In Talmudic discourse, public domains and private domains are distinct legal entities, each with its own set of rules. The rabbis therefore grapple with how to define certain spaces that don’t neatly fit into either category, possessing characteristics of both types of domain.
Union Square might well be the sort of space they would struggle to define. It is one of several BID’s and LDC’s in New York City – public spaces that are actually owned and managed by private organizations made up of local business owners. These organizations tax themselves and use the funds to provide services such as extra security and street cleaning that local government either can’t afford to or is otherwise unwilling to provide.
On the positive side, argues Sharon Zukin in her essay Union Square and the Paradox of Public Space, area residents, and visitors to Union Square, “… like the feeling of security and order that such a public space provides.” (p.128) They prefer the cleaner streets, the increased security, and the upscale shops, which they feel makes the area more desirable.
However, critics argue that privatization of public spaces too tightly controls who can and can’t use the space, and how they use it, and that “… these control strategies exclude certain groups – usually the homeless, street artists, and young people” (p.128) and such practices reinforce social inequality.
1. Proponents of privatizing public spaces, according to Zukin, have a vested interest in “restoring their civility.” (p.127) and “returning to an earlier set of values.” (p.143) Are these terms merely code words for elitism and exclusion?
2. On the other hand, Zukin states several times (pp. 128, 139, 145) that the local residents and business owners are happy with the arrangement. If that’s the case, is it our place to judge?
