Here at Bowdoin, everyone has a heightened awareness of the common good and a connection to place. As part of the application to Bowdoin, students have the option of writing about either of these features – two things that directly relate to the use of public space. These values garner much attention on campus and most every Bowdoin student feels a special connection to place, whether it be in Maine or elsewhere. People feel these deep connections often because it is a public space that they feel comfortable and at home in. There are so many aspects that make connection to place possible, a number of which are included in the 5 qualities of spatial rights that Low discusses: freedom of access, freedom of action, freedom to claim, freedom to change, and freedom of ownership. [1] Part of this sense of place comes from the idea that anyone can access, claim, or use a space – similar to Henri Lefebvre’s idea that cities are public spaces and everyone has “the right to the city”. [2] As a Bowdoin student I feel a deep connection with Maine which has grown stronger as I have progressed through Bowdoin – mainly due to the qualities that Low and Lefebvre discuss.

Mitchell discusses another aspect that is absent in many of the connections we have to place: fear. Nobody feels a connection to a place where activities such as “wilding” occur. [2] With an increased presence of security since 9/11, it is more difficult to feel a connection to place with military personnel stationed at every corner to maintain a safe environment, while simultaneously creating an artificial one. [2] Although there is a fine line between not enough and too much patrol and surveillance, everyone should feel comfortable in the space that they are in. Fear ignites the opposite feeling that a public space should encourage.

Both New York City and Portland contain many areas of public space. As cities are becoming more “smart”, there is an increasing need for development and maintenance in different aspects of cities. If we have learned anything yet about public space, it is that public space needs to have adequate and usable seating for the public. Public space cannot be properly utilized without seating, and it is an essential aspect which all public space requires. Additionally, a safe public space gives rise to important aspect of the common good. Although this comes in all different shapes, smart cities have to be safe to allow for the connection that Bowdoin holds so dearly.

I am hesitant to encourage public-private partnerships because they often overly privatize public space and create the sense of limitation through exclusive events. However, they can also promote a sense of order. If a corporation partnered with a space such as Lincoln Park in Portland, there could be vast improvements and a new sense of community development that it currently lacks. Presently, there are no efforts made to maintain or visit the park due to its poor location and lack of vibrancy, which a small corporation could change with a little tender-love-and-care. Everyone has the right to ownership of this public space, although there is currently no incentive to act upon this ownership. [1] In developing public space, Portland needs to focus on maintenance and safety to encourage all to access and use the space, but be cautious of overly privatizing such. Through increased seating and increased lighting, these can be achieved, perhaps with the help of corporate partnerships.

Attempts to create a “smart” city however are contrary to some ideas about increasing utilization and accessibility of public space. A smart city usually appeals to a smaller, more technologically advanced segment of the population, and can further deter people away from public space that cities are trying to attract. If there are inconspicuous developments such as public wifi, more people could be attracted to this public space at the same time as not deterring anyone from it. Public wifi is a system that does not change the layout or public view of a public space, but encourages additional activities to occur in such a public space and allows for things that were previously impossible. There is a line between smart developments and developments that can appear to be “too smart” for certain segments of the population. However, public wifi seems to be an inclusive improvement in a smart city. As long as Low’s 5 qualities of space are available to the public, it seems to be a space made for the common good.

[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 Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 163-172. New York: Routledge.

[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.