What is public space?
Bergen School of Architecture 2014 Social science essay by Pia Grung
Table of contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Theme .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Structure .............................................................................................................................................. 3 PART I .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Public versus private ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Public space and private interest ................................................................................................... 5 1.4
The private and the individual ................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Territories of the self ..................................................................................................................... 6 PART II ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Norway: Nature as public space .................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Bergen seaside and public space ................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Examples from Nordnes ................................................................................................................ 9 2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 10 Litterature .............................................................................................................................................. 10
2
Introduction The concept of public space is used by architects, urban planners and in everyday life. In this essay we will seek to investigate what it could mean. This will be done both from a theoretical view and in a more empirical study of local examples. Sometimes it is useful to see the unclear sides of a concept to make use of it in a clear way.
Theme In one sense differentiating between private and public is easy. A private space could be limited to a space where you need a key to enter, it could be defined by formal ownership or by the possibility to be undisturbed by others. I such a straightforward distinction the public space could be all that remains, when all the private spaces are disregarded, or it could be defined by opposite requirements than the private: A place that anyone can enter, that has common ownership or where people might expect to encounter other people. The following enquiry will seek to show that such a view is oversimplified, that private and public are more complex entities in the social conception of space.
Structure Although social sciences stress cultural relativism, it structures the understanding of cultures and societies by theories and concepts that are, if not universal, then at least partially intercultural. If not there would not be a social science, only separate sciences of each culture observed. Cultural relativism must then be a tool to be aware of cultural variation, refrain from evaluating cultures and avoid ethnocentrism. This enquiry will have to start in the general realm, the first part introduces the key concepts public and private, the difficulties they arise and the concepts’ relation to western culture. Part two of the enquiry will seek to apply theories to the empirical realm, zooming in to Norwegian, and the Nordnes peninsula in Bergen. The aim is to analyze specific situations in light of general theories, and to understand theories in their reflection on specific examples.
3
PART I
1.1 Public versus private Jürgen Habermas (1989) sometimes uses the words “public space” when desribing a much more abstract phenomenon than city squares, parks and streets. His concept of public sphere (‘Öffentlichkeit’) is referred as a discursive space. (Habermas 1989) The word ‘space’ is then more of an allegory, and is sometimes replaced by other spatial metaphors like ‘arena’, ‘scene’ or even ‘theater’; ‘space’ then means something more abstract than physical space, like the mediated political debate or the means of which individuals engage in the construction or critique of social relations or society. (Habermas 1964) The term ‘public space’ is often used more concrete to describe shared physical space. Public space can then be defined as “the common ground where people carry out the functional and ritual activities that bind a community”. (Carr, Francis, Rivlin, Stone 1992 p. xi) This way of selecting some particular places as especially social or ‘common’, is often applied to urban planning when distributing plazas or parks on master plans. The division of space in the categories of public and private can be seen as a continuation of the division of society into a private sphere and a public sphere. One could say that physical space has been divided as life has been seen as divided – as backstage and on stage. (Goffman 1956)
1.2 Public space as social space The emphasis on the public as an opposite of the private might be best fit to western cultures where the individual is sometimes seen as primary to groups. Habermas (1989) sees the public as a bourgeois construction shielding the family matters promoting an image of a democratic public sphere of equals. When referring to the public as one whole, conflicting interests of different groups are bracketed, and the public space’s role as a way of maintaining power structures and asserting political control is not addressed. In a study of public space in San José, Costa Rica, Setha M. Low describes public space as a domain of control and domination with reference to the works of Castells, Foucault and Rabinow: “These writers successfully illustrates how architecture contributes to the maintenance of power of one group over another at a level that includes both the control of the movement and the surveillance of 4
the body in space” (Low 1996, p. 862) The production of social space is then partially a production of hierarchical relations where groups of the population is excluded, controlled or suppressed. The openness of many modernist public spaces will facilitate behavioral control through supervision. When one is likely to be observed, one is likely to stay within the norm. (Halliwell 1991) The gaze of others, or even the perceived possibility of such a gaze, changes the behavior and the social interpretation of the public space. At the same time the avoidance of surveillance might divide the space into a visible public space and an invisible one. (Low, 1996, p. 877) Low makes a distinction between the social production of public space and the social construction of public space, where the latter refers to the way the meaning is shaped by users in their exploitation, compliance or defiance of the produced social space. (1996, p 861) The public, or groups within the public, may change the social relations that constitute the public space by using it for their own purposes, creating new symbolic meaning to the space. For instance a park can become an illegal drug marked, and a shopping mall can become a teenage hangout etc. The social construction of public space changes both the space and the symbolic ownership of the space by groups or individuals through use. The question of ownership might address some of the issues of private versus public.
1.3 Public space and private interest Terms like public and private has been used to differentiate typologies of space. There are places that are open to everyone in principle, but are not conceived to be common space, nor used by any public. There are also public spaces that are constructed by private interests. Common ownership need not be a formal requisite of public space. Shopping malls are often considered public as they are used by many, while they are owned and built for private profit, and it is debatable whether shopping malls and connected meeting points could be called public. Urban space owned by the government is also serving these interests as attractive public spaces provide business for commercial enterprises that are often situated nearby. Sharon Zukin (1998) argues that modern urban public spaces were founded on the desire to make money. (Zukin, 1998, p 828) The ‘commercial space’ shifting to a ‘space of consumption’ shaped the urban spaces, and lead to ‘gentrification’. She sees the merits of gentrification as opening urban public space for the middle class, adding aesthetics and preservation to urban planning, and stressing the public’s need for culture, while the flaws of gentrification is that it excludes the lower classes and leads to privatization. (Zukin 1998, p 5
830-832) The term public is in this way made more complex, as it could be confined to a certain group. It then becomes a public space within the group, but private in the way it is shielding the group from outsiders. Privatization in the commercial sense is also tied to public space. These notions would make it more problematic to state that public is the opposite of private. How should we then interpret the private?
1.4 The private and the individual The word private is often used as belonging to one individual, something that is of no concern to others. When used to define space it would not imply that the space holds no relation between the individual and groups, but rather that the individual needs to have something that is its own, that it is a space where individuality is served by the means of autonomy, ownership, intimacy and lack of intervention. Tying the private to the individual might be applicable foremost to western culture. In an anthropology study of the Dayak culture in Borneo, Halliwell (1991) found that people showed no need or interest for being alone. The privacy of their home extended to neighbors because the walls separating living quarters where deliberately permeable. The Dayak people still had private space in the sense that they were shielded from outsiders such as Muslims who under no circumstance could have access to the shared privacy. The notion of shared privacy however has relevance to the western culture. When the word ‘private’ is used in western culture it will in most cases encompass more than one user. The nuclear-family is traditionally seen as part of the private, and it would usually also mean married couples, partners and close friends. It would be impossible to argue that social relations happen exclusively in public, as would it be to say that close relations that might be private cannot act out in public space. The categories of private and public can be seen as a gradient rather than a strict dichotomy. (Halliwell 1991) The spaces can then have more or less privacy, and be more or less open to the public.
1.5 Territories of the self There might be aspects of a space that make users feel that they intrude. The cultural perception of what is an intrusion could be examined through the concept of personal space. 6
Ervin Goffman (1971) investigates personal space, or rather territories, the way people take ownership over space temporarily or more permanently by social markers. Reassertions, positioning and invasions of territory are actions governed by cultural rules. The territories of the self seem to have important roles to play in the development and preservation of the ego. They have dual function, as keeping out can be a token of maintaining respect, and engaging in can be a means of establishing regard. (1971, p 86) This theory stresses a spatial side of social interaction, in this way there is an inter-individual side of the private space. Furthermore the theory would assert that there are personal territories within the public space, making the distinction between private and public less clear, but hopefully more useful.
To make use of this and earlier mentioned theories and concepts, the following discussion will seek examples that diverge from the typical use of public space. These examples will be chosen from local situations in Norway.
PART II 2.1 Norway: Nature as public space Public space would often refer to places that are used by many on a daily basis. The sea, is part of nature, and would in most cases not be considered public. In Norway nature is regulated so that it is accessible to all as long as the users are not interfering with the landscape in a permanent way. The distinction between cultivated land ‘innmark’ and the wilderness ‘utmark’ shows that private ownership only prevents intruders if there is a clear economic interest that is disturbed by the intrusion. ‘Allemannsretten’ (literary “everyman’s right”) ensures a right to roam in the wilderness that includes camping for up to two days, foraging for berries and utilizing non-motorized vehicles such as bikes and kayaks. (Friluftsloven, 1957, §1–§10) The coastal zone has an even wider protection as open. Normally building private property within a 100 meter zone from the sea line is prohibited, although exceptions are made by local municipalities. (Plan- og bygningsloven §1-8) Private owners cannot prevent people’s movement within the 100 meter zone, even if a building like a house, cottage or wharf has been permitted, with the exceptions of military installments and EEC-regulated sites that have dispensations from the law for security reasons. Otherwise, building fences or otherwise hinder free access could lead to heavy fines and enforced 7
removal of the hindering structures. Nature is seen in principle as public, although it is not used for purposes that are specifically public, nor can it be seen as produced.
2.2 Bergen seaside and public space The public’s right to the seaside is not applied as much in urban settings. Bergen has a long history of coastal culture, but in present time, the seaside is for the most part not part of people’s lives although most of the central town is situated along the twisting coastline. There are some exceptions, like the historical Wharf and the Fish Marked that doubles as a souvenir trap during the tourist season, and Nordnesparken, a park for concerts, leisure and public gatherings. These are public spaces in the conventional sense; they are used by all and are among the main scenes of official happenings, fares, vendors, circulation and social interaction. When it comes to the rest of the seaside, private owners, both companies and citizens, have their own little slice of the coast, whereas the large area is controlled by the harbor administration, either as a land holder or in connection to marine industries, like cruise traffic, docks or cargo transits. Extensive landfilling has increased the land areas controlled by the harbor administration, and they were often sold to residential developers or companies for great profits, as the areas are considered valuable because of their vicinity to the sea. Very few of the seaside sites have been given public programs, and even fewer could be called public spaces. The few that do occur are interesting in terms of defining public space, especially in between houses or in newly developed zones, or the more empty spaces where the marine industry withdraws and the space is not yet assigned. These new public spaces of urban watersides are not a unique phenomenon; they can be seen in many cities where harbor industries are replaced by more urban public life, in such a degree that the waterside public space can be seen as a certain typology of public spaces. (Carr et. al. 1992 p 84) The new waterside public spaces of Bergen are different from a typical urbanized waterfront by their ambiguous state between private and public, between open and sealed. They are not widely utilized for public social purposes. It may often be unclear if they are in fact open, or if entering constitutes some kind of unwritten trespass. In the cases where the spaces are framed by private buildings, they might be interpreted as spaces that are common only to a group belonging to those buildings. 8
2.3 Examples from Nordnes Georgernes Verft, on the Nordnes peninsula, is an example of a new (constructed 1995-2001) residential complex in connection to a former industrial site very close to the sea. The complex includes two public spaces, one along the waterfront, and the other behind the first row of houses surrounded by residential houses with balconies. The first years after completion these outdoor spaces were hardly used by anyone other than residents. This changed radically for the seafront space when a walking path was entered in the end of the pier, connecting the complex towards a park further out on the peninsula. The space behind the rows of houses remains relatively unused by non-residents, though some might be seen walking through, it remains somewhat a backyard. Outsiders entering are very visible from the windows and balconies, they lack a reason to stay, and the facilities of the space seem marked as territory of the residents. The gaze, or perceived possible gaze, from the private apartments seems to hinder any sense of it being public. The seaside space on the other hand is one of the most popular spots for summer day leisure, barbeque or swimming. What makes these spaces so different in terms of private and public? The seaside space is not framed by private spaces on more than one side. It has undergone what Low (1996) could have called a social construction, where people have taken control of its function and meaning. This has lead further to a point where one is less visible and less of an outsider because of all the other outsiders. It is hard to tell how the transformation started, but it might be the Norwegian cultural norm of the sea being open to all, and since it is on the seaside it can be taken as public. Further out on the Nordnes peninsula is a public sea bath, Nordnesbadet. It differs from other places to go swimming in that there is a connected pool and diving-tower, and more importantly, it has an admission charge. It is framed by fences and closed off all year except for three months in the summer. As it is outdoors and integrated in a public park it could be conceived as public, although the commercial side and the fact that it has closing hours indicate otherwise. Young people sometimes climb the fences during summer nights or hot offseason days. The trespassing is not seen as breaking in, by most people, although the owners might. Nordnesbadet is challenging the notion of the public sea, as it makes access to the sea a tradable commodity. This commercial space (Zukin 1998) is partially public partially private. 9
2.4 Conclusion Public space is not as clear-cut as one could think. When the concept is ambiguous, using promoting or building public space becomes more challenging. To see public space as something opposite to private is useful to some extent, but limited in several ways. The notion of public space could hide the private elements of any used space, as well as conflict and interests that divide the public into groups. The word ‘private’ has similar problems, and could hardly constitute a dichotomy. When looking at space where the degree of public could be disputed, it is useful to have some nuances in what public space could be. In Norway nature and the sea could be seen as public. The seaside is often seen as public by the Norwegians, yet in use it might not have such a clear status especially in urban areas such as Nordnes
Litterature Carr, Francis, Rivlin, Stone: (1992) Public Space, New York, Cambridge University Press Friluftsloven (1957) www.lovdata.no Goffman, Erving (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York Goffman, Ervin: (1971) Relations in Public Order. The territories of the Self London, Peguin Habermas, Jürgen: (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. (1989) Cambridge, Polity Habermas, Jürgen: (1964) The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article New German Critique, No. 3. (Autumn, 1974), pp. 49-55. Helliwell, Christine (1991).Good walls make bad neighbours. The australian national university, Canberra. J.J. Fox Low M, Setha (1996). Spatializing culture: the social production and social construction of puplic space in Costa Rica. American Ethnologics, American Antropological Association Plan- og bygningsloven (1979) www.lovdata.no Zukin, Sharon (1998). Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardisation in spaces of consumption. Urban Studies Vol.35 Nos. 5-6, 825-839
10