Why We Need True Public Space: Effects of Pseudo-Public Space

            In class we talked about Mitchell’s article, “The End of Public Space?”. One thing that was mentioned was the concept of pseudo-public space. Pseudo-public space is a space that is privately owned but is perceived to be public (1995, pg. 119). Citizens believe that public spaces are locations of democratic use, where they can protest and discuss politics. As well as a space that provides a means to engage in interaction with other people unlike yourself. That these activities should be able to be conducted without a fear of being restricted or punished for your actions.

              An article by Andy Pratt, titled, “The Rise of the Quasi-Public Space and its Consequences for Cities and Culture” discusses his perspective on pseudo-public space. Pratt states that true public space is being restricted by a combination of physical barriers, and the use of police and surveillance (2017, pg. 2). This goes against the public’s desire to want to be able to freely function in public space. Owners of “public” spaces say they are going to provide good access to their land for public use, but there is hardly any legal support to make sure that happens (2017, pg. 2). Pratt provides an example of the shopping center as an instance of pseudo-public space. With the use of police in shopping centers, that gives the owners the ability to remove people from their shopping centers in the case of loitering (2017, pg. 2). With this action, shopping centers are not examples of true public space since the owner of the property can hold legal authority over the people inhabiting the space.

              Another instance of pseudo-public space is discussed by Channel 4 News, a British news network. I have provided the video below, should you want to reference it. The video contains a discussion between Will Self and Chris Philps, both people with knowledge on the subject. Will Self provides the analogy of pseudo-public space to that of a hospital selling coffee in the lobby (2016). The concept of public space having a private commodified component to them. Chris Philps defends private ownership of public land as he thinks it is better maintained that way. The news anchor provides the example of not being able to film in that space. Philps responds that you can film in those spaces. Will Self comes back with saying that you can not film in those spaces, that any instance of filming has a preapproved arrangement to do so (2016). This discussion is an example of how privately-owned public space inhibits the democratic process and how the owners can hold authority over its users. Towards the end of the video, Philps states he would use Compulsory Purchase to reclaim pseudo-public land he believes in being misused by the owner, as he is a member of Parliament (2016). In the United States we call this process “Eminent Domain”. But there is no legal requirement that he actually has to follow through on that statement.

              To conclude, these are examples of how pseudo-public spaces inhibit the free activities of the public, including political ones. How owners of these space have asserted their legal right to remove unwanted people from their property, even though the space is perceived as a public space. If all true public spaces are removed, there will not be any places for people to gather and utilize their 1^st amendment rights in the case of the United States.

References

Channel 4 News. (2016, February 12). Selling space - Britain's public spaces going private. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=selling+space.

Mitchell, Don. (1995) The End of Public Space?: People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85:108-133.

Pratt, A. (2017). The rise of the quasi-public space and its consequences for cities and culture. Palgrave Communications, 3(1). doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0048-6