Privatization of the Public by Vasanth Mayil

Privatization of the Public Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Instructor: David J. Smiley, Architect, Ph.D. Course: Pedestrian Rhetorics Spring 2020

Special Thanks: Special Thanks: Sunset Park Residents Sunset Park Residents

Columbia Columbia Urban Urban Design Design

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

Privatization of the Public Vasanth Mayilvahanan

“Public space is a right, not a privilege.”

ABSTRACT Public space is a right, not a privilege. Before attempting to understand public spaces, it is important to define what constitutes a public space. The Charter of Public Space: “Public spaces are all places publicly owned or of public use, accessible and enjoyable by all for free and without a profit motive.” – UN-Habitat It is important to note that the traditional notion of ‘public’ is being defined as something that is ‘free without a profit motive.’ This has been true for the most part since public spaces have always been associated as symbols of democracy (Pratt, 2017). But who is this public? Is it a unified group? In most cases, it is more of a broader category of people who come from different socio-economic backgrounds, age groups, and

Figure 1: Zuccotti Park in New York City is an example of a Privately Owned Public Space (POPS).

genders (Carmona, 2010). The traditional notion of public space is being redefined in a lot of ways. The privatization of public spaces is one of them. In recent times, there has been an increase in privatization of public spaces. These spaces are commonly known as Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) or, in Great Britain, as Quasi-public spaces and Pseudo Public Spaces (Figure 2). Though this might sound like a takeover of the public realm by private entities, there’s a lot of underlying reasons as to why this is being done and several other factors that

Figure 2: Manchester’s Spinningfields business quarter’s parkland is an example of a pseudo-public space (as called in the UK). 2

influence such decisions.

Jerold S. Kayden of Harvard University first coined the term Privately Owned Public Spaces or POPS. Developed in 1961 in New York City, it is an incentive-based zoning tool where developers are encouraged to provide and maintain public spaces in exchange for density allowances (Marathe, 2017). The spaces are private spaces that are conditionally made available to the public (Figure 1). These spaces include city squares, atriums, parks, and thoroughfares (Cox, 2017). To give an understanding of the metric, all the POPS in New York City cover an area equivalent to around 10 percent of Central Park (Wbur, 2017). These spaces are also called as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Pseudo-Public Spacesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in Europe and the UK (Sullivan & Bunker, 2017). They are defined as spaces that are formally owned by the state or the public but subject to control and regulation by private interests (Staeheli & Mitchell, 2008). The development of such spaces is predominantly because of the inability of the local authorities to create or maintain these spaces. These spaces can also be viewed as a result of commercial imperatives, partly because

Figure 3: IBM Plaza at 590 Madison Avenue is a POPS. Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Rising degree of privatization

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

Constraints of Usability and Accessibility

Example

privatization of such spaces affects the right to the city

Reshaping of public spaces through private management, installation of signs of private character, symbolic exclusion through signs.

Pedestrian areas, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs).

So these forms of hybrid quasi-public spaces tend to be

(Dovey, 2016).

located majorly in the city centers owing to the pressures exerted by suburban shopping centers (Pratt,

Semi-privatization of public Redevelopment of space by transfer of rights parks and public of use and of maintenance greens. tasks on private subjects; temporary exclusion through opening hours.

2017). The increase in competition and the lack of sufficient financial capital from the local municipalities to develop the urban centers have led them to transfer the property rights to private developers. Encouraging private players to provided public space has become a

Construction of private spaces with limited public character; exclusion through signs and security staff.

Skyways; plazas at the entrance of highrises.

Full privatization through sale of quasi-public property; exclusion through signs and security staff.

Transformation of railway stations into shopping malls.

cant increase in ownership of large prime urban spaces

Full privatization in the course of public property sale; accessibility reduces to consumers, controlled by security staff.

Sale of local property with subsequent erection of shopping centers.

In some cases, the pressures faced by urban cores are

Full Privatization in the course of public property sale plus political and administrative spin-off from the municipal collective; private access only.

Gated communities, whose inhabitants organize prior local tasks and therefore view themselves exempt from tax liability.

This has also led to significant privatization of public

quick fix for shrinking public budgets (Wbur, 2017). In most cases, the public authorities’ emphasis on shortterm gains over long-term impacts has led to a signifiby private developers.

dealt with the development of Business Improvement Districts (BID), where local stakeholders oversee the funding, maintenance, and improvement of the district. spaces to be able to serve the local trade better. In some cases, private developers tend to create enclosed spaces that are cut off from the public for easy control and management. Similar to that of a gated community where branding, music, and security measures are used

Figure 4: The table shows the development of hybrid spaces due to privatization efforts.

to attract a specific set of people and exclude others rose henceforth (Dovey, 2016). This is rightly stated by Kayden as ‘café’ creep’ where people have to pay to enjoy the public space (Wbur, 2017). In such a case, the social responsibility factor is being overtaken by capital interests.

Though there is a trade-off between the parties involves, privatization doesn’t just happen; it is promoted and steered (Nissen, 2008). So the spaces are treated as a commodity where the exchange value determines their interest and not the symbolic, historical, or cultural values (Carmona, 2010). This can also be attributed as one of the primary issues of privatization as the private developers always view this through the lens of profitability and not as a service provider. And this acts against the definition of ‘public’. In such a scenario where there is a change in the nature of the public spaces, it raises some key questions. Do the rights to the city mean the same when people might have to pay to use a public space? Is there a significant impact on the user experience because of privatization? Does such a hybrid model portray the image of access as a privilege more than a right? Can privatization be viewed as the incapacity of the city to provide the necessary resources to the community? The fundamentals of ‘the right to the city’ in which public spaces as sites for protests or use as commons still apply to these spaces? To better interpret the typology, the dossier picks three distinct projects from different parts of the world and analyzes the spaces through the lens of an analysis framework.

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK This framework is a set of factors with gradients that help us understand the performance of the spaces and how public interests are affected by the various facets of privatization (Figure 5). These factors are in no way binding or a set of elements that are to be checked by each project, but just a simple framework to understand the performance of each project in a more defined manner.

Figure 5: The seven factors included in the analysis framework.

Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

1. DEGREE OF PUBLICNESS Any public space has to cater to the public. The fact that the dossier deals with projects that are a result of privatization, it is essential to understand how ‘public’ a project is. The conditional availability of public spaces, programming, accessibility, the rules and regulations of the space are primary factors governing the degree of publicness. 2. ACCESSIBILITY/CONNECTIVITY The rights to the city deals primarily with the accessibility to urban resources (Harvey, 2008). This raises the question of the threat faced by activities like protesting that are a part of the rights to the city. Accessibility also stems from who uses the space and who the target audience is? (If there is any) Further, accessibility and connectivity are influenced by the location and context of each project. It is an important consideration, especially because access, as defined by the private owners, tend to be malleable and legally weak. It often treads in the sphere of ‘possibility’ (Veldkamp, 2017). 3. PROGRAMMING The programming of POPS tends to be more flexible and advantageous to the private developers since they own the space ‘legally. Due to legal ownership, developers might not exactly be accountable to taxpayers or the general public (Pratt, 2017). So, the programming tends to be in the interests of the landowners or the investors. In various cases, there is a lack of acknowledgment of existing cultural and historical context when Figure 6: These two images depict the signages used in the POPS with the details and the rules and regulations for the use of the space. 6

the space is programmed. The degree to which private

developers act as a service provider instead of using it as a space for capital marketing is reflected in the programming of the site. 4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community engagement is crucial and should be a part of the project through all phases. Ownership of public land and the availability of the capital should in no way be taken as signs to develop the property in the way the developers intend to without appropriate public consultation. Community actors significantly impact the programming, design, functioning, and usage of the space. 5. DESIGN Though POPS have a rigid framework under which they function, the design of the space dictates the functioning and usability. The impact of design varies from the overall spatial design, scale, dimensions, furniture design, materiality, etc. Since the design components of the space engage directly with the user, it is a critical factor in determining the success or failure of a space. 6. TRADE-OFFS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DEVELOPMENT BONUSES POPS was initially developed as a part of the incentive zoning in New York. Since it is based on an agreement or exchange between the public and the private, it is important to analyze the trade-offs established in each project. The deals generally tend to be greater density allowances in certain high-density districts (Colman, 2016). Aside from owning the space, certain city services such as maintenance, garbage collection, and policing are performed by the private developers. So, understanding the trade-offs is foundational to any POPS. 7. SECURITY/POLICING The management of the space includes security and policing. Since these spaces are not maintained, they are underused or become breeding grounds for illegal activities. So some of them view this as an opportunity to improve security even if it means restricting public access. Security not just in terms of hard controls, but also as soft controls like CCTV cameras and symbolic restrictions are established. In some cases policing is pushed to a level where access is no longer a right but a privilege. Since private owners refuse to publicize the rules they apply to their pseudo-public space, the space and the people in it become a threshold (Veldkamp, 2017). The ability of a space to display what one can and cannot do in the space is a reflection of the regulations established by private owners.

Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

1. Granary Square, London

Public Space as a tool for Urban Revitalization

BASIC FACTS ABOUT PROJECT: Public Stakeholders: 1. King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership - Single landowner at King’s Cross. 2. Camden London Borough Council - Local authority for the London borough of Camden.

One of the first examples I would like to discuss is Granary Square in London. It is a part of the larger £5bn King’s Cross Development. It is one of the largest and one of the most successful urban regeneration projects in London (Pratt, 2017). Further, it is also Europe’s largest pseudo-public space. Granary Square, located north of the King’s Cross rail station, is a former goods yard. The industrial use of the space receded by the

Property Developers: 1. Argent King’s Cross Limited Partnership 2. Australian Super

1980s. The site had an increase in issues of prostitu-

Planning and Design: 1. Allies and Morrison 2. Porphyrios Associates 3. Townshend Landscape Architects

canals, contaminated ground, etc. Further, due to its

Total Site Area: 2,918,520 sq.ft

over 40 years.

Granary Square Area: 48,400 sq.ft

To initiate development, a bunch of trade-offs was

Status: Ongoing (Granary Square Completed in 2012)

established by the council and the developers. This

tion and drugs. Also, the site was restricted by other physical constraints like tunnels, tracks, service pipes, location in Central London, the space has been a point of discussion for several years. The local Camden City Council have been initiating development efforts for

included the development of two schools, the establishment of the University of the Arts London (in Granary Building), 2000 new homes, of which 50% are affordable, a swimming pool, jobs, the cookery school, a community garden, a sports pitch, the restoration of 20 historic buildings (including the Granary Building) and the creation of 26 acres of open public space (Moore, 2014). This kind of a proportion of affordable housing has rarely been achieved in London. The social goals of the project had been established from the beginning of the development, and there is a clear balance in power between the developers and the Camden Council. This is an example of the local council being a successful enabler and the private developers a successful provider.

Instead of considering the space as a form of commodification, this is one such instance where the cultural and the historical value of the space was put in the forefront. The project’s urban framework gave more value to the open spaces rather than the individual buildings making connections where possible to surrounding streets. These are in the lines with Jan Gehl’s emphasis on the life between buildings (Gehl, 2001). The design of the public space includes a series of public spaces where people crossing over the Canal would use a pedestrian boulevard that is traffic-free. Further, the various pavilions and the diversity of landscaping, levels, and scale in Granary Square make the space dynamic. The square is also a focal point for multiple events throughout the year. The landscaping also features a grid of public water fountains and a bunch of art installations that get updated frequently (Figure 9).

Figure 7: The Granary Square in context with the larger King’s Cross Development. Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

One of the other important factors to the success of Granary Square space is the presence of the Granary Building. The previously abandoned Granary building currently hosts the University of the Arts London. The School is the result of the fusion of six different colleges to make it one of the largest schools of its kind in Europe (Moore, 2014). It is important to note that the trade-off between the council and the developers included the restoration of 20 such historical buildings. Figure 8: The Granary Square area facing the Regent’s Canal with the Granary Building as the backdrop.

Further, Granary Square in front of it acts as a major connection to the Regent’s Canal, and the movement of college students in and out of the University makes it an active space all day (Figure 8). But of course, none of these could’ve been achieved without the developers realizing their profits. The development includes several high-profile corporate offices. The presence of the University has become an attraction for these offices. Further, Google has started the construction of its London Headquarters right opposite to the square. This could be viewed as the

Figure 9: People enjoying the water fountains in the middle of a sunny day.

‘creative city’ established by Richard Florida, where the development panders significantly to the ‘creative class’ demographic (Pratt, 2017). Addressing the question of who uses the space, it is interesting that Granary Square is perceived differently by various users. Some passersby use the space to move from one point to the other. There are students continuously moving in and out due to the proximity to the University. Further, it also has a social mix considering that the children from the surrounding streets run

Figure 10: A variety of people using the steps for various purposes. 10

through the space unchecked by the security guards

(Moore, 2014). This leads us to the question of security and policing as there is a new form of threshold created by the space. Though there have been issues over what can and cannot be done in the space, there are private regulations governing the space that the landowner did not want to reveal (Shenker, 2017). Though such regulations apply to the entire King’s Cross Development, the Granary Square space is relatively under-managed (Carmona, 2010). This is exhibited in Figure 10. The fact that the image depicts a guy sleeping says a lot about the space since most POPS don’t allow people to lie down. This was an issue even in Pancras Square in the same development where security guards accost people lying down (Jacobs, 2019). The fact that there is an ‘informal stewardship’ by ground and maintenance staff rather than security in Granary Square (Wright, 2019). Further, the diverse demographic depicted in the image using the space are signs of a successful social mix. And the fact that despite people being unaware of the precise rules and regulations of the space, people don’t feel restricted. In this case, it could also be attributed to the multi-functional purpose of the space and the flexibility offered by the students using the space. Finally, one can’t overlook the fact that the space was formerly unused for around 40 years, and privatization has brought about a significant character to the space (Figure 11). Clearly established agreements between the public and the private sectors and careful planning over the years has made this project one of a kind. Given the nature of the space and its value due to its location, there could’ve been a lot that could’ve gone wrong with the space. So, it is a significant improvement from the conditions before, and unlike other contemporary private developments in London like the Canary Wharf, this doesn’t have any well-defined boundaries or conspicuous security measures governing the space. In conclusion, privatization of the public space has been used as a tool for urban revitalization in this project.

Figure 11: These two images show the Granary building from the 1850s (left) and the transformed University of the Arts London at present (Right). Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

2. King’s Garden, Stockholm Public Space as a form of Corporate Branding

BASIC FACTS ABOUT PROJECT:

The next example I would like to discuss is the role of Apple’s Proposal to develop its store in King’s Garden in Stockholm. King’s Garden is considered to be one

Public Stakeholders: 1. Stockholm City Council – Local municipality governing the park. 2. Kungstradgarden Park & Evenemang AB (KPE) – Owner of the park. 3. Stockholm Real Estate, Streets & Traffic Department (GFK) – In charge of the trees, vegetation, cleaning, and lighting. 4. Recreation Administration Operates the skating rink. Property Developers: 1. Apple Inc.

of the oldest parks in Stockholm. The park is located in the heart of the city with a large central plaza that is used as a skating rink in the winters. The other main element of the plaza is a huge stage covered by a large tent that could be hired together with the park grounds for large arrangements, campaigns, or exhibitions (Project for Public Spaces, 2020). The site hosts a number of open-air events and performances almost on a daily basis, amounting to around 100-150 days of exhibitions (Project for Public Spaces, 2020). Kungstradgarden Park & Evenemang AB (KPE), a

Planning and Design: 1. Foster + Partners

wholly-owned subsidiary of the Stockholm Chamber

Site Area: 430,000 sq.ft (1300 ft. X 330 ft.)

itself finances everything with no tax money or other

Status: Stalled in 2018 by the City Council.

generated from the rentals of the park space and other

of Commerce, is the only owner of the park. The park forms of national or regional subsidies. The money programmed productions of the park is used to maintain the park (Project for Public Spaces, 2020). In such a way, the park has exhibited a closed economic circuit that has paid the bills efficiently to date. Unlike the development of other POPS, King’s Garden did not face any financial constraints in owning or maintaining the park. The case of this park is different in the fact that it has surplus money but still decided to sell valuable public land at the city center to a private company (Apple Inc.). The fact that something that is this close-knit and one of Europe’s fastest-growing metropolitan areas had been given away for capital

gains. In this case, the government viewed this as an investment and as a branding strategy for portraying the image of an international city. Further, there wasn’t any public consultation or clearly established deals between the Stockholm City Council and Apple Inc. This may not come as a surprise considering that the authority is completely centralized with the council even though the space is public. Apple’s store design involved a lot of blurs between the physical demarcation of the public and the private. The store space was designed in a way that a portion of the adjoining public space was taken over. This included the annexation of 375 sq.m of parkland around the plot (Orange, 2018). The design of the store put the store in a podium along the central axis, dominating the entire setting (Figure 12). The store is located in such a way that it will transform the Faux-Baroque Garden as a foreground to their store (Wærn, 2016). At present, the space is used as a thoroughfare and also as a leisure space by the public. People from a variety of social backgrounds and age groups use the space. It is interesting to note the

Figure 12: Apple’s Proposal for its store in King’s Garden. Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

difference in users between the two images in Figure 13. People depicted in Apple’s renders look like they belong to a similar socio-economic class. Further, the focus is laid on the store (for obvious branding reasons) with the activities of the people-centered on the store. This can also be defined as the commercialization of a space that was free for public use. Further, the earlier closing time of the store, unlike restaurants, has also raised questions about safety at night (The Local, 2019). The fact that the entire proposal had been laid out with no appropriate public consultation faced a massive backlash from the city residents. The city’s consultation for the project received around 1800 responses from the public with the majority of them being negative. The negative responses were not just from the people but also from official bodies like the city’s beauty council (Orange, 2018). Further, there were also a number of protests held in the space against the opening of the Apple store. The important Figure 13: The contrast in the people’s demographics using the spaces between the existing conditions and Apple’s proposal.

aspect to notice is the fact that ironically, the space is being used as a space for a protest (Figure 14). Ideally, public spaces are viewed as symbols of democracy, and it is questionable if such protests would be allowed to happen once Apple has its store here. Considering that the site is in the heart of the city, it is understandable that people use the space to voice their opinion. This can also be viewed as a reflection of under management of a space as opposed to a commodified space as visualized by Apple. The fact that the absence of ‘sell-outs’ has given such

Figure 14: The protest against the opening of the Apple store. 14

spaces the dignity has vanished (WĂŚrn, 2016). Therefore, it is evident that privatization over here acts as a tool for corporate branding, both for the city (public) and Apple (private) in this case. The imagery of the quasi-public space has become more about branding for capital gains and commercial purposes rather than act as a service provider for the public.

Figure 15: Appleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal in the park versus the parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current conditions. Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

3. Little Island @Pier55, NYC Public, Private and the Right to Build

BASIC FACTS ABOUT PROJECT:

The final example I would like to discuss is about the Little Island, developed in Pier 55 in New York City. The origins of POPS could be traced back to New York

Stakeholders: 1. Diller – von Furstenberg Family Foundation (DVFFF) – Private foundation financing the project. 2. Hudson River Park Trust – Partnership between New York State and City charged with the design, construction, and operation of the four-mile Hudson River Park. 3. Manhattan Community Board No. 2 – Local community board.

City with over 550 of them at the moment (NYC DCP,

Planning and Design: 1. Heatherwick Studio 2. MNLA 3. Arup 4. Standard Architects 5. Hunter Roberts Construction Group 6. Gardiner & Theobald

Trust. The new development was envisioned to be a

Site Area – 117,000 sq.ft

of a public space that is greener and more flexible (Our

Status – Open to Public in Spring 2021.

Town, 2015). The development was sponsored as an act

2019). POPS has led to the development of around 80 acres of public space in the city in exchange for around 20 million square feet of private space (Nugent, 2017). Though there are numerous types and scales of examples in New York City, the little island is a unique example of privatization. American Businessman Barry Diller conceived the little island in partnership with the Hudson River Park solution to reactivate the damages caused by Hurricane Sandy in Pier 54 (Little Island, 2020). Rebuilding the Pier has been a part of the park’s masterplan since 1998. As the Pier crumbled in 2011, followed by the effects of Hurricane Sandy, triggered the construction

of philanthropy by The Diller-von Furstenberg Family Foundation (DVFFF), including the maintenance of the park for the next 20 years. One of the first issues for the project started with the environmental lawsuits filed against it by the City Club of New York. The park was later rebranded as an estuarine sanctuary and claimed to protect the fish and the wildlife resources against future storms. This was later challenged by Manhattan Federal Judge that the park wasn’t water-dependent in any form (Washington Square Park Blog, 2017). The fact that the primary

purpose of the park was for the protection of fish and wildlife and the fact that it had not much to do with the marine life is a contradiction. These environmental lawsuits caused a significant delay and financial issues that Governor Andrew Cuomo had to intervene to strike a deal between the parties involved. As a result, a project initially conceived at $35 million went up to $250 million. The budget also included a $50 million investment from the city pledged by Cuomo (City Realty, 2018). It is evident that the forces involved in shaping the park involved top-tier private players with immense political support. Irrespective of the good intentions of the project to provide an open public space to the residents, it is striking that there was no public consultation involved in the project from the start. The approval for the project was given by the local community board 2 with the support of Mayor Bill de Blasio with no consideration given to the local community members. And for the most part, the project was masked by the argument of providing a large public space in a city that lacks one.

Figure 16: A rendering of the Little Island Proposal at Pier 55. Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

The fact that the project is of such a scale stresses the need for it to be more transparent and actively involve community stakeholders. Since the park is portrayed as an act of philanthropy, it becomes hard for the public to challenge it. This was definitely used in the project’s advantage to proceed with very little community input, inadequate environmental review, and a lack of transparency (Our Town, 2015). Concerning the design of the park, top design firms Figure 17: Robert Venturi’s sketch of the duck and decorated shed.

all around the world are involved in developing the project. The project includes a large green space with a 700-seat amphitheater space for performances (Figure 20). The lease of the park ensures that the park is open to the public with access ramps in compliance with ADA Standards (Our Town, 2015). The base of the park includes 280 concrete mushroom-like pots that form the topography of the park (Figure 18). The heights of the structures are regulated by the ability for sunlight to pass underneath to the area designated as a ma-

Figure 18: The mushroom pots showing various levels designed based on the sunlight allowance for the marine sanctuary below.

rine sanctuary (Little Island, 2020). The landscaping design was conceptualized as a leaf floating on water with 35 species of trees, 65 species of shrubs, and 270 varieties of grasses, perennials, vines, and bulbs (Little Island, 2020). One can’t overlook this kind of extensive ornamentation done for a space that has been designated as ‘public’. Or maybe, this could be viewed as a project trying hard to stand out and leave a permanent mark in the city. Like the previous example of King’s Garden, this form of a hybrid space is used as a tool for brand-

Figure 19: The access ramp to the park from the city. 18

ing. Just the fact that the project is named as the ‘Little

Island’ aims at differentiating the project from the rest of its context. The project also holds a striking resemblance to the ‘duck’ defined by Robert Venturi (Venturi, Scott & Izenour, 1977). Figure 20 is a clear depiction of the project’s indifference to its context. The park looks more like a theme park that could probably be located anywhere in the world and would probably mean the same. Finally, the park is one of the peak examples of how privatization in cities don’t just happen but is promoted and steered. Privatization, in this case, has moved from a subtle, incremental process to a dramatic change in the way in which private market appropriates life. The project also reinforces the ideology of ‘you can build anything if you have money’ attitude. Incorporation of public, private, and the right to build is of dire need in city planning. The corporate imagery of branding the space treading in a thin line of threshold where the definitions of public and private are blurred is evident. Though this is an effort of philanthropy, the space has been commodified at all scales starting from the name given to the project. Irrespective of the good intentions of the development, the project depicts the influence of the private interests and political powers in the city. Nevertheless, one can’t ignore the fact that a $250 million private investment for a public space would probably only take place in a city like New York.

Figure 20: A rendering of the park showing the amphitheater and other landscaping elements. Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

Images: • •

• •

•

• • • •

• • •

Figure 1: Rothschild, Q. (2017). Zuccotti Park. Architect Magzine. The Journal of American Institute of Architects. https://www.architectmagazine.com/ project-gallery/zuccotti-park. Figure 2: Thomond , C. (2017). Manchester’s Spinningfields business quarter. The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/ sep/26/its-really-shocking-uk-cities-refusing-to-reveal-extent-of-pseudopublic-space. Figure 3: MASNYC. (2016). Pops at 590 Madison Avenue. mas. https:// www.mas.org/initiatives/advocates-for-privately-owned-public-space/. Figure 4: NISSEN, S. (2008). Urban Transformation From Public and Private Space to Spaces of Hybrid Character. Sociologický Časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 44(6), 1129-1149. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from www.jstor. org/stable/41132666 Figure 5: CIDCO Smartcity. (2016). Mechanism of Privately Owned Public Spaces. CIDCO Smartcity. https://cidco-smartcity.niua.org/privately-owned-public-spaces/. Figure 6: Advocates for Privately Owned Public Space, the New York City Department of City Planning, and The Municipal Art Society of New York. (2019). POPSLogo. POPSLogo. https://www.popslogo.nyc/background. html. Figure 7: Sturrock, J. (2015). King’s Cross Development. The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright. Figure 8: Sturrock, J. (2015). The Granary Square ‘Pops’ . The Guardian. The Guardian. https://archinect.com/news/article/133486545/taking-astand-against-privately-owned-public-spaces. Figure 9: Public Fountains Granary Square. (2013). The Fountain Workshop. https://www.fountains.co.uk/author/clare/page/3. Figure 10: Chandra, D. (2013). Ghats Steps. Flickr. Flickr. https://www.flickr. com/photos/doctorchandra/9904614423. Figure 11: Pengilley, T. (2019). Granary Square, King’s Cross. The Guardian. The Guardian, Science & Society Picture Library. https://www.theguardian. com/cities/2019/oct/30/what-victorian-era-poverty-maps-tell-us-about-london-today. Figure 12: Partners, F. and. Apple Store. The Guardian. Apple/Foster + Partners. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/01/stockholm-appletown-square-park-kings-garden-kungstradgarden. Figure 13: Partners, F. and. Apple Store. The Guardian. Apple/Foster + Partners. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/01/stockholm-appletown-square-park-kings-garden-kungstradgarden. Figure 13: Alamy. (2018). Stockholm’s Kungsträdgården. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/01/stockholm-apple-townsquare-park-kings-garden-kungstradgarden.

Images: • • • • • • •

Figure 14: Kungsan, R. (2018). Protest against the store. The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/01/stockholm-apple-town-square-park-kings-garden-kungstradgarden. Figure 15: Partners, F. and. Apple Store. The Architect’s Newspaper. Apple Inc. https://archpaper.com/tag/public-space/. Figure 16: Little Island @Pier55. Little Island. Little Island @Pier55. https:// littleisland.org/. Figure 17: Venturi, R., Scott, B. D., & Izenour, S. (1977). Learning from Las Vegas: The forgotten symbolism of architectural form. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Figure 18: Young, M. (2020). Pier 55. New York Yimby. New York Yimby. https://newyorkyimby.com/2020/01/thomas-heatherwicks-pier-55-aka-littleisland-continues-formation-over-hudson-river-in-chelsea.html. Figure 19: Diskin, E. (2019). Little Island. matador network. https://matadornetwork.com/read/floating-park-coming-new-york-city/. Figure 20: Pier55 Inc/Heatherwick Studio. Pier 55. New York Public. https:// www.wnyc.org/story/pier-55-project-back-again/.

Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

Sources: • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • •

Gehl, J. (2011). Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington DC: Island Press. Harvey, D. David Harvey, The Right to the City, NLR 53, September–October 2008. New Left Review. https://newleftreview.org/issues/II53/articles/davidharvey-the-right-to-the-city. NYC Department of City Planning. (2019). Privately Owned Public Space Overview - DCP. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops.page. Venturi, R., Scott, B. D., & Izenour, S. (1977). Learning from Las Vegas: The forgotten symbolism of architectural form. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Pratt, A. The rise of the quasi-public space and its consequences for cities and culture. Palgrave Commun 3, 36 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599017-0048-6 Carmona, Matthew. (2010). Contemporary Public Space: Critique and Classification, Part One: Critique. Journal of Urban Design. 15. 123-148. 10.1080/13574800903435651. Dovey, Kim. (2016). Urban Design Thinking: A Conceptual Toolkit. 10.5040/9781474228503. Cox, J. (2017, August). Greenspace Information for Greater London. Retrieved from https://www.gigl.org.uk/privately-owned-public-spaces/ NISSEN, S. (2008). Urban Transformation From Public and Private Space to Spaces of Hybrid Character. Sociologický Časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 44(6), 1129-1149. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41132666 Staeheli, L. A., & Mitchell, D. (2006). USA’s Destiny? Regulating Space and Creating Community in American Shopping Malls. Urban Studies, 43(5–6), 977–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600676493 Robert J. Bunker and Pamela Ligouri Bunker, “Plutocratic Insurgency Note No. 5: The Techno-Palaces of the Global Elite.” Small Wars Journal. 12 July 2017, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/plutocratic-insurgency-note-no-5the-techno-palaces-of-the-global-elite. Marathe, R. (2017, August 31). Privately Owned Public Spaces. Cidco. https://cidco-smartcity.niua.org/privately-owned-public-spaces/. Colman, M. S. (2016, December 19). What Are POPS and How Can the City Make Them Work Better? CityRealty. https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/ market-insight/features/trending-in-ny/what-are-pops-how-can-city-makethem-work-better/7425. About POPS. Privately Owned Public Space (APOPS). (2019, October 18). https://apops.mas.org/about/. Veldkamp, E. (2017, December 13). Protest and pseudo-public space. Protest Supplies Store. http://protestsuppliesstore.co.uk/blog/protest-andpseudo-public-space. Nugent, C., & CityMetric. (2017, November 20). Owning public space is expensive. So why do developers want to do it? CityMetric. https://www. citymetric.com/fabric/owning-public-space-expensive-so-why-do-developers-want-do-it-3492

Sources: •

• •

•

• •

•

• • • • •

Wbur. (2017, May 11). How Privatization Impacts Public Spaces And Infrastructure. How Privatization Impacts Public Spaces And Infrastructure | Here & Now. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/05/11/privately-owned-public-space. Jacobs, F. (2019, January 30). The First Map of London’s ‘Pseudo-Public’ Space Epidemic. Big Think. https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/the-firstmap-of-londons-pseudo-public-space-epidemic. Nugent, C., & CityMetric. (2017, November 20). Owning public space is expensive. So why do developers want to do it? CityMetric. https://www. citymetric.com/fabric/owning-public-space-expensive-so-why-do-developers-want-do-it-3492. Shenker, J. (2017, July 24). Revealed: the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/ jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map. Garrett, B. L. (2015, August 4). The privatisation of cities’ public spaces is escalating. It is time to take a stand. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops-privately-owned-public-space-cities-direct-action. Guardian News and Media. (2017, July 24). Pseudo-public space: explore the map – and tell us what we’re missing. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/pseudo-public-space-explore-datawhat-missing. Privatisation of public space. CBRE. https://www.cbre.co.uk/research-and-reports/our-cities/privatisation-of-public-space. Wright, C. (2019, November 23). Privately-owned public space generally safe, welcoming and diverse in London, says report. OnLondon. https:// www.onlondon.co.uk/privately-owned-public-space-generally-safe-welcoming-and-diverse-in-london-says-report/. Moore, R. (2014, October 12). All hail the new King’s Cross – but can other developers repeat the trick? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2014/oct/12/regeneration-kings-cross-can-other-developers-repeat-trick. Admin. (2018, November 7). Post navigation. The Academy of Urbanism. https://www.academyofurbanism.org.uk/granary-square/. Ermengem, K. V. King’s Garden, Stockholm. A View On Cities. https://www. aviewoncities.com/stockholm/kungstradgarden.htm. Project for Public Spaces. Kungstradgarden: Squares. Kungstradgarden | Squares. https://www.pps.org/places/kungstradgarden. Hello! Stockholm Chamber of Commerce - About Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. https://english.chamber.se/about-us/about-us.htm. Orange, R. (2018, November 1). Stockholm says no to Apple ‘town square’ in its oldest park. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/ nov/01/stockholm-apple-town-square-park-kings-garden-kungstradgarden.

Vasanth Mayilvahanan

Seminar - Pedestrian Rhetorics - Spring 2020

Sources: •

•

• • • •

•

Apple’s Controversial Store Location in Sweden Undergoes a Second Round of Public and Government Consultations. Patently Apple. https://www. patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/07/apples-controversial-store-location-in-sweden-undergoes-a-second-round-of-public-and-government-consultations.html. Wærn, R. (2016, May 25). Outrage: branding The King’s Garden in Stockholm is philistine. Architectural Review. https://www.architectural-review. com/essays/campaigns/outrage/outrage-branding-the-kings-garden-instockholm-is-philistine/10006755.article. The Local. Apple reportedly ‘furious’ after Stockholm rejects plan for flagship store. thelocal.se. https://www.thelocal.se/20190212/apple-furious-after-stockholm-rejects-plan-for-flagship-store-kungstradgarden. Little Island @Pier55. Vision & Design. Little Island @Pier55. https://littleisland.org/vision-and-design/. HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST. Hudson River Park Trust. Hudson River Park. https://hudsonriverpark.org/about-us/hrpt. Washington Square Park Blog. (2017, March 28). Is Pier 55 Now 86’d? Potential Harm to Wildlife Sinks Over-the-Top Hudson River Project via Federal Court Intervention. Washington Square Park Blog. http://www.washingtonsquareparkblog.com/2017/03/27/pier-55-now-86d-harm-to-wildlife-sinkshudson-river-park-project-federal-court-intervention/. City Realty. (2018, April 18). Update: Pier 55 designed by Thomas Heatherwick has been officially knighted ‘Little Island,’ See new photos. CityRealty. https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/future-nyc/updatepier-55-designed-thomas-heatherwick-been-officially-knighted-039little-island039-see-new-photos/17026. Our Town. (2015, December 28). At Pier 55, a fight over public spaces 2015/2016. www.otdowntown.com. http://www.otdowntown.com/ news/local-news/at-pier-55-a-fight-over-public-spaces-20152016-HDNP1220160101160109988. Wils, M. (2015, September 7). Waterfront park is no fantasy island. Crain’s New York Business. https://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150907/ OPINION/150909917/madelyn-wils-pier55-waterfront-park-is-no-fantasyisland.

Vasanth Mayilvahanan