CHAPTER 3: LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS
3.4 The Privatisation of Public Space
The privatisation of public spaces signals a change in the way in which these spaces are managed. According to authors such as Mitchell (1995) and Minton, (2006) the provision of public spaces (by the private sector) has major implications for certain groups in society who are vulnerable to exclusion by the private authorities who manage these spaces. These privately owned public spaces include shopping centres, public waterfront beaches and parks.
Boyer, (1996) from European and American city studies shed some light on her understanding of the contemporary understanding of the privatisation of public space in the city. ―She suggests that the ‗public‘ has become a ‗negative concept', in contrast to the ‗private‘ which has been refurbished with an exalted image‖ (1996: 9). She proposes, in reference to public space, that it no longer exists as an articulate force in the city, as those places and assets of the city that have been used and accessed by the public, have currently been appropriated by private welfares that have encroached upon public space, which has reduced the amount of public activities being witnessed in the city (Davis, 1990; Zukin, 1991; Boyer, 1993).
According to Hoffman, (2013:4) ―The key motive behind the formation for privatised public spaces is economic‖. She states that, (2013:4) ―First, relative to other costly needs, the expense of maintaining public spaces is just too great for public authorities. Second, private sector actors see this as an opportunity to influence how urban space is allocated and used‖.
39 According to Mandanipour, (2013) a public space is an accessible place. He states that if a member is not able to freely access a space, then it is not, by characteristic, a public space. In turn, limiting that access to public space would be deemed as privatising a public space, as, according to the author, allowing only a certain or selected population to enter a public space, makes it exclusive to only a specific population and thus it becomes private, through restricted accessibility.
Public space may be privatised thus restricting access for two different reasons: private sector management and design management. Firstly, the private sector purchases a piece of public space (that was accessible to all) and, as a result of the private sector‘s ownership over that public space, that public space becomes privatised. Secondly, due to design and building, public space is accessed by permitted users only. Discussed below are the two types of privatisation.
In regard to private developers and public space, public space has become defined with the change in emergent local and national politics of the 21st century. Within the last 30-40 years
―public‖ space has become a product of public-private partnerships and private development.
Public space has also become facet of Business Improvements Districts (BIDs) and parks that are administered and financed by private organisations as pressures of urban redevelopment rise (Minton, 2006)
In terms of ownership, a privately owned public space ―is open to the public, but owned by a private entity, typically a commercial property developer. Conversion of publicly owned public spaces to privately owned public spaces is referred to as the privatisation of public space, and is a common result of urban redevelopment‖ (Kayden, 2000).
Public spaces are privatised by the government, who sell property and space to private companies so that they can be maintained. This phenomenon of privatisation that had occurred is due to the fact that governments lack the finance to maintain property, land, buildings and public space in the city. Governments have decided to privatise space so that private companies would be responsible to maintain upkeep and order surveillance on public space (Minton, 2006). Public spaces are privatised as government has minimal funds to ensure that all spaces are taken care of and under control, so they sell or lease buildings,
40 property and open space around buildings to private corporations that have the resources to manage spaces in the city.
In terms of the privatisation of public space, private companies that purchase city space and property are responsible for making a significant financial contribution to the redevelopment of inner city areas in contrast to the popular belief of the public sector, who often are informed that this is a function of the local government. The private sector make a significant financial input to the redevelopment of inner city areas and believe that a city thrives more through economic investment than social concerns of access to key focal development points in the city. Priority is not focused on the social implications that the purchase of public space has on its use and access to by citizens, rather that the economic perspective of redevelopment and investment receives priority for the long-term economic instead of the social sustainability of the city (Turan, 2012).
The private sector, who own inner-city property and renewal, have a huge investment in public space. They are primarily concerned with the evaluation and price of property for investment, than the social value of public space for people‘s use. The social value of urban public space has been devalued within the economic perspective that urban public space needs to thrive hence the value of the tangible asset and its price would escalate. ―The general idea is that space of good quality constitutes a positive externality and thereby increases the value of the surrounding property‖ (Punter, 1990, in Van Meliek, 2009: 207).
The private sector privatises public space. Redevelopment within public space is also vital as they claim that the good value of buildings located within and around public space increases the value of public space itself, which relates back to the postmodern concept of the commodification of public space.
According to Van Melik, (2009: 207) ―Buildings of good quality increase the value of public space. In other words, the private sector perceives its investment in buildings as a positive externality for the adjacent public space‖. For example, private sector participation in the planning and financing of inner-city redevelopments has not been common in the Netherlands. The public sector has traditionally played a central role in spatial planning and development since the 1980s, but local powers have been sharing the responsibility for urban
41 development with the private sector. This has impacted on the use of public space and its access in the city centre (Van Melik, 2007).
A noticeable role for the private sector in urban development dominates countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom where corporate; businesses and civic corporations, purchase urban public spaces for commercial and business enhancement wards or inner-city development (Symes and Steel, 2003). Currently, the Dutch context of urban development contrasts with that of the United States. In the Netherlands, the concept of urban public space which is that it is ‗used by and accessible to all‘ is still predominant in urban spatial policy (Van Melik, 2009). This would account for the fact that severe limitations on access to public space are not tolerated. Nevertheless, the effect of the private sector is rather limited, both in terms of an increase in budget and as a decrease in public access.
The private sector and business play a greater role in society. Regarding the case of public spaces there is always a need for capital to be used for the upgrading of public spaces. The private sector can ultimately provide that capital and resources to preserve public spaces, which the government is financially incapable of. The private sector see this as an opportunity to generate income through privatisation and property ownership; in such instances, income is derived from leasing/renting or use of privatised public buildings/space by purchasers/clients.
In some cases, private companies act as landlords or body corps of buildings and spaces (Minton, 2006).
Privatisation of public spaces by private sectors offers many benefits. Firstly, it contributes to the preservation of public space which is good for the social and political status of the private sector. Business thrives and the multiplier effect is expanded for the micro-economy. Also, private sectors are able to regulate land use in the inner city which permits business redevelopment or expansion. Public space is upgraded and communities benefit from financial resources, as the private sector conserves public spaces, since they are then able to set aside land or build an area as a public space. In terms of the privatisation of public space, the private companies that purchase city space and property believe that they are committed to and are responsible for making a significant financial contribution he private sectors privatise and thereby preserve public space (Minton, 2006).
42 Another type of privatisation of public space is through design and management of locational space in the city. This means that the space is still public, meaning that it is owned by the municipality, but that there are mechanisms by which the space is under surveillance and is controlled. This creates the atmosphere of exclusion and limited access. Gates, entrances and private parking to public spaces exclude some citizens from using that space and therefore it thus becomes a privatisation of public space not as a result of renewal, but of control over space and place through mechanisms imposed by design.
Like Beursplein, the shopping centre Arena in Rotterdam, for example, is ambiguous as a result of its design. Its appearance confuses people as to whether this public space is public or not. According to Melik:
It too looks like a public space, due its close connection to Loeffplein and its outdoor character (it is gated but not covered). Drievriendenhof and Klanderij have a more private appearance because they are indoors. Yet the squares on which these shopping venues are located are publicly owned. Therefore, they are not subject to a more severe organisation of surveillance and control, even though the private sector was involved in their redevelopment (2009: 209).
This concludes that it is not merely the privatisation of space, as in the role of the private sector making public space inaccessible, it is the postmodern trend of the design and management of the city space that makes it disconnected and exclusionary to access.