Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
102 Copyright © 2014 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press Technika
http://www.tandfonline.com/ttpa
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM
ISSN 2029-7955 print / ISSN 2029-7947 online
2014 Volume 38(1): 102–106
doi:10.3846/20297955.2014.891559
THE PARADOXES OF PUBLIC SPACE
Peter Marcuse
Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University,
1172 Amsterdam Avenue, 10027 New York, USA
E-mail: pm35@columbia.edu
Received 18 November 2013; accepted 29 January 2014
Abstract. is paper deals with one particular purpose for public space, the role it plays in permitting popular public par-
ticipation in in democratic governance, democratic governance in a very political sense. For the United States, it might be
called “First Amendment Space”, aer the provision in the U.S.A. Constituting establishing the rights of free speech and free
assembly. In a broader sense, public space should also be available democratically and based on equality of rights for a full range
of social interchanges, for recreation, sports, picnicking, hiking, running, sitting, chatting, simply enjoyment, by all people,
equally. Such uses, carried out democratically, are in turn necessary for democratic governance, but in a dierent way. Let me
call them “Social Spaces”. And they may be divided between Convening spaces, where convening for the purposes of political
eectiveness may be planned, and Encounter Spaces, where chance meetings and discussion may be take place without prior
planning/convening. “Infrastructural Spaces” are also social spaces but in a dierent sense, not directly political: spaces for
transportation, streets, sidewalks, recreational areas, parks, hiking trails, bicycles partially. he term “ird Space” is sometimes
in fashion in a similar sense, and oen dened as somewhere between public and private1. More on social spaces elsewhere.
When public space is referred to here, it is in the sense of political public space, First Amendment space in the United States.
Tahrir Square in Cairo, the Playa of Mothers in Buenos Aires, the Mall in Washington, D.C., Zuccotti Park in New York City,
perhaps Central Park or Fih Avenue, with its parades and marches, but also the fenced in space under the West Side highway
at the time of the Republican Convention, and perhaps the indoor space of the Convention Center, as used for convening for
discussions of alternate proposals for rebuilding aer 9/11.
Keywords: public space, Occupy!, democracy.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Marcuse, P. 2014. e paradoxes of public space, Journal of Architecture and
Urbanism 38(1): 102–106.
ree long-term paradoxes,
two intermediate-rangeproposals,
one short-range warning
Paradox 1: the paradox of public space and democracy
To have truly democratic public spaces, you have to
have a truly democratic society. But to have a truly
democratic society, you have to have democratic pu-
blic spaces.1
1
e term “third space” or its equivalent has been used in many
dierent ways: spaces between home and work (Oldenburg
1989, 20 01).
Sociologists sometimes use the term to describe neighborhood
or community spaces that are not publicly owned nor privately
exclusive. For a set of well-done examples, see the special issue of
e means and the end are inseparable: as we are
witnessing today throughout the near east, a public
space in a society that is not (yet, at least) democratic
will not remain open for vibrant democratic discussion
long. Only in a democratic society will the state’s use
of tear gas be unthinkable. e eective use of public
space is almost a sine qua non for the achievement of
a democratic society, again as we have recently seen in
the Near East.
Shelterforce, Hearts of the Neighborhood (2012). Edward Soja has
used the term in what has been called post-modern fashion in
irdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined
Places (1996). Places of public accommodation, in civil rights
law, has a similar intermediate meaning. Virtual space is a quite
dierence meaning of the same “third space” term.
Review
103
Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014 , 38 (1): 102 –106
e connection between political democracy (see
economic democracy below) is most obvious in the
ways in which the state regulates public space, and
the decision-making process by which its regulations
are agree upon. The process as it now stands in the
United States in a sense ignores confronting the re-
lationship between democracy and public space. e
regulation of public space is largely administrative,
e.g. Park Department rules, with minimal informed
public participation. For instance, I have tried to nd
he criteria by which he use of Bryant Park is determ-
ined by he Park Department, and have just gotten the
run-around; the rules are just submit your application,
and if ita sts we’ll let you know. Even more seriously,
the provision of democratic public space is not seen
as a formal function of government. e constitution
proclaims a right of free assembly for the presentation
of grievances; should it not be understood that that im-
plies an armative obligation to make space available
for such free assembling?
So:
Proposal 1: Each city should have a public democra-
tic First Amendment spaces plan as part of its regular
plan for the city’s development and administration.
at plan should include not only the desired extent,
locations, and design features of public space in the
city, but also the principles for the regulation and ma-
nagement of the uses of all public owned or controlled
spaces permitting full exercise of democratic political
(rst amendment) rights, giving such rights priority.
Much of what is now public space is already owned
by and planned for by cities: parks, plazas, sports fa-
cilities, waterfronts, streets for parades and street fairs,
auditoriums in public schools . ere should be a com-
prehensive plan regulating all such places and uses,
taking into consideration a priority for the defined
exercise of constitutional rights of assembly, and ex-
panding such places if they are inadequate.
Paradox 2: the paradox of public space and equality
To have truly democratic public space, you cannot
have gross inequalities of wealth. But to limit gross
inequalities of wealth, you need to have truly demo-
cratic public spaces.
It is not a coincidence that when Zuccotti Park was
put to a classic First Amendment use, it was done under
the banner of Occupy Wall Street, taken as a symbol
of grossly unsequal, lwealth. Inequalities of wealth and
democracy are in constant tension with each other. Our
experience in the United States, as in the last election
and recent Supreme Court rulings, is a classic example
of that tension. A gross inequality in wealth results in a
gross inequality in political power, which in turn leads
to a gross limitation of democracy. In order to address
gross inequalities of wealth, you need true democracy,
for which in turn (paradox one) you need truly public
space in which citizens may assemble for the exercise
of their democratic rights.. But in turn, to have truly
public space, you need to address gross inequalities
of wealth. Not unexpectedly, our billionaire mayor in
New York City whose rm is based on reporting on
Wall Street’s ups and downs, disagrees.
But even further gross inequalities of wealth lead
to gross inequalities in the ownership of land and the
buildings built on land. For the greatest restraint on the
ability to assemble freely in public spaces is in practice
the limited availability of such spaces (and the lack of
planning for them, as above discussed). But stepping
back, the biggest reason for the limited availability of
such spaces is, simply and tautologically, the domin-
ating presence of non-public spaces, that is, private
spaces, and their control through a system of property
rights in which economic wealth and power largely dic-
tate what uses are in fact permitted and what are not.
So:
Proposal 2: The city should, based on the plan of
Proposal 1, have a capital budget that provides for the
acquisition, by eminent domain if necessary, of adequ-
ate public space to serve democratic political purposes,
Paradox 3: the paradox of public vs. private spaces
Certain types of private spaces are essential for the
functioning of public spaces. But the privatization of
public space also inhibits their public use.
On the one hand, some enhance public use. On the
other hand, the existence of certain kinds of private
space is essential for public spaces to best serve their
desired functions.
Some commercial uses can serve to enhance the
public use and enjoyment of a park, or other public
space. e availability of food service is a classic case,
and vendors are unobjectionable from almost any point
of view. If it enhances other public uses, recreation,
education, appreciation of nature, simply enjoyment,
ne. Sidewalk cafes an obvious example, and even take
into account one First Amerndment right, although not
the one we are here concerned with, limited commer-
cial uses can actually facilitate peaceable assembly (fast
food vendors at the Mall in Washington)2.
2
e other First Amendment right, freedom of speech, can come
into play here too. Sidewa lk displays and sales of art, or perhaps
of books, are treated dierently from sales of sunglasses or um-
brellas in New York City.
104 P. Marcuse. e paradoxes of public space
Some private uses in fact enhance the purposes of
First Amendment public space. For most political ac-
tions in fact start there. Democratic political action
does not ultimately spring from organized political
action, but democratic political action rests on a cit-
izenry brought together in social, rather than political
or commercial, forums, which are today not a subject
of governmental action3.
On the other hand, permitting private uses of pub-
lic space may limit their availability and usefulness.
Bryant Park, on 42d street in New York City, behind
the New York Public Library and ve minutes from
Times Square, one of the busiest places in the world, is
clearly a public space that lends itself ideally for pub-
lic events, including First Amendment types. But its
use is controlled, by law, by a private corporation, the
Bryant Park Corporation. e Corporation is open
about its missions: they include “enhance[ing] the real
estate values of its neighbors”4, and it is “privately fun-
ded and operates Bryant Park with private sector tech-
niques and management methods”. It is open about
its available uses of the space. In applying for a use,
the applicant is presented with a questionnaire, which
includes the question: “Is the event public or private?”
but no detail is readily available at what private events
would be considered. Nor is information given as to
the criteria by which conicting requests for use are
judged.
Some purely commercial uses obviously preclude
such a public space from performing its function as
First Amendment space.; other commercial uses may
enhance its eectiveness for political discussions and
even assemblies. But others do not: Fashion shows,
shooting movies that involving blocking o and lim-
iting access to the space involved shows do not enhance
the use and enjoyment of that space?
Putting public space to eective First Amendment
thus use requires a calibrated relationship to private
spaces and private uses. ere pressures to see it as
a possible money-maker, enabling ita to become
“self-supporting,” are understandable But iIt would
be ironic if the maintenance of public space could
only be provided for by its privatization, taking it out
of public use.
3
e discussion above neglects an important aspect of public
space, alluded to in the opening: democratic public space also
involved equality of rights in its use for a full range of social
interchanges, for recreation, sports, picnick ing, hiking, running,
sitting, chatting, simply enjoyment, by all people, equally. For
such uses in turn promote the capacity and t he desire of citizens
to exercise their rights in all spheres, to address together issues
of democracy and equality. eir importance adds to the chal-
lenges to both the design process and design results
4 http://www.bryantpark.org/about-us/mission.html.
So:
Proposal 3a: For democratic political uses, the private
use of spaces, both publicly owned and privately
owned, and their relation to each other should be
carefully scrutinized, and made subject to direct local
input or more depending on scale5, as proposal 1 sug-
gested.
e concept of places of public accommodation is
well known in the context of civil rights: there are per-
missible and impermissible uses of such places, and
they are clearly subject to law. Some places of public
accommodation: banquet halls, community rooms,
lobbies and plazas, are open by law or zoning codes, and
can reasonably be used for occasional public discus-
sions, with discrimination prohibited. 60 Wall Street
is a recent ideal example.
ey might be made subject to open use subject to
rst amendment requirements, which include the pre-
paration of regulations as now permitted governing
reasonable time, description of place, and manner.
Would not a simple provision in the zoning code
providing for bonuses for the provision of space spe-
cifically designed and managed for use as political
public space, geared to the availability of such space in
each neighborhood, be a useful possibility? But such
possibilities are not even on the table today, not even
for discussion. You would need a very self-condent,
seasoned, committed democratic governments to do
so, because the spaces requested might well be used to
criticize the very government that permitted its use.
ey should be.
Perhaps it might be called a Plan for Communal
spaces Perhaps the way in which city owned or leased
spaces are used by community boards, in the city’s 59
community districts, could be an example. Or private
adaptable communal spaces could be given real estate
credit in any building providing them, conditional
on their being publicized. Perhaps even temporary
5
Simpler and even more democratic forms of land ownership
may simplif y and further democraticiz the use of land. e
suggestion of the Planners Network of the United Kingdom goes
in that direction:
Sustainable places cannot be achieved without the public and
community sector having a long term stake in land and deve-
lopment. We must learn the lessons of New Towns and Garden
Cities, and successful communit y development trusts in t he UK,
where land is held in common ownership by local authorities
or trusts. In these communities, the benets of land value upli
and the income from developments on community owned land
are recycled back into the communit y to spend on ser vices,
better maintenance of property, parks and playgrounds, and on
buildi ng housing or workshops for local need. In this model, the
community is the long term steward of the land, looking aer it
as an asset for present and f uture generations Dra Manifesto on
Land Use Planning and Development (http://pnuk.wikispaces.
com/le/view/20121027pnukmanifesto.pdf ).
105
Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014 , 38 (1): 102 –106
communal uses of empty store fronts, as targeted by
NoLonger Empty, might be models.
Public policy recognizes the problem in many ways:
zoning imposes limits (but only hesitantly) is pro-act-
ive in promoting particular uses – bonuses for plazas,
theaters, tax exemptions for certain uses, etc.. e pro-
posal for zoning bonuses mentioned above would be
a positive addition to that list. Making provision for
public political use a requirement goes a step further,
and directly limits the power of wealth reflected in
private ownership to constrain the exercise of demo-
cratic rights of assembly and democratic political par-
ticipation.
Proposal 3b: Affirmative inducements may be
provided publicly for private property owners to per-
mit or even encourage the use of private property for
public First Amendment purposes.
Paradox 4: the social and convening and infrastructure
uses of public space contradict each other
e use of public space for social purposes can inter-
fere with its use for convening free, assemblies. But
social spaces are necessary for the organization of con-
vening assemblies.
You cannot have chairs and tables, such as facilit-
ate social interaction and initial organizing, scattered
around a space where a mass assembly of people is to
be convened.
Proposal 4: Utilize the advantages of technology
and good design to make space adaptable, as in the New
York convention center assemblies on the planning of
the World Trade Center site aer 9/11, or the design of
Time Square serving both social and emergency trans-
portation needs., or bullarards and barriers see used
both for security and places to eat lunch on.
Finally, and most critically:
Paradox 5: the best use of public space is illegal,
and necessarily so
To get the attention necessary for fully democratic dis-
cussion, a disruption of normal routines, of expected
occurrences, is optimal. But that means disregarding
normal rules and regulations, and oen for purposes
critical of the instuitutions imposing such rules.
Unplanned, unpermitted use of public spaces by
assemblies increases their visibility and their oen de-
sired disruptive capacity. But by the same token they
contravene law and ocial regulations.
e most important democratic political use of pub-
lic space is for the exercise of the First Amendment right
of peaceable assembly for the redress of grievances,
grievance addressed specically to the government that
makes the public space available. But any government
thus far known to man or woman would feel itself at-
tacked by such assembling, and have a strong interest in
restraining it. ere is thus an inevitable tension arising
from the clear incentive government has to restrict the
use of space being used to criticize it. It is no coincid-
ence that police departments use heavy-handed tactics
in destroying Occupy encampments wherever they feel
they lawfully can (toss books in dump trucks, destroy
food, take away heaters, make arrests, use billy clubs).
Proposal 5: Accept the fact that it is so, and edu-
cate law enforcement and court ocials to respect the
motives of those breaching regulations on the use of
space in how oenders are treated. Do the exact op-
posite of what is increasingly the common practice in
the handling of such breaches through the criminal
justice system.
These five paradoxes can perhaps be seen as in-
stances of a larger vicious circle, an expansion of
Paradox1:“to achieve a free society, you need free in-
dividuals, but you can only have free individuals in a
free society.”6 A vicious circle, but not a deadly one. It
simply means that the two are inseparable, and one
has to move on the two fronts simultaneously, in par-
allel. So specically, in the context of this conference, it
means that the eort to create democratic public space
must be seen as part of the eort to achieve democracy
itself. e two must go hand in hand.
Conclusions
And so a warning. It is ultimately the importance of
democracy that makes achieving democratic public
spaces so important, and that undergirds the argu-
ment that they be well designed. e availability of
public space for democratic purposes should not be
fetishized7, and the role of good physical design in
its use should not lose sight of the greater purpose to
be served: the promotion of democracy. e design
process itself, as well as its results, can be a contribu-
tion to that goal. But formal legal and management
arrangements are, in the rst place, critical. Legalizing
Zuccotti Park, for example, or any occupied site, is not
a goal in itself; dealing directly with the inequalities
of wealth and of undemocratic power, is.
The goal is democracy, not a particular form of
public space, although it can be an important means
to that end.
6
As formulated in depth by the Frankfurt School and I think
most sharply by Herbert Marcuse.
7
See Blog #5, e Purpose of the Occupation Movement and the
Danger of Fetishizing Space at http://pmarcuse.wordpress.com.
106 P. Marcuse. e paradoxes of public space
References
Draft Manifesto on Land Use Planning and Development,
Planners Network of the United Kingdom [online], [cited
10 November 2013]. Available from Internet: http://pnuk.
wikispaces.com/le/view/20121027pnukmanifesto.pdf
Marcuse, P. 2011. e Purpose of the Occupation Movement and
the Danger of Fetishizing Space [online], [cited 10 November
2013]. Available from Internet: http://pmarcuse.wordpress.
com/2011/11/15/the-purpose-of-the-occupation-move-
ment-and-the-danger-of-fetishizing-space/
Oldenburg, R. 1998. e great good place: cafés, coee shops,
bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart
of a community. New York: Paragon House.
Oldenburg, R. 2001. Celebrating the third place: inspiring stories
about the “great good places” at the heart of our communit-
ies. New York: Marlowe & Company.
Shelterforce, Hearts of the Neighborhood. Fal l 2012 . National
Housing Institute, Montclair, New Jersey.
Soja, E. 1996. irdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other real-
and-imagined places. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
PETER MARCUSE
Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Colum-
bia University, 1172 Amsterdam Avenue, 10027 New York, USA.
E-mail: pm35@columbia.edu
Peter Marcuse, a planner and lawyer, is Professor Emeritus of
Urban Planning at Columbia University in New York City. He
has a J.D. from Yale Law School, and a PhD in planning from
the University of California at Berkeley. He practiced law in
Waterbury, CT, for twenty years, specializing in labor and civil
rights law, and was majority leader of its Board of Aldermen,
chaired its anti-poverty agency, and was a member of its City
Planning commission. He was thereaer Professor of Urban
Planning at UCLA, and President of the Los Angeles Planning
Commission and member of Community Board 9M in New
York City... His elds of research include city planning, hous-
ing, the use of public space, the right to the city, social justice
in the city, globalization, and urban history, with some focus
New York City. He has taught in both West and East Ger-
many, Australia, the Union of South Africa, Canada, Austria,
Spain, Canada, and Brazil, and written extensively in both
professional journals and the popular press. His most recent
publication is Peter Marcuse, ed., with Neil Brenner and Margit
Mayer, Cities For People, Not For Prot: Critical Urban eory
And e Right To e City, London: Routledge, 2011. He also
has a blog on critical planning at pmarcuse.wordpress.com. His
current projects include a historically-grounded political his-
tory of urban planning, the formulation of a theory of critical
planning, including the attempt to make critical urban theory
useful to the U.S. Right to the City Alliance, and an analysis
and proposals to deal with the subprime mortgage foreclosure
crisis in the United States.
