As the world’s urban centers boom, cities become spaces where increasingly diverse peoples negotiate such differences as language, ethnicity and race, and wealth. The fate of truly public space hinges on how these and other challenges are addressed, like exponential growth and increasing social and cultural complexity and other issues: Who has the right to the city? Who determines exclusion and expulsion from the ‘public’ and what effects does it hold on our fundamental ideals? (Blomley, 2000)
At least since the Greek agora, public spaces have had a positive connotation that evokes ideals of equality, diversity and progress in their very foundations. It is worrisome to wonder if public spaces may no longer act as democratic sites were a diversity of people and activities are embraced and tolerated. If instead, they become centers of commerce and consumption, or places of political surveillance. For as we are growing removed from the times when public spaces were the prime cultural and political site, and drastically more important sites of cultural formation and popular political practice (by those who counted as citizens), and into an age of sprawl and the proliferation of the sites into the virtual realm, it certainly seems unreasonable to expect public spaces to fulfill their traditional roles as places of civic engagement and political awareness. Today’s public spaces are more likely to be interpreted by the degree of consumption they stimulate than their role in shaping civic and political culture. However, to state the link between public space and civic culture and democratic politics a dying relationship simply will not do.
Given the relevance of interpersonal contact in reconciling contrast, coupled with discussion about...
... middle of paper ...
...fe. Making space is about shaping a place for public life that, in turn, engenders a space for inclusion. It can ignite a civic discourse: even stir one to the point of anger and dissatisfaction with things as they are. This requires a level of public trust that comes only with sharing the same space. Public space, in fact, only comes into its own with the differentiation of a nominally representative state on the one side and civil society on the other. So, if we are to take the first amendment’s guarantee to the unhindered right of assembly seriously, we theoretically must provide adequate allotments for the practice. It is apparent that the founders understood this when they designed the Washington mall for gathering so near the point of political power for the country. Not to simply allow for public space and hence public participation, but to actively seek it
“gentrification as an ugly product of greed. Yet these perspectives miss the point. Gentrification is a byproduct of mankind 's continuing interest in advancing the notion that one group is more superior to another and worthy of capitalistic consumption with little regard to social consciousness. It is elitism of the utmost and exclusionary politics to the core. This has been a constant theme of mankind to take or deplete a space for personal gain. In other words, it 's very similar to the "great advantage" of European powers over Native Americans and westward expansion”(Wharton).
New York City, due to its historic atmosphere and exciting nature, contains many of the nation’s political wonders. From Christopher Street, in Greenwich Village to Fraunces Tavern, in downtown Manhattan, New York has paved the way to a plethora of the nation’s historical and eye-opening moments. As one of the most renowned sites that is worth the extra trip to Wall Street, Federal Hall is an imperative building that continues to symbolize the nation’s journey to a structured government by being the center of events such as George Washington’s inauguration as president and the introduction of the Bill of Rights during the First Congress.
Thomas Nagel. “Personal Rights and Public Space.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 24, no.2 (1995): 83-107.
Rose, J. K. (1997, November 8). The city beautiful movement. University of Virginia. Retrieved December 28, 2010, from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/citybeautiful/city.html
Virtually all of these writers share a common feeling that mainstream American society has lost its roots. With our extreme mobility we have lost connectedness with the land. We tend to avoid what is unique and defining of landscapes and to look for what is common or universal. When we drive through small communities, we stop to eat at the Burger King or McDonalds instead of investigating Aunt Sue's Loggers' Cafe. In a way, we have invented "everyplace" by universalizing the common things that we expect and seem to need --- familiar motel facades, common fast food menus, universal cable TV access, etc. But what these authors question is whether "everyplace" is really a "place" at all, hence, whether it serves the needs of being grounded in a place, knowing a landscape, feeling the history of habitation, belonging.
In a public, people share common ideologies among themselves. These ideologies are similar among individuals, but not identical for each individual. Furthermore, listening to people’s inside viewpoint clarifies what their public is. In contrast, outside viewpoints also helps clarify a public by providing different perspectives. Austin, Texas is known for a range of different reasons including the Capital, Activism, Culture, Music, and more. Yet, in general, Austin is a geographical city in Texas. What makes the Austin, Texas unique is its residents or Austinites. Austin’s diverse ideologies makes the public of Austin a world of its own.
Gentrification In Houston, New York, Chicago, and other major urban cities of the United States, gentrification is becoming a major talking point. Though, gentrification is becoming something big, not that many people who speak about it are clearly aware of the subject, they just know it is going on. In this paper, I will briefly describe gentrification, and will mainly use Immanuel Kant’s theory to analyze why gentrification is wrong, whilst also comparing it to the utilitarian approach to gentrification. Gentrification is a complicated term that gets defined in many ways by people that do not understand it; the term usually ends up being romanticized instead. It often gets defined by various people as the renovation of lower income neighborhoods to make them safer or “cleaner”.
Freivogel, William. “What Place Do Protesters Occupy in the Constitution.” St. Louis Beacon. 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2013
The Public Sphere has become the center of thought and the forum in which people can freely communicate their views, though it is important to realize that not always have the two been intertwined. Though today the Public Sphere is thought to have originated during the French Revolution, but it is much older than that, it held an important aspect in the Hellenistic Greek era. Because free speech and Public Sphere were not combined back then many philosophers found themselves in a tough spot when they spoke out against the norm in favor of change.
Rosen, Nick. Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True
In Urban Studies two schools of academic thought answer the “urban question”: the ecological and urban political economy schools. I will argue that the political economy perspective better allows us to fully grasp the “urban question” where society and space mutually encompass each other and allow us to better explain and address urban inequality. First, I will develop a working definition of “the urban question”. Second, I will write on the ecological school’s view of the “urban” question and how their vista explains but inadequately addresses urban inequalities. Third, I will review the political economy (social-spatial dialect) landscape of the “urban question” and how their panorama explains and gives better analyses of urban inequality.
Introduction One of the mainly electrifying essentials of contemporary times is the urbanisation of the globe. For sociological reasons, a city is a relatively great, crowded and lasting community of diverse individuals. In metropolitan areas, urban sociology is the sociological research of life, human interaction and their role in the growth of society. Modern urban sociology is created from the work of sociologists such as Max Weber and Georg Simmel who put forward the economic, social and intellectual development of urbanisation and its consequences. The aim of this essay is to explain what life is like in the ‘big metropolis’, both objectively and subjectively.
...ent form ranging from pubs, cafes, restaurants, coffee shops, swimming pools and so on; these spaces tend to be culture-specific. However, these space continue to use flânerie in order to engage consumers with the selling of goods. In the words of Benjaree, “it’s the appropriate mix of flânerie and third places that dictates the script for a successful public life.” For example, shopping centres are designed to encourage the state of idleness in terms of “hanging out.” Boutiques are present in both metropolitan and suburban areas, as well as a multitude of eateries to encourage people to “eat out.” More often than not, social contact, relaxation, leisure and entertainment all involve consumption of goods, whether it’s going to the cinemas, catching up with friends or simply taking a stroll, the individual is always a consumer when they are within the public sphere.
The public sphere has been falsely represented as a virtual place where one can share and debate opinions; ...
Marshall Street, as well as people’s daily practices at this site, produce a consumer space,