While a \u201csmart\u201d public space may foster unprecedented opportunities for entertainment, efficiency and convenience, we have to look at the ways in which universal access may be structurally limited by these improvements. Low describes contemporary examples of the ways public spaces are not inherently \u201copen\u201d: \u201cmany of these civic spaces are no longer democratic places where all people are embraced and tolerated, but instead centers of commerce and consumption.\u201d[1] These spaces are designed for use by one portion of the population in preconceived ways, limiting freedom. A \u201csmart\u201d square could tend towards \u2013 if not necessitate \u2013 advanced surveillance mechanisms that would be beneficial for only a margin of the population. \u00a0A space that could monitor movements and process information about individuals could lead to discriminatory mechanisms imbedded in the square itself. Squares that could track movements, for example, could send reports about squares most frequently used by homeless people, and lead to subsequent police monitoring. \u00a0This would defeat the purpose of a public space.<\/p>\n
A “smart” monitoring system would not only be potentially discriminatory, it could also reduce the quality of life in a city. \u00a0One thing I have always valued about New York City is the ability to occupy your own bubble of \u201cprivate sphere\u201d in a public space. Given that your actions are for the most part safe and legal, no one will have a problem with anything you are doing. You have the benefit of being anonymous while experiencing the public life of the city. The prospect of a larger \u201csmart\u201d mechanism that makes the movements of your private life publicly documented takes some of the charm out of city living.<\/p>\n
Given these arguments, I believe the best \u201csmart\u201d public space for Portland would have to use technology for the increased independence of the people, and not top-down monitoring. Both Low and Mitchell make the importance of liberated and unmonitored use of spaces known in their discussions. Low notes that it was the \u201cspontaneous, less-regulated spaces\u201d of New York City that were the most vibrant and healing memorials after 9\/11. She goes on to say that, particularly spaces as emotionally-charged as Ground Zero \u201cmust respond to the different experiences and reactions of people throughout the city, divided as they are by age, generation, location, ethnicity, and class.\u201d [2] \u00a0A public space cannot be statically created to serve one purpose, but \u00a0must be versatile to serve many different groups. Mitchell goes on to say that a public space cannot just be deemed \u201cpublic, but \u201crather, it is when, to fulfill a pressing need, some group or another takes space and through its actions makes it public\u2026 The very act of representing one\u2019s group\u2026 to a larger public creates a space for representation.\u201d [3] A public space needs to be constantly taken up and transformed by different groups. It must include accessible, free technology that can be used productively by the public.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
[1] Low, Setha M. 2002. \u201cSpaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.\u201d In\u00a0After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City<\/em>, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 164. New York: Routledge.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [2] Ibid., 166.<\/p>\n [3] Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. \u201cTo Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.\u201d In\u00a0The People, Place and Space Reader<\/em>, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 195. New York: Routledge, 2014.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While a \u201csmart\u201d public space may foster unprecedented opportunities for entertainment, efficiency and convenience, we have to look at the ways in which universal access may be structurally limited by these improvements. Low describes contemporary examples of the ways public spaces are not inherently \u201copen\u201d: \u201cmany of these civic spaces are no longer democratic places … Continue reading The Problem with “Smart” Monitoring Systems in Public Spaces<\/span>