “opportunistic sensing where people report on issue or events in their surroundings and this information is then analyzed to try to create insights into these events” [2]. Programs and apps for doing just this exist already in many cities, with varying rates of efficacy. After 9/11 New York City began a citizen reporting-based program called “If you see something, say something.” In 2012 New York Magazine published a short and dismissive article on the program, essentially summarizing Harvey Molotch’s book Against Security. According to Molotch, the program has acted much more effectively as a citywide lost and found than as an antiterrorism program [3]. We can see this as a failure of the city’s antiterrorism program, but also as the beginnings of a successful citywide lost and found program.

Instead of trying to enlist regular civilians to stop acts of terrorism, enlist them to report on regular civilian issues. This includes the lost and found, and countless existing apps for small municipal repairs, and it could also apply to usage of public space. Mitchell and Setha Low both write about fear as a major enemy of public space. Fear is the justification from policymakers for tighter control of public space, and the reason that city residents consent to give up freedoms of space usage [4]. If, as Mitchell says, “public space engenders fears… that derive from the sense of public space as uncontrolled space” [1], a solution could be to give people some measure, or at least feeling, of control over their public space. Empowering the public to call directly for changes or improvements to public space would not only generate increased usage of those spaces, it would tell those in power what should be done to improve the space.

This empowerment could take the form of an app, for streamlined smart city technology. Since public space should be available to as much of the public as possible, and not just those who have smart phones, there could be a fixed or paper version of the technology as well. The app could be designed essentially as a survey. This form of crowdsourcing could be especially helpful for a place like Portland, which is low on urban design resources. With a smart technology survey system on public spaces, the city’s urban design team (of one) could crowd-source one of the most difficult questions in designing public space (what would make people want to utilize this public space?) to the city’s most appropriate population (the people.) A scannable barcode in the public space, linked to a site-specific survey, could enable people to report about their experience of the space.

Public parks and plazas are the communal lifeblood of a city. This is where social reproduction within the city can occur on its most diverse level, as long as different kinds of people feel not only welcome, but inclined, to utilize public space. Promoting the comfortable and positive use of parks and plazas is a means for supporting cultural and community growth within Portland.

 

 

[1] Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 194. New York: Routledge, 2014.

 

[2] Crowley, David N., Edward Curry, and John G. Breslin. 2014. “Leveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments.” In Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments, edited by Nik Bessis and Ciprian Dobre, 385. Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05029-4_16.

 

[3] Gunn, Dwyer. “Does “See Something, Say Something” Do Nothing?” NYMag.com. New York Media LLC, 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

 

[4] Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 164. New York: Routledge.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Public Space

The Fluid Public Sphere

I once took a drawing class in which we focused on negative space, bringing the spaces of the in-betweens into the focus of our creative attention. It becomes positive space, a product of boundaries, like the pieces of dough left in between after the cookie cutter has been stamped, almost discarded until someone recognizes its property value and potential. In light of the shifts away from local voices and influences that are the natural consequence of urban dynamics, certain physical spaces can work to preserve that democracy. Then there is the public sphere. Like a liquid, it takes the shape of whatever it inhabits. It is dynamic and fluid as it passes through various mediums. Just as Bryant Park used to be a water reservoir, the public sphere seeks a vessel to condense its particles into something shapely. It seeks a bridge to cross from abstract into visible. This fluidity is essential to change; it is universal and it means freedom. Don Mitchell states that “To fulfill pressing need, a group takes space and makes it public through its actions.” [1] Marches turn streets into aqueducts, protests transform space by spilling entropy into the environment, and mass gatherings in squares such as the Occupy movement turn the public attention to the negative-turned-positive space. But when these processes are are inhibited, they sap the vitality of the city.

It seems to me that public spaces should unite us on the basis of three foundations: Democracy, creation, and humanity. We can’t stamp out the bad things that go on in parks that have instilled fear in the joggers of Central Park or the indirect and direct victims of 9/11. We cannot hypocritically exclude people from those spaces that are deemed “public”. Maybe the best way to go about this, then, is to strengthen these spaces in their capacity to work towards mutual compassion. The production and exchange of compassion is by far simpler and much more immediate than money flows and physical restructuring. By eradicating the homeless from the park, we only understand them less and fear them more. Public spaces  should promote confrontation rather than ignorance.

In constructing public space, there are important opposites to play on here. They are leisure and action, escape and remembrance, lighthearted friction and constructive friction. So, with all these ingredients, I think that the shaping of urban space should produce places that are loosely specialized for these three purposes, though there will be overlap, and that versatility is good.

I imagine that the democratic spaces will be fitted with platforms, tables and chairs, and complemented (not dominated by) with technology. There will be an amphitheater that will help to restore the public forum, constructed in such a way as to draw people into a circle. This shape promotes an a certain equidistance that lends itself to a feeling of collectiveness. A great example of this is the Swarthmore College campus’ beautiful green amphitheater.

[2] Swarthmore Amphitheater (Why doesn’t Bowdoin have one of these?)
 I mentioned technology, but I have reservations against public wifi. Something disconcerting that I have noticed in restaurants is when families sit at their dinner tables, all staring at smart phones as if their faces are being sucked into a virtual vortex. I think there is merit to awkward silences; it prompts us to confront it and fill it with something, anything. Silence is the blank canvas for so much possibility, and wifi sends the intent of public space into decay. Instead of public wifi, what about a semi-outdoor cafe that supplies newspapers and liberal arts school graduates-turned-baristas who can be the new salon-keepers and discussion facilitators? The supposed “connectedness” of the interweb needs not be an obstacle to the functioning of the public sphere by taking the raw human interaction out of it. Delving too deep into our devices only reifies our existing beliefs because we are the ones deciding on every click. It worries me that the excitement of new technologies makes us forget that there are human problems still to be addressed, human problems that underly so much. Many of the smart solutions we have come across in class so far have seemed partly extraneous. For example, smartphones have become a symbol of the elite, a mystical object some will spend an inordinate fraction of their income on to achieve a higher image. I would much rather see a large touch screen installed in a public space that provides games, movies and interactive learning. Technology should be tailored to be available to the collective use and benefit.

As for the public spaces geared towards creation, I imagine community garden plots, chalkboard walls, installation art, and spaces for theater and music. It could be a new breed of the public forum, made for channeling multiple perspectives into a shared, final product. Art is reflective of all inputs and processes, and it invites its makers to make mistakes and forces them to accept them. The result is a synergized picture of the urban people.

And for the human spaces, they should cater to our most basic needs. Food carts and trucks, dog parks, running trails, farmer’s markets, chess tables, sports facilities. This group may also include memorials and gardens. We all need to nourish ourselves and we need space to dwell for the sake of dwelling. The essence of public spaces springs from what unites us beyond all boundaries, and it is only in spaces where the fullest of that essence can be expressed. Setha Low said it well, that “The emotional spirit should infuse the postindustrial plaza where all can find public expression.” [3] If Portland’s public spaces can be refitted to meet these three categories, the public sphere can continue to flow and take shape. Otherwise, urban agoraphobia will turn us into chickens in cages.

 

[1] Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 196. New York: Routledge, 2014.

[2] http://www.swarthmore.edu/images/news/scott_amphitheater.jpg

[3] Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 172. New York: Routledge.

 

Post #3: Public Space Reflections

The Problem with “Smart” Monitoring Systems in Public Spaces

While a “smart” public space may foster unprecedented opportunities for entertainment, efficiency and convenience, we have to look at the ways in which universal access may be structurally limited by these improvements. Low describes contemporary examples of the ways public spaces are not inherently “open”: “many of these civic spaces are no longer democratic places where all people are embraced and tolerated, but instead centers of commerce and consumption.”[1] These spaces are designed for use by one portion of the population in preconceived ways, limiting freedom. A “smart” square could tend towards – if not necessitate – advanced surveillance mechanisms that would be beneficial for only a margin of the population.  A space that could monitor movements and process information about individuals could lead to discriminatory mechanisms imbedded in the square itself. Squares that could track movements, for example, could send reports about squares most frequently used by homeless people, and lead to subsequent police monitoring.  This would defeat the purpose of a public space.

A “smart” monitoring system would not only be potentially discriminatory, it could also reduce the quality of life in a city.  One thing I have always valued about New York City is the ability to occupy your own bubble of “private sphere” in a public space. Given that your actions are for the most part safe and legal, no one will have a problem with anything you are doing. You have the benefit of being anonymous while experiencing the public life of the city. The prospect of a larger “smart” mechanism that makes the movements of your private life publicly documented takes some of the charm out of city living.

Given these arguments, I believe the best “smart” public space for Portland would have to use technology for the increased independence of the people, and not top-down monitoring. Both Low and Mitchell make the importance of liberated and unmonitored use of spaces known in their discussions. Low notes that it was the “spontaneous, less-regulated spaces” of New York City that were the most vibrant and healing memorials after 9/11. She goes on to say that, particularly spaces as emotionally-charged as Ground Zero “must respond to the different experiences and reactions of people throughout the city, divided as they are by age, generation, location, ethnicity, and class.” [2]  A public space cannot be statically created to serve one purpose, but  must be versatile to serve many different groups. Mitchell goes on to say that a public space cannot just be deemed “public, but “rather, it is when, to fulfill a pressing need, some group or another takes space and through its actions makes it public… The very act of representing one’s group… to a larger public creates a space for representation.” [3] A public space needs to be constantly taken up and transformed by different groups. It must include accessible, free technology that can be used productively by the public.

 

[1] Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 164. New York: Routledge.

 

[2] Ibid., 166.

[3] Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 195. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Parks and Recreation

As mentioned in class earlier this week, the privatization of public spaces within cities can work wonders for a space’s infrastructure, and therefore  popularity. Corporations invest large sums of their capital in public space projects in an effort to either improve or reaffirm their positive company image while the public is given the opportunity to enjoy the new space that they create. Moreover, if residents see that a well-respected and influential corporation sponsors a large-city large public space, they are likely to assume that it is monitored and more secure than a non-privatized public space in a large city, and therefore residents may be even more likely to utilize the public space. That being said, having the corporation’s logos all over a park or pavilion in the center of Portland, Maine may not be the best addition to a small-city for residents to benefit most from their somewhat limited public space. Because Portland’s atmosphere may not be able to cope with that much aggressive advertising, I think finding a way to make a place not only safe, but also feel safe, is arguably the most important priority for Portland in terms of creating Public Space. “The city is the place where difference lives” (Mitchell, 193)[1] and in turn it is inherently more difficult for larger cities to create this kind of safe public space simply because there are more ‘differences’ to account for than there are in a smaller city like Portland.

“Such an association of public space with anarchy is, of course, not new; it is not just a feature of the contemporary city, of the current media-encouraged, overweening concern about crime, homelessness, and random terrorism that makes public space seem such an undesirable attribute of the contemporary American city” (Mitchell, 192) [1]. I definitely agree with the points that Mitchell describes about the contemporary city and fear of anarchy – that being said, a smart city is not necessarily the ‘contemporary city’ quite yet as very few cities are currently deemed ‘smart’. A smart city is the most ideal, efficient, and technologically driven city – a city where people trust technology enough to know that they will not be mugged in the middle of a park on the way home because everywhere is under constant surveillance.  I think the types of public spaces that would be most useful in a smart city would be large, green, flowing parks filled with trees, hills, and free Wi-Fi where the city’s residents can enter the park and get lost for an afternoon (similar to Central Park, NY) while knowing they are safe.

The types of public spaces that I would recommend most for Portland would be a large open park, with elements that make the area entertaining to a wide range of ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. In order for the public space to contribute to the public good, I think that it would have to contain different aspects of Portland’s culture and past like local art or a central historical monument. The park would have a large area of movable seating (with cushions!), free Wi-Fi, food trucks, large lamp posts, a playground area for children, tall bushy trees, various different forms of public art, large winding paths for athletes, areas of shade, message boards with city announcements and event advertising, a public garden, and more importantly, a pavilion with multiple different levels (creating seating and more private areas for smaller groups of people). The park could even have an ice rink in the winter to make it more of a year round public space.

The ideal public space would feel very private, as if its visitors are obviously safe because they can see what is going on in the entire park while still being separated from all of the park’s moving parts. This type of public space would cover the majority of Low’s 5 qualities of public space – freedom of access, freedom of action, freedom of claim, freedom of change, and freedom of ownership – while avoiding the fear typically associated with public spaces [2]. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to have one or two subtle security cameras within the park just so that the visitors have the reaffirmation that they are indeed safe.

 

 

 

Works Cited:

  1. Mitchell, Don. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” The People, Place, ad Space Reader (2003).
  2. Low, Setha. M. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” After the World Trade Center – Rethinking New York (2002).
Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Economic and Common Good Gain from the Development of New Public Space

Bowdoin’s McKeen Center for the Common Good defines the Common Good simply as something that Bowdoin citizens can use their individual “talents, passions and academic pursuits… for the benefit of society.”¹

My previous blog post argued for the revitalization of the waterfront, specifically piers. I still believe that area of Portland is one of the most feasible locations for change, due to its current run-down condition and proximity to the highly-trafficked and -desirable Old Port. The redesign of this area as a health- and fitness-based park system and new housing development would directly benefit the Common Good by encouraging physical wellness and economic development.

Is it a boon or hindrance that a public park (with appropriate seating, of course2) could provide sanctuary and location to the homeless population? On my trips to Portland I have almost always seen the homeless population utilizing the otherwise rarely attended Deering Oaks Park green, right off the Forest Avenue exit. Is this a use of space for the Common Good? Or would it provide more “Good” as the baseball fields and tennis courts in the park located along I-295? Would the pier parks I am suggesting be “uncontrolled… anarchical” spaces filled with the homeless as Mitchell suggests?3

Deering Oaks Park

     I believe my proposed pier parks would contribute to the Common Good by providing access to free physical (and subsequently emotional, though a beautiful park on the ocean may alone provide emotional) wellness to all. Due to its proximity to the wealthier neighborhoods and business district of Portland, I do not foresee a shift in the homeless population away from Deering Oaks Park, an area close to the lower-class neighborhoods, shelter, and Preble Street sanctuary. Regardless, my additional proposal to construct middle- and high-class housing, as part of the greater pier system, would further deter a homeless migration. Low argues that the privatization and commercialization of public spaces is necessary to their future and points out that they induce an expected level of class in the public space.4 While this may seem to subvert the “right to the city” as Lefebrev puts it, or “the right to sleep unmolested in a city park”, as Mitchell suggests, I argue that the piers as they now stand offer even less right to the underprivileged.5 Currently, they offer no access, claim, change, or ownership to the homeless or those of lower classes.6 A seafood market, arguably pricey, and a high-end tote bag shop were noteworthy businesses currently inhabiting one pier. My proposed plan would at least extend the rights of access, change, and (temporary inhabitation) ownership for those less privileged.

One small section of Hudson River Park

Looking back at my previous blog post, I mentioned one noteworthy example of a pier that underwent a similar transformation in Philadelphia, Race Street Pier. Looking now to NYC, I would like to point to the success of the Hudson River Park; a public-private redevelopment of “decaying piers and parking lots” that attracts “17 million visitors annually” and boasts attracting $3 billion in new construction in surrounding neighborhoods.6 With these examples from larger cities as our role model, Portland should see the economic and Common Good boon currently hidden by boarded-up, trash-heaped piers.

 

1) “McKeen Center Mission Statement.” Mission Mission. Bowdoin College, n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.bowdoin.edu/mckeen-center/about/>.

2) Whyte, William H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6G4B9Z27yA

3) Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 192. New York: Routledge, 2014.

4)Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 164. New York: Routledge.

5) Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 193-194. New York: Routledge, 2014.

6) “About Us | Hudson River Park.” Hudson River Park. Hudson River Park Trust, 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/about-us>.

 

Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Pragmatic Parks

The smart city will not change publicly owned public spaces all that much for one simple reason. The way people use parks etc has not changed in the last hundred and fifty years. Maybe public wifi in a park will change the demographic from book readers to people on computers and phones, but that does not matter in any larger sense.

Neither Setha Lowe’s “rights” [1] nor Donald Mitchell’s rules for Marxist public spaces [2] take any heed of technology or the change it might bring. Public space is important because it is a physical gathering space for people. Everything else is secondary.Mitchell is so willing to make a park a place for public gathering that he is willing to walk a very fine line Marxist in favor of rights saying, “‘Rights’ must be at the heart of any Marxist and socialist project of urban transformation, even while the limits of rights, and the need to continually struggle over them, must constantly be acknowledged.” [3]

I think that this is one of the weakest parts of their arguments. Both demand complete public control over public spaces. The problem is that those techniques do not work. Walking through Portland there were many parks that were completely controlled by the public via the state and utterly unused. Unless you have an ideological understanding of what makes a park and public space “good” these parks are massive failures. No one goes to Lincoln Park not because it has somehow been corrupted by reduced public ownership. There is nothing to do there and the physical plant is falling apart. Only an ideologue would argue it is successful.

A public-private partnership is the alternative. The public sells part of its control of a public to private hands and in return gets a place people will use. I think the authors we have read deify the public and their unadulterated control and sacrifice short term gains to the public like having usable parks. Unlike a Parks Department, private enterprise can only make money if the public space is actively used. They are the only ones with real motivation to improve the space.

Maybe I am too cynical, but it genuinely seems like Mitchell does not care about the usefulness of public space.[4] He seems much more likely to think about it through the lens of Marxist revolution than from the average member of the public in a city like New York. If we want useful ideas about how to make our parks better, maybe we should get ideas from practical people instead of ideologues who only view things through bright red lenses.

  1. Setha Low, Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza165
    1. Don Mitchell, “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice” 195.
  3. Don Mitchell, “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice” 195.
  4. Don Mitchell, “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice” 193.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Mingo blog post #3

Public space is a vital component of any city. Because public space is – at its name suggests, usable by everyone – it is one of the few resources available to all people regardless of any number of factors including race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Because public spaces exist for everyone, it is important that all people are served as equally as possible by public spaces. Setha Low describes five essential spatial rights for any sort of public place: access – the right to be in a space; freedom of action – the ability to use a space; claim – the ability to take over and use the resources in a space; change – the ability to alter the space; and ownership. [1] These rights are essential for any public space; as such, they must be preserved for all individuals. This leads to an obvious question: What kinds of public spaces are most important? Of course, the answer to this question depends heavily on context.

In a smart city in which everything is interconnected and heavily dependent on technology, public places with Internet access are incredibly important. The Internet is, as we discussed in class, unique in that it is a non-physical “space of mobility,” one that is vital for accessing nearly everything in the modern world. As such, public places that provide access to the Internet, such as Wi-Fi hotspots or the library in Portland, are incredibly useful in the modern smart city.

From a homeless person’s standpoint, in contrast, a place to live is of course of the utmost importance. Don Mitchell describes this in his piece “To Go Again to Hyde Park” when he explains that there are “some members of society [. . .] not covered by any property right [ . . .] The right to housing needs to be dissociated from the right to property and returns to the right to inhabit.” [2] For populations such as the homeless, public places to live are not only convenient: they are a necessity. Mitchell even goes so far as to say that “representation both demands space and creates space.” [2] In other words, public places exist to serve the needs of all people and are created when a new need arises that is not being served by any existing spaces.

Specifically with regards to Portland, many different groups need to be kept in mind when considering public space. On the one hand, Portland is a growing city in the modern age, meaning spaces should cater to a certain extent to young, technologically savvy people. On the other hand, Portland has a sizable homeless population – as we saw firsthand on our class field trip to the city – who would certainly benefit from public living spaces. This is not to say that public spaces in Portland should cater to all groups of people simultaneously; it would be difficult to have a public park with playgrounds for children filled with homeless people sleeping on park benches, for example. As such, it is important for the concerns of all people to be addressed in different public spaces, such that all groups will be taken care of. I do not mean to say public spaces should be segregated by group or status; only that a variety of spaces should be created, without any one space trying to encapsulate everything important to everyone.

  1. Setha Low, “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza,” in After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, ed. Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin (New York: Routledge), 163–172.
  2. Don Mitchell, “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice,” in The People, Place and Space Reader, ed. Jen Jack Gieseking, et al (New York: Routledge), 192–196.