Similar to the idea of a smart city, the public space in a city should exist for the people to promote social and intellectual capital. Therefore, smart cities should create that public spaces are both safe and integrated into the community through meaning and utility. However, there is a balancing act for ensuring safety in public spaces. Especially in urban settings, there has been an increasing trend of policing and privatizing public spaces in the nation. After the September 11^th attacks, fear spurred support for more surveillance and “Big Brother” technology particularly in public spaces. Setha Low argues that the tradeoff of freedom for safety has become too high. Rather than policing public spaces, sites such as Ground Zero should be “transformed into a communal center for people to meet, mix, mourn, and remember.” [1] There is potential to indirectly create safety by memorializing public spaces to create the mentality of respect and mutual rights.

Low explains the idea of five “spatial rights” in public areas: access, action, claim, change, and ownership [1]. By trying to ensure all people have these rights in public spaces, we promote mutual benefits and thus aim for a greater common good. Furthermore, Don Mitchell explores how the heterogeneity of people within a city can stimulate “new modes of living, new modes of inhabiting.” [2] Therefore, public spaces should aim to incorporate these ideas and promote public spaces as a center of exchange for both social and intellectual growth. This can be in the form of tables for lunch, greens to play sports, or any venue that creates human interactions. However, these interactions can only occur when residents feel safe and comfortable. Again, we must find the balance between public, private, and policing in order to efficiently create spaces that promote the common good.

Though Portland is a relatively small city, its public spaces should still exist for the same purpose of larger cities. Public spaces should be a central hub for social interactions to encourage the flow of information. Though blatant surveillance techniques (police officers, surveillance cameras) might make public spaces safer, they often cause discomfort for people and infringe on their spatial rights. Rather Portland should attempt to create spaces with meaning and purpose for the people. Historical importance, nostalgia, or utility can be powerful drivers in making public spaces accessible and respected by all. Temporary privatization of public space can encourage use and meaning, but public spaces should first and foremost be for the people and the common good of the city.

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 Micheal Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 163-72. New York: Routledge, 2014.

² 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.