“A park with a garden and a café where you can put flowers and a place to light candles. And have and event there every year.” (Low 169)

This is one of the ideas described by an eighth grader as a plan for public space on the site that previously housed the World Trade Center towers, pre-9/11. The public place is framed as a memorial space, but that small space embodies all of the characteristics of the optimal public space/installation: place to loosely congregate, green space, local and user-friendly business, space of remembrance and celebration, and a space to (annually or spontaneously) assemble and express our rights. Not to speak for the legend himself, but if F. L. Olmstead could have summarized his vision for Central Park in one sentence, this eighth grader’s brief suggestion would have it covered.

I believe that in order to establish a successful, smart-city-oriented public space, the characteristics outlined in the above example represent the key to success. What the green space and flowers suggest is that people enjoy aesthetically pleasing and comforting spaces to visit—and the more pleasing and comforting a space is, the more likely people will stop and stay within the space. This user-spatial relationship is especially apparent in the dichotomy of interactions visible in Bryant Park versus Zucotti Park.

The café represents a positive characteristic for two reasons: first, the business exists at ground level, contributing to the atmosphere of the park as it caters to the users of the park and even extends the boundaries of the park inwards, within the interior space of the cafe; and secondly, the café makes the space marketable. As Low makes apparent, “unless North American urban spaces become commercially successful, their future remains in question.” (164) Investment in the comfort and aesthetics of the park is thus beneficial to the businesses that cater to it, as it ensures continued patronage.

Lastly—and arguably most importantly—is the use of a space for assembly and remembrance. These two characteristics carry a common theme: Americans coming together, in union, for a shared purpose. This is the very root of the public space in all cities, and while the public space held a largely utilitarian purpose in its original conception, the idea behind it was that there needed to be spaces within the labyrinth of the city where people could come together and accomplish a wide variety of civic needs. These needs have not disappeared—they’ve simply changed appearance over time.

Don Mitchell (without coming out and saying it directly) favors the concept of the public space catering to the smart city: “Out of the struggle [over its shape and structure] the city….emerges, and new modes of living, new modes of inhabiting, are invented.” (193) Mitchell’s statement suggests that the public space has held different purposes, different functions, and different draw over time—yet it still remains as an aspect of the city, having diverged little from its original offer.

In terms of implementing this concept in Portland, with smart-city implications, the name of the game is to remain true to what a public space embodies: a place of comfort and aesthetics, a place of congregation and assembly, and simply space in general. Whether future interventions include WiFi hub installations, programmable seating arrangements, or photovoltaic surfaces (to name but a few possibilities) they must keep these key characteristics in mind in order to be successful.

• Mitchell, Don. (2003) “To Go Again To Hyde Park.” Public Space, rights, and social justice. Routledge, New York
• Low, Setha. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” After the world trade center: rethinking new york city. Routledge, New York