In order for public space in smart cities to be most useful, they need to be safe. People – women, children, the elderly – all people, need to feel as though they can frequent public space without fear of being attacked or harassed by a stranger. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, citizens have lived their lives with a sense of uneasiness and fear. (1) Fear is leading to the fall of public space. (2) The American government has responded to the threat of future terrorist attacks with militarization. Armed troops in uniform now stand in “key terrorist threat sites”, such as Grand Central Station in New York City. Their presence may make some citizens feel safer, but they may also make many other citizens feel as though they do not have a right to the space. In reality, everyone should feel like they have the right to public space. Public space in smart cities is  made safe and enjoyable through good lighting, a constant flow of visitors, and the provision of shared experiences, not by intimidating men standing with machine guns. By sharing experiences with strangers in public spaces – whether strolling in Central Park, eating lunch on the Bryant Park lawn, or conversing on a street corner – people become more trusting of others, thus further developing social capital. This common trust encourages people to look out for each other, decreasing the likelihood of crimes taking place. Technology (surveillance systems) and militarization is not the answer for creating safe public space because who really wants to spend their leisure time under the “Big Brother” eye of a camera or soldier?

Public space best serves the common good when it provides the five freedoms Low argues for: freedom of access, freedom of action, freedom to claim, freedom to change, freedom of ownership. (2) Good public space allows people to assert their right to inhabit the city. (1) Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in Zucotti Square in NYC serve as a good example of people exercising their right to assembly – Zucotti Square provided thousands of people the freedom to protest and have their voices heard. Public space for the common good should allow people to exercise their right to assembly, provide opportunities to play and exercise, immerse them in nature, and enrich their lives. Ultimately, public space should help the city meet the human “need for creative activity…for information, symbolism, the imaginary and play.” (1) Public space that serves the common good includes places, such as Central Park. As discussed in class, Central Park was masterfully designed by Olmstead to transform a mundane plot of land into a wilderness wonderland where people of all ages can come and recreate and get lost.

Portland should think carefully about how it aims to make its public space safer; camera surveillance and “Big Brother” tactics (2) should be avoided. Public space should be designed and managed as to ensure Low’s five freedoms are maximized. This means careful consideration of privatization of public space, which acts as a mechanism for blocking these freedoms. (2) Temporary privatization of space (i.e. weekend farmers’ markets and food trucks) can attract more people to visit public space; however, longer-term privatization (i.e. Nikon-sponsored Fashion Week in Bryant Park) can block public access to Low’s five freedoms for an extended period of time. That being said, privatization can be a great way to secure funding for revitalizing public space and attracting visitors. Portland may be tempted to supplement government funding with private dollars and accept corporate sponsorships; however, the City should be wary of turning its parks and squares into permanent large-scale advertisements – especially given Maine’s regulations against billboards. After all, government decisions should always be made to maximize the common good of the public, not the private.

(1) Don Mitchell, “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice,” in The People, Place and Space Reader, ed. Jen Jack Gieseking, et al. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 192-196.

(2) Setha M. Low, “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza,” in After the World Trace Center: Rethinking New York City, ed. Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin (New York: Routledge), 163-172.