Public Places and Private Interests

In the last couple of months a growing movement in the US – inspired to some extent by the Arab spring – called “Occupy Wall Street” has been dominating the news. It is motivated by a growing inequality in the US and the privileges given to what they term as 1 per cent of the population. There are no specific demands – aside from rallying against capitalism – and the movement has been largely peaceful. Its most defining character is that demonstrators occupy a large public gathering area in the middle of the city, turning it into an encampment of sorts.

Other cities followed suit – in the US there was Oakland, Berkeley and Portland. And it spread globally as well; to London for example.

Putting aside the politics of this, the specific occupation of what seems like a public place raises a series of interesting issues pertaining to the notion of public and private, how they relate to each other, the role of corporations in defining the city, and the limits of freedom.

In New York, the main gathering place that was used by the demonstrators was Zuccotti Park located in lower Manhattan near Wall Street and also the site of the former World Trade Center. What makes this area particularly interesting is how it is an outcome of a New York City policy regulating the use and design of public places.

According to urban planning Professor, Jerold Kayden, in a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, public plazas in New York City are a unique outcome of a zoning law dating back to 1961 allowing developers to build over 20 million square feet of extra residential and office floor space in return for providing more than 500 public plazas, arcades and indoor spaces. This was meant as an incentive of sorts by recognizing the significance of these places to the life the city.

Zuccotti Park – site of the protests – is a large space, more than 26,000 square feet, and belongs to a real estate developer, who while not receiving bonus floor space, nevertheless added some amenities voluntarily. Arguably this all sounds great, however, because the space is privately owned and even though it is required to remain open for 24 hours, the owners are free to introduce their own rules with respect to use.

And it is here that the true dilemma lies. Till before the ‘occupation’ there were rules prohibiting skateboarding, and bicycling but there was nothing about long-term occupation. But new rules introduced in October permitted passive recreation only, specifically prohibiting camping, lying down on the ground and so on. Indeed to enforce these rules, in mid-November the New York police forcibly evicted campers from the park, power washed its grounds and then allowed re-entry on the condition that no camping would take place.

Jerold Kayden, raises the issue of the limitations with respect to the use of privately owned public places and the extent to which developers have a right to regulate what they consider proper behavior. Yet he is promoting a dialogue of sorts – indeed suggesting that such sites could become more meaningfully integrated in the life of the city. Thus, private groups could utilize underused places for example that could be used for art performances or poetry readings. At the same time protesters in Zuccotti Park need to understand that their singular domination of the park raises issues pertaining to the limits of free speech and that it should not infringe upon the rights of others.

Yet for many the control of public places by private corporations represents an example of how cities have become privatized, linking it to neo-liberal ideas and practices, as pointed out by urban sociologist Sharon Zukin in her book “The Naked City.” Those critics contend that such practices enforce certain rules and norms of behavior that may not be in line with resident’s best interests.

But as Zukin herself points out in her analysis of Union Square – a plaza that has been renovated due to a partnership between local businesses and the city, also called the Union Square Partnership – the results can be positive. Union square was in fact the site of a homeless population, filled with drug use and other vices. The association in charge of renovating had a vested interest in removing these activities and promote a more civilised use of the space to increase property value as well as commercial activities in the stores surrounding the park.

Moreover, a popular Farmers market takes place there on weekends, turning it into a pleasant place to be enjoyed by the majority of residents, made possible because a private partnership took control of the space and did not leave it to deteriorate. This is obviously a far cry from the drug-ridden days of old.

The private ownership of public parks is in and of itself not a bad thing, but as Sharon Zukin points out, a collective responsibility needs to be encouraged among city dwellers, rather than being the sole responsibility of store owners and small businesses. In this way a truly democratic space can be created that respects the limits of freedom and recognises the dangers of anarchy.

Email the writer: