Considering the readings and our discussion in class, it is evident that public space, and the public sphere in general, is at odds with the largely pervasive private sector of capitalistic America. I found that a point in the Mitchell reading when he references Jeremy Waldron (1991) highlights this point: “In a society where all property is private, those who own none…simply cannot be, because they would have no place to be.” [194]1 This emphasizes the importance of owning property as a significant attribute to being an American citizen and how it marginalizes those who do not possess any property. Public space, thus, can provide a space that allows an opportunity for representation for those unable to be represented by simply the private sector and is illustrated when Mitchell writes “In a world defined by private property, then, public space (as the space for representation) takes on exceptional importance.” [194]1 However, admittedly, it may not be the public space that allows for this representation, but rather it is the representation that “both demands space and creates space.” [195]1 Regardless, there is inherent need and importance surrounding public space as it, in many ways, is a vehicle for many basic spatial rights like access, freedom of action, and changes. [17]2 Despite the fact that public spaces are meant to fulfill many key spatial rights, we still found, through our walk through Portland and examples in class, that these spaces may not be indeed used as often as we would think for something that is so necessary by definition.
Thus, considering this foundation, it is evident that in the smart city, public spaces will continue to be at odds with the private worlds that surround them. Whether or not this distinction puts public spaces in a place of power or is oppressed by the private sector, it would certainly be wise for the public (e.g. the City of Portland) to partner up with useful smart city technology providers (e.g. IBM). Such partnerships can certainly be much smaller and still help to make public spaces much more effective. The Bryant Park Corporation is the group we focused on in class because of the way this privatization of a public space has been widely successful. It would seem highly likely that if corporations, especially those near a public space, are allowed some stake in the public space that they would feel somewhat of a responsibility to take care of it because of the investment made. This is certainly something that Portland and other potential smart cities should keep in mind.
Another factor that smart cities and Portland should consider in developing public space is its utility and how people interact in these spaces. I found an interesting article describing how Keith Hampton is building on the findings of William Whyte decades later in understanding how technology is changing the use of public space. [3] This article mentions the Whyte videos we watched in class that concluded that seating is one of the most important factors in developing useful public spaces. Many of the spaces filmed were near Bryant Park and Hampton did some recent filming to compare with those of the past. Hampton found that social interactions, the number of people, and the number of women has increased in public spaces since Whyte’s filming. This was unexpected as many assume that technology (i.e. use of mobile phones) would actually cause use of public space to decrease. Although he mostly considers technology in the article, certainly the Bryant Park Corporation had some to do with the findings.
It still should be noted that by making public spaces private in some ways, we are preventing them from delivering their original purpose: to allow for a space that has the potential to represent anyone. Although partnerships between the public and private can certainly improve public spaces, does this allow for the representation that is theoretically expected of a public space and benefit the common good? Certainly partnerships may seem to move away from an idea for the common good due to their nature, but they do seem to improve the life experiences of so many people in an efficient manner. When considering the World Trade Center Memorial like in Low’s article, I am not sure we would want an important place of remembrance for all Americans to be in any way controlled by a private company. We would allow, however, for some type of public control (e.g. security), while perhaps still granting many rights to spaces like freedom of action. [4] Both the suggestions by the grade schoolers in Low’s article and the actual result (One World Trade Center and the 9/11 memorial) are certainly a mixture of both public and private as 1WTC is partially owned by a real-estate company and many of the grade schoolers suggested options that varied between the two sectors.
References
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. http://www.pps.org/blog/technology-brings-people-together-in-public-spaces-after-all/
4. http://abcnews.go.com/US/selfie-911-memorial-teens-story/story?id=24676819