Conceptualizing, designing and creating “successful” urban public spaces, ones that contribute holistically and inclusively to the identity of entire communities, seems to be one of the most daunting challenges faced by urban planners today. How can we create public space that is structured enough to be enticing and attractive, yet malleable enough to allow itself to be molded representatively by the diverse residents of the city? As Professor of Cultural and Urban Geography Don Mitchell writes, “In a world defined by public property…public space (as the space for representation) takes on exceptional importance.” [194]1 It is clear that creating space that welcomes all sectors of the city, including those traditionally marginalized, is of utmost importance. It is less clear, however, how to accomplish such a feat.
One of the greatest challenges to creating representative public spaces is balancing calls for increased liberties with those for increased safety. As Mitchell points out, fear has been, is, and will continue to be a limiting factor in the design of public space. The terrorism attacks of September 11th and their aftermath, of course, provide a dramatic example of how fear can change the experience of public space. In 2002, less than a year after the incursion, Professor of Anthropology Setha M. Low observed, “Fear now pervades the postindustrial plazas of New York City,” citing that increased surveillance and the redesign of bench and ledge architecture both manifest the push to curtail the “publicness” of spaces. [165]2 In the thirteen years that have passed since the attacks, it is unclear whether the fear driving this push has dramatically faded. Camouflage-clad, machine-gun-armed intimidating men are still dispatched to “watch over” public New York City hubs such as Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal, and NYPD officers still patrol central subway stations, instructing loitering teenagers and homeless people to move along. The fear of public space as a no-man’s land in which passerby are vulnerable to violence or aggression has thus pushed cities to more strictly regulate activities in public spaces. This probes at the central questions of democracy: to what extent do we value safety, order, and protection over our freedoms of speech, expression and movement? Where do we draw the line between security and liberty?
In Portland, with an influx of low-income and racially diverse refugees and immigrants, and an ever increasing number of homeless residents (hitting an all-time high in 2013)3, tensions over how to design and regulate current and future public spaces are likely to intensify. Privileged residents may feel anxious or fearful in public spaces that force them to interact with homeless people, gathering youth, or people of a different race (particularly given Portland is over 80% white). They may therefore be more likely to avoid such public spaces, and/or advocate, whether consciously or subconsciously, public spaces designed to discourage the appearance of such socially marginalized groups. This need not solely be via police surveillance; as Low points out, this can often be accomplished via partial privatization of public space. She writes, “Commercialization and privatization…limit participation to those who can afford it and conform to middle-class rules of appearance and conduct.” [164]2 Still, public-private partnership can enliven public spaces and create incentives for residents to gather and interact, providing a basis for social integration.
Portland is thus facing a crucial turning point in how it wishes to think about public space. Just this summer, NPR reported a significant increase in laws restricting sleeping, loitering and begging in public, effectively criminalizing homelessness.4 Portland has begun to hire security officials to shoo traditionally marginalized people, including the homeless, the young, and the socioeconomically disenfranchised, away from parks in which they are not welcome. Instead, the city must design safe and comfortable places for these people to gather, such as larger public shelters and showers, and sports and recreation areas. Portland should make use of public-private partnerships to create spaces that welcome residents of all demographic sectors. Encouraging the development of affordable, diverse and inclusive privatized establishments and events in public spaces, such as ethnic food trucks, festivals and events celebrating various world cultures, and seasonally-dependent low-cost community recreation spaces (e.g. summer outdoor movies, autumn apple-picking orchards, winter ice rinks), should be at the top of Portland’s urban planning to-do list. I strongly believe that the creation of public zones where traditionally segregated sectors of society can come together in a positive and constructive way is crucial to the healthy development of this increasingly diverse and vibrant city.
References Cited
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 Billings, Randy. “Homelessness hits record high in Portland,” Portland Press Herald, October 27, 2013, accessed September 29, 2014, http://www.pressherald.com/2013/10/27/homelessness_hits_record_high_in_portland_/
4 Fessler, Pam. “With a series of small bans, cities turn homelessness into a crime,” National Public Radio, July 16, 2014, accessed September 29, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/07/16/332050463/with-a-series-of-small-bans-cities-turn-homelessness-into-a-crime