CHAPTER 3: LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS
3.6 Privatisation of Public Space for Safety and Security
46 that is invisible to the agents acting in space. The actions are spatial, but the loss is social (Chakravarty, 2008).
Commodification of public space gives a new perspective on public space. Public space becomes a tangible asset, as purchase and sale processes have caused public spaces in cities to be mobilised into and out of the hands of buyers and sellers. Commodification has also resulted in public space being an intangible asset, as it has extended to the human experience beyond what is visible in the public space itself (Zukin, 2009). Space has been transformed into an economic asset so it can be a platform to develop spheres such as culture, education, healthcare and social development.
The commodification of that public space has led to its privatisation. There has been an increased privatisation of public space as a result of the hegemonic neoliberal economic regime, but privatisation also occurs as a result of social factors such as the fear of crime. The next section discusses privatisation as a means other than for economic development. Public spaces are also privatised for security
47 before. It is often seen as necessary, that this control over openness is implemented as development has to be controlled. The problem, however, lies in the fact that openness in regard to that development should not be minimised. It should encourage diversity and its activation should not isolate diversity. The municipality doesn‘t even offer a defence of the value of public space which is a cause of concern (Franzen, 2011).
In the city there is a deliberate intensification of spatial and social control due to a psychological fear of crime and intrusion into space or property. Davis (1998) states that, in a postmodern city, there is a spread of an urban ecology of fear and there is an obsession about safety and security.
Security is one of the main reasons why public space is privatised. There is constantly the prevalent fear of crime among citizens, therefore security in public spaces results in drastically limiting the access and use of available public space to marginalised groups.
Privatisation is usually attained as a result of the transferral of the maintenance, security or management rights of a public space to a private individual like a business association or development corporations (Ploeg, 2006).
The consequence of reducing openness in terms of public space is that public space itself has been reduced, which has resulted in this reduction of openness. Urban redevelopment or renewal has reduced openness as pedestrian streets have been redeveloped into traffic sewers.
Open areas outside restaurants or shopping centres have become surveillance parking lots;
even public parks have become secured and enclosed. These valorised spaces of public arenas have become enclaves by infrastructure and mega structures of redevelopment. Street frontages are reduced, public activity is monitored, and corridors and entrances are secured by police and other forms of monitoring systems (Davis, 1990).
Public space managing is often based on creating safer places. Hyper-securitisation or militarisation of the inner-city acts as a filter to citizens, as it limits access to those desired or allowed (Mitchell, 2003; Németh, 2010). Private owners instil a sense of security through restricting access. Security measures such as cameras, guards, tollgates can be found at nearly every public space in the city, from public parks and beaches to restaurants and coffee shops.
The privatisation of space for security reasons develops an urban climate of exclusion and separation. Security makes urban public space systematic and organised. Large parcels of
48 space are demarcated off with cones, metal barriers or planter boxes. These new security zones in the city restrict social and democratic interaction for citizens (Nemeth, 2010).
Public space was reduced to open spaces in which crime could be at its maximum in the city.
Increased openness in public space created intensification in the increased possibility of crime and thus surveillance and security in the city became a cause of concern. In 1990, Davis stated in his book City of Quartz: "Welcome to post-liberal Los Angeles". He continued:
Where the defence of luxury lifestyles is translated into a proliferation of new repressions in space and movement, undergirded by the ubiquitous 'armed response'.
This obsession with physical security systems, and, collaterally, with the architectural policing of social boundaries, has become a zeitgeist of urban restructuring, a master narrative in the emerging built environment of the 1990's (Davis, 1990: 223).
According to Gendrot, (2006:1) micro-security control systems are used to control public space. Gendrot (2006:1) states that ―guards make sure that smooth processes, organising movements, will be respected. They act invisibly; they interpret situations, they make sense of them, and they suggest alternatives to CCTVs and other high-tech surveillance methods‖. She also argues that perhaps, in Johannesburg, public space is "allocated to density and diversity, unlike Rio (Copacabana) or São Paulo‖(2006:1).
Securitisation in this section has been used as an excuse for total privatisation of open public spaces by the private sector that has developed public spaces for the sake of security and yet restricted people‘s access to them, as a result of its control. This has meant then that the need for security and surveillance within public spaces has accelerated the rate of privatisation of space by the private sector, for that sector‘s own use (Mitchell, 1995). These places "provide safe, secure environments where people can interact‖ (Mitchell, 1995: 119). It is evident that
―public life, but in fact really isn't, because the environments are owned and controlled and heavily regulated by, generally, very large global corporations" (Dewey, 1994; quoted in Graham, 1995).
This above argument means then that privatisation of space cannot be attributed solely to the capitalist needs of corporations to accumulate wealth, it suggests that privatisation of space genuinely occurs so that people can increase their safety and security. Privatisation of space occurs so that people may protect themselves against crime.
49