Agora was the central element of social and political life in Ancient Greece; it greatly contributed to the development of Greek democracy as it was a place for people to come together, share ideas and vote on issues. Agora was the first public space as we know them today, and it has undergone many transformations over the centuries. Agoras shifted to Salons in the 19th century. Salons were interior places where people went to see and to be seen. The difference between Greek agora and European salon is not hard to see, however, the their purpose has been the same.

We have neither agoras nor salons today, and it seems like public space is shifting once again. The difference is that we have never had as much control over these shifts as we do today. As we supervise the shift of public space to its new form, we should focus on preserving five core qualities of public space, which are

1. Freedom of Access
2. Freedom of Action
3. Freedom of Claim
4. Freedom of Change
5. Freedom of Ownership

Protecting these freedoms will become extremely important in smart cities full of sensors and other data collection devices. No matter how much forward we move technologically, public spaces should remain areas where these freedoms can be exercised.

In his article “To Go Again to Hyde Park” Don Mitchell writes, public space is uncontrolled space, space of anarchy,[1] spaces owned by people. We talked about the events that took place in Central Park in 1989 and the only way of avoiding such incidents is the elimination of anarchy from public spaces, which is mostly accomplished through authority control. So, we want control of public spaces but we also want all of the freedoms described above. To be honest, I have no idea how this can be accomplished, but I hope to come up with something by the end of the semester.

Another factor affecting public spaces is privatization and commercialization [of everything]. Often times, corporations are more willing to invest money into public spaces, but investments usually come at a price of limiting participation to those who can afford it[2] or those who belong to a particular socioeconomic class. However, privatization does not necessarily have to be bad and deteriorating; people have come up with innovative ways of using private funding for the common good.

In 1980, Daniel Biederman and Andrew Heiskell founded Bryant Park Corporation with a mission to reclaim Bryant Park for the people of New York City.[3] Bryant Park Corporation is a perfect example of public-private partnerships that enable private funds to be used for the common good [of the city and citizens]. BPC lists creating “rich and dynamic visual, cultural and intellectual outdoor experience” and helping “prevent crime and disorder in the park by attracting thousands of patrons, at all hours, thus fostering a safe environment” in the first paragraph of its mission statement. This is all that public spaces need!

Public-private partnerships do not necessarily mean plastering investor’s logos all over the park; corporations love branding and people love corporations that care about them.  Thus, every corporation would love to have a park associated with its name: people develop emotional connections to places; a branded place would automatically instigate an emotional connection to the brand in the person.

Public-private partnerships are definitely something that Portland could benefit from. The lack of parks was easy to notice during our field trip, but more importantly existing parks clearly lacked attention. The first step to developing public-private partnerships would be creating an action group within the Portland City Council that will produced proposals to private corporations for the revitalization of public spaces (while preserving the core freedoms). In 1974 Henry Lefebvre published “The Production of Space”, a book that is relevant to the present day. Lefebvre argued that space is produced and I have to agree with this statement. There might have been a time in history when public spaces could emerge out of nowhere, but this is impossible in the conditions of a modern city. Therefore, we should be carefully planning public spaces so that they are effective in a modern city and in the smarter city of the future while serving the purpose of the common good.

 

Public space has been shifting based on the needs of the society but its function to provide a place for sharing and expressing ideas has remained the same for thousands of years. As we move toward smarter cities, we should be focusing in preserving the core freedoms while integrating public spaces with new technologies. I would like to end this blogpost with a quote from Setha Low: a postindustrial plaza where the imagery and imagination of all communities, children and seniors, workers and retirees, residents and visitors, will then find public expression.[4]

—————————————

Citations

1. Mitchell, Don. The People, Place, and Space Reader. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014. 192-196. Print.

2. Sorkin, Michael, and Setha Low. After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City. New York: Routledge, 2002. 164. Print.

3. “Bryant Park.” Bryant Park. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.

4. Sorkin, Michael, and Setha Low. After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City. New York: Routledge, 2002. 171. Print.