There is the vision of parks, and public space more generally, as space free from institutional control or coercion—from police, or parks ambassadors, and encroaching privatization. And then there is the vision of public space as controlled and orderly, for passive use, or for recreation and entertainment. 'Users of this space must be made to feel comfortable, and they should not be driven away by unsightly homeless people or unsolicited political activity...' — The Local
With the privatization of spaces steadily increasing the idea of a genuine public space seems to be an ideal of the past. The importance of public space, specifically public parks is an integral part of a thriving city and community. However, laws and new policies are being re-configured to appease spaces like public parks to satisfy a specific demographic.
According to a recent article by Toronto-based journalist Matthew Braga, he shares the looming possible future of a city's battle with public space. In his piece for The Local, Braga shares, "There is a long history of bureaucracy and bylaws being wielded against the poor, and cities have gone to great lengths to make those experiencing homelessness feel unwelcome in public spaces." Initiatives for local city government's enforcing defensive design techniques.
A balance between maintaining public space for all while regulating disruptive behaviors are approached with conflicting views. Have public parks become new territories for cities to exercise defensive design practices? Although this feeling of stringent public space regulations may have the intention of keeping people safe, it is hard to reject the patterns of displacement happening to specific groups.
2 Comments
In my neighborhood of Ballard, Seattle, there are two public parks: Salmon Bay Park, and Ballard Commons Park - both about the same size, both with good amenities. When I walk through Salmon Bay on my way to the bus each day, I rarely see homeless or vagrants; it even has public bathrooms. Ballard Commons has an encampment of homeless and vagrants, and this park has no amenities other than being a beautiful space. Both parks are about 3/4 mile apart.
The issue with Ballard Commons (from my affluent perspective) is that there is a church adjacent to it, that gives out food, clothing donations and bathing facilities. There is also the Ballard Library adjacent to the Commons Park, which has free internet services.
My point is that homeless go where they can get services. Take away the services and the homeless will go. If cities want to help the homeless, they need to provide them a safe place to access services, where they don’t occupy public parks and cause discomfort for the neighbors who do pay taxes and work for their property, who want to use the park.
The vagrants need services to help them stay off the streets. A problem that I wonder could be resolved with library access and enhanced opportunity... but I’m not sure about this one.
#rickitect
you know those big beautiful benches in central park?
you cannot dare to provide something like that in a contemporary design. i've been in design reviews where park space is made worse simply because someone somewhere on the client team is worried about a toxic subject occupying that space and therefore would (horror of horrors) force the wealthy into a confrontation with the other.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.