Public Space is Not Dead

It is true that politics and privatization have imposed limits on what constitutes “public space" and its use. Increased safety measures, overdesign, and the involvement of private money in the public sphere have made people less willing or less able to occupy certain public areas. However, this is has not been the only cause of its downfall, and that fall, I believe, has been one that scrapes the knee rather than breaks the leg. Throughout many of our discussions, we tend to compare the current situation to that of the past. The interaction, discussion and potential for serendipitous social dialogue or eventual political change which occurred in the less regulated public arena seems to be the ideal which has been made unattainable by current circumstances.

As usual, we must consider the current state of the world as it stands rather than reverting to one of nostalgia. More so than any developer agenda or architectural framing, technology and changing lifestyles have greatly altered the use of public space, and not necessarily for the worse. Though it’s true that the digital world has decreased the need for person-to-person interactions, it has also become a potential tool for global change, giving “public” a much broader meaning. Large, multi-cultural gatherings have been organized at scales and over distances that would never have been possible before. Public discussion and action is happening, but it now has more avenues to facilitate it.

Strangers still strike up conversation on a bench; friends text to meet for lunch; protests are organized in online forums; facebook commenters argue over Donald Trump. Over a widened spectrum of interaction, we’re mixing the old with the new, the physical and the digital, and learning how to use them both in separate and integrated ways. If a physical public venue is necessary for a particular purpose, it can and will be found and utilized. Public space has changed, but it hasn’t lost its ability to function.