In the three readings it emphasizes that public streets do not belong to all. In Cahill’s article it discusses that due to police surveillance people of color are stopped consistently, eliminating individual’s rights in public. Cahill states that the police are “securing the streets out of existence” meaning that people of color are being targeted in their communities in order to wipe them out. I don’t believe that It is possible to imagine cities with a culture that shares the rights of public space and how it can be utilized to serve the public without discrimination. In “The right to the sidewalk” the concept of broken windows theory was intended to limit crime, however, police are taking an advantage of it and stopping young people of color due to the fact that they fit some certain criteria of suspicion. Even if its public there are regulations as well as expectations. In “Sweetness in public space: Fallen fruit” it gives the reader an insight on how communities can come together in order to share the public rightfully. However, even with multiple attempts such as mapping and creating jam that is free to the people, it displayed that “the object of the fruit is a reflection of us, an index of our values”. When it was free to the public the value decreased its value, differentiating the meaning of public and private space. Trees are giving off free fruit, that tend to rot due to people not acknowledging it. Even when trying to distribute these maps where it points out locations of the fruits it wasn’t something they needed, instead they seek out warm meals and shelter. Although it’s out for the public, the public don’t utilize public space to their advantage. Instead, it decreases values and decreases the culture of the neighborhood. In “Some unresolved constitutional questions” by Eisenberg, it also discusses the separation between a public place and a private one. The first amendment respects freedom of speech, however, in the article it questions whether that still applies to privately owned public space. The occupy wall street was an example where the first amendment was looked over, once the police started to regulate the area in order to tame crowds. Although Zuccotti park is for the public it is “a covenant that ran with the land” meaning that the real estate agreement of ownership are tied with the land . The protestors were put into confinement if they weren’t following the police’s unwritten rules, going against the first amendment to express oneself. Overall, in all three articles It discuss the fine line between what is for the public and what Is ought to be for the public but isn’t. Although sidewalks and public parks are made to serve the public it does not. It suppresses individuals born rights to be able to walk without being stopped or to protest against something that is important to them.
In the three readings “Occupying public space, 2011’, “The office of the people” and “The Artist Will Have to Decide Whom to Serve” it discusses how public space can alter a person’s beliefs, environmental surroundings as well as the influence of expected behaviors. According to “Occupying Public Space, 2011” written by the authors Franck and Huang, it elaborates on the utilization of the public space Zuccotti park, as a location to conduct the “Occupy wall street” movement. Although Franck and Huang began the discussion of free will within the park atmosphere they slowly progress into demonstrating how people started to abuse the public space. Inmates who were freed from rikers as well as homeless people took advantage of the shelter that Zuccotti park provided. Despite the initial intentions of the usage of the park it progressed to a seperation between the “punks and political science majors”. Originally the use of the park public space is negotiated by the people, then slowly transitioned to law enforcement creating regulations and limiting the amount of activities as well as the reduction of people entering. The overcrowding of people, tents, clothing and mattresses changed the parks beautiful surroundings from being a place of freedom and speech to constantly being radared by the police. On the other hand, “The office of the people” it creates a platform of ideas regarding to who has power over space. Golan states that in order to have authority you must meet high economical statues, such as being a CEO or a master’s degree. Behavioral activities are expected by the space, it tells you how to act, how to think, what’s appriopate and what’s shunned down upon. Golan supports the idea that places it should be an area where every can be them. “Most places in our society is restrictive, regulatory spaces meant to maintain the status quo”. Removing the negotiation of how public space is utilized by authorities into the hands of the people, it will initiate an increase on creativity and improvement arts and cultures. The redefining of such spaces, it will allow people to give the space a story rather than space defining them. Jeanne Van Heewisjk’s article “The Artist Will Have to Decide Whom to Serve” also discusses how spaces can be altered by people and how “cultural interventions” can play a crucial role of public transformations. The usage of expressing one’s ideas and cultural beliefs can limit people being “disinvested and excluded from their own environment”. Undergoing a reform on public domains will enhance the number of “active citizens”. Heewisjk’s also points out that “becoming part of the community and being a part of neighborhood change is key”. This can ignite a public space to be filled with endless opportunities. Although this will redefine the usage of space, it has to be conducted carefully and with collaboration from the community. Overall all three articles discuss how the selection of negotiation on public space can generate a sustainable way of living where cultural and political beliefs can be expressed freely without authority regulating people’s behaviors.