It seems that the proper function of a public space seems to function contrary to (or at least in tension with) the function of a smart city—or at least the smart city as proposed by the likes of IBM, Cisco, etcetera. Setha Low, for her part, praises those public spaces “where all people are embraced and tolerated,” places we go to “heal and reconcile our hopes and dreams.”[1] The smart city, however, identifies with efficiency, control, time-saving. These words are much more the words (and ideas) of capitalism and government authority than democratic forums a la the acropolis—they do not permit much in the way of deviation from intended purpose.
This is not to say that public space cannot coexist with the smart city; on the contrary, it suggests that public space is all the more necessary in modern urban society as a place of repose and reflection from the city (and in particular, perhaps, the smart city). And as a space for the promotion of the common good, it seems all the more crucial. Low notes that the places people created meaning in in the wake of 9/11 were the “more spontaneous, less-regulated spaces” such as Union Square.[2] Don Mitchell echoes this point, noting that public space rarely meets the demands of people “under conditions of its own choosing.”[3] The common good should not be a notion determined or framed by elites, regardless of their agendas. Thus the public space that serves the common good should be general, broad, and accessible to all.
To this end, I wonder how public wifi creates, as Low might call it, “a design vocabulary that appeals mainly to the upper-middle class.”[4] It is free, open to all, egalitarian in theory. But it means you must have a certain technology (one that is not even close to free) to take advantage of it. It becomes a status symbol, or simply narrows how the space is conceivably used.
Both Low and Mitchell complicate the idea of planning for a public space and thus defining what sort of common good it will serve. In a truly democratic spirit, it seems that the common good for a public space requires an amorphous quality, a lack of definition or imageability. This ensures it’s utility can be claimed by all—and especially by those who seek public space in lieu of private property.[5]
One potential idea for public space design in Portland could center around movement, and in particular walking. A narrow and long park, like Riverside in New York, promotes walking and, if not social interaction, at least awareness of others.
[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, 164. New York: Routledge.
[2] Ibid., 164.
[3] 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, 195. New York: Routledge, 2014.
[4] Low, 164.
[5] Mitchell, 193.