Changing public space

individualisation and multiculturalism, have led to an increased differentiation of urban lifestyles
(Florida, 2002). Carr et al. have observed some spatial implications:
… nearby public space is no longer necessary as a relief from crowded living and working
environments nor as an essential setting for the social exchange that helped to hold
together the old ‘urban villages’ with their social support systems. Instead, public spaces
supporting particular types of public life become freely chosen settings for family and
group enjoyment and for individual development and discovery …. (Carr et al., 1992: 8)
Thus, as people’s behaviour and living conditions change, their needs with regard to public space
will change too. The growing differentiation of lifestyles may spark conflicts between users of
public space (Lofland, 1998; Zukin, 1995/1998). The general idea of public space is that everybody
can use the space as one wishes (‘freedom of action’), but with the recognition that public space
is shared space. However, in a heterogeneous society the interests of people become increasingly
divers and competing (Carr et al., 1992). Lofland (1998) speaks of parochialism when the
presence of one group prevents others from using public space (Section 1.2). The domination
of a particular social group can take different forms, from loud, rowdy behaviour to the use
of compulsion, restriction of freedom of movement, or the materialisation of power. Some
researchers, for example Hajer & Reijndorp (2001: 92), state that the liveliness of a certain place
is warranted by the presence of a dominant group. Walzer shares the same opinion:
Lovers of urbanity celebrate the city’s chaotic mix, but it is wise to notice that many of the
most celebrated examples of urban space ‘belong’ to quite specific groups of people. The
forum and the piazza were places first of all for male citizens, universities are segregated
cities of the young (…), cafés and bars are most interesting when they are taken over by
particular groups of writers, actors, journalists, and so on …. (Walzer, 1986: 474)
Although the domination of a particular group of users might enliven a public space, it can thus
also hamper the use by others. Individuals increasingly claim particular spaces as their own,
where they go to meet the people they want to meet and avoid those they do not want to see.
According to Hajer & Reijndorp (2001: 56), this turns public space into an ‘archipelago of spatial
enclaves’.
Fear – of the unknown, of each other, and of victimisation – is an underlying motivation
(Ellin, 2001). Tiesdell and Oc (1998) emphasise that people are frightened not only by criminal
acts but also by street ‘barbarism’ or incivilities such as aggressive begging. Similarly, Cybriwsky
(1999) states that the increased fear of crime is the result of a rise in the perception of crime
rather than in actual crime rates. According to Boomkens (2002: 14) this is the result of our
collective cultural imagination, which is influenced by the media. Glassner (1999) supports this
point of view by proclaiming that American TV and news magazines monger a new ‘scare’ every
week to garner ratings and newsstand sales (Glassner, 1999). The rising tide of fear has led people
to stay at home or to go to controlled areas, like the shopping mall, theme park or sports arena:
We no longer go out to mingle with the anonymous urban crowd in the hope of some
new unexpected experience or encounter, a characteristic feature of earlier urban life.
Unexpected experiences and encounters are precisely what we do not want. We go out
for specific purposes, with specific destinations in mind and with a knowledge of where
we will park and whom we will encounter …. (Ellin, 2001: 875)
Mitchell (2005) summarises this trend as the ‘SUV (sports utility vehicle) model of citizenship’:
… we do not want to collide with one another; we want to move freely through public
space, encased in an impregnable bubble of property, and watched over by a network of
58