“Is it possible to imagine cities with a culture of participatory sharing in which public space is utilized to literally serve the public?” (Fallen Fruit, p. 228).

I think public spaces can not be utilized to serve (ironically) the public. This is due to discrimination towards factors like race, gender, age, and financial class. In Caitlin Cahill’s, “The Right to Side Walk,” she said “Historically, neighborhood public spaces were an extension of the home, a sort of outdoor ‘living room’ where you meet friends, children play, and elders watch from the stoop or the window” (97). Such spaces were once thought of as comfortable to be in and now, too many times, people feel unsafe in them. She explains that young men of color, either Latino or Black, have been consistently stopped by the police because they seem suspicious to them. The distrust is unpleasant. Being questioned and/or harassed by the police on a sidewalk discourages all of the public, including Latinos and Blacks, to even step out of their homes. This made the public realize that they couldn’t be themselves and act as such in public spaces. A park such as Zuccotti park is just as public as a sidewalk, even though it’s privately owned. After Occupy Wall Street, “the searching of those entering the park to prevent them from bringing sleeping bags and tents into the park” (Eisenberg, 84), was a bit much and therefore emphasized such distrust in the public. This made the public realize that they couldn’t be themselves and act as such in private spaces, either. Furthermore, in “Sweetness in Public Space – Fallen Fruit,” the author says that “Three forms of fruit presented themselves very quickly: the private, the public, and the fallen fruit–no one’s fruit, the waste of fruit” (228) and so if you replace the word “fruit” with the word “spaces,” you get private, public, and the fallen spaces or no one’s spaces. So, if people can’t live peacefully in public, private, or in no one’s spaces, where can they (go to) do so?