Creating a public space in a smart city that appeases everyone is going to be hard, but is possible. However first and foremost, the most important thing is safety. No matter what gender, race or social class a person identifies with they need to feel okay in that space. They need to not worry about experiencing the fear of being attacked or tormented by a stranger. (1) “A new defensiveness has arisen since the September 11 terrorist attack,” writes Low. In other words, since the terrorist attack on 9/11 our society has been hypersensitive to whom we surround ourselves with. This in itself is troublesome because when is enough protection enough? Is the militarization of our public space good? Men and women in uniform are stationed throughout public spaces, such as Penn Station and Grand Central Station, just in case something arises. This has become the new normal. Commuters and residents of New York City do not live in fear of the men and women in suits, rather, they have grown accustomed to seeing them and do not think twice about them being there. Is it okay that the majority of people have now accepted the subtle and not so subtle cues of the government as a part of everyday life? Are smart cities just going to move these armed forces behind a computer or camera?
For a public space to be completely “open” to the public, everyone needs to feel at ease and not just the majority. The idea of a public space in a smart city in itself seems to contradict what society deems to be “smart”. Public spaces are caught at the intersection of old vs. new. Words such as sustainable, efficient, and control are associated with the future of smart cities. However, the connotation behind each word is very traditional. For this reason, it is even more crucial to build a successful public space that encompasses both traditional and nontraditional attributes. A public space in a smart city should display the effortless mold of the old and new, which leads to a space serving the common good. [2] As Don Mitchell writes, “The right to the city implies the right to the uses of city spaces, the right to inhabit,” thus, making it everyone’s basic right to be able to enjoy the space.
Portland often reminds me of Hoboken, NJ. Hoboken, which is often overlooked due to its proximity to New York City, has many great cool and exciting things going on. It is comparable in size to Portland, but Hoboken has done wonders to its waterfront. Along the waterfront there is a series of paths, which leads to parks and piers that overlook the Hudson and New York City. Additionally, New York City has also done similar things with its waterfront along the Hudson. Public spaces, such as paths around the waterfront that lead into other areas of social interaction, like a small park or an observatory, create a very fluid and open environment that people can come in and out of as the please. Finally, While creating a space like this Portland needs to take into consideration the five freedoms, which are: access, action, claim, change, and ownership. Moving forward as spaces produced, no matter how advanced or “smart” they become, they will not be totally public without these five basic freedoms in place.
Works cited
[1] Setha M. Low . 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, 164. New York: Routledge,163.
[2] Don Mitchell . 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, 195. New York: Routledge, 2014, 193.