privatization of public spaces- tejashree.pdf

7/24/2019 Privatization of Public spaces- Tejashree.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/privatization-of-public-spaces-tejashreepdf 1/8

Page | 0

SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE, BHOPAL

Privatization of Public Spaces

Theory of City Form

TEJASHREE KULKARNI [ 2014 MUD 006]



Page | 1

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2. Aim ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 3

4. Scope ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

5. Limitations ............................................................................................................................................... 3

6. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 3

7. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 4

a. The distinction between the Public and the Private ......................................................... 4

b. Access to public space on the basis of physical and social constraints.................... 4

c. Public to Private ownership transformation ........................................................................ 5

e. ‘Atriums’ as a Public Space ............................................................................................................ 5

8. Conclusions from Literature Studies........................................................................................... 6

9. Parameters to study public spaces............................................................................................... 7

10. References ................................................................................................................................................ 7



Page | 2

THEORY OF CITY FORM: Synopsis for a Seminar on

Privatization of Public Spaces

By Tejashree Kulkarni (2014MUD006)

1. Introduction

A public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. A

public space may be a gathering spot or part of a neighbourhood, downtown, special

district, waterfront or other area within the public realm that helps promote social

interaction and a sense of community. Possible examples may include such spaces as

streets, public squares, plazas, town squares, parks, marketplaces, public commons

and malls, public greens, piers, special areas within convention centres or grounds,

sites within public buildings, lobbies, concourses, or public spaces within private

buildings.

The nature and character of public spaces are closely related to the nature and

character of the cities. As cities have changed, so have their public spaces. Public

spaces play a significant role in the life of cities; there is undeniable need of publicspaces for cities to work. The nature of public spaces in modern cities has radically

changed and use of these spaces reflects the way society is organized. The

transformation of urban public spaces from the integrated core of the small town

organically developed by considering human scale, to their current impersonal

presence in the metropolis. (Madanipour, 2003)

Privatization of public spaces: Many of the public spaces are managed, subsidized

and developed by private agencies, which has led to the privatization of urban

landscapes. It controls uses, movement and behaviour of the spaces. It dramatically

influences redesign of traditional public space. These spaces are generally found in

the urban residential neighbourhoods. A newer effort of privatizing public landscape

also involves atriums- being developed in many corporate and commercial buildings;

such as shopping malls.



Page | 3

2.

Aim

The aim of this seminar is to find reasons behind privatization of public spaces and to

study their contribution in urban social life.

3.

Objectives

1. To understand the differentiation between private space and public space

2. Finding reasons of changing character of urban public spaces through

privatization.

3. To explore different theories about privatized public spaces written and

documented by different urbanists and theoreticians, through their literature.

4. To find relevance of the theories with respect to public spaces in Indian

context.

4.

Scope

1. The seminar will observe and analyze privatization of urban public spaces,

and the reasons behind it.

2. The seminar will involve public spaces such as privatized/ semi- privatized

parks in neighbourhoods, atriums and premises of shopping mall etc

5. Limitations

1. Case studies related to public spaces will be limited in the Indian context only,

by taking examples from Bhopal city.

6. Methodology

1.

Primary data for case studies will be collected through observations,

photographs, and informal interviews of the users involved.

2. Collection of secondary data will be done through literature studies from

articles in books and journals. The literature is reviewed on the basis of

various important topics related to the subject, discussed by authors.



Page | 4

7.

Literature Review

Literature Map

a. The distinction between the Public and the Private

The distinction between the public and the private basically relies on the spatialbehaviour of individuals. Some places are protected and set apart from the rest by a

complex system of signification: by spatial means such as signs, boundaries, fences,

walls, and gates; or by temporal means such as predetermined working hours. “This

complex system of codes, expressed through physical objects and social arrangements,

signifies private places, where strangers cannot enter without permission or

negotiation. Public places, on the other hand, are expected to be accessible to everyone,

where strangers and citizens alike can enter with fewer restrictions.” (Madanipour,

2003)

b. Access to public space on the basis of physical and social constraints

The essential quality of a public space is its accessibility. The more open and

unconditional the access, the more public it becomes. This includes physical as well

as social accessibility to that place and to the activities within it. A public space is not

quite a public space when it has no free and open access. Thus, it is not the user, but the

Madanipour, A., 2003. ImpersonalSpace of the City. In Madanipour, A.Public and Private Spaces of the City

Madanipour, A., 2010.Whose Public Space? InMadanipour, A. Whose

Public Space?

Madanipour, A., 2010. MarginalPublic Spaces in European Cities.In Madanipour, A. Whose Public

Space?

Madanipour, A., 2003. Why are the Designand Development of Public Spaces

Significant for Cities? In Cuthbert, A. Designof Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design

Francis, M., 2009. Changing Values ofPublic Spaces. Landscape Architecture



Page | 5

access and control of access that defines whether space is public or private. That must

be why “most definitions of public space emphasize the necessity of access, which

can include access to the place as well as to the activities within it. (Madanipour,

2003)

c. Public to Private ownership transformation

Developing the urban areas, but also maintaining them is a burden for most of the

public authorities, which have long been undermined. So, it becomes advantageous

for them to let private sector manage the development. Thus, “ from shopping malls to

gated neighbourhoods and protected walkways, new urban spaces are increasingly

developed and managed by private agencies in the interest of particular sections of the population.”

d. ‘Privatization of public space’ as a ‘silent movement’

American cities have always been essentially private, developed and controlled by

commercial interests. Governmental efforts in the 60s and 70s to shape public

environments through urban design and public policy have been largely abandoned

in favor of private initiatives that subsidize, develop and manage public landscapes.

This strategy has led to the ‘privatization’ of open spaces, including some parks, plazas

and waterfront areas. The movement is silent and subtle; occurring with little public

debate yet marked success. (Francis, 2009) The privatization movement wants more

control over space uses and behaviours. Large amounts and private funds with tax

incentives are given to the developers in order to provide public spaces. Also, their

management controls are transferred to private interests. Finally public agencies are

redesigning open spaces to encourage use by some groups at the expense of others.

e. ‘Atriums’ as a Public Space

Indoor atriums of new corporate office buildings are also a controversial public

landscape. They are like a standard feature of these buildings- especially in New York

City. The main criticism of these spaces is that they are not truly public, and thus not

accessible or usable.



Page | 6

The public mall also faces redesign. Many early malls were designed as furnished

outdoor rooms, but ended up being used much differently than intended. Apparently

responding to the public concern about open and accessible spaces, developers have

tried moving public landscapes away from street and creating networks of shops orlifting plazas above street level. E.g. Boston’s Quincy Market, New York’s South Street

seaport, Baltimore’s Harbourplace is criticized for being high-priced suburban

shopping centres transplanted to the inner city. These festival marketplaces are

commercially successful but they lack fundamental democratic qualities. (Francis,

2009) The food emporiums and the shopping centres are now thus become new

town centres of the city; especially for teens and elderly.

8.

Conclusions from Literature Studies

a. Public space and privatized public space differ from each other not just on the

basis of ownership but also on its users, functions and activities.

b. Public space should be free, open and accessible to all user groups of all ages,

social classes, gender and professions etc.

c. When the access to the space and its activities is closed for certain user groups

by physical, economic or social barriers, then that space is not truly ‘public’ inits sense.

d. Public authorities seem to be disinterested in designing and developing public

spaces because of its maintenance issues and financial burden. Hence, these

responsibilities are passed on to the private sector developers; who seek

some incentives and profit on their investment.

e. Spaces like shopping mall atriums are actually free and open to all, but its

physical setting and glossy, vibrant environment automatically withdrawseconomically weaker section of the society.

f. Privatization of public spaces like gardens, parks etc thus deprive common

people and residents; who have equaled right on such spaces to relax, rest and

enjoy themselves in the busy urban life.



Page | 7

9.

Parameters to study public spaces

a. Use and user group diversity (Francis, 2009)

b. Comfort with respect to basic human needs such as weather protection,

seating, security etc (Francis, 2009)

c. Accessibility or ‘publicness’ in terms of users and activities (Francis, 2009)

d. Uses and activities which add meaning to spaces

e. Its physical characteristics such as sense of enclosure, scale and proportion

etc.

f. Future of such spaces

g. Reasons for privatization

10. References

i. Francis, M., 2009. Changing Values of Public Spaces. Landscape Architecture,

Jan-Feb.

ii. Madanipour, A., 2003. Impersonal Space of the City. In Madanipour, A. Public

and Private Spaces of the City . Routledge.

iii.

Madanipour, A., 2003. Why are the Design and Development of Public Spaces

Significant for Cities? In Cuthbert, A. Design of Cities: Critical Readings in Urban

Design. Wiley.

iv. Madanipour, A., 2010. Marginal Public Spaces in European Cities. In

Madanipour, A. Whose Public Space? New York: Routledge.

v. Madanipour, A., 2010. Whose Public Space? In Madanipour, A. Whose Public

Space? New York: Routledge.

privatization of public spaces- tejashree.pdf

Documents