Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Analysismitchell The End of Public Space

    Uploaded by

    Mafalda Carvalho
    52 views23 pages
    mmmm

    Original Title

    Analysismitchell the End of Public Space

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    mmmm

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    52 views23 pages

    Analysismitchell The End of Public Space

    Uploaded by

    Mafalda Carvalho
    mmmm

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 23
    The Right to the City Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space DON MITCHELL Sp ‘THE GUILFORD PRESS New York London The End of Public Space? People’s Park, the Public, and the Right to the City STRUGGLING OVER PUBLIC SPACE: THE VOLLEYBALL RIOTS In Apt 1999 dae chancellor ofthe Univers of California, sensing 2 changing poliical climate reflected ia the moderating xdcalisn ofthe Berkeley dy counel andthe geoeal complacency of Reagan-Bush ee sruden, raed once agai the es of bulding dormitories oa Peoples Park, His timing Was Bt good. Fark supporters were In the mds of Planning 2 20d anniversary memoval ofthe 1969 rts and celeb tion of the pak, andthe chance’ proposal contributed oa growing sense thatthe demise of the park was imminent. Genrifition song Telegraph Avene, further university developement in he South Caps neighborhood, and almost nonstop debates over how best 0 “develop” the Peoples Pak stall seemed tinct thatthe srvival ofthe park ses user-developed and conlled site wn in jeopardy The comalae ing unease and frastrtion erupted itn afll-scle, rather nostalgia lenge, ot om May 20, 1989, the 20h anniversary ofthe orginal Feo les Pak rts (Los Angles Tes 1989; New York Times 1980). CCenual tothe 1989 vot was the queion of homelessness: what righ id homeless people have tothe cy? And in the city ha ight 1 they have tothe patk? The growing homeless population in the tnd onthe sets of Berkley more general sed crcl ques tions in eis supposedly bert and liberal ty—questions sbout housing policy and gesteation, quetons about appropriate set behave. and questions about jst whose cy Berkeley wao-—in Ways that they sever relly were rized in the 1960s. Dusng the 1980s 3 numberof Telegraph fvene merchants im paula, were grog in ‘renin vocal in dee demands that something be dane” about the homeless. Peoples Par asm central gathering and ving space fr the hotles was seen by 2 growing namber of residents, students, and rernt not so mich the sation to allenated ving nthe ity Bat Tethers cause—only now i was the mide das that was being len sed Even so, he universiy found tha todo mach of anything abou Peoples Pk It bad become a—ifnotthe—primary symbol afte a fal uprisings ofthe 1960s, and often self procaimed) defenders of the pth were salos inthe determination that no new sroctaes be bl Sete and tha some of she tradional trocar such a the stage and the ie box” (Figure 41)—be preserved a al oss) The plitcs of the park evolution wa ote quite complex, wth allances frequently shifing. Despite ther general sry for the stance of those mer Chants who wanted oi desea of the homeless, many park defend fr opposed a 1986 Catholic Warkr plan tose up 2 Peoples Cala tree and deck thet served as soup latchen for Bekaey homeless FIGURE 4.1, Te ag cel raya of ees Fn, ica 992 The Fee Sage end the usr ppl thee he eB blow he le Dost iberht Phougapl by mor up THE RIGHT TO THE CITY people the pak. The university found itself aligned with these de- ‘Enders when it sed to lock eonsuucdon ofthe People Cale» suit thar a Berkeley judge refused to bea, lectering the university “about ‘shy berlin tht rezes co tae esponsibility forthe com ‘nani problems” (Horn 1985). ‘Despite hs April announcement, by de fal of 198, she Univesity of California had resigned self to matnttning the park as an oper Space, burt had no ye given up hope of controling the space and de ‘loping the park in its own interest On November 2 of ha year, the ‘hanadior announced thatthe university would lease a portion ofthe Ind tothe cy of Berkey fora wal bass. The cy determined that its portions of he pas would be dedicated 1 usercontral; but sso b= fn exploring ways to remove the homeless people who camped hee {Bid in thi ello, the chancellor pledged $1 milion a yar for 10 years tothe iy to lp defray the costs of ito the homeless and other series (Rabinowits 1989), “The details of the November 1999 accor ook more than anos year tobe ironed out. During ts negotiations withthe cy the univer- Uy emphasbed hat tad every intention of reining lot 1875-23 a fut but that it wanted ito bea pala which inappropriate persons — he criminal leet,” the sriversity patie (Bowdrens 1981, 3)— ‘were removed 10 ake room for students and middie-lass residents ‘bo. he univesgy argued, hd been excluded as Peoples Fark became ‘haven for “smallsme dng dele, saeet people, and the homeless.” “The park development pln thatthe ty end versity eventually setled on seemed innocuous enough (Figre 42) the university would lease dhe west and east ends ofthe park (or 81 a yea) to the cy for ‘Commanity ase" The ental poron of the park, the big grassy held where many homeless slept and which was the tadlnal gathering Place for rales speeches, atid concers, wa o be converted by the ule ‘resi into ¢recteaton aes featuring vlleyall courts, poblic path= ‘vay, publcestooms, and scary lighting In exchange forthe lease, the iy was to assume “primary responsibly for law enforcement o8| the premises (Kahn 1901, 28). fo adiion the university and the cy twee to establish a “Use Standards and Evaloation Advising Comat tee" which both hoped would help “bring about a much:-boped far troce sd realisation of the place as 2 park tha everyone ean enjoy" (Kahn 19913, 28), While hese developments seemed quite ordinary all gird that they porended great change. “To be sure,” the suburban eatbonene O. FIGURE 42, nup of Peoples Pe shoving te developments aed 195) tp by Jen fob, Uae of Coe. Contra Costa Ties commented, “the ane-fkind swat of untamed Tad wl never be the same- And to that extent an era i ending” (Goudrean 1991, 83). "aftr more than 20 years los dekate, ontovesy meet BO ten promises and ore Tot, the end ofthe era marked bythe ci tees aprement seemed long overdue 10 many in Dereley andthe Bayare. To erties ofthe parc the cy government nd university db ‘bon, well a dhe mainsrenm national abd lea pres he Tend for provement tn he park was 2 comoa theme, Comments ‘ah as this were rif nthe pes at dhe tne: "To some pak neighbors Sha students, Peoples Path, owned by the univers, overran by scutes, dug dealers, an the ike" (Boreas 1991 3) (Figure 43) Sd asthe univers dzctr of commity als, Milton Fae trate, The pa underlie. Only small group of people use the park ad the ae not representative ofthe community” (New Yor Tings L9DIa, 1:38), Sensitive to elas tat such sentuments might be ‘ocerpreted as announcing 3 plas 10 remove the homeless users ofthe path, UC spokesperson Jens Mena declared: “We have no intention 1 Tek out dhe Boneless. They wl il be Bere when the park changes, ‘bv without the cimioal element that gravitas twats the pale (Gouden 1991, 43). Forte univers a fr other ents ofthe pit the eiden ior ex ofthe pak invited ena. Tobe a fmetioning open or plc Save ih ta be ordered, nd he cty-nivesy agreement wa he Ut step n that diecon. it ha to be reclaimed so tha coud be ‘ade avalable wo an appropriate public Path delenders enw mstrs rather dierent. For them, Peoples Park which afer all had survived a4 uiercontelled space for 600 note pic 1008 Psapp by Nes Mic a ty perm. decades despite numerous plans and ffs by the university to relia Iiconsttated one of the few areas im the San Francisco Bay Area in wish hotles people could lve relatively unmolested (Kahn 1991a, 2 and in which other weer: bad prety much fe reign leas, ee silly by contemporary standards, quite unedited space. The ate tiveness of People’ Park for homeless people diated to many pak defenders not that was a dangerous and ourofeonel place but rather htt wae workdg a should: as uuly publi space cba de ‘eloped es pla! space thst encowraged unmediated lntrscon. a lice were the power of the state (end her property owners) could be kept at ay. Activists elt that the university accord jeopardized some ofthe primary parc ntttions that had develope one he yete td that set apart fom cgycontoled parks the grassy aesembly tes the Fee Speech stage, and he Tree Bos (clothes dropoff and ex ‘ange Gee Figures 4Land 43). Without thee, they fee that Peoples Pack ae sich would cease to exis. According to Michael Delacour, ene ofthe founders ofthe pak in 1969, the defense of Peoples Park against the univers plans was “sl aout fice seer about ving people « place wo go and jst be 10 sty whatever they want (Lyach and Bite Ty the tie the university and ity were ready to atom thee plans for park de Inked this aspect ofthe park-the aby for people "to go and jst lopment, inthe summer af 1981, setts had soccestlly eto the rights of omiless people. For those opposed tothe UC= iy plan, People Park since us toepion had been reared a refoge forthe Rome nd oer street peopl. Activists Feared thatthe build ing of volleyball counts struck atthe beat of he pa trina role—e pce to “ust be." As such, porteaded il or homeless pak users and residents. I signaled a desite to see their removal. Recon structing the park in sucha way that Would lead to the removal of the ome, they surmised, was tncamount wan exston af pbc space The development of even volleyball court had to he rested, Homeless residents in the park greed. Inher reply to a reporter suho asked er abou dhe UC-oty plans, Vigna, «homeless woman wing in the pak, votced the fears of many homeless people in hepa nd of pa seve “You know wht hist about ex walle dons only « matter of me beloe they sar niin the people abet come hereto cllge kid wth an 1D." When the epoterreinded her that the university promised not wo remove the homeless, Virginia re sponded: “You lok smarer than that, A national monte is being tom dow” (Rivlin 199, 27) Cakland Homeless Union activist An> Grew Jckeon pot the sales over People’ Print lange content. “Looking atthe lldzers at work a redevelopment began in the pr, ‘be commented: “Theyre tearing up dream. erence remember ‘his has been apace for al people, not just fr some college kids to play ‘volleyball or the whe eae. tsa pace we down and sleep ren you ‘ae tied” (lin 1991, 27). ‘Activists std omelet residents alice consdened changes in the atk tobe related to changes on nerby Telegraph Aveaue—theveryay- fe that UC Regents ba long ago worried sbout becoming a center for “hiplasand other undesieblecountercltre figures Echoing the angumens made by and against Pree Speech active a gener ea Ir, Peoples Park activists feared hat a wanslormed and "tamed Peo- ples Park would become a beachhead for the whole tsnformaton Of the surrounding neghbortood, "The universty sys theyre not psinst homeless people.” commented homeless acivst Curis Bray soon afer the ciyeunivesity accord was alized, bot al theresa sega ht acm ve or the pak ae eu Tone hat only afer he ome cota sad sa one he Tey dont want he suds ws be fc on dy bass with what ie be por atin ove Once they gr the cet cour i, hee ing {© nant keep te hale population outs much pose (an 18a, 2,28) Bray predicted tht the agement on People Park was just the Begin ring, “Once Peoples Pak is of lis, de hordes are going 00 10 [elegraph) Avenue. The universiy will hen say de avenue isa prob lem" (Kahn 198, 28). David Nadle, mother founder ofthe pk and later an owe ofa world-beat dance cabin the city once, He de nounced the UC-ty agreement as» ial move toward the total ons ‘modification and contol of space. “The conporate world & tying to take Berkley. The park represents 22-year struggle over corporat ex: pansion.” Berkeley, he claimed, had become “yupped ovt™ (Kahn 18918, 30, Inthe years since the 1969 ris, Telegraph Avenue bad expert coout a series of wansformations. A popular extern ple for Bay ‘Area tens, the Telegraph Avenue-Peoples Pack area was bath a highly sucessful commercial dstrct and ane always om the brink of deine Te Bad ol PBs ence? 15 3By dhe early 1980s, he countereltre favor ofthe tet (with en serous locally evned coflee heuses, bookstores, record shops, and street venders sling eveything from polis! bumper sckersto drug, paraphernalia to locally prodaced ars and cfc) was eying to Yield o businesses catering to more fluent students and young profes sionals. By rid-lecade, chain stores were beginning wo expt tthe expense of locally owned business. Coffee bats that appealed to the slumming suburban middle cla replaced many of dhe smal stsuranis td “head” shope that Bad defined the set throughout the 1970s ‘Gate and poster covered walls were replaced with pastel color and stendy neon, 4s the boom ies of the 1980s urns into the bast ofthe ety 1990s, many Stadents in the South Campus aes, for whom the up heals ofthe 1960s were not even 2 distant memory, had litle tbe ‘or patience for suet acuvism and suet specarle Both the park and the avenue reflected these changes in pole and eeonoenc climate ina city where protesting vas once 4 common a Jogging” wrote the San Franasco Choice (Lynch aod Diew 1091, AI) "there i Ue tolerance for uprisings” As park activist Michael Delacour ob- served, “The students have changed. They know umes ate cough aed they want to survive" (Lynch and Diets 1991, £20). Time was scace {or activin and the commonity savolvement that makes spaces lke Peoples Pak posable Many students simply avoided the “unnamed land” of Peoples Park. Others studens who lived in apartments oF dorms neighboring the park strongly supported the university plans to ake contd over? The early 1990s, some ofthe chain stores moved out of Telegraph (Pure 44), and an al of dapldationsemed ta sete over the avenue (ay 1993, 6) a5 visible homelessness increased. While many met ‘chants atubuted the decline othe psc zai tht Peoples Park and some ofthe people who used i pone to midl-cls shoppe ficial of che Telegraph Avenue Merchans Assocation conceded thi it was infact the image of the pak (and the avenue) that was thestening basins sucess, AS one oil of the association put “I the majo ly of people think its amsafe unclean, why do thy think that? En it bised on some sort af eat?” (Kahn 19013, 28). The ofl did not ‘lect answer her own question (ad if sb had, she would have had to concede that crume rats were no higher aroud Telegraph thin in ‘other commercial dstcts ofthe ity), But perhaps, on Thareday. Au FIGURE 44 rt ec npn on 993 en fe can ‘ops the hlics Gupta cena ymbol bah Iergh fees eee SERS MaL ts dae Posopaph wth gust 1, 1991, others for he, providing the “realy” to which she re Ferre ‘On that morning, bout 20 activists were arested they protested ‘he bulldozers that, in the fst step of tpementng the UC-ty pare secord, began clearing grst and soll along the southern edge of the ‘ental prt ofthe park where two sand volleyball coum wee ro be constructed (se Figure 42) y that evening, police found themseites ‘ying to conto fullscale ot, as park defenders bailed inthe tess ‘over whether park development could continu, lense rioting around the pak consnued forthe next 3 dys, and salle violent conta ‘ons continue to ero forslmost a wet: Poic repeatedly fred wood snd put bullets tao owes and reps of poe brutality were wide- spread (lacudng the witnesed bering of 4 member ofthe Berkeley Police Review Commission). But nether dd protesters ein rom wo lence, heaving rock and bots illd with rine atthe police? “The papers that week wer filed with reports of set sklratshes, strategie advances by beavly armed police, and the ape felt by many ‘The Bosal Pe Syme? proestes Police were scused of beating bystanders, roughing op homeless residents ofthe park, and using wood and pty bullet eed lesely lice countered that force wae neces to quell the te, which included numerous set fires, protesters throwing rocks and ote, smashed windows and vandalism along Telegraph Avenue By Sugus 6, eight formal complaints of police brualty had been ed vith the Police Review Commission and six wi the plice deparment Itself A Police Commision member had retved 50 statements alley tng police sbace, snd the commission itself received another 25 cal of complaint In addition, an unknown numberof plie wee isu in the iting (isin 19916, 18) “We offered to negotiate,” cub owner David Nal claimed, “bt ‘his is what we gou Miltary they have commandeered that pat ofthe purk"—the center 2one withthe Free Speech ara, the human services, tnd the Free Box (Kahn 1991, 1). The plice occupation succeded. ‘The most ites rioting had all but sbsided by Setardy, August 3 and park defenders conceded defeat. nally of protesters inthe pak ‘he nextday, park founder Michael Delecourt declared “Basil, weve {tno real choice over what happens in his Prk anyway” (Auchaed 1991, 23)—aemaddable concession after 2 year of tenacious struggle to mantin ser cone over the aes. "Four da ater, he fist wollyall games were played in the pal Seeking 1 cement what one Pak defender had earlier called “dotn- ton, imposing salons fr other peoples own good” (New Tork Tes 1961b, 8), university offal released student employes from thelr Jobs provided that chy would play volleyball nthe patk. One ofthe lye, a Berkeley Junior and howsing office employe, tld the Son Francisco Chronicle (Lynch 1991b,A20): Ac fine howght “OK kes go pay oblate ale her was ‘teat sae snd ges ite sare But eae ut ae bese] wa Se ths taper and sows sppor. Peoples Far ee change Pe (hy ben ere once ere pple ik he ple sah ‘That evening at 7a, despite the absence of disturbances around the pk o along Telegraph Avene, police aresed 16 people for wespase Ingafter the park-~wvhih the university had aseted it wanted to ein {8 open space, and from which, the university sald, had mo intention ‘of removing the homeless closed (Lynch 19818). as THE RIGHT To THE ceTy ‘THE DIALECTIC OF PUBLIC SPACE “The Bekele housing employee was right. There was lot more at stake ‘im Peoples Park than voleyball. Most duel, 35 Duane, 2 homeless ‘an who led in the park put it, “Thi about homelesnes, and job- Tesnes, and fighting oppression” (Koopman 1991, AI3). It was, in other words, about right, and aboot the right 10 the city But such Fighis—o a home and job, and «9 freedom fom oppresion—were “stuctred though a sragale over ight wo and for public space, what ‘such space means, and for whom itis “publi.” Among other ses at "tre in the ots were vo opposed snd perhaps ineconelabe Weak) {al visions ofthe nature and parpose of publi space, two opposed Sons that havea grest deal of mpact on how the ight othe ly 6 ‘epalzed and fr whom iis viable rg Activists and the Homeless people who wed the park promoted a vison ofa space marked by re {bterctions, er determination, andthe absence af coerion by power {31 insstions—In other words he same sorte of iological visions for pubic space promoted bythe Free Speech Movement» generason feather. For them, public space was an unconstrained space within ‘which polities movements ould orpance and expand into wader ae bs (see N. Smith 1992, 1093). The vison of representatives of the CUvesty was quite diferent, Theis was one ofa apace that was open for recreation and entertainment, subject to usige by 20 appropiate public (sadents, middle lass esidens and vistors, et) that use the ace by permission ofits owners Publi space ie iapined inthis vie sion wo be a conwoled and orderly reveat where a propely beaved public might experienc the spectacle ofthe ety. nthe st ofthese ve Sons, public pace i taken abd remade by political actors; fe pol tae at its very core; and it tolerates the risk of disorder inelading re ‘vit poles! movements) a cental tt fanetionng nthe second ‘ton, pablic space i planned, orderly, and sae. Users ofthis space ‘rust he made 1p lel comfortable and they should not be driven say by unsightly homeless people or unsolicited political activity. These We Sons of eouse, ate ot unique 0 Berkley. Thy ae, fc, the pe ominaot ways of seeing pubic space im contemporary cies Techese wo visions of public space indicate Uat dieing dei. tions ofthe ight othe ey ae at stake, then they alo correspond more ‘or les with Lefebves (1961) distinction in The Praucton of Space be- tween representational space (appropriated, lived space; space-n-ust) ttt Toe kadef Pee? 9 se presentations of pace (planned, contolled, ordered space)” Pu lic space often, though not always, originates asa representation of space, 2 for example e courthouse square, monumental pss a pub Ue pk, ors pedestrian shopping circ (Harvey 1995; Helevis 1095, Solan 1992). But as people use these spaces, the also become representational spices, appropriated in use. Pubic space i thus s0- cally produced through its we as public space. Inthe case of Peoples Far, however, the standard chronslgy was sn many ayy reversed. Peoples Park began sa representational space, fone thit had been taker and appropriated fom the omsec® It was ‘reste fom te university (who bad already aan it rom ts previous residents and owner). But whatever the origins of any public space (planned, appreprinted, cident status 35 “pb” 6 created and maintained through the ongoing eppostion of visions that have been Iheldon the one hand, by those who sek order and contol ad, om he ‘othe, by thove who seek places for opposioal polite activity and ‘nmedinied erate, If puble spaces arise out of dale berncen representations of space and eepesenational spaces, between the ordered and the appro Printed, then they ate lo, and very importa. spaces for representa ton, Thats, public space ir place win which poiical movements an se oot the etary tht allows them to be sen nd heard) at the 1WW understood so well ins strug for free speech in the ety in the fist decades ofthe 20th century (Chapter 2). I he right tothe flys ry and a demand, then cis only a cry that shear and a de- mand shat he force to the degre tha heres pace rom an within ‘which this ey an demand is wsbl. in publi space on tet comers tori park, inthe stets during ros and demonstatons—poiicl fongnizations can represent themselves to a lager population, and ‘hrough this sepreentation give ther cies and their demands nome lore? By elining space in public, by creating public spmees, socal sroups themselves become publ Only i publ space, for example an the homeless represen themes a lepate part of the pub- le" Ino as homrles people or oer marginalized groups remain n- ‘she to soe chey fa to be counted ae legiimate members ofthe poly. And in this sense, pubbe space ae abslutly eset othe Fietoning of democrae polities (Fraser 1990). Public space isthe product of competing ideologies about wha constiates dha pace or lec and contol or fe, and perbaps dangerous, intersetin. These are 19 THE RIGHT To-THE crry not merely questions of teology ofcourse, They at, rather, questions owt the Vey spaces that mike polis acuies possible. To wader Sand, therfore why 2 plan eo build volleyball cours and pubic restrooms in Peoples Park ldo such extreme lence, to undetstind ty people canbe 9 pssonate abo spaces suchas Peoples Park, we peed to reeamine the normative ideas that drive pial activity and ‘he natare af the spaces we cll "poblc”m democrat soca. Doing owl ae it ler shat wile tay ofthe who sede wo oder and Consol public spaces and who sx to make them spaces of exclusion ‘thera spacrs where the ey and demand for the right the cys hea (and even promoted), while perhaps beng only “hile Arnos." tre nonteless ving voce to a definition of "democracy that neds to be essed ar every rar, ‘THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC SPACE IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES ‘ble space oceups an importan—butcontsted—ideologil posi tion in democratic societies The Sapreme Cour, as we have seen {Chaper 2), bases te public foram doctrine onthe notion that since “ime sie people have eed the ple spaces ofthe ciy—the streets, pa, and sqoaes—aegeering places fo “eommanistingbe- tween elena” and discassing publi questions" (Hage CIO 1939). ‘us as we hae lo seen, jst Row and where people ae to mee, under ‘whe condone they are o do so, and what they are able to discos ace themselves points of struggle The ental contadicton atte ear ff publi pace tat it demande a cerain disorder and unpeeditab- fiyto fonction as a desnocatie publi space and yet democratic theory posts tata cern onder and only are ital othe suceas of da (ett scourge. In pace the ints nd boundaries of "democracy" sett to be deermiaed as mach though tansgression—as wi the Free Speech Movements insistence on using the campus, against the ‘lef he university, aa space for politi orgunzing—as through l- {lor bureauerati ordering Public space mt therefore be understood {always history and socaly contingent, even ss politely Ices artenton needs to be paid wo the specie paces through trhich ple spice is produced and how the power to deermine its use Barayed. z ' i : oe The Endo Pe Space? 91 All har said, nonetheless mportns to sete even only very briefly ce hs of publi space as bth form and an esloy The notion of urban publi space cam be traced back a east tthe Greek ‘gor ad ts fonction 2 “the place of cizenship, an open space where Deblic afsieand legal disputes were conducted" (Haney 1992, 23), While the agora was thus a polis space, "twas also a market. place a place of pleasurable osling where cizent bodies, words, 2 ons and produce were all on mutual display, and where cements Ascsons and bargains were made" (Ware 1992, 20). Polis, com rere, and spectacle were juxtaposed and tntenagled in the public space ofthe agora It provided a meen place for strangers, whether ‘zens, buyers, or sles andthe deal of ble space i the agora en couraged nearly unmediated iaeractionche frst vison of publi space refered wo above n such “open and scesible public paces and forums” a eis Marion Young (1990, 119) has pu it “one should ex- pect to encounter and hear fom those who ae different, whose social perspectives, experience and alllaons are diferent" Ove should ex- ec, tha is, wan experenes, defined by confetng demands for the Tight w the ay ‘Young 5 speaking specifically ofa normative ie of public space In “actually existing democracies” Faser 1990), the fenctionng of publi spaces har aely lived up tothe Meal. The normative del that Young poins to has its echo in Habermass (1960) analysis of the (spacial) normacve public spho, which argues that the bourgeos public sphere developed in ety modern Europes the deal of a ute Of nsoasons and ates tat mediated the estionship between the state and society (see Howell 1995; Calhoun 1992) ln this normative sense the public phere was where “Whe pablc™ wae organised and rep resented (or imagined). The puble sphere is normative, because its where all manner of soda formations should find actess tothe struc tures of power watin society (Habermas 1989), Many theorists (eg. Fraser 1090; Haley 1992; Howell 1995) contend that public space serves asthe material locaton where soil intrations and public ae. tvs ofall members of “the public occur Publ paces the space of the public Jost what dat space” is, however i poset of deep contention. As tas already been made clear, the sets and paths of the city ike the GGreck agora, Roman forums, or 1Stbcentry German eflshouses ‘aberaas 1989) before them, ave never simply been places ef ee ve THE ROHT To THE CITY mediated interaction, Rater, they ave aways also been spsces of ‘rcision (Fraser 1990; Hardly 1992). The pobli dat met in these “Spaces wns crcl selcted and homogeneous in composition (coma Pigs idea). Te consisted of those with power, eal sanding, and te- Speci and in this excsiveness the oot ofthe second visto of public space ea Be sen In Grek democracy, for example itzenstip tras ght dened to saves, women, and foreigners. None of them had TRanding in the pubic space of Gesk cise, even a5 thet labor (and ‘Sets money) may ave been welcomed in the ogra. They were for- tally excluded fromthe polcal activites of the publi space “had in American history, of couse, the admiance of women, the propertyless and people of color ito the femal ranks of “the publi Fas been staingly resent Gnd aot yet ell complete. Foreigners ae stl not considered par ofthe publc (ad recent changes in imi thon law lave in fact eroded rigs for many nonetizen residents) ‘Wormer, soe ofthe propstyes, and people of color have only won nuance co 'ihe publi" though coneened socal siragee, demanding the ight be stm tobe Beard, and to daly influence the state and soctety Asin other Western countries, notens of "he publi” andthe ature of public democracy played of and developed dally with Toth the face andthe Meslogy of private propery and the private phere. The ability for cles to move between pelvate property and public space determined the maar of public interaction inthe develop- Ing democecy of the United States (Fraser 1990, Habermas 1998, Marston 1990), n the content ofan evolving capitalist American sae, Genship ls defined thraugh « prose whereby “owners of priate property ely jon ogthe to create public, which forms te real Frctonal elesest of the public rel” Qarton 1950, 43). To be Public means having access to peeate space to reve co Go that Dblicnes ean reat valumsr) ‘Each ofthese sphores~the public andthe petaue—of course has been constant and defined by gender, cls, and race. By the end of the 18th century, according to Richard Senet (1992, 18-19, emphasis sn the orignal: “he line dn beeen pica pote nas scaly one on which the caine sf ty-pomiceé by cosmopltan, pub tee (Poe nnced spinatsans of mireeptomsed by the al [Nii man ee etn pute he ele hi ae te ete Fn swe slo he expernces mi he fay The adel Pae Sones? 18, ‘The private sphese was the Nome and refuge, the place fom which | vite properted men vented ox nt the demoerati ren of public Spice! The public phere of America and other eapialist democracies fe tus understood os voluntary community of privat (od usally Dropeted) ctzens, By “nature” (hough realy by cusiom, econ, Fraiche, law and sometimes outeight free) women, nonwhite men, an the propertylss were denied acess wo he pble sphere in every: ‘Gye Bulson excisions, the poe sphere was thus “prfoundly problematic constreron” (Marston 1090, 457). For the historian Fémund Morgan (1988, 15), the popular sover- got that arose from the spit besten publi and privacy was fi ‘on in which citizens willingly suspended dite” a othe improbi- biliy of ol pablc sphere # The normative idea ofthe public sphere holes ou the hope hat representative public can meet (Harley 1992) ‘The reality of puble space and the public sere i tha Morgans “e- tion sles an apeeble acquiescence to representation and mos “an “neritin Meologieal consmeton with respec to who belongs tthe ational community and the relationship of the people 1 oral go ment (Marston 1990, 450) es precely a contest over who counts Morgan’ “eens” (se Brown 1997). [As ideological constructions, contested els sub a “tbe public” public space, and the public sphere take on double importance, Thee ‘ery arulton impls 2 nod of ncusivenes that becomes x ally ‘ng point or successive waves ef polacal acuity Overtime, suc polit ‘el activity has Broadened definitions ofthe public" Is no longer so ‘ny though sll possible) to excinde women, peepe of colo and ‘Some ofthe property rom a formal voce in dhe alla of state and Siely In tim, tedefinioons of eizenship accomplished though “ttugges or inclusion have reinforced and even wanslored normae dele incorporated n notions ofthe public sphere and abe space. By falling on the thetore of iclaion and ineracion thatthe publi sphere and publi space are meant to represent excluded groups have been able ro argue forte righ a part of the active pullie—to mae 3 ‘aim for aight othe iy And each (partly) success bate fr in ‘sion in “the public” conveys o other marginalized groups the impor {ance of the dea 5 plnt of policalsraggle even a also calls p- ponents of widening the pute” tothe batiades, or at last eo the Toy pulps of the right-wing think tanks). Unthese ogee for mcion, the diesnesons Between the public ‘phere and public pace ansume consberable importance The public 4 THE RIGHT To THE crry phere inte sense tht Habermas developed it and many of bis res ve relied it isa veel abstract sphere it which democracy oc: furs The matey of this sphere, soto spel, immaterial 1 8 unedoniog, Public space, meanwhile is mater I consttes an 3 tual ste, s place, ground within sod fom which polis! activity Nowa! This snc seca for its" te cone of real public Spaces’ ha alerave movements may arse and contest sues fet Enthip and democracy (Hovell 193, 318) Tf econuemporary tends signal an erosion ofthe first vison of pubic syace asthe second becomes more prominent se below, Crlley 1993; Bani 1900 Fyfe 1998, God and Revill 2000; Goss 1992, 1999 Senne 1082; Sorkin 1992), then spaces such as Peoples Park become, in Arends words, "sal hidden sslands of feed” (quoted in Howell 1953, 313)" Such hidden ands are crested when marginalized groups take space and usec press thei lms, to cry ou for their ‘ght, And that war presely how activists undestod thei defense of Peoples Pack inthe face of the uniersiys desire to transform and beer contol it As the East Bay Exess observed (Kab 1991e, 1) ‘lately, they claim, hs tl aight over terttory Ie snot jak ‘vo volleyball our i the whole sue of who has argh at wo the land” Michael Delacour argued tht Peoples Park was sell about lice speech and the homeles ats Crs Bay claimed tha “they are trying to take the power away rom te people” (New York Times 19919 1139) For these ast, Peopes Park was a place where the rights of ciizenship could be expanded to the mest disenfranchised segment of Contemporary American democracy: the homeless. Peoples Pak pro ‘idea the space for representing the lgitimary of homeless people wth- inthe public” In jos this sense, Peoples Pak was exaey that sont of Hyde Pare that Mahe Amol sailed against. Like the stets of San Diego forthe TWW 80 years earlier, Peoples Park was, for homeless people, «deeply poli space. ‘THE POSITION OF THE HOMELESS IN PUBLIC SPACE AND AS PART OF THE PUBLIC Peoples Park as boon reognized 2 refuge for homeless people since its founding, even ae elsewhere in Berkley the city has actively ce- ‘moved squatters and homeless people (sometimes housing tern n a {isused city lanl) end become one ofthe leading anovatrs of pune | | | ¢ The Bad of Rie Sa? US tive ant-homeless laws (Dorgan 1985, B12; Haas 1988, B12; Levine 1987, Cl; Los Angles Times 1988, 1 Stern 1987, DIO; Wels 1994, ‘AM. Consequently the park has Become 2 relavely ae place for he homeless to congregate—one ofthe few such spot in a intesingly hose Bay Area (Los Angles Times 1990, A1). Around the Bay, the homeless have been repeatedly cleaned out of San FrandscoS United Nations Plaza neat City Hall, Golden Gate Park, and acer publc gah ‘eng pers: in Onkland loitering is actively discouraged in most parks (os Angeles Times 19896, 13; 1990, Al; MacDonald 1995; New York Tomes 19886, 814). a pr the dese to seep the homes from visit responds 0 the central contradiction of homcleaness ma democracy composed of private individuals and private propery (ae Deutsche 1992: Mat 1986, Marcuse 1988; Ruddick 190; . Sth 1969; Talabsh 1998, Waldron 1901), Ths contradiction tems on publesy the homcles are all 0 vibe Although bomeles people ae nesly always in public, they are rarely counted as part af the pub. Homeless people ae in a double bine, For ther, scaly legimated peat pace doesnot exis, x0 they are denied acess to public space and public activity by the ews af 2 capuals society that is anchored im private propesy sd pricy (ildron 1991; Blomley 1994, 1986, 20008). For those whe area ways to the public, private activites must necessary be cared out publicly” When poli space thus becomes place of seemingly eit {mate Behavior, avr nation of whee puble space supooed tobe ate thrown into doubt. Now less location forthe “pleasurable jostling of bodies" and the politcal discourse imagined asthe appropiate atv tes of public space ima democracy, ple parks and sete begin to luke on sspeis ofthe home. They become places o got he bathroom, Sleep, deh o make loveall socal legitimate activites when done in private But seemingly egiumate when earned out in pub (Stae- alt 1086, As importantly, since ctzenship in modeen democracy (at lest Ideological) ress on 3 foundation of volar asocain, sd since homeless people ae ioluntanly publ, homelesr people cana be, by definion, leptimate ctzens.» i consequence, homeless people have proven thieatenng tothe exrcie of ight since they se o theses {expose the exttence ofthe legimate—tht i, volunary—puble as contradiction foc aad: volusarines is impossibe Uf sme ae necessary excluded from the option of oiing tn or “The existence of homeless people in ube thas undenaines on of 96 THE RIGHT TO THE CY ‘he gulang fletons of democracy. This is why Geoege Wal (1987) d- sant when he argues (ar we sur in Chae 1 that “Sosy needs ‘er, and hence has «righ to a minimally civized ambisnce in public Spaces, Reparding the homeless thie nek mes for esthetie eaons Seeause the unsesthetic snot merely unappealing presents peta le af disorder snd decay that becomes contagion." ‘The idelogial foundation of modern democracy, wih allt practical contractions, s sppareiy rather frag. Forresons of ord then, the homeless ae ‘continually pushed vt of public space. and they are excluded fom ‘most definitions ofthe legimace public (aoe, In Wis formulation, ow theres simply ao consideration ofthe right of homeless people a cauzens). ln much wei about order and the city, the bomeless ave become Something af a indicator species,” agnostic of the presumed health of publ space and af the need to gain conel 0 privatize, or to otherwise rauonaie public spacein urban places" Whether i New ‘York City CN. Smith 1889, 19924, 1992; Zula 1895), Columbus (Malt 1966), Los Angeles (Rudick 1996; Takahashi 1998) o Berkeley the rence of homeless people in public spaces suggest to many an is "nal and uncontalled society in which spproprite dtintions be- ‘ween publc and pivte behavior are maled ace Cresswell 1996), enc, chose who ae iatent on rationalizing “public” space have neces sarily sought 10 emove the homeless. banish them othe interstices lor maria of cit space oF to push them out altogether—in onder (o ‘make room fr “legitinas* public setts (ir 1965; Marcuse 1988 {elebvee 1991, 379), ‘When, asin Berkeley Peoples Park, New Yorks Tompkins Square and Bryant pars, or San Franlicos Golden Gate Park Karucts 200). ‘ctions ate taken agaist par users by closing public spe or exerci ing renter soci conul ver park space, the press explain these ac tons by saying that "the park eure a haven for drug uses and the Homes” (Las Angeles Tins 1991b, A se also Bouteas 1991, 43; Koopman 1991, A13; Los Angler ines 199La, A3; 1992, A2; Now York Tnes 19860, 431). Such statement, besides cresting what ae of ten invidious associations, pointedly iguore any public” sanding that homeless people may have, Just 35 they Wore the possiblity that homeless peoples usage of a pak for plea, socal, economic, sb residential purposes may consttat for them a leita and even nec say we of public pace. When UC oficial claimed that the homeless residents of Peoples Pack were not “representative oft comity” ' i : i : : : Te Badal bic Sace? 187 ‘oudtenu 1991, 43), they In esence dered social legacy to home less people and thei (perhaps necessary) behavior. By transforming the par, UC hoped that legitimate acvty would be discouraged ‘That ito say thatthe homes could ty slong as they beaved "p- proprisely’—and as long 2s the storia, normative, dologeal boundary between public and private was well pavoled. But tht boundary 6 sel a product of constant stugle—especaly now in the contemporary ety where the neoliberal saul on all hings publ sia fall swt, ‘PUBLIC SPACE IN THE CONTEMPORARY CITY ble space smote than ost “Hyde Faas cru a hat une on is. sls a representation ofthe good that comes from abi con- trol and ownership, as contested and problematic as these may be. This ia corollary ofthe vision of public space ar place of restiely unm lated ioteracon: ie 2 vision of public space that endestands =| spaces very poblines a5 «good i ad of tel, that underatnds thee UO be ecole right co the cy. And his Wsion ad practice of public ‘spaces increasingly threatened in the American ety (as she defenders af People’s Park recognized). The thea ete snot rom the dsxdely letavots of homeless people, asso many argue but ater from the steady eoson ofthe hea of he publi, ofthe colleve, and the steady promeion of private, her han democratic conta of space a theo Taxon o perceived socal problems “The public space ofthe modern cy has always been a hybrid snd ceaialyscontadctony space 23 hybrid of commerce and police (Gennett 1992, 21-22) in which, ideally atleast the nary of the a et meets the anarchy of polis wo create an interactive, democratic public. In the 20 centr however, markets have Ineessingy bee evered fom politics, with, ronal the later being banished, ly ‘ampltely rom puble space. The very success of sgl fr inclu slon—by women, African Americans, gays, and the properles—bas| Ted to a stong baclash thet hae rought to reconfigone tan public space in such way a8 limit he deat of democstic social power to lominnne social aa econonie erat (Fraser 1990, Havey 1992) ‘These tends have led tothe coasrcton of public space, ven a8 ‘rious social movements conine a stuggle frit expansion, Ine js THE RIGHT TO THE TY sv, discursive polit has eflectvely been banned from che maul [airing paces in the city. Conporte and state planners have created “Esronments dat are bused ons dese for security more than Stes ‘on for enteranment sore than (perbups divisive) pois (Culley 1995; Ganens 1991. Goss 1992, 1993, 1996; Sorkin 1992; Zin 1995) ‘One of theresa of eoerporary whan panning (especialy i the post Worl Wa period) has bee the growth of what Senet (1952) (ls "dead publi spaces,” such asthe Baren plas chat surround 0 ‘any moder office towers, A second result one that evolved a pa thal aponse tothe fare of dead publi spaces, has ben the develop tment of festive spaces that encourage consumption —downtown or ea ‘de festival maetplaces, geninfed historic dics, and even @ etn kind of mal (Figure #3). Though seemingly so diferent, bach “fead’ and “festive spaces ate premised ona perceived ned for onder, urvellnce, and contol over the Behuvor of the pubic ee Fyle 1995). A Goss (1993, 39-30) has remarked, we—as consumers and a5 sore of pubic spaces—ae often complicit the severing of market nd politcal functions, He plots to the case of what he call the “feed public” spaces of tbe contemporary shopping mal. Sm of wae. digueted byte contin reminders of surveil ‘Besweep of came sd the putt of sec pesonel in mals YE theese re wing suspend the legs stan eto ene Beret author. fr our denies Fe tt we wil sendy stot soouig a sobsnae fr expec, {Moco for pstce, and eptesemon forthe. Gea Fyfe ed Bente 1903, i908 Grand Hess 2000, Wil, Joastone, 2 ‘Goon 2000) Gos (2993, 28) calls he notalge desi for the mates “agora 2 yearning for “a inmate veladonship between produce and com ‘Such nose rarely innocent, however (ee Lowenthal 1985) 1. is rather.» highly constructed, coxporaized image of s market quite tke the Mealzaon ofthe ago as apace of commerce and polis (Garey 199). Inthe name of confor, safe, and prof, police] 2c- ‘ay veplaced in spaces ike the mall etal markepace, ¢ ree signed path (such a New York Bryant by a highly commodiied spes- face designed to ell—to el either goods or the cty as «whole (Boyer 1992, Crawford 1992; Garren 1991, 48-52; Goss 1996, Mitchell nd SOAP ROLLIN, FIGURE 45. Hron asin Son Dio An xml oe playlest a [eye ol rams pbic ae tata cae print awn ‘evdepoen Photog by Suse Mls; ed by pects ‘an Devsen 2002; Zakin 1995). Planners of pseudopubli spaces such ar mall, corporate plazas and redeveloped puss have found that ‘ontoled diversity fs mor pofable than the promotion of uncon rained social difeences (in the sense that ls Maeion Young ses the term) (Crmwford 1992; Goss 1993, 1999; Kowinst 1985; A Whom 1992; Young 1990, Zakin 199). Hence, even a new groups ar lim: Ing gener access to the righ of soci, the homogenization of “the public” continues apace, since the sort of diversity that psewdopublic Spaces encourage sa eiversity bound up in the unin, leveling, ho- ‘mogenting forces of commodi, brand-orened consumption (kein 195), This homogenization splay has adeonced by “dineySyng” space spd place—cresting landscapes in which every interaction scarey 1340. THE ROMP 70 THE CITY planned (Sorkin 1982; A. Wilson 1992; Zakin 2091, right down co spe- ‘Efe planning the some of surprises" ones supposed to encouaier Snarban space Market and design consderaons thus displace the d- fosynctate and extemporanenus aerators of engaged people fx the ‘Sccminaton ofthe shape of urban space in the contemporsry word Representations of space come to dominate eepresentatonal spaces (Cekebwre 1991; Calley 1993, 137, Zaki 1991). Designed and con- {roe diversity ceates marketable andeapes as opposed to unseped Socal croton, which cents places that may somoeimes threaten ex ‘hange value. The "dsneylicaton” of space consequently implies the ineressing alienation of people from the possiblities of unmedated so- Chl interaction ad increasing contol by powerful economic and social tion over the prodcton and use of spice. Tespsiag limits and contol on spatial icraction has been one of the prince sims of urban corporat plannes dung this centry (Da ‘is 1990, Fy 1988 Gold and Revil 2000; Harvey 1988; Lelebvze 99d), The tetova segregntion erated chrough the expression of social diference has increasingly ben replaced by a celebration of con Stained very. The diversity represented n shopping centers, "Weg Stratus,” corporte plas, and (intesing) publ parks is careuly ‘Conszucted (Boyer 1992). Moreover, he expatsion ofa planing and ‘marking ethos in all manner af pblie gathering places has created « “Space of social practice” tht sort and dvies soil groups Celebre 1051, 375) according to the dates of comfort and onder rahes chan those of pital srgle. But, 2 Lelabve (1991, 375) suggests. is is po acidet. The strategies of weban and corporate planers, he ims, ‘sly and “dsibute various soca rata aod lasses Cher than the fone that exercises hegemony) across the avalble cerion, keep them separate and probing all conacis—these being replaced by slp (or images af conact"™ "Tis reiance om innages and sgas—or represenations—entail the recognitions tht “public” that cannot exist as such is continually made to extn the pltures of democracy we cary in our heads “The Doble tn teenies as ever met at all", yet,"the public [stl fo be found, large a8 Me, inthe madi” arly 1992, 1), Renee, *[clontenspraty polite te rpresentatve abot senses ofthe terme izes are represented bya chosen few ad pelts is represented 1 the publ vis the varoos media of communication Representative pole Face i litrlly made of petues—theyconstate the public oman” oe ‘The Endo Pate Sc? (Garey 1992, 35, emphassin orga) 1 xtum othe importance ‘of symbole poles snd the reste calls wp n ota or now iessufficiento note hat the plies of symbols, ging nd ee Ssetation increasingly stad in the stead af «democratic dal of diet, les mediate, social interaction in public spaces. tm other words, co. vemporary designers of urban "pble” spac increasingly accept Signs and images of contact as more natural and desirable than contac eel. Public and pseudopublic spaces perform aia oe in representa ional polities. The ovesdingpurpse of publ space becomes the ct ation ofa “public rel deliberately shaped as theater" (Clley 1993, 133, alo Glazer 1992). "Significant theater in which «pac. ‘ed public bass in the grandeur of caeoly orchestrated comport spectacle” (Criley 1995, 147) This the purpose ofthe caculy ‘controled publi” spaces such asthe corporate psa, Horry grounds ‘nd suburban sues etiqued by Davi i his iportne Cay of Quarts (1980, 223-263) snd dhe festival marketplaces, deme pars, hstorcl Asics ands forth analyzed by the contributors o Sorin dima Variations on « Theme Park (1993). Iis eran the gol of wal ul ces (Garren 1991, Goss 199%; Kowisht 1985, 4, Wilson 1992). ‘These spaces ofcontolled spectacle nazrow thelist of people eli bie to form “the publi." Publc spaces of spectacle, theater, and con sumption erste images that deine the public, and thse images backed by law-—exchde 5 “undesirable” the homeless the political ecvist. Thus excluded fom these pablc and peeudopublic spaces ‘heir eptimay as members of he publics putt doubt. And hes un represented in ur images of “lhe publi," they se anise to x ream oxide of ots bce ey ae and fo he geile tthe ity How "the public” is defined and imaged (a a space a a sol en ty, and as an ea is quite important. AS Criley (1993, 153) shows, sotprat poder f space tend o define the publica passe espe lve, and “eine.” They foster the “lion of «homogenized puble™ by tering out “he stl hewerogenely ofthe cow, ond] subst ing ints place a fawless fabric of white mide class work, ply and consumption... with minimal expossre 1 the hosing level of ‘homelessness and racilzedpoveny thr characterizes [the] stet en soament” (Calley 1995, 15). And, by blurng the dssncons be sween private propery and pobitespce, they create publ that sat ‘oly prescribed The deliberate Daring of carefily contol spaces 2 THE RIGNT TO THE cETY sachs Disneyland, Boston Fanel Hall, or New Yorks Worl Finan ‘ener with nuons of pli pace “conspire to hie from ws the ‘Netspread pivatzanon ofthe puble realm and ts reduction 16 the ats of commodity” (Ceiley 1993, 193). The wony ofcourse, i hat, this privatization of public space i lauded by all levels of government {cap dough puble-pivaterdeveloprest prtetships) a he same tne thatthe privatization of publi space by homeless people heir ase of public space for what we conser vo be private acts) is excoi- ted by urban planners, pola, and soca crits aie, ‘THE END OF PUBLIC SPACE? “The Rise of Open Space ave we seached, then, “the end of public space” Sorkin 1992) Has the don! (hough so dfetend)prsvatzaion of pubic space by expt lind by homeless people cested = werld in which designed diversity has ‘So thoroughly seplacd the fe nteracon of stanger tha the el of| tmunmedated polical public spaces wholly unrealistic? Have we cre- tod a society tha expect and desies only pivate interactions, privat Communications, and priate ples, that eserves publi pacts solely forcommodiied recreation and spectacle? Many cltural cries onthe let believe so, 5 do such mainstream commentators as Gates (1991) dnd such conservatives ae Glzer (1992). Polic spaces are, for dese enters an arc of «pet age, a age of diferent sersibiies and dit- [erent teascbout pb order and sly, when publ spaces were st be, welldefined, and accessible to all As we have aleady sen, sach senoiblies ate nothing more tin nostalgic fantasy: the public spaces Sfihe pst were anyhing but inclusive, except nsolar a encered so- {al protest and conc opened them wp for new groups of people and ew finds of polite. Thar is, then as now, public spaces were only publ tothe degre that they wer taken and made pai. Definitions af publc space and "the puble” are not urwewsal znd endutng they tre produced though constant srgale i the past and in the preset. In Peoples Pat, an 20 many other places (suchas the sees of Seat the and Wisbinglon during anise recting, or over the ght to preserve community gardens im New York), that steugge eontous. ‘Bt tha sti the places where the stage may open up—that is te opportunites fa thing space—re steady dishing a5 new ties ieaneeeiers tii The Hate Pte Spe? 8 fooms of surveillance and contl are implemented (eventhough tiny ‘ses ave in fat Heresing tha Sick of open spaces and parhands). Doing the period of rapid suburbsnisation and wrt renewal inthe decades ater World War Ml, Norh American les “vas increased ‘pen space, but primary purpose was diferent (dan pubic spaces ‘mth ee funtion, Le, to separate functions, open up distance be tween buildings allow forthe penezation of sunlight and greenery not to provide exenive social contact” (Greenberg 1990, 324) 2 There are ‘nay seasons forthe grow f open space: preserving ecological en- sive ateas, maintaining propery ales by esublishing an undevelop- tle greene promding ples for recreation, removing lod plains {rom development, and soon. Bat neal case open space serves fan tional and Weologial roles that difr from poliscl public spaces Indeed, open spaces often share characterises with pseudopublic spaces: rexrictons on behavior and ads are taken for granted prominent signs deigate appropriate uses and ontne rules goversing Sehere one may wall, side, of guher. These are highly segulated pees! Tn Berkley, UC officials recognied this dsncsion bexween open and poli space, During vrious People Park deta, speaker far the University never sefeced to the pr as ple space (even though the land owned by « public end), though they fequendy reiterated their commitiet fo malnaining the park 35 open space (Boudreau 1901, A3) Berkeley Cy Counel member Alan Gol, an occasional tof university plans, so waded on the differences between publi fand open space. Speaking of Peoples Pak, he celebrated the vues of ble space and then undermined then: es symbol rte pole versus he hoes, the have-nots ers th hve, popes ver ral a the undercurents mos rubng he ‘Sy love got pan uring plas on he bss community ne. {Bo cown-gown fensone os have nuh ad eds. Peples ‘Puck mcs Ine tag fora there stare. or many ppl sound the ‘rol Bsely Peoples Pak (kab 10D 28, empl ut Ices things are real and important,” he continued tis even more important o make Peoples Park "a vable open space” that would provide abit of green ta highly urbanized area (Kahn 1912, 28). The tnd of public pace might consist as mch ints deracnation ns nits ‘ooptrtion by corporate oF sat meres. Las THE RIGHT TO THE CTY [New Public Spaces? ‘But theze san even stronger aagument forthe end af pblic pace than is usurpation by esubustan ideal of open space. Many analysts sugges thatthe very nate of pace has been tasformed by development Communications technology—even to the point where the right othe ceil cys detesingly necessary so lng a one has access wo the "Sy of bis (W Mitchell 1995). They masnein thar the econ suc ofthe medin and computer networks has opened new frontier of Public space n which the mate puble spaces inthe cy re supe Sede by the fore of (petap interactive) television, tlk radio, nd the web. For may scholars (not to mention all those entrepreneurs ‘tho rode the dotcom wave to untld eides—at lest anti the wave Crashed on rosky shores) modern communtetons technology now provides the pray site for dacorsive public actvyin general and in police in aracol Indeed, such «sense was all-pevasive,pethaps bes gauged by the desire of sewspapers 1 ever more closely tack the pubs ofthe people” by pining transcripts of “what theyre saying on the web.” Recall how nota politcal or socal event ofthe dco ate 1980s—Prncess Banas death, the Monier scandal, even the vatous “iss in Kosovo and Belgrade--could pass wthou every neispeper in te land tuning int the various chat rooms so they could tack for those of us less well connected just wha "we" were hinking* And in- fled. there wat something of an explosion of discursive popalisn spared by the we nd alk ado ad. But defining chat oom, fx Troadest, calle radio, and selewsion 25 “public space” is not am Uuproblematc move even dhe media (newspnpers ad so forth) have lays been bond up in the construction of national “publ” (Ander on 1991; Habermas 1988). If we have indeed crested “the fist ‘yberspace nation” (Rabers 1994, CL), then our very conceptions of tlzenship have been transformed without much by way of public de bate—or much byway of he stragae for inclusion that epicaly marks such tansformations One might immediatly want to sk who has been exclided im this move. One might also want 1 kaow wha it seans when being pac ofthe public” no longer requires beng the public, but istad ean be accomplished fom ie pavat home by tun- {ng the radio, mtching the TV channel oF ding up the med. And yet these questions seem rarely to be rast Consider, or example, the rather optimistic account of lectonie Ler con : Toe nef Paice? 8 space as public space bythe Mas: Media Group (MG) f the Commit tee for Cultural Stodes at CUNY Graduate Schoo Weng before the ‘explosion ofthe web and focusing on tlewson, the MMG challenged Yh second prt of what they deemed the “unquestionable truism” that “the mela today tthe ule sphere, nd thithe reson for the degra: dation of puble fe i nots disappearance” (Carpignno etl. 1990, 53, erp in orginal). The MG argues insta that the evolution television ek shows hs trensformed “the public” om an audience for mas police and enersinment ito 2 discursive interactive oh ya protowed, pechaps TV tlk shows “constiate @ contested spice in which new dseursve practices are developed in const 10 ‘he traditional modes of pallel and delopical representation (Car pignano etl, 199, 35) Tor the MMG, tall Shows are now “common paces" that preduce “common sense” ina manner analogous 1 dealzed town meengs of times past. “Common sense could alo be defined [witha these shows] scthe product of-n electronically defined eoramon place Which, by vit- tue of being elctonsally reproduced, ean be considered « public space. In ts most lementaty frm, gong public today means glng on The ae” (Carpgaano et a 1990, 50). MV puri even more Bunya ter he 1992 presidential campaign (and reprising histo, for the 1996 sd 2000 campaigns) On November 9, 1997 the network rn fall page Ss in newspapers across the nation “sluting) the 17 milion 16-29 Year olds who stoed up, tamed out and voted." The advertisements ca Tied the logo “MMT, thecommnity ofthe fature” As with MVS vote Arve campign ssa whole, the ade were "presented by ATSC, The Ford Motor Company snd your local cable company” MVS eampaig tm pers the MG opumiste sessment of the power ofthe elecuonie ‘media “in the age of hater": eorprate sponsorship, MTV makes clear, ‘= what makes public space pestle The simlrites betwen what the MG has aethe“derapewc” dacrsve practices ofthe talk show (Carpignano ea 1980, 51; see also Sennett 1992, 12, 269-293) and ‘he privazation and corporate contol of public space are readily ap pene. In bh cases, the materlstoctre ofthe medium elses of police porsbilies and opportnises, The “public” guherng inthe "publi space” of he aliernoom talkshow (conta the MMGS clan that E's unmediated) 6 a selected audience that seriped i advance™ Members ofthe audience ate expected tobe atculate, 1 sake out con- ‘woversl positions, and c aa to the speace while a the some ime 14s THE RIGHT 70 THE CITY not alienating sponsors o ewers MTVE stuctring ofthe communi fhe fae, along wih the MGB assessment of comtemporary public Space, provides ample evidence thatthe sorts of eommedificaton of Public Space that ae so apparent in the material veal ae also well > anced inthe eleetonic ‘As poral, tue tha “going publ. means going on the sin’ this underaines the we of mater public spaces for demo» ‘rate plies Ifthe MIG is core, then pois wil benef ony be possible trough the medi, only crcugh highly stactured and Asmunated cleconi "paces" The MMG pats the best face on this sit Nation by suggesting thatthe nature ofthe lleshow format, ts com promise beoneen coronation and shock, becomes an opening for the ‘Empowerment of ab alternative discursive practice” (Carpignano et 1090, 52) Yet, thie empowerment is almost exclasely 2 private, felis empowerment of therapy, and one which bas ble to say Soi aterm poll projets! Television chat shows, lke “dis eyhed” city spaces, cteate a certs Kind of “publi’—one tn which ‘nisl are allowed get angry. albeit in ther pace and in highly Sripted manner, ut one tat bs ukimatly ontreatenng to esiab- lished structs of order and power. The spectacle of “te publics rmerlised,exentally commuting vaunted one-to-one commanica- {lon in waye never had been before There sn doubt that he nets tecn sw ore for plea organizing I bs become an indspens- le means of conumuniatng between activists and sts groups The {roundel of prodemocratc pote that have peted every major conomie and poicl samt during the past few years might not Inve bad the force—and surly could not have organised the sheer numbers and varies of peopled they have without the communi | i : i 2 i : The End Pale Sue? 17 ative capes ofthe web, But tls sence che oe ofthe web (0 Serve the same feton as the teephone an the newsletter used to— nly much more eicenly and in away tat allows close wo real-time Communication acrous vas distances, This i important, Bot what note important were the people—dheir bodies nd heir costumes, even thei ocks and bottom the cy stets t vas thei isi inthe aerial puble spaces ofthe sun cies that has made the dflerence [the web communications in the world woud not have nearly shut down the Seale mesing ofthe Wold Trade Organization o destoyed the Genoa ts. But people inthe streets di "What emarkablesbost the web, to put all his another way. 6 jst how lle public wb ia. Indeed, ts main function it ‘Sate private (or smal group) communication, o make more ficient ‘he publishing of newsletters, magazines, nd acts (which an all now ‘each a larger potential audience), and to et a8 2 gant catalog show toon, jst importa electronic communication embodies 2 rather Uilerene ea of publi space than that ofthe agora (despite the pro- Iiscoous mining of market and pots that so much a pat ofthe ‘web. and ic esponds to «dierent zt of soil desues. “What sociey expects, and [oyberspace] exemplifies, 610 conduct iif vin a private ttl of tanstasivecomniction” (Hii 199,101), and dhe web s becoming the pelt technology for this desire. Such & ds, and is fullimen:, however, remarkably hited and diminishing s Sdha ‘Law (2000, 247) notes, “im eybespace we canna ee, hea, ouch, and feel each other, much less oor environment" And, of cous, in ‘yterpace, we canot ve & flly electron public space renders Tangialized groupe such atthe homeless even more invisible wo the workings of police (Pils 1994): there is Italy ne rom in the lnterets “pai pace” fora homeless person oexst—t sleep 0 r= lex to ated to bry needs, Nor can the neds, desis, and poieal representations ofthe homeless ever be scn in the manner that he can ‘ese nthe publi pares ofthe ey It same politcal word, deed, hat assumes that ony those ho caw “goon the st” nz to “20 public” with thelr epresetations ‘THE NECESSITY OF MATERIAL PUBLIC SPACES ‘The vision ofthe eeczone fare as puble space has proven, by any sumer of events—fro the uprisings in Tiananmen Sane, Leg ks THE RIGHT TO THE crry Prague and Badapest in 1985 othe ant-corprate globalization peo tests in Sete, Bangkok, Quebec Ci Devos, and Genos atthe dawn of the new century to the growing "ake back te streets" movement ‘oust cites in Europe and North America—to belle more than Wishful thinking Ic bas proven, despte the importance of elecronte communications for orjisng #9 be more dream of contol than Uberatory democracy This isso simply because publi democracy re: ‘quits public vsbliy and puble isi requres material public spaces. Thisis no say that eleeuonte media ae not importnt—quite the ctary—bot its sy that they arent even close a suient Consider the uprising in Tananmen Saat. Electonie cram ‘aions—the telephone an fein particlar—played an mporant role tn enpantang the protest, but the upeiing erly began only wth he transformation of te square self fom monumental and ofl space (aspnce of representation “nto genuine place of policl dizoars” representational space) (Calhoun 1989, 57) Students, weckers, and other setts “met in small groups of Sie, lage sudenoes for Speeches, and even move of las rpreseniatve counell for debating thei collective suuegy and carrying out sel-government” (Calhoun 1999, 57), But the importnt thing fe that ths mass movement took cover specie—and cenvally importsnt—plysicl space. Ae Hersh- ove (1993, 417) sugges, the appropriation of Tiananmen served a5 Incisive “evdence of the exvaoedinary power of sppareniy“placlest ‘movements to create and warsform Space new and auhenalyrv- ltionary ways By taking over and wansforming the square, the ‘movement crested space or representation-—representatons that were ther picked up bythe media ad broadeat around the wold, Without capring he Space ofthe squate (and, indeed, without being incredly sayy in ming the potest the movement ply would not hve est Sera est uot a the sal, and wih the impact, ha a8 Spaces such af Tananmen Squat or the cena square Lips) sable opposition o be extended wo wider Sales, to radiate ott the ier polity This so less tru of Peoples Park, even the events there may not have hid the immediate woed-hsteicl smporance of the ven in Legs and Bejing Aer space taken—whther tha space Iba comested cy lot, an Beckley, othe mos important public space In Chiz—opposiona rpreentatons expand beyond the confines of the ical stugge,m part because they ae Boadesst (Arcus 2001) \Widhou dhe cccopation ofthe space, without taking i, however, he <2 USPSA HC ARIE CC ‘he En of Pub Saco? 8 ‘nde of protest thar cane to elimax in Tantnmen,Lepsig, Seale, for Peoples Park would have remained invle. The occupation of face ta necessary ingredient of protest, fact tht the forces ofthe Slate, cpt, or other powers know only 10 wel, For tls ean, reliance on dhe media asthe entrée into the public sphere is dangerous (Fraser 1950). Media in the "bourgenis publi sere” (abit has been describe by Habermas) "are privately owned snd opeated for profit Consequenh subordinated social groups lack. ‘ual cst the mata means of eal participation” (Fase 199, 665), To overcome the probe of aces, ebaler counter publi” cree 2 "yorllel discursive arena where members of subordinate ‘groups Invent and eculate counterdiscourss, wich i turn permit ‘hem to formulate oppositional invrpreaions of her dette, ter (sts and needs" (Fraser 109067). In these aera and spaces, counter publics can be seem by other factions of the public. Without these spaces, “he publi” ts balkaniced. Occupation of public space, then, “iliates in the long ran pains epuatinm Decne i asus ot ason thats publil. asaar a hese aren are publics they a by efimtion not ensases—wvhich not w say that they ze not often wvolunaly enclved” (Fraser 190, 67, empl in original). Ths te Coty the dynamic a work ia the curent round of an-conporte ‘obalaton protests, even if many ofthe condescending tbunes of {he global ev (soch as Thomas Feledan or Paul Krogman athe New ork Time) fall to understand dha. ‘While televsion and other electronic media Gnchadng the Ine ned) have important roles o playin poidcl movernents—indee, con ‘erporary politcal movements are largely impossible witout them (hich Is why television and radio stations are often the frst targets whenever revolutionary movement atmpts to size powes)—here hap never been a revoltion conducted solely im eybespace. Revol ‘ons entail a taking othe strects and taking of pole space. They ‘qe the eration of disorder in places formerly marked by ender snd Conta. Political movements mt tae space and ces Ie anew 2 a Space ia which the pariipants can be represented, While Lelebvee (G91) may thease the continual production and representation of space and represetaonal spaces, socal movements understand that they must ceate spces for representation (See D'cus 2001). The "WWW knew this well Gee Chapter 2), and so as every ete mporant Social movement, wheter progesive or reactionary. The ist move 2) THE RIGHT To THE cry ‘ments (and governments) of 1930s lay and Germany were adept at ook aking space and warsfarming into anew representational sens While te tking and production of public space ia necessary compe nent of democracy snot only ox even necesarily democrat. Public space aways ental siks; public space, tke the disorder that must be far of san inhezenly dangerous thing This why, a we saw in Chapter 2, the protests outise of abortion cliice—and the means by ‘which they ae regulated are 0 veing ‘Opponents of publi, wnmedated, and thoroughly policed spas, and ofthe disorder tat must be par of them, have responded by est Ing a new “enclosare” movement every bit as undemocratic 26 that sdvocated by Matthew Amold, Fearful of disorder and pot vio- lence fm public pace, many developers, planner, ad cy ofl and lamers of economic sums) advocate taming space By crumscal- Ing the scaviesand people—permisble within e Powerful ro- ‘sees of exclusion ae thus raed against he play of asere, uncon tolled diferences so necessary to democrat puble spaces As Lefebrre (4901, 373) har argued, dferences threaten socal onder and hence ust be absorbed by hegemonic powers Diflerences arse onthe agin ofthe homogenised rae i he loom ovement oom af excels What eet (ebegin with wha ecard he eer the oy shat tow he ‘poco frien gare, gerla ar of wat Stet ame (her thexstng center anh oes of ogra sas oe Sie allsuch dence a hey wl uct il tae nade sre at no coumeraack ewe om thse he let ‘ent cee sd onal wil be sed th ie fe pow > Inepse to recupert,Fw estoy whale has ange ‘Whether challenged fom the left oF the right, the etalished ower ofthe sate and capital are threatened by the execee of public ‘ght wiih puble space. The conficing desires for cider ad for ‘igh and repesentadon—ahe need to go agin to Hyde Paks ‘ured the 1991 nots ar Peoples Park, Activist in Berkeley fought on be- alto the expansion of socal ght and oppostion o outside contol over the park the power of the sate and conporate capitalism, hey fe had wo be opposed by (taking space Only by thing and manalsing conto over Peoples Park could oppostiana political activity be repre- Seared and advanced. For activists such ae Dvid Nae the precedent, sponte saan REI ‘Tho Bnd of Pate See? 151 vas deat. The struggle in Peoples Park was another “Tananmen quae” tn which par scivste and homeless people together wool Balt the expansion ofthe corporate state CONCLUSION: THE END OF PEOPLE'S ‘PARK AS A PUBLIC SPACE? ‘Theunlvesty seemed just as clear in suse of precedents According to sn unnamed univers employee, Berkeley Chancellor Cheng Lin Then “personally rejected” the posit of farther negotiation with activists

    You might also like