Before I read Kevin Loughran’s article, I never imagined the High Line as a privileged space. Granted, I’ve only been there once with my sister, but we certainly didn’t feel unwelcome or excluded, in fact, no one really paid attention to us. But after reading Kevin Loughran’s article, I came to realize that the space itself might not be as public as it seems on the surface.
Take for example, the “inconspicuous surveillance methods” and “…institutionalized social control to regulate the socio-spatial practices of park users” that the Friends of the High Line rely on to monitor the park. In this way, people who partake in “quality of life violation” acts (like bottle collecting), are effectively excluded from the park area, thus, decreasing the actual public-ness of the supposed public space!
These subtle surveillance methods used in the High Line remind me of another (not as subtle) tactic used by the City: the use of architecture to deter certain populations from being in an area. Examples of the architecture include placing spikes on the ground (to prevent the homeless from sleeping on sidewalks) or metal hoops or plates on doors (to prevent sex workers from loitering outside doors), and many more. The website listed below archives photos of “bum-free” architecture taken around the world, including NYC. What I found most striking in these photos is that a lot the architecture is in places that I consider to be very public areas! It seems that even sidewalks have been subject to a “continuum of privilege!”
Going back to the High Line, Loughran mentions the act of sleeping on the High Line. He mentions that sleeping is something that’s normally looked down upon when done in public, and I think this is because many have the image of a homeless person sleeping in public (which is what Loughran refers to as another “quality of life violation”). Yet, on the High Line, Loughran mentions that it’s natural to see some people sleeping. So what is the difference between sleeping in places like the High Line and sleeping in other public areas, like the sidewalk for example? Is it just a difference between the types of people sleeping and what’s socially accepted to do in our society? But who decides what’s socially acceptable to do in public in our city? Is is organizations like the Friends of the High Line that provide funding that dictate social norms in public places? Perhaps it does have to do with the fact that the High Line is better funded than other parks because of the neoliberalizion Loughran refers to. Or is it just the functions of the places (e.g. because sidewalks are made for walking no one should be sleeping? However, I would also argue that the High Line is certainly a highly pedestrian area as well)?
I think that by looking at the “inconspicuous surveillance methods” and “…institutionalized social control to regulate the socio-spatial practices of park users” of the High Line and the use of architecture to deter certain marginalized populations from congregating or doing certain acts, we can see what Loughran refers to when he states that “public spaces such as the High Line express the relationships among citizens, the state, and other institutions of power.” In other other words, public spaces reflect what we as a society value. And for some reason, society as whole doesn’t look upon the homeless population sleeping in public areas favorably, but people who sleep on the High Line are looked as totally normal.
Looking at Mayor de Blasio’s “Community Parks Initiative,” I’m wondering what a fresh coat of paint and a set of new swings are really going to do. Sure, it might attract more people and offer better opportunities for interaction within communities, but what else is this going to do? Is the initiative supposed to make underfunded parks in underserved communities more like parks such as the High Line- popular tourist areas and profit-based? I think it’s important to question what City officials or we really want out of public areas.
The readings for this week and the supplemental website I provided below certainly make me question how public a public space really is. In a sense, the High Line is public- but only for certain individuals, which makes it private to others. A sidewalk is (in most cases) definitely a public space, but it also seems to function like the High Line as a “continuum of privilege” where certain acts and people are excluded and others welcomed.
Additional Works
