The term “public space“ usually refers to designated areas within a community that are open and accessible to the public (i.e. parks, malls, libraries). They exemplify democracy in being all-inclusive spaces where people of all backgrounds and class can gather. However, modern-day policing of these spaces places limits on the true definition of “public”.
When white male elites in the United States during the 19th century defined squares and streets in cities as public, they conceptualized the only relevant “public“ as consisting of men like themselves.
-Diane Ghirardo, Architecture After Modernism
While overall accessibility has improved since the 19th century, public discrimination has not been eliminated; it has only adapted into more abstract forms. For example, hostile architecture (also known as anti-homeless architecture) is especially prevalent in large metropolitan cities. This man-made infrastructure not only affects the homeless, but other city residents as well, creating city spaces that are uncomfortable, unwelcoming and inconvenient for everyone. It can also be applied to unwanted nature and animals, further worsening its long-term impact.
Heavy use of surveillance in open areas also begs to question the validity of “public space“. Surely, there are two sides to this argument. On one hand, in the United States it is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property. This law is most commonly applied at tourist attractions, and comes in handy to provide first-hand evidence for hate crimes, hit and runs, etc. It is also what makes the job of paparazzi a legal endeavor (despite the controversy that arrises when discussing personal privacy).
On the other hand, mass surveillance in “public” areas are not actually accessible to the public. To enter a social space is to willingly relinquish all personal beliefs about privacy while opening yourself up to the exclusivity tactics of those doing the surveilling.
“Public spaces” cater either to the majority or the most influential at the time of inception. These spaces should instead be referred to as “social spaces” as this term more accurately describes function without diminishing accessibility issues. In order to keep the majority happy, evidence of politics are eliminated by programming areas to appear fantastic - stripping them of signifiers of economic and societal issues (i.e. the homeless). Outsiders who do choose to interact with these spaces are effectively surveilled and controlled through architecture.
