WELCOME TO ARCADIA: public space belongs to whom? PART II

This is Part II of Synchronicity's mini-feature showing different attitudes towards public space iin cities all over the globe. For this part we'll have a look on Mumbai.
Mumbai's Dharavi area is a good example how public space in the area mis-developed, because not the interest of inhabitants came first, but the interest of a few companies. For hundred years Dharavi was a swampy no man's land, in the late 19th century inhabited by fishermen, occupied afterwards from immigrating people of the countryside. It became an almost real city district. The land was public; it needed not to be 'captured', because for a long time nobody was interested in that piece of ground at all. But Mumbai is growing fast and Dharavi is now one of the biggest slums in Asia and located almost in the centre of the city. So now private investors are interested in that 1,7 km2 piece of land, consequently the rents increase and the living space of 400.000 people was recently sold – by the city council. And soon this area will be characterised by cricket stadiums, office towers and shopping malls and lifestyle restaurants. The inhabitants were displaced – banished in fact.
There was an article in LA Times recently on Dhavari. Architect Mukesh Mehta is quoted in the LA Times as saying:

"You're talking of a location that's fantastic. This is the only location in Mumbai where I can bulldoze 500 acres of land and redesign."

A fabulous man...

Watch out for Arcadia part III, providing an insight into Bogotá's public space policy
in the archives: Arcadia I

image sources: 1,

WELCOME TO ARCADIA: public space belongs to whom?

The city is the space between buildings and walls – but this space belongs to whom? To those who conquer it.

This is the first post of a new mini feature dealing with public space in cities with different attitudes.

Vito Acconci offers, out of uncountable definitions, probably the most accurate definition about what public space is - but as well one of the most pessimistic. Public space, by definition, is planned by authorities. 'What was built is a production: a spectacle, glorifying the company or the state – or both. Hence space is only borrowed to people. To people who are considered to be part of an organised society, members of the state and potential consumers'. And it's true: public space in a 'western' point of view is a playground of political and economic power: Investor architecture on grounds which are easily got prepared from city's governmental institutions. Flashy brand logos here, shopping malls there. Shopping arcades and canopies on commercially conquered open space. This space between buildings is occupied, conquered, defined, depending on the wishes of city planning. Who will win the match depends on the wishes of the local city planning. Or in an ideal case economy and inhabitants tied for first place.

But the public space are we all, not Acconci's institutions. What is lacking in over regulated cities is only the awareness of this.

One example is Spain: When the Spanish Franco-dictatorship ended in 1975, the recapturing of public space was the first action the population took – in cities as in small villages. Parc Diagonal Barcelona source

Beth Gali, a Barcelona based architect: 'People wanted to have back what was taken from them for a long time: the public sphere! The open space of the city should be understood as second home, a living room for everybody.' Spanish landscape and open space planners, probably one of the best, had enough time and enough public money to develop this challenging field in architecture to an extraordinary culture. And it works: every bit of open space is activated 24 hours. Parcours for skaters in Barcelona's city centre, the street furniture is high end design, everywhere you can use and enjoy the public space, without the need to consume a beer or a coffee.skater in front of MACBA source

upcoming posts will feature public space in Bogotá, Mumbai, Tirana. watch out!