Ideology of Public Space in America

Part of our discussion in class was spent trying to define how Americans view and use public space. I found an article by Drew Whitelegg in which he discusses his view of the topic in regards to its differences from the European cultural use of public space. As a professor he created an assignment that required students to use the public busses in Atlanta, Georgia. Their negative reactions about the experience revealed some of their opinions about the public sphere. It was clear that it was viewed as undesirable and something to avoid. He argues that Americans use public space for specific purposes rather than places to hang out. The “hang out” spaces have moved into the realm of pseudo-public spaces such as malls and shopping centers. This critique was also offered in the film from class. The problem here lies in the fact that not everyone is welcome in these spaces that have the illusion of being public. There are rules and regulations that are enforced by security in order to keep consumers in and everyone else out.

Whitelegg believes the ideologies of these public spaces are strongly related to legislative practices. In Europe taxes are much higher, but people are willing to pay them because it serves the common good. They believe it is part of a solution to living in a healthy society. Any problems that Americans confront tend to be viewed as “a private problem with a private solution.” Everyone is fending for themselves and not necessarily in ways that benefit their communities. These selfish ways of thinking can lead to selfish behaviors that shut others out. Private space has become a security blanket where people can comfortably be themselves. Public spaces might have a better chance of surviving in America if they were utilized more actively.

As my time in Athens is coming to an end, I am very sad to say goodbye to the community that thrives here. Although Athens is not extremely diverse and can be exclusive to some extent, I believe the community shows much consideration for the commonwealth. It is very different from my hometown and most places in America. There are many programs and events that benefit the local population. The farmers market is an example of a thriving pseudo-public place in Athens. It is good for sustaining the local agriculture and the people. Although the farmers market is successful in many ways, it also has rules, regulations, and fees that must be followed and therefore becomes exclusionary to some. This discussion has made me realize how difficult it can be have a space that is both completely open to the public and actively utilized.

Whitelegg, Drew. Public vs Private Space: Americans and Europeans Differ. The Fellows' Forum

The Internet as the New Public Space

The Internet has long been identified as an information agora. So much in fact many geographers worry the internet will take the place of physical public space. And to complicate matters more, the role of Internet as a public space for every citizen is being shaped by two seemingly contradictory characteristics: Internet is both ubiquitous and personal.

In other words, cyberspace, unlike the traditional media types and traditional public spaces in the physical world enables the citizenry to find new ways to interact economically, politically, and socially. This universal connectivity of the Internet is its potential for everyone and in everywhere. Yet the very nature of its ubiquity may also impinge on a variety of individual or organizational rights, thus hindering its overall usefulness.

According to Koray Velibeyoglu, PHD candidate at Izmir Institute of Technology there are three ways to define the internet as a public sphere: accessibility, ownership, and public control. Velibeyoglu argues the internet is accessible to all groups of people with various ages, gender, and ethnic background. However, is this really the case?

An important question to ask is, is the Internet really available for everyone? Problems like the “information rich” elites or countries without internet connection complicate this issue. While most view the Internet as a free, private firms and institutions have to pay for access.

In fact a survey in the United States found that 67 percent of Internet users are male and over half of them aged 18-34. Their median household income is between $50,000 and $75,000 and the most frequently mentioned occupations are education, sales, and engineering. Therefore, it is obvious accessing the Internet we are still very much in touch with economic constrains, gender issues, basic skills, and age group barriers.

Another issue is ownership. Public spaces in the city are not owned by any individuals or groups. However, on the Net we see commercial, governmental, educational institutions and individuals’ web pages that all have different purposes and different functions. For instance, individuals can easily design his/her own web page, however, he/she must pay for this service to his service provider.

In addition, privacy on the Internet is meaningless. Advertising agencies, direct mail marketers, and political consultants already know many personal details about a user’s private information. What are normally referred to as “professional privacy brokers” use and even sell personal information in return for payment and subsidies. Although hacking is a crime, there is not any proper regulation online.

A third issue of the rising Internet monster is public control. On the Internet there is no centralized control. Nothing can be regulated. Really. You can do just about anything on the Internet.

So the question remains: Is the Internet the dominant ideal of public space? Yes and no. No because there is so much information flowing through its networks, there is no way the Internet can be as affective as a physical public space. Yes because although there are imperfections to the system, the Internet provides the world with something unfathably big. It provides the world with an international blog. People can say whatever they want whenever they want in a completely unmonitered environment. Internet has allowed minorities groups to survive, the Internet has allowed news about genocide and terrorism to spread across every nation, and most importantly the Internet has provided an internation forum for news so everyone can be their own journalist. It has made our society more intelligent. It has made our society more interactive. And it has made our society more self sufficient.

The Internet is the ultimate public space, however, it works hand and hand with protesting at the local courthouse. The Internet will not replace the old ways, it will simply improve them.

Greening the Ghetto

I would like to prelude my post with the Ted video, "Greening the Ghetto," by Majora Carter. It is an eighteen minute long video about her personal experiences in the Bronx, NY. She is a very well educated and charismatic speaker, I highly recommend watching the video.



As we talked about in class, social injustice is a major problem in America. As both Majora Carter and Laura Polido stated, the location of power plants, waste facilities, sewage plants and most other undesirable service stations, can be easily locate based on race and class location. Majora Carter stated that over forty percent of New York city's waste is handled in the South Bronx alone. With a population nearing 8.2 million the amount of waste produced alone is not comprehensible to most. If you live in the South Bronx however, all you have to do is look out your window to gain some incite.

During the middle of the twentieth century, Robert Moses, New York's city planner, designed a causeway that connected the nice suburbs with Manhattan, completely bypassing and displacing hundreds of thousands of South Bronx natives. This perpetuated the drastic downturn for the South Bronx. Money was no longer flowing in or around the community so many jobs were lost as well as houses. This gave rise to open land for city officials to make practical use of by placing municipal facilities there. Zoning laws and redlining, as Polido and Carter also discussed, of the South Bronx allowed these problems to escalate and eventually turn the South Bronx into New York City's personal dump.

The people who lived and still live there today have had little say in what happens being that they are poor and mostly African American. Fortunately, for the South Bronx and New York City as a whole, Majora Carter took some initiative and started an organization to create the Hunt's Point Riverside Park. With some help from city officials and a $10,000 grant, the organization was able to levy and turn it into a $3,000,000 park. This event showed city officials,developers and the community that the South Bronx had potential for revitalization. Majora Carter continues to strive for a green and equal opportunity city, while still addressing the need for capitalism to fund and promote these initiatives.

Revival of a City

Flint, Michigan was once widely known as the birthplace of General Motors. In it’s heyday Michigan helped usher in the era of the automotive industry by becoming one of the most industrialized cities in Michigan and possibly the U.S. In 1978 Flint had a population of around 190,000 (not metro area) and GM locally employed 80,000. The city had a striving economy, industry, and a large population of people.

In the mid-1980’s GM was making record profits and was one of the warhorses leading America out of the 1980’s recession. But quite randomly GM opted to close eleven of Flint’s industrial plants. 40,000 people (and families) suddenly lost their jobs. While GM basked in the profits from the decision; Flint, Michigan was ushering in an era of poverty, crime, deindustrialization, economic downfall, and hopelessness.

So what happened to the city?

It is still there. However, instead of being recognized as the birthplace of GM it is recognized as one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. After the closures the city quickly saw migration of people. Soon after the businesses began to disappear due to a shrinking economy. The once prosperous all-American city soon turned into a wasteland of abandoned buildings and homes almost in an instance.












GM’s headquarters has been moved to Detroit (which barely fairs better than Flint) about 60 miles outside of its birthplace. GM still has a presence in Flint, only employing 8,000 workers for a population (which had drastically declined) around 100,000. With the population of 100,000 (this does not include metro area) they take 4^th place in for the most dangerous cities in the U.S. (St. Louis taking #1 which has a population three times the size of Flint). Flint also takes list for being one of the impoverished cities in the U.S. > HERE! Even after more than twenty years the city is still suffering from the devastation of rapid deindustrialization.

Former Buick City (GM's flagship facility) - Now one of the biggest brownfields in the country.









So What Are They Going To Do About?

With the recent decline in the auto-industry and another recession, the city is looking for alternatives ways to help revive it.

Flint was fortunate enough to receive money with the past bailout. With this money the five universities in Flint are combining efforts to turn Flint into a “college town”. The Flint College Town Initiative (Kettering University) Facebook said this:

“The Flint College Town Initiative is a joint effort between Kettering University, University of Michigan- Flint, Mott Community College, Baker College, and the Flint Institute of Arts to change Flint’s face from an old industrial town to a newer and younger College Town. There are currently over 30,000 students who attend higher level education institutions within the City of Flint, yet we (as students) are the most under served population. It is our goal to change that! The College Town Student Advisory Committee meets on a monthly basis to focus our efforts to create a sense of community among all college students in Flint. This group is intended to be Kettering University’s official student voice for those meetings.“ (HERE!)

With the bailout money the city also plans to remodel the downtown scene and destroy abandoned homes and buildings to help lower the population and help revive the city’s image.

The plan is impeccable.

• Making the city more appropriate for college aged students, who therefore pump money into the local economy.

• Better the overall scenery by destroying abandoned and unused buildings.

• Renovating the Downtown area making it more profession and picturesque.

• Lowering the population to help them refresh the city from crime rates and poverty.

It is interesting to note however what would happen to the people of the city. Where would they go? What areas would have to deal with the migration?

In the end Flint, Michigan might not have to be the city with a melancholy past but hopes for a “new” Flint. A city not shrouded in industry but in higher education.

This photo below is based on the fictional NBA Flint Tropics. They filmed on location in Flint and also renovated a theater in the downtown district for the film (benefitting the city).