Category Archives: Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Uncategorized

Avoiding Privatization and Militarization in Portland’s Public Space – Emma Chow

In order for public space in smart cities to be most useful, they need to be safe. People – women, children, the elderly – all people, need to feel as though they can frequent public space without fear of being attacked or harassed by a stranger. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, citizens have lived their lives with a sense of uneasiness and fear. (1) Fear is leading to the fall of public space. (2) The American government has responded to the threat of future terrorist attacks with militarization. Armed troops in uniform now stand in “key terrorist threat sites”, such as Grand Central Station in New York City. Their presence may make some citizens feel safer, but they may also make many other citizens feel as though they do not have a right to the space. In reality, everyone should feel like they have the right to public space. Public space in smart cities is  made safe and enjoyable through good lighting, a constant flow of visitors, and the provision of shared experiences, not by intimidating men standing with machine guns. By sharing experiences with strangers in public spaces – whether strolling in Central Park, eating lunch on the Bryant Park lawn, or conversing on a street corner – people become more trusting of others, thus further developing social capital. This common trust encourages people to look out for each other, decreasing the likelihood of crimes taking place. Technology (surveillance systems) and militarization is not the answer for creating safe public space because who really wants to spend their leisure time under the “Big Brother” eye of a camera or soldier?

Public space best serves the common good when it provides the five freedoms Low argues for: freedom of access, freedom of action, freedom to claim, freedom to change, freedom of ownership. (2) Good public space allows people to assert their right to inhabit the city. (1) Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in Zucotti Square in NYC serve as a good example of people exercising their right to assembly – Zucotti Square provided thousands of people the freedom to protest and have their voices heard. Public space for the common good should allow people to exercise their right to assembly, provide opportunities to play and exercise, immerse them in nature, and enrich their lives. Ultimately, public space should help the city meet the human “need for creative activity…for information, symbolism, the imaginary and play.” (1) Public space that serves the common good includes places, such as Central Park. As discussed in class, Central Park was masterfully designed by Olmstead to transform a mundane plot of land into a wilderness wonderland where people of all ages can come and recreate and get lost.

Portland should think carefully about how it aims to make its public space safer; camera surveillance and “Big Brother” tactics (2) should be avoided. Public space should be designed and managed as to ensure Low’s five freedoms are maximized. This means careful consideration of privatization of public space, which acts as a mechanism for blocking these freedoms. (2) Temporary privatization of space (i.e. weekend farmers’ markets and food trucks) can attract more people to visit public space; however, longer-term privatization (i.e. Nikon-sponsored Fashion Week in Bryant Park) can block public access to Low’s five freedoms for an extended period of time. That being said, privatization can be a great way to secure funding for revitalizing public space and attracting visitors. Portland may be tempted to supplement government funding with private dollars and accept corporate sponsorships; however, the City should be wary of turning its parks and squares into permanent large-scale advertisements – especially given Maine’s regulations against billboards. After all, government decisions should always be made to maximize the common good of the public, not the private.

(1) 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, 2014), 192-196.

(2) Setha M. Low, “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza,” in After the World Trace Center: Rethinking New York City, ed. Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin (New York: Routledge), 163-172.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Rethinking Portland’s Public Spaces for a More Integrated City

Conceptualizing, designing and creating “successful” urban public spaces, ones that contribute holistically and inclusively to the identity of entire communities, seems to be one of the most daunting challenges faced by urban planners today. How can we create public space that is structured enough to be enticing and attractive, yet malleable enough to allow itself to be molded representatively by the diverse residents of the city? As Professor of Cultural and Urban Geography Don Mitchell writes, “In a world defined by public property…public space (as the space for representation) takes on exceptional importance.” [194]1 It is clear that creating space that welcomes all sectors of the city, including those traditionally marginalized, is of utmost importance. It is less clear, however, how to accomplish such a feat.

One of the greatest challenges to creating representative public spaces is balancing calls for increased liberties with those for increased safety. As Mitchell points out, fear has been, is, and will continue to be a limiting factor in the design of public space. The terrorism attacks of September 11th and their aftermath, of course, provide a dramatic example of how fear can change the experience of public space. In 2002, less than a year after the incursion, Professor of Anthropology Setha M. Low observed, “Fear now pervades the postindustrial plazas of New York City,” citing that increased surveillance and the redesign of bench and ledge architecture both manifest the push to curtail the “publicness” of spaces. [165]2 In the thirteen years that have passed since the attacks, it is unclear whether the fear driving this push has dramatically faded. Camouflage-clad, machine-gun-armed intimidating men are still dispatched to “watch over” public New York City hubs such as Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal, and NYPD officers still patrol central subway stations, instructing loitering teenagers and homeless people to move along. The fear of public space as a no-man’s land in which passerby are vulnerable to violence or aggression has thus pushed cities to more strictly regulate activities in public spaces. This probes at the central questions of democracy: to what extent do we value safety, order, and protection over our freedoms of speech, expression and movement? Where do we draw the line between security and liberty?

In Portland, with an influx of low-income and racially diverse refugees and immigrants, and an ever increasing number of homeless residents (hitting an all-time high in 2013)3, tensions over how to design and regulate current and future public spaces are likely to intensify. Privileged residents may feel anxious or fearful in public spaces that force them to interact with homeless people, gathering youth, or people of a different race (particularly given Portland is over 80% white). They may therefore be more likely to avoid such public spaces, and/or advocate, whether consciously or subconsciously, public spaces designed to discourage the appearance of such socially marginalized groups. This need not solely be via police surveillance; as Low points out, this can often be accomplished via partial privatization of public space. She writes, “Commercialization and privatization…limit participation to those who can afford it and conform to middle-class rules of appearance and conduct.” [164]2 Still, public-private partnership can enliven public spaces and create incentives for residents to gather and interact, providing a basis for social integration.

Portland is thus facing a crucial turning point in how it wishes to think about public space. Just this summer, NPR reported a significant increase in laws restricting sleeping, loitering and begging in public, effectively criminalizing homelessness.4 Portland has begun to hire security officials to shoo traditionally marginalized people, including the homeless, the young, and the socioeconomically disenfranchised, away from parks in which they are not welcome. Instead, the city must design safe and comfortable places for these people to gather, such as larger public shelters and showers, and sports and recreation areas. Portland should make use of public-private partnerships to create spaces that welcome residents of all demographic sectors. Encouraging the development of affordable, diverse and inclusive privatized establishments and events in public spaces, such as ethnic food trucks, festivals and events celebrating various world cultures, and seasonally-dependent low-cost community recreation spaces (e.g. summer outdoor movies, autumn apple-picking orchards, winter ice rinks), should be at the top of Portland’s urban planning to-do list. I strongly believe that the creation of public zones where traditionally segregated sectors of society can come together in a positive and constructive way is crucial to the healthy development of this increasingly diverse and vibrant city.

 

References Cited

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 Billings, Randy. “Homelessness hits record high in Portland,” Portland Press Herald, October 27, 2013, accessed September 29, 2014, http://www.pressherald.com/2013/10/27/homelessness_hits_record_high_in_portland_/

4 Fessler, Pam. “With a series of small bans, cities turn homelessness into a crime,” National Public Radio, July 16, 2014, accessed September 29, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/07/16/332050463/with-a-series-of-small-bans-cities-turn-homelessness-into-a-crime

Assignments, Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Blog Post #3: Public Space Reflections

Blog Post #3 – due Oct 1 at 5pm

Reflecting closely on the arguments from the Mitchell and Low readings and our class discussion, what sort of public space is most useful in the smart city? What sort of spaces may be most useful in promoting the common good? Given the examples we discussed in regards to New York City and your reflections on public spaces for a smart city and the common good, what may be of use to Portland in developing their public spaces?

Feel free to continue to build on ideas from previous posts, but be sure to also take them to the next level. You can do this by expanding, concretizing, or focusing your idea through research into city’s with similar ideas. You could also find readings on your topic that help you think through the idea in different and new ways. Finally, you could draw on media such as (cited) images, videos, music, and other forms of art to support your arguments.