Introducing gender to the critique of privatized public space

Abstract

Urban design scholars denounce the recent trend towards the privatization of US public space. Critics emphasize the negative consequences of privatized public space, tied to private ownership, an emphasis on consumption, leisure and security, a targeted audience, and controlled behaviour and design. Yet these key qualities of privatized public spaces have meaning only in the context of one's identity. The same qualities shape experiences of privatized public spaces that can be understood as constrained, as constraining or as a form of resistance, depending on one's gender, race, class and sexuality. This paper challenges the prevailing design critique by examining women's experience of privatized public spaces, drawing on interviews with 43 middleclass women and behavioural mapping in five privatized public spaces in Orange County, California. Recommendations address changes to research and practice to better reflect and accommodate diverse experiences of public space.

The ‘Silent’ Closure of Urban Public Space in Cape Town: 1975 to 2004

“…Thus, although state privatisation initiatives have been implemented in South Africa before the advent of democracy, it is seen to be more a feature of the post-apartheid South African government's neo-liberalist agenda (Williams and Taylor 2000). Day (1999) mentions that critiques of the privatisation of space in the USA has been positioned within debates of what is termed "the postmodern city," which is characterised by cities that have become increasingly fragmented and contradictory. South African cities have historically been fragmented along racial lines.…”

Private-public space in a Nordic context: the Tjuvholmen waterfront development in Oslo

“…Particularly in the US case, the literature which partly or exclusively addresses the phenomenon is comprehensive (see e.g. Davis 1990;Sorkin 1992;Loukaitou-Sideris 1993;Zukin 1995Zukin , 2010Lofland 1998; Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee 1998;Cybriwinsky 1999;Day 1999;Kayden 2000;Banerjee 2001;Flusty 2001;Mitchell 2003;Kohn 2004;Low 2006;Low and Smith 2006;Nemeth 2009).…”

“…As for the interpretations of the privatization of public space in the US, they vary from Davis' (1990) dystopic reports on "fortress Los Angeles" and "militarization of urban space" to a few more positive reviews stressing individual experiences of safety and comfort in privatized public spaces (see e.g. Day 1999). In general, the literature is very much attuned in that public spaces in US' cities today are more highly managed and policed, and thus less public, as an effect of growing private ownership and/or private management of such spaces.…”

Security Zones and New York City's Shrinking Public Space

“…Instead, successful public spaces adeptly balance liberty with personal security: while a mother with a small child might prefer a secure and controlled environment, a homeless person or group of teenagers might favor spaces lacking such mediation. Clearly, fear of and in public space is a serious issue, and recent scholarship describes this general sense of ‘stranger danger’ (Valentine, 1996; Fyfe, 1998; Day, 1999; Lofland, 2000; Pain, 2001; Low, 2003). It would be incorrect, then, to say that public space security is always negative, as the impacts are socially and contextually differentiated (Jackson, 1998).…”