As mentioned in class earlier this week, the privatization of public spaces within cities can work wonders for a space’s infrastructure, and therefore popularity. Corporations invest large sums of their capital in public space projects in an effort to either improve or reaffirm their positive company image while the public is given the opportunity to enjoy the new space that they create. Moreover, if residents see that a well-respected and influential corporation sponsors a large-city large public space, they are likely to assume that it is monitored and more secure than a non-privatized public space in a large city, and therefore residents may be even more likely to utilize the public space. That being said, having the corporation’s logos all over a park or pavilion in the center of Portland, Maine may not be the best addition to a small-city for residents to benefit most from their somewhat limited public space. Because Portland’s atmosphere may not be able to cope with that much aggressive advertising, I think finding a way to make a place not only safe, but also feel safe, is arguably the most important priority for Portland in terms of creating Public Space. “The city is the place where difference lives” (Mitchell, 193)[1] and in turn it is inherently more difficult for larger cities to create this kind of safe public space simply because there are more ‘differences’ to account for than there are in a smaller city like Portland.
“Such an association of public space with anarchy is, of course, not new; it is not just a feature of the contemporary city, of the current media-encouraged, overweening concern about crime, homelessness, and random terrorism that makes public space seem such an undesirable attribute of the contemporary American city” (Mitchell, 192) [1]. I definitely agree with the points that Mitchell describes about the contemporary city and fear of anarchy – that being said, a smart city is not necessarily the ‘contemporary city’ quite yet as very few cities are currently deemed ‘smart’. A smart city is the most ideal, efficient, and technologically driven city – a city where people trust technology enough to know that they will not be mugged in the middle of a park on the way home because everywhere is under constant surveillance. I think the types of public spaces that would be most useful in a smart city would be large, green, flowing parks filled with trees, hills, and free Wi-Fi where the city’s residents can enter the park and get lost for an afternoon (similar to Central Park, NY) while knowing they are safe.
The types of public spaces that I would recommend most for Portland would be a large open park, with elements that make the area entertaining to a wide range of ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. In order for the public space to contribute to the public good, I think that it would have to contain different aspects of Portland’s culture and past like local art or a central historical monument. The park would have a large area of movable seating (with cushions!), free Wi-Fi, food trucks, large lamp posts, a playground area for children, tall bushy trees, various different forms of public art, large winding paths for athletes, areas of shade, message boards with city announcements and event advertising, a public garden, and more importantly, a pavilion with multiple different levels (creating seating and more private areas for smaller groups of people). The park could even have an ice rink in the winter to make it more of a year round public space.
The ideal public space would feel very private, as if its visitors are obviously safe because they can see what is going on in the entire park while still being separated from all of the park’s moving parts. This type of public space would cover the majority of Low’s 5 qualities of public space – freedom of access, freedom of action, freedom of claim, freedom of change, and freedom of ownership – while avoiding the fear typically associated with public spaces [2]. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to have one or two subtle security cameras within the park just so that the visitors have the reaffirmation that they are indeed safe.
Works Cited:
- Mitchell, Don. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” The People, Place, ad Space Reader (2003).
- Low, Setha. M. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” After the World Trade Center – Rethinking New York (2002).