Whose public space?

After investigating these cases from around the world, through the theoretical frameworks of place and process, can we now answer the question that was posed as the title of this book, and identify to whom public spaces belong? The complexity of the urban design, development and management processes in these cases, and of the configuration of urban societies in which they are located, makes it impossible to find simple answers. But across the cases, we are able to identify a recurring theme whereby individuals, social groups and organizations make or withdraw claims over space, thereby implicitly or explicitly contesting the claim of others, instigating a process of inclusion and exclusion, creating spaces with overlapping meanings. We can see how public spaces are significant for all urban societies, no matter what the size of the city, its economic basis or its political and cultural configurations. Public spaces, as significant material and social components of cities, are therefore subject to intense processes of social interaction through which their quality and character are determined. Claims could be made by powerful individuals and institutions, such as a supermarket chain or a shopping mall in England, a local authority in France, a local prince in Nigeria, or housing designers and developers in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Claims could also be made by individuals or informal groups of people who try to shape the space, such as youth subcultures in the United Kingdom, public housing residents in the Netherlands, street drinkers in Germany, low-income households in Mexico, local businessmen in Taiwan, or middle-class South Africans, each with widely different views and outcomes. Depending on their level of political, economic and cultural power and influence, these individuals and organizations can shape and determine some of the features of the urban space, creating the structural conditions within which others live and use the city. Their resources allow the more powerful individuals and institutions to make substantial physical and institutional changes in cities, while the claims by the less powerful groups may take softer, temporary forms. Each individual, group or organization may try to shape the city in their own image, creatingspaces that would enable them to feel safe and in control, with or without consideration of what others may need. Public spaces, even in their most public forms, therefore, tend to find particular flavours, a different character associated with particular combination of groups and interests, under pressure to find a fixed identity within a particular fragment of society. Public spaces are shaped not only by claims, but also by the absence of claims, by withdrawal from the public sphere. Withdrawal from public space may be due to a fear of crime, mistrust of other social groups, and intensified social polarization. This withdrawal is reflected in neglect and decline, poor maintenance, accumulation of waste and refuse, or lack of care and attention. Neglect of public spaces may be a result of exaggerated preferences for vehicular movement, which was the dominant theme in shaping cities for much of the industrial era. Such neglect may also reflect the absence of local governance – that is, coordinating mechanisms to facilitate negotiation between different claims over space. Public spaces provide linkages between private spheres, and represent the character and quality of a city as a whole. The decline of public space reflects a breakdown in social and spatial linkages and a deterioration of the city as a whole. The case studies presented in this book map out the changing nature of public space. Public open spaces are changing from being embedded in the social fabric of the city to being a part of more impersonal and fragmented urban environments. The various chapters show how public spaces are changing alongside the changing nature of cities and urban societies: from places embedded in particular communal traditions and routines to impersonal spaces produced by economic, political, technical and management considerations – in other words, they are undergoing a transition from an expressive to an instrumental character. Public spaces that once were meaningful places are becoming a mere part of a transportation network dominated by cars. They are also at risk of being taken over by minority interests, being privatized in the name of safety or exclusivity, further fragmenting the urban society and space. The particular characters of public spaces may be instrumental or expressive. As instrumental spaces, they are used as a means to an end, such as the development of a public bus station, or the pedestrianization of a street for the purpose of gaining commercial profit for businesses, or the gating of streets for the perceived safety of resident groups. Instrumental use can also be made for an essential need, such as the public spaces in low-income neighbourhoods in Mexico or small towns in France, where the quality of urban life is closely connected with the process of urban development and the provision of public spaces. As expressive spaces, they may be used to project and explore identity, such as the gathering of youth subcultures or international migrants in a European city, or a festival space in a traditional African city. The inclusive and participatory development of a common good such as public spaces can help combine instrumental and expressive concerns, creating places that people use and can identify with, while reinvigorating society through collective action.