Public space

In Nordic countries, like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and also Estonia, all nature areas are considered public space, due to a law, the allemansrätten (the right to common passage).

If Members of the public had no right whatsoever to distribute leaflets or engage in other expressive activity on government-owned property...then there would be little if any opportunity to exercise their rights of freedom of expression.

— Supreme Court of Canada, defending right to poster on public utility poles and hand out leaflets in public government-owned buildings[2]

In the United States the right of the people to engage in speech and assembly in public places may not be unreasonably restricted by the federal or state government.[3] The government cannot usually limit one's speech beyond what is reasonable in a public space, which is considered to be a public forum (that is, screaming epithets at passers-by can be stopped; proselytizing one's religion probably cannot). In a private—that is, non-public—forum, the government can control one's speech to a much greater degree; for instance, protesting one's objection to medicare reform will not be tolerated in the gallery of the United States Senate. This is not to say that the government can control what one says in their own home or to others; it can only control government property in this way. The concept of a public forum is not limited to physical space or public property, for example, a newspaper might be considered a public forum, but see forum in the legal sense as the term has a specific meaning in United States law.

Parks, malls, beaches, waiting rooms, etc., may be closed at night. As this does not exclude any specific group, it is generally not considered a restriction on public use. Entry to public parks cannot be restricted based upon a user's residence.[4]

In some cultures, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, however civil inattention is a process whereby individuals are able to maintain their privacy within a crowd.

Leyton Marshes, London, an example of land with long established rights of access, and equally long-standing restrictions

Public space is commonly shared and created for open usage throughout the community, whereas private space is individually or corporately owned. The area is built for a range of various types of recreation and entertainment. The physical setting is socially constructed, which creates a behavior influence. Limitations are imposed in the space to prevent certain actions from occurring—public behavior that is considered obnoxious or out of character (i.e., drug and alcohol consumption, urinating, indecent exposure, etc.)--and are supported by law or ordinance. Through the landscape and spatial organization of public space, the social construction is considered to be privately ruled by the implicit and explicit rules and expectations of the space that are enforced.

Whilst it is generally considered that everyone has a right to access and use public space, as opposed to private space which may have restrictions, there has been some academic interest in how public spaces are managed to exclude certain groups - specifically homeless[5] people and young[6] people.

Measures are taken to make the public space less attractive to them, including the removal or design of benches to restrict their use for sleeping and resting, restricting access to certain times, locking indoor/enclosed areas. Police forces are sometimes involved in moving 'unwanted' members of the public from public spaces. In fact, by not being provided suitable access, disabled people are implicitly excluded from some spaces.

Human geographers have argued that in spite of the exclusions that are part of public space, it can nonetheless be conceived of as a site where democracy becomes possible. Geographer Don Mitchell has written extensively on the topic of public space and its relation to democracy, employing Henri Lefebvre's notion of the right to the city in articulating his argument.[7] While democracy and public space don't entirely coincide, it is the potential of their intersection that becomes politically important. Other geographers like Gill Valentine have focused on performativity and visibility in public spaces, which brings a theatrical component or 'space of appearance' that is central to the functioning of a democratic space.[8]

A privately owned public space, also known as a privately owned public open space (POPOS), is a public space that is open to the public, but owned by a private entity, typically a commercial property developer. Conversion of publicly owned public spaces to privately owned public spaces is referred to as the privatization of public space, and is a common result of urban redevelopment.[9]

Beginning roughly in the 1960s, the privatization of public space (especially in urban centers) has faced criticism from citizen groups such as the Open Spaces Society. Private-public partnerships have taken significant control of public parks and playgrounds through conservancy groups set up to manage what is considered unmanageable by public agencies. Corporate sponsorship of public leisure areas is ubiquitous, giving open space to the public in exchange for higher air rights. This facilitates the construction of taller buildings with private parks.

In one of the newer U.S. incarnations of the private-public partnership, the business improvement district (BID), private organizations are allowed to tax local businesses and retail establishments so that they might provide special private services such as policing and increased surveillance, trash removal, or street renovation, all of which once fell under the control of public funds.

A broader meaning of public space or place includes also places where everybody can come if they pay, like a café, train, or movie theater. A shop is an example of what is intermediate between the two meanings: everybody can enter and look around without obligation to buy, but activities unrelated to the purpose of the shop are not unlimitedly permitted.

The halls and streets (including skyways) in a shopping center may be declared a public place and may be open when the shops are closed. Similarly for halls, railway platforms and waiting rooms of public transport; sometimes a travelling ticket is required. A public library is a public place. A rest stop or truck stop is a public space.

For these "semi-public" spaces stricter rules may apply than outside, e.g. regarding dress code, trading, begging, advertising, photography, propaganda, riding rollerskates, skateboards, a Segway, etc.

Rebekah at the Well 1860 woodcut in Die Bibel in Bildern.

Historically, public space in the west has been limited to town centres, plazas, church squares, i.e. nearly always engineered around a central monument, which informs the program of the space. These spaces acted as the 'commons' of the people; a political, social and cultural arena. Of the thirteen colonies that became the United States, three were comprehensively planned with integrated physical, social, and economic elements. These planned colonies of Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Georgia each placed emphasis on public space, in particular the public square. The plan for Georgia, known as the Oglethorpe Plan created a unique design in which a public square was created for every ward of forty residential lots and four civic or commercial lots. The design has been preserved in the Savannah historic district.[10][11][12]

Jürgen Habermas' concept of the public sphere links its emergence with the development of democracy.[13] A good example of this is the New Deal projects. The New Deal was a brief period in the US under Franklin Delano Roosevelt's government that produced a huge number of public works in an economic effort to boost employment during the depression. The result, however, was more than this. They constituted a legacy of what has been called the cultural infrastructure underlying American public space.[14] The New Deal projects have been credited with significantly contributing to the quality of American life and encouraging unity between all aspects of the community. It has been recently argued, however, that the democratic ideal of public life through the use of public space has deteriorated. As our cities accelerate towards segregation (social, economic, cultural, ethnic), the opportunity for public interaction is on the decline. John Chase writes, "The importance of voluntary and obligatory participation in civic life has been usurped by the consciousness of the arbitrary nature of assigned cultural meanings and by the increasingly important role that consumption of goods and services plays in the formation of individual identity."[15]

Modern architectural critics have lamented on the 'narrative of loss' within the public sphere. That is, modern society has withdrawn from public life that used to inform city centres. Political and social needs, and forums for expression, can now be accessed from the home. This sentiment is reflected in Michael Sorkin's and Mike Davis' declaration of "the end of public space" and the "destruction of any truly democratic urban spaces."[16] Another side of the debate, however, argues that it is people who apply meaning to public space, wherever it may be. It has been suggested that the concepts of public, space, democracy, and citizenship are being redefined by people through lived experience.[17] Discussion has surfaced around the idea that, historically, public space has been inherently contradictory in the way that it has always been exclusive in who has been able to participate. This has caused the "counterpublics", as identified by Nancy Fraser,[18] to establish their own public spaces to respond to their own concerns. These spaces are in constant flux, and in response, its users restructure and reinterpret physical space. An example of this is in the African-American neighbourhood, Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles. Here, a parking lot has evolved into a scene of intense commercial and social activity. Locals gather here to meet and socialise, sell and consume goods. The example has been used to illustrate that the historical ideal of fixed public space around a monument is not viable for a contemporary diverse social range as "no single physical space can represent a completely inclusive 'space of democracy'."[17]

Piazza del Popolo in Cesena with the artistic Fontana Masini

Martin Firrell The Royal National Theatre London 2016

This sense of flux and change, informs how contemporary public art has evolved. Temporal art in public spaces has been a long established practice. But the presence of public art has become increasingly prevalent and important within our contemporary cities. Temporal public art is so important because of its ability to respond to, reflect, and explore the context which it inhabits. Patricia Phillips describes the "social desire for an art that is contemporary and timely, that responds to and reflects its temporal and circumstantial context."[19] Public art is an arena for investigation, exploration and articulation of the dense and diverse public landscape. Public art asks its audience to re-imagine, re-experience, re-view and re-live. In the design field, a heavy focus has been turned onto the city as needing to discover new and inspired ways to re-use, re-establish and re-invent the city, in step with an invigorated interest in rejuvenating our cities for a sustainable future. Contemporary design has become obsessed with the need to save the modern city from an industrialized, commercialized, urban pit of a death bed.

Contemporary perception of public space has now branched and grown into a multitude of non-traditional sites with a variety of programs in mind. It is for this reason that the way in which design deals with public space as a discipline, has become such a diverse and indefinable field.

Iris Aravot puts forward an interesting approach to the urban design process, with the idea of the 'narrative-myth'. Aravot argues that "conventional analysis and problem solving methods result in fragmentation...of the authentic experience of a city...[and] something of the liveliness of the city as a singular entity is lost."[20] The process of developing a narrative-myth in urban design involves analysing and understanding the unique aspects of the local culture based on Cassirer's five distinctive "symbolic forms".[21] They are myth and religion, art, language, history and science; aspects often disregarded by professional practice. Aravot suggests that the narrative-myth "imposes meaning specifically on what is still inexplicable", i.e. the essence of a city.