Changing public space

public space. However, their main ideas about public space might conflict with those of the
government, leading to secured and themed public space. After all, the aim of the private sector
is not to create public goods, but to make a profit (Carmona et al., 2003). According to some
researchers, this profit-generating potential is often obtained by commercialising and controlling
space, which both restrict the free access of public space (Cybriwsky, 1999; Staeheli & Mitchell,
2006). The relation between urban policy and private-sector involvement is further elaborated in
Chapter 4.
3.5 Conclusions
As described in Chapter 2, public spaces in city centres have gone through a number of transitions
over time – from market place to parking lot, from political arena to playground – and they will
continue to evolve. In the Netherlands, as elsewhere, two directions seem to prevail. On the one
hand, the promotion of a sense of safety is paramount in the design and management of public
space, expressed by CCTV, changes in physical design, and stronger regulation. On the other
hand, public spaces are venues for special events, shopping, and sidewalk cafés. In this chapter,
these two directions – fear and fantasy – have been introduced on the basis of a literature review.
The two concepts are operationalised and visualised by means of six-dimensional diagrams in
Section 5.4. The diagrams are applied to the case studies in Chapter 7 to examine the levels of
fear and fantasy of the researched public spaces.
What can be learnt from the concepts of fear and fantasy in public space? It sheds light
on a recent development in Dutch society: the increasing potential for conflict in public space
as a result of the differentiation of urban lifestyles. Because social dynamics and spatial change
are intertwined, the urban landscape in general and public space in particular is an important
source of knowledge about society. The chapter also bears a more fundamental message: in
today’s fragmented urban society, the pursuit of pleasure is safeguarded by restrictions, which
in turn are commonly compensated by the availability of a lively public domain. Or more
briefly: no entertainment without safety, and vice versa. In essence, this corresponds to a timehonoured
insight expressed by the political philosopher John Locke – that the cause of freedom
is not served by removing the rule of law. While limiting freedom in some respects, regulation
maximises freedom overall (Scruton, 1982). Compensation for the limitation can take the form of
well-designed and managed public space, including intensive programming and high standards
of maintenance. However, as public spaces become safer and provide more entertainment, they
are also being homogenised. According to Betsky (2005), the focus on security and shopping
results in a growing number of controlled, carefully demarcated areas in which ‘all conditioned
space is conditional’. This is caused by consumer preferences rather than citizens’ rights. Fainstein
(2001) relegates the current attention to matters of control and consumption to middle-class
escapism. This lifestyle creates a demand for public spaces that leave no room for the reality of
urban living, with all its conflicts, risks, and undesirable behaviours.
Chapter 3 has emphasised the macro-level relationship between society and public space at
the expense of the decision-making processes that give rise to spatial change. Who are the main
actors and what are their motives to be involved in public space? These micro-level questions are
the subject of Chapter 4.
62