Changing public space

for the dispossessed, which Mitchell (2001) defines as the postjustice city. Others emphasise that
everyday public space is still focused on (and mainly designed and managed by) the dominantly
white-collar male rather than other population groups such as (immigrant) females (Bondi &
Domosh, 1998; Yücesoy, 2006). What all publications have in common is that they “… offer
compelling dramatizations about how the contemporary urban form appears to be manifesting
as an intensely uneven patchwork of microspaces that are physically proximate but institutionally
estranged …” (MacLeod, 2002: 606). Most agree that the shift toward cities divided into areas
with differing levels of accessibility and control coincides with a stronger presence of private
stakeholders.
In contrast, Kirby (2008) argues that the social benefits of public space are overdrawn, while
those of private space are shown to be commonly overlooked. He thus has a more positive stance
towards privately-owned public spaces and states that these are “… heterogenous places that are
managed rather than controlled, and that employ technologies that are soft rather than hard
…”(Kirby, 2008: 91). Webster (2007) is also less pessimistic about segmentation and dividedness
in the urban landscape, and argues that it is inevitable that there are more rules and restrictions,
not because the private sector is involved but simply because public space becomes scarcer as
urban populations grow:
Public urban space is a collectively consumed good. It differs from private space (like
bedrooms) in that many people co-consume the same quantity. Their co-consumption is
non-rivalrous at levels below a congestion threshold. Over time, collectively consumed
goods tend to reach and surpass the congestion threshold, however. They become over
used through unrestrained competition. This is particularly so in cities, where people live
at high densities…. (Webster, 2007: 82)
The over-consumption of urban space can be resolved by restricting the property rights by
regulation and physical design. It then evolves from being a public good to a club good or even a
private good. Webster (2007) illustrates the differences between these goods by describing openair
skating rinks that appear in many Western cities in wintertime. The rinks are often located
at squares or in parks that are freely accessible to all. This makes them public goods, which
Needham (2006: 56) defines as “… something which is produced, which is valued, but which the
producer cannot easily sell, because she cannot easily or commercially exclude non-payers from
consuming the good or service …”. Public goods are non-excludable and can be used in a nonrivalrous
manner by all users. However, skating rinks – albeit located in the public domain – are
often enclosed with access charged for. The idea is that congestion on the ice is dangerous and
can lead to injuries. By charging fees the space becomes excludable (as some cannot afford to
enter), but those skating share the rink equally and in a non-rivalrous manner. It thus becomes
a club good, which only a certain ‘club’ of people can use. However, when small lots near the
rink are allocated to vendors (of skates, soup, warm chocolate, etc.), this does render some of
the public good to private space. In general, the transformation from public to private good is
not necessarily unbeneficial or exclusionary. On the contrary, Webster and Lai (2003) propagate
that a municipal government monopolistically supplying open space (as would be the case if all
urban space would be public goods) leads to limited incentives to innovate. Diversification of the
agencies and institutions involved in the supply of open space would likely increase its quality
and diversity through competition.
79