Inequality is something that is nearly impossible to ignore in today’s society. The inequality between races, gender, and social classes is something that is not only very real but also very evident. The article entitled “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces” looks at this inequality in specific to parks and public spaces. The author, Kevin Loughran explores the idea of public spaces being used to generate profit rather than for the use by all the citizens of the cities in which they were created.
In an article I read named “The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places“, the author – Tridib Banerjee – ponders the future of public spaces in the United States. Throughout the article, Banerjee reinforces what Loughran presented while speaking of the past, present, and future. For example Banerjee writes that “the urban parks created in the latter half of the 19th century served mainly as pleasure grounds of the upper-class elite” (Banerjee 11). He then goes on to consider how although public spaces are thought to be open to the public, not all are “alfresco or accessible and free” (Banerjee 11). In other words, many public spaces are in fact not accessible to all citizens (e.g. those who cannot afford to pay). This discussion of the public spaces of the past and present – most importantly the similarities – allowed the author to introduce an idea that piqued my interest; the idea of a decline in public realm and the increase in the privatization of public life and spaces.
This idea refers to the fact that while actual open public spaces are declining, the amount of privately owned and managed spaces that are seemingly public is increasing. Take for instance the Central Park Zoo which is located in the first major urban public space in NYC. Although it is located in a public space, the public is welcome as long as they are paying patrons of the Zoo. So in that case do public spaces like the Zoo exist to be accessed by the citizens of NYC or to generate profit from those who can afford to enjoy it? In my opinion the answer is both but there is most definitely more of an emphasis placed on generating profit. My question after researching this topic is who has the right to define what public spaces mean for the public. Similarly who gets to choose how “open and accessible” a public space is in the future?
Leave a Reply