After reading the three reading by Cahill, Fallen Fruit, and Eisenberg, I believe it’s challenging to imagine cities with a culture of participatory sharing in which public space is utilized to serve the public literally. Our society is not built on sharing. We live in a culture where it’s important to define what’s “your.” Unfortunately, people are going to have a prejudice against one another. For example, in Cahill reading, you have two testimonies that demonstrate how the police stop you for no reason. Alternatively, how the police explain it as “you look suspicious” or you look like, you’ve been doing bad things.”

Among Zuccotti Park, you run into the contradiction that it’s a privately owned public space. Eisenberg article focused on the value of the First Amendment and how it can be overlooked when it comes to public spaces. For example, the court case in 1968 about the privately owned shopping mall and the picket line. The court decided that no First Amendment claim could be pursued since the shopping mall was privately owned.

Fallen fruit article display how people can come together. It’s sad how you have fruits rotting in the streets meanwhile you have people starving. If only we lived in a culture that appreciated nature more, we would have a different narrative. One comment that shocked me from the reading was when the women asked how much the jam was. When she was told the jam was free, she stepped back with some distrust, as if it suddenly had less value. If our society were taught to put the differences aside maybe, we would be able to participatory sharing in which public space is utilized to serve the public. However, until then I believe we can’t.