I fear the day that parks, which are the epitome of public space, come to mean “safe” in the way that suburban shopping malls are viewed as safe – because of their sterility and exclusion of certain social classes.
– Charlene Kwiatkowski
Union Square has long been renowned as a place of great historic value. Protestors have rallied here from as far back as the 1850s, when they were in support of free food to the poor and the preservation of the union, to present day, where people gathered against Trump. It has been a place where people gathered for news and meetings and at various points in time, for entertainment and a sense of community.
Upon reading Sharon Zukin’s chapter on “Union Square and the Paradox of Public Spaces”, I must admit I was surprised to learn that Union Square was actually privately owned. Another individual that was stunned by this fact was Charlene Kwiatkowski, author of “In the name of What?”. She mentions that this appearance that the park has of a very public space was in fact, an illusion. She claims that safety is a big reason for private ownership. What she means by this is that those that are hired to keep the park open and accessible, do so to keep it accessible to multiple users; however, not for all users. This refers back to what Zukin notes about “maximizing benefits for the rich and minimizing benefits for the poor”. The changes made to the park were to the advantage of the upper class because according to Zukin, the BIDs reinforced “inequality in the exercise of social control.” Security guards chased away skateboarders, homeless people, and others that were deemed as social classes that didn’t belong.
Kwiatkowski discusses this further by mentioning how control strategies were implemented to keep away people, who very likely, had no where else to go. At Union Square Park, “in the name of a clean, safe place for the public, the public gains a space that paradoxically isn’t so public.”(Kwiatkowski). Parks are meant to be the epitome of public space, a place where people are always welcome. However, rather than it being a place of cultural diversity, Union Square Park, because of its private ownership status, is unfortunately becoming a place that excludes certain social classes due to the threat of “danger” and difference. The term safe as used by Zukin does not, as Kwiatkowski puts it, “imply diversity, but rather, the exclusion of diversity.”
Questions:
- Do you agree with Sharon Zukin’s views of the term “safe” as a means of excluding certain social classes?
- In reading about the history of Union Square, do you feel that it has, for lack of a better word, become “better” over the years, or worse?
- Is Union Square Park the only “public space” that implements means of social control as explained by Zukin and Kwiatkowski? Or are there other locations or neighborhoods in New York City like it?
