Regarding public space, many believe that any true public space is always good, "property private public space "is always bad. However, in this article first published by Metropolis Magazine as " A Plaza is not a guarantee of democracy ," Carl Yost NBBJ argued that the distinction is not binary. As architects, it is our duty to smooth the difference between the two, while we are at work -. But most importantly when we are not
the last few months have seen the opening of large-scale projects with the contested public space. the Leadenhall Building, "Cheesegrater," London rises above a public square that Financial Times called "problematic", with " an amazing range of defensive measures to make it clear that although it may be open to the public, it is still ours "(that is, the landlord). in New York, the site of the World Trade Center caught fire critical both national and international, that rub restrictions on visitor behavior.
He referred to the debate on "private public space," or POPS, which arises during Occupy Wall Street, when demonstrators camped in Zuccotti Park, a place Lower Manhattan is the private property of Brookfield Office Properties still must remain open to the public. Many rightly pointed out that the restrictions Pops poses to freedom of expression and assembly, where owners can evict people they regard as undesirable.
Yet for all the lamentations about privatization, what really matters is not who owns the space, but the activities are allowed to produce it. Take Ferguson, Missouri, where a militarized police force shot guns and tear gas at unarmed demonstrators and the press in the most public place of all: the street. The main lessons of Ferguson are not on design or privatization: they are on race, class and how the state interacts with its citizens.
Not for nothing have the Ferguson events drawn comparisons to human Alabama civil era. In Selma, also, the authorities responded with excessive force against peaceful demonstrators who had the right to occupy public streets. More recently, the NYPD illegally detained protesters at the Republican National Convention 04. Even non-protest activities are not immune to overreach. Despite a final legal setback, "stop-and-frisk" policing remains controversial, and Vice recently reported that loitering was essentially criminalized in the streets of the subject drug Camden, New Jersey.
In each case, the quality or property of space issues, much less than (sometimes brutal) restriction of speech and activities (legal) authorities. Causes-autocratic leadership, institutional paranoia, and political or financial gain or a combination of these, differ, but the result is the same :. Overreaction, and reduced freedoms explicitly in public space
And while the public space may be limited, it should be remembered that private space can also be sites production of dissent in the right conditions. After all, Brookfield and the NYPD has allowed the Occupy Wall Street encampment in existence for nearly two months before the expulsion, triggering protests around the world in the process. (And the declared justification Mayor Bloomberg finally clear Zuccotti Health and safety would also carry the legal weight in a real public space as Central Park or Times Square.)
This not mean architects and developers are never guilty of too celebrate the space that is only nominally public. Do observation deck of the Shard, with £ 25 costs and expansive door-cochere admissions really qualify as "public"? (Or, back to Ground Zero, the platform of observation of One World Trade Center?) It is not to say that the design has no role to play in encouraging or impeding freedom expression, after all, often justifies these beautiful Haussmann boulevards of Paris as a means of facilitating military movements.
But it is easy to assume that once the public space (either nominal or real) was established, we have reached our democracy work! In fact, the work is just beginning. Even if programming careful with leisure activities, culture, or even demonstrations-no matter if the Stomp authorities with tear gas and pepper spray. We need political action to ensure a democratic society, not only the design.
So when Lady Hadid says that architects are not responsible for the social context surrounding their buildings, it could have a point. But citizens are responsible and that is all of us.
Carl Yost is a communication manager for NBBJ and an architecture writer and designer based in New York .
Posting Komentar