
Pseudo-public space in London - joosters
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map
======
jccc
Immediately reminded me of this from 2014:

[http://www.startribune.com/man-arrested-in-st-paul-skyway-
su...](http://www.startribune.com/man-arrested-in-st-paul-skyway-
sues-3-police-officers-city/282658401/)

A father waiting to pick up his kids from day care sits in an ambiguously
public-ish place. He refuses when an employee asks him to leave. Then the
police arrive.

At that point he voluntarily gets up and starts walking away, but the cop
follows him and continues pestering him to identify himself, etc.

It doesn't end well. I'm sure you can guess what he looks like.

~~~
randyrand
> I'm sure you can guess what he looks like.

Until you said that I was picturing a white person. Maybe there is a natural
tendency for people to picture themselves in the shoes of the story.

There is definitely a stereotype that police pick on African-americans more.
But they also pick on a lot of _all of people in general_ and there are way
more white people in the USA, so I don't immediately assume that a person
being picked on by police is black. There is also the stereotype that blacks
are not attentive fathers, so the setting (picking a kid up at daycare), would
have at least canceled out the police stereotype IMO. I'd be surprised if most
people had the same assumption about skin color that you had.

Either way, I think calling attention to his skin color in the way you did is
petty and rude.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
The stereotype that police pick on black people more than white people stems
from reality (not just in America); the stereotype that black men are not
attentive fathers stems from racism. It's important to understand the
difference.

But, why do you think it's rude?

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/10/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/10/the-
dangerous-myth-of-the-missing-black-father/?utm_term=.bfc25b20f1be)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/polic...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-
are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-
white-drivers-2/?utm_term=.18064a293096)

[http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cops-
rac...](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cops-race-
injury-20160725-snap-story.html)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/black-
people-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/black-people-stop-
and-search-six-times-police-racist-a7383591.html)

~~~
randyrand
> the stereotype that black men are not attentive fathers stems from racism.

Non preset African american fathers also stems from reality, just like the
police stereotype. The Washington post source you gave actually did not
dispute the absent fatherhood statistics - the article was about explaining
why.

in the USA, 18% of non-Hispanic white fathers do not live with their children
compared to 30% of hispanics, and 42% of blacks.

Rephrased from here: _" Non-Hispanic white men aged 15–44 had the largest
difference between those with coresidential children (37%) and those with
noncoresidential children (8.2%). The difference was smallest among non-
Hispanic black men, with 33% having coresidential children and 24% having
noncoresidential children. Among Hispanic men, more than twice as many had
coresidential children (44%) than had noncoresidential children (18%)."_

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf)

~~~
grasshopperpurp
That's my mistake. Here is the article I meant to post:

 _Now to the mythology of the black male dereliction as dads: While it is true
that black parents are less likely to marry before a child is born, it is not
true that black fathers suffer a pathology of neglect. In fact, a C.D.C.
report issued in December 2013 found that black fathers were the most involved
with their children daily, on a number of measures, of any other group of
fathers — and in many cases, that was among fathers who didn’t live with their
children, as well as those who did._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/charles-blow-
blac...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/charles-blow-black-dads-
are-doing-the-best-of-all.html)

~~~
randyrand
That source has some good points , but it too does not dispute the statistics.
Just explains some of it.

The one statistic it gave that disputes for more daily activity was _for
children under age 5, for certain activities, and only for black fathers that
live with their children_ \- not on the whole.

Very bad cherry picking and bad reporting.

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf)

------
sitkack
There is a similar trend in Urban Design called Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design [1] (CPTED) great acronym, hard to remember and
meaningless.

The gist is that you make a place so exposed and inhospitable, so
uncomfortable that no-one will want to be there, thus ZERO crime! It is how to
build in a natural panopticon to parks and buildings to maximize sight lines
and exposure.

Most parks that we consider wonderful would have never been built under CPTED.
They use all of the thought-crime rhetoric in their writings, Feng-Shui,
community, etc except they do the opposite.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_envir...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design)

~~~
vanderZwan
That in turn reminds me of two things: James Howard Kunstler's rant against
"public spaces not worth caring about", and the Camden Bench

[https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_sub...](https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_bench](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_bench)

~~~
sitkack
From the Camden bench I found
[http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/unpleasant-design-
host...](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/unpleasant-design-hostile-
urban-architecture/)

~~~
vanderZwan
This is one of those phenomena that everyone who does design should study, if
only to be consciously aware of it happening.

Although I can't come up with a clear bridge, I feel like the monobloc chair
is also relevant to this discussion somehow:

[https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bn5e4m/white-plastic-
chai...](https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bn5e4m/white-plastic-chairs-are-
taking-over-the-world-128)

~~~
CaptainZapp
In German it's nicknamed Lawn Acne.

You don't have to ask why.

~~~
vanderZwan
Hah, I'll remember that one, thanks!

------
PJDK
Whenever these concerns are raised I find it difficult to gather any
information on what the land was before it became "pseudo-public".

"insidious creep" implies that land that was previously public has become
pseudo-public. But the examples cited seem to be land that was previously
private has become pseudo-public. That just doesn't seem so dystopian to me.

~~~
stillhere
Suppose the land was private buildings turned to private park. Seems dystopian
to me since it seems public but it is not. No public protests can be had near
the MegaCorp for example.

~~~
djmobley
Do you suppose an area with no access to the public is better than an area
with conditional access to the public?

~~~
ChristianBundy
Of course, as it puts the public in a place where they're at risk of being
harassed by the police without realizing that they're on private property.

The entire system of private property is terrible and I hope it will be
abolished within my lifetime.

~~~
TheCoreh
> The entire system of private property is terrible and I hope it will be
> abolished within my lifetime.

Would you be okay with having random people just entering your house, sleeping
in your bed, using your toothbrush and then taking your computer on the way
out?

Obvious straw-man, but my point is: There's got to be _some portion_ of the
system of private property that you agree with on some level. You might for
instance disagree with the way private property is distributed, or how access
to it is made difficult for some groups, or how we value it more than public
property. You might be in favor of more taxation, or of “fairer” taxation
(whatever that actually entails would be hard for everyone to agree with) or
of revamped eminent domain laws, but I find it really hard to believe that
you'd hope for the entire system of private property to be abolished within
your lifetime.

~~~
bjl
There's a distinction between personal property and private property. My
house, bed, toothbrush, and computer aren't private property, they're personal
property.

~~~
gambiting
No, you're just being obtuse for the sake of making an argument.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Not even remotely. Political thinkers have been making that distinction since
the 19th century. Go back to the 18th century and people generally wouldn't
even have used the term "property" to refer to things other than land.

------
odiroot
To me it's a pointless indignation.

This is a lot better than companies fencing off huge swathes of land so you
need to meander around their properties.

I really like recent development in my hometown (Warsaw) where you can walk
around new buildings, sit on a bench and watch a fountain. Usually the local
government doesn't have a budget to stick those facilities everywhere.

~~~
Boothroid
Lots of these places are horrible as well. I remember being hassled by a
security guard for cycling through a part of the City of London. No loss, it
is a concrete hellhole, I'll find somewhere else to cycle.

------
TACIXAT
Privatization of public services, the dystopian scifi future I've always
dreamed of is becoming a reality. I am really glad that these spaces are being
created though. A land owner has the option to do what they wish with their
land and I'd much rather have a pseudo public space than a residential block.
The rules should be clearly posted though so that everyone knows what game
they're playing.

>free wi-fi and big screens showing summer sport, as well as activities like
table tennis, climbing walls and outdoor gyms

I would even pay for a space like that, it sounds really nice.

~~~
arethuza
Some UK cities, such as Edinburgh, have private shared gardens where you pay
an annual subscription to get keys and the gardens are managed and provide
services and maintain play areas for different ages of kids, puts lights in
the trees at Xmas, provide barbecue areas etc.

The annual subscriptions generally aren't that high although they do tend to
be linked to living in nearby properties (with some degree of flexibility).

~~~
falsedan
Yeah, they're run that way to keep out homeless, riff-raff, scum, and tourists
visiting for the Festival. They should be genuine public places, managed by
the council.

~~~
arethuza
Given that Edinburgh council seems more interested in selling of parkland for
development I don't think there would be much chance of that. I'd be worried
that if the council did somehow take ownership of them they'd end up being
developed and a lot of green space (albeit private) would be lost.

~~~
falsedan
Yes, it's a pipe dream. I would much prefer that bin pickup schedules got more
reliable first…

------
clubm8
Maybe I'm biased, but I'm surprised this is considered new.

I grew up in an American suburb. There was basically zero commons. Most places
you go to socialize (eg: the mall) are privately owned.

~~~
humanrebar
The private commons I'm most concerned with are actually digital commons:
sites like twitter, reddit, and facebook. They have and enforce speech codes
and otherwise curate and filter the content.

In this way, a park or two that you can't have a picnic in isn't all that
alarming to me. Town squares used to be partially about places for bottom-up
speech and marketing. In that world, silencing the riff-raff in squares had
serious social consequences. These days, much of it seems digital.

~~~
jancsika
That's a bit like saying you're less concerned about being waste-deep in a
tarpit and more concerned about the prospect of your arms getting stuck.

The analogy is especially apt because if you think of web/net commons actually
replaces free physical assembly (rather than _augmenting_ it), then you can be
convinced to give up your freedom of web/net assembly when whatever next new
digital shift comes along. (E.g., not terribly concerned about my arms stuck
in the tarpit because my head is connected directly to the VR meshnet...)

edit: clarification another edit: typo

------
patorjk
I wonder if these types of privately owned parks have gained popularity
precisely because of the restrictions placed on them. People discover one and
then keep going back because it's nice, and then overtime it becomes a more
popular place for locals to visit because it has lots of visitors and is more
kept up then the actual public places.

For example, I've been disheartened by some of the parks I've visited in
Baltimore. There's trash everywhere and sometimes I wonder if the city even
knows the park exists.

~~~
matt4077
Public spaces aren't anarchist lands of lawlessness. Cities can and do
prohibit uses that have a negative impact on the space or other visitors. They
can also invest in up keeping, and there are many examples of public spaces
that rival anything private. New York's Central Park comes to mind, or
Yellowstone.

But at the end of the day, US citizen always seem to agree when asked if taxes
are too high and the government is wasteful, and that opinion does not
correlate with actual taxation or spending. The result is the decay of public
property.

A nice comparison that I recently came across, illustrating the last point:
The government spends just about half as much on IT per office worker compared
to the private sector.

~~~
djmobley
In London there is a wide array of low level nuisance and antisocial behaviour
that the authorities are unwilling/unable to tackle.

Drug dealing and use, drinking on the street, prostitues loitering, homeless
people begging, women being catcalled and harassed, groups of youths
congregating, littering, etc. are all commonplace in truly public spaces.

Many of these 'pseudo-public spaces' (think Granary Square, More London,
Canary Wharf) are enormously popular with families and businesspeople
precisely because they have security personnel who do a good job of tackling
these things.

~~~
nkoren
Good grief, which London do you live in? I've lived here for nine years,
mostly in Brixton and Bermondsey.

    
    
      > Drug dealing and use
    

Barely visible compared to virtually every other city I've been to

    
    
      > prostitues loitering
    

Haven't been a thing in London for a decade, from what people tell me.
Certainly never seen it. Evidently that business has moved wholly online.

    
    
      > homeless people begging
    

A fraction of what it is in any comparable American city -- but certainly on
the rise in recent years due to Tory policies.

    
    
      > women being catcalled and harassed
    

This is definitely an actual problem.

    
    
      > groups of youths congregating
    

Good grief, how is this even a problem? They're citizens and that's their
right. A city which helps young people to congregate is doing its job. More
power to them, provided they behave well.

    
    
      > littering
    

Yes, that's sometimes a problem. Not so much associated with youth, in my
experience: yobs come in all ages.

    
    
      > Many of these 'pseudo-public spaces' (think Granary 
      > Square, More London, Canary Wharf) are enormously popular
      > with families and businesspeople precisely because they 
      > have security personnel who do a good job of tackling
      > these things.
    

There's nothing that prevents public servants from doing the same -- except of
course that they're underpaid and diminishing in number, thanks to austerity
policies. The bargain which is making here is:

1\. Reduce taxes / enforcement of taxes on large corporations

2\. De-fund and generally decrease the quality of public service

3\. Shift the burden of responsibility for providing said services onto said
large corporations, who now provide a facsimile of the commons, minus
inconvenient concepts like civil rights (right to assemble, speech, etc).

4\. Use people's growing discontent with public services to argue for lower
taxes. Go back to 1 and repeat.

This is then propped up by a "Broken Britain" narrative like your own, which
is, forgive the bluntness, tabloid-fueled bullshit. Despite the the
government's diligent efforts to undermine public services, London remains one
of the cleanest and cities on the planet, and is certainly doing better than
at any point in its history.

~~~
gilleain
Evidently not the same parts of London that I see (for the past 40 or so
years):

> Drug dealing and use

Literally every day. There's a man who sits on the next doorstep that I call
'Mr Subtle' as he is continuously 'reading' a newspaper. He has many friends
who stop by for a quick chat. Then they smoke drugs that he has sold them.

> homeless people begging

Every day. Also stealing from Primark, sleeping in tents on the street,
pretending to fall in front of traffic, pretending to read maps then asking
for change, etc.

Certainly different parts of London have different homeless populations, but
Camden and central London are not great.

~~~
joosters
What have these issues got to do with public/private spaces? The ownership of
the land won't solve drug use, nor will it end homelessness. All that happens
is the problem gets pushed elsewhere.

~~~
gilleain
Agreed that we've drifted off-topic. Private spaces wont solve drug use or
homelessness, but it could certainly affect it. It's harder to sleep on the
streets if there is nowhere to go.

~~~
nkoren
> It's harder to sleep on the streets if there is nowhere to go.

I'm puzzled by what kind of psyche underlies a statement like this. I'm sorry
to frame it in these terms, but honestly it seems... evil to me. Do you not
understand that for many people, sleeping on the street is last remaining
alternative to death? Take away the ability to sleep on the street, and you
are killing people. If that is your intention, there are faster and more
humane ways to do it.

Or do you believe that that were it not for the myriad comforts of the
streets, the homeless would simply go back to paying off their mortgages or at
least crashing on friends' sofas? Because if that's what you believe, you're
simply wrong. Homelessness is a last resort. (And no, the government services
which one ought to be able to avail oneself of are no longer always available.
Particularly if you are a working-age male, it is often virtually impossible
to prove to a social worker that you are not "voluntarily homeless", which
then disqualifies you from receiving help.)

I'd like to believe that nobody participating in this discussion is that
malicious or that ignorant. If you can show me a third way, I'd genuinely
appreciate it.

~~~
gilleain
I didn't mean what you assumed. It was a simple neutral comment.

~~~
nkoren
Huh. I grew up very poor -- there were months when the bins behind
supermarkets were a primary source of food -- and I've seen rough-sleepers die
from exposure. It's hard to reconcile that one could make a "simple neutral
comment" about something that, for me, is a very real life-or-death issue. But
I accept that was your intention.

~~~
gilleain
Very generous of you to accept my intentions. Perhaps next time you could not
build a tower of assumptions on top of a single sentence that ends with
concluding the other person is evil?

That sounds like a horrible way to grow up, and yes people on the streets do
die from exposure. Presumably they also get infections that can kill them, get
beaten to death, get in to fights over who stole whose lighter, etc.

In the London that I live in, the homeless are there for all sorts of reasons
- poverty, mental illness, addiction, running away from a bad situation, and
so on - and not all of these people will die if they are not on the streets.
They might be in all sorts of worse (to them) situations - low paid menial
job, mental institute, rehab, back home with abusive parents.

Most of the time, they have little choice. Or the alternative choice is worse.
Forcing them off the street would not just be morally wrong, it would be
largely ineffective. Unless you privatise the whole world.

The main issue that I see with private spaces is that it shifts the
responsibility of low-level policing of the space from the public to security
guards. Obviously the first people to come up against this will be the
homeless, as they are most likely to be breaking whatever hidden rules these
spaces have.

Anyway, I don't have the time to discuss this. Good luck with the
infrastructure software, it looks well made.

~~~
nkoren
Thank you.

Yes, apologies for building too many assumptions; I guess this is a bit of a
hot-trigger issue for me. I've seen people genuinely believe that if one makes
life sufficiently difficult for the homeless, they'll just go away. In London
this has lead to appalling incidents like [1]. I thought that was where you
were coming; I see now that it wasn't. Sorry again!

In any case, I haven't got time to discuss this either -- gotta get back to
work!

1: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-seize-
poss...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-seize-possessions-
of-rough-sleepers-in-crackdown-on-homelessness-8631665.html)

------
veidr
It's interesting watching the cyberpunk fiction I read in high school in the
1980s slowly coming true.

------
booleandilemma
NYC has a bunch of these.

I think they're great, because they're free and the alternative is paying $4
to sit in a Starbucks.

Of course when the weather is nice out you can go to a park.

[http://www.nyc.gov/pops](http://www.nyc.gov/pops)

~~~
balefrost
So _that 's_ what the tree logo means. I saw it all over the place, but I
never realized what it meant.

~~~
masto
It’s supposed to be a deal where the building owner gets a variance on zoning
restrictions if they promise to maintain a public space. But the reality is
that a lot of them are inaccessible and there’s no enforcement.
[http://gothamist.com/2017/04/19/pops_balderdash.php](http://gothamist.com/2017/04/19/pops_balderdash.php)

------
weberc2
> Pseudo-public space – squares and parks that seem public but are actually
> owned by corporations – has quietly spread across cities worldwide. As the
> Guardian maps its full extent in London for the first time, Jack Shenker
> reports on a new culture of secrecy and control, where private security
> guards can remove you for protesting, taking photos ... or just looking
> scruffy

This is confusing. Why is the Guardian trying to make private property sound
scary and oppressive? Why should I expect that I can use someone else's
property however I like and without permission from the owner?

~~~
a-saleh
There might be certain expectation in society that certain kind of property is
public, which usually means, that you can use it within certain limits, even
if you don't own it.

Often this is because the property would be owned by i.e. state/city, and that
would provide citizens certain freedoms, such as freedom to gather on a public
square.

~~~
weberc2
I understand that many people might see a park and assume it's public because
frequently parks are publicly commissioned, but that doesn't explain why I
should feel afraid or oppressed. Even if I thought a park was public and then
escorted away with the explanation that the park was private, I wouldn't (and
_shouldn 't_, contrary to the Guardian's implication) feel like my rights were
infringed upon.

~~~
a-saleh
Well, in my country, there is this a "Freedom to roam" that guarantees me the
ability to travel through private parcels (with some exemptions, i.e. you can
walk through the middle of somebody's pasture, unless there are animals you
could disturb). Same thing applies for forests (as long as I am not logging,
or driving off-road).

If somebody would want to escort me from forest while I am foraging berries,
or hiking or something, I would (according to our civil code, should) feel
like my rights were infringed upon.

Based on this experience, I would like, if there is similar right given for
things in cities that appear as public spaces, even if they are a privately
owned parcels.

I understand that if you i.e. live in the US, this might see m weird, because
the right of owner to restrict access to their land seems to be stronger
there.

~~~
weberc2
Yeah, this is definitely not the case in the US. Where are you from?

~~~
a-saleh
Czech Republic.

------
byteCoder
Here's a good, quick review of the case-law precedents regarding free
expression in quasi-public places in the United States:

[http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/54-quasi-...](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/54-quasi-
public-places.html)

------
0x4f3759df
Reminds me of being told "you can't lay in the grass" in Millennium Park in
Chicago by a security guard. They build something nice and then you can't use
it properly.

~~~
neaden
That's probably an anti-homeless thing. We try to make it hard to sleep in
public spaces to push homeless people to the margins. Like how they put arm
rests in the middle of park benches to make it hard to sleep on them.

~~~
humanrebar
> We try to make it hard to sleep in public spaces to push homeless people to
> the margins.

It's much more complex than that. _Every_ homeless person I've every offered
to help has already rejected the systems in place to help them. Maybe they
_should_ have for various reasons. Reform and innovation in this kind of
social work is sorely needed. But the whole story isn't that "society" just
wants to give dirty people the boot.

~~~
logfromblammo
The systems in place to "help" them are typically also there to _control_ them
in some way, and may also be blind to the new risks they may be creating.

The few genuine charities that offer help with no strings attached, and with
sensitivity to potential unintended consequences, are frequently underfunded
and subjected to frequent attacks by the powerful. For instance, the city
might pass an ordinance criminalizing the act of giving away food gratis, if
it was not prepared by trained personnel in a commercial kitchen with a
current health inspection certificate, just to shut down a group that gives
away sandwiches that were prepared in a church kitchen.

I don't think that "society" hates the homeless, but its self-appointed lords
and masters sure seem to hate how they don't play the grossly unfair games
that seem to have been set up just for them to lose. And there's my tinfoil
hat, creeping back onto my head.

There is a vein of Puritan/Calvinist/Prosperity sadism running through the US.
Adherents believe that those people are in the gutters because God is
punishing their poor character with unfavorable circumstances. So in order to
solve their financial problems, they must first accept that it is all 100%
their own fault, and that random chance has no role in success or failure.
People become rich only through hard work and public virtue, therefore poor
people are all lazy degenerates. This twisted logic poisons public policy,
because some rich people like to believe all their money makes them better
than other people, and they spend a significant fraction of it on politics.

Those who genuinely believe in charity and "as you treat the least of you, so
you treat me" may have greater numbers, but they have lesser funding, and
therefore smaller political influence in the US. They can't seem to pass any
public program to help people without someone amending it to punish the poor
in some way for the sins made obvious by their financial condition. This leads
to homeless rejecting official help.

From the outside, it just looks like institutional cruelty. I just cannot
fathom the type of thinking that would spend thousands of dollars installing
unnecessary armrests on park benches, just so that poor people derive less
benefit from them. It is _embarrassing_ for a supposedly advanced and modern
society to have the human detritus of its public policies on display for all
to see. But instead of _fixing_ the broken policies, or _accepting
responsibility_ for those that were hurt, the evidence of brokenness is swept
under the rug.

~~~
throwanem
> I don't think that "society" hates the homeless, but [...]

> There is a vein of Puritan/Calvinist/Prosperity sadism [...]

Where are you seeing this?

~~~
logfromblammo
I have seen it personally in my spouse's godparents. I have heard it
secondhand about the Uihlein family (Uline company). For the most part, it is
twice-removed hearsay regarding wealthy people and families based around the
Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. Some of those people are apparently real shitheels
--constantly getting detained for drunk driving, but never being held
accountable for it. They're super racist, too. It's likely all an intrinsic
part of Chicago's endemic corruption problem. I don't live there any more, but
am acquainted with a lot of people who still do, and they occasionally like to
tell horror stories about their clients/customers/employers/blind-
dates/random-encounters from hell. Some of it could be exaggeration or whole-
cloth fabrication, but I can believe it easily.

This is because I have overheard with my own ears a serious suggestion that it
would be acceptable to vanish homeless people in the darkness of night and
turn them into dog food, to be sold at a premium. Some people are just _evil_
, delude themselves into thinking they are good, and they have far more money
than a just world would ever allow them to touch. Maybe you don't hear that
kind of thing often in places where the rich folks are mostly hippy-dippy
liberals, but hearing it from even one pair of lips, without an iota of shame,
is unsettling--like seeing _one_ cockroach in your kitchen. What is being said
when I'm not around to overhear it?

I also detect signs of it in written legislation and political discourse,
particularly with regard to amending welfare programs to include work
requirements or blanket consent to arbitrary searches by state officials. It's
as though the default assumption is that recipients are out to cheat the
system for a free ride, and spend all their benefits on illegal drugs.

I can't imagine how anyone could become so rotten and yet live, but from the
anecdotal evidence, they do exist, and for bizarre and unfathomable reasons,
their opinions count more than mine, even when we have the same number of
votes to cast.

~~~
webnrrd2k
I think of this as attitude as "Rich white trash"... The thing about being
rich is that you can afford to isolate yourself for a long time, wrapped up in
a community of similarly isolated people. Those attitudes grow and fester
without being challenged by different opinions. That isolation creates
ideologically-driven people who just don't see how hurtful thier ideas truly
are.

~~~
logfromblammo
The worst part of it is that some people who do know better and should be able
to give contrasting opinions are unable to do so because they are in some way
dependent on the rich bubble-dweller. They could get fired, or the person
would stop paying for their rent or medical bills.

In the case of the personal anecdote, they had just finished replacing one
$100k pedigreed lap dog--that had been run over--with another, when the d-bag
refused to help _his own nonagenarian mother_ with some of her bills, actually
suggesting that she go on food stamps if she's having so much trouble.

Rich trash indeed.

------
nikajon_es
I've noticed something quite similar in San Francisco - [http://sf-
planning.org/privately-owned-public-open-space-and...](http://sf-
planning.org/privately-owned-public-open-space-and-public-art-popos) (most in
SF seem to be clearly marked as private spaces for public use though)

------
deathanatos
If there is no signage indicating that the area is private, and it appears to
a passerby that it _is_ public, does this not create an easement?[1]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement)

------
kevin_b_er
When there are no public spaces left, there will be nowhere left to exercise
your rights.

~~~
danharaj
And in the most Orwellian matter, there are those who believe that this is the
condition where freedom and liberty is maximized.

------
Philosopher
I believe that in most cases, these privately owned public spaces (POPS) are
built and made publicly accessible in exchange for zoning floor area increases
for the attached development. Public access can not be restricted on a whim.

------
StavrosK
It seems to me that this stems from a misdefinition of the phrase "public
space". Public space shouldn't be defined as "space that is owned by the
state", but as "space that makes no attempt to prevent entry". An open park on
a lot that someone owns should be legally considered a public space, but if
the owner puts up a fence and a door, then it starts to move towards private
space.

------
Boothroid
Weird place the City. I remember being there for an Oracle course once, and
there were people crammed into a small park some wolfing down their lunches,
some quaffing booze, and in the midst of this an obviously suffering
overweight exec type being bellowed at by his personal trainer to lift kettle
bells in between shuttle runs.

------
seltzered_
FWIW, Anil Dash had a great talk relating privately-owned public spaces/parks
(e.g. NYC's Zucotti Park / Occupy) to the state of the web in "The Web We
Lost" (2013):
[https://youtu.be/9KKMnoTTHJk?t=3m40s](https://youtu.be/9KKMnoTTHJk?t=3m40s)

------
twelvechairs
The root of this issue is that cities maintenance departments dont have the
funding and hence ability to maintain new spaces (despite increased
populations) espsecially to a high standard. So they push it on private owners
in perpetuity as part of the planning process.

Theres two ways to solve it better - the first is to ensure that the public is
the owner, in which case we need to accept increased government spending on
maintenance (the even worse alternative is no new open spaces because neither
the public or private sectors will accept the ongoing cost).

The second is to ensure that the publics rights in privately owned places are
unfettered. In which case there are liability issues to overcome legally (e.g.
is the owner to blame if someone gets assaulted?) - the owners duty of care is
a big reason for pushing undesirables out, even if that means the problems
just move to proper public domain nearby. And there are also general
maintenance issues - e.g. what happens when someone is destroying the high
quality landscape or threatening to.

Your classic 'kids on skateboards' are a risk to both of the above (may cause
wear on materials and also risk of accident) even if as a society we would
normally accept this in a public place its hard for private owners to do so

Occasionally theres some other private policing arrangement too (eg the city
hall london example above where they are trying to stop MPs being harranged as
they walk in and out).

Its gets complex when you get into these issues. We also should seriously
consider the disparity in quality and upkeep between these new spaces which
often 'sell' a development but need expensive upkeep in perpetuity (even if
privately owned this liability is usually passed from the original developer
to some other body) and the reality of most public parks which are usually
neglected, poorly designed and with much more basic materials. And along with
this what kinds of public spaces we actually want and need as modern humans in
cities

------
danso
As a few others have already noted, this is also an issue of interest in New
York. Here's a dataset of privately-owned public spaces from NYC's data
portal:

[https://nycopendata.socrata.com/Housing-
Development/Privatel...](https://nycopendata.socrata.com/Housing-
Development/Privately-Owned-Public-Spaces/fum3-ejky)

(it's a MDB file of around 275K, so I imagine it just holds point data as
opposed to full shapefiles)

One of the most well-known debates over the use of privately-owned public
spaces was in 2011 when the Occupy Wall Street movement took over Zuccotti
Park:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/zuccotti-park-
and-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/zuccotti-park-and-the-
private-plaza-problem.html)

The relevant part which describes how these spaces come with benefits to the
developer, even as the developer is left to come up with "reasonable" rules:

> Among the better spaces is Zuccotti Park. The developer never received a
> floor-area bonus for the 26,000-square-foot park, although it did receive
> other valuable zoning concessions. The current owner, Brookfield Office
> Properties, voluntarily installed trees, seating, lighting and art over the
> last decade. (It also changed the space’s name from Liberty to Zuccotti
> Park, after John E. Zuccotti, one of its co-chairmen, creating a personal
> interest in the park’s quality.)

> Nevertheless, the events at Zuccotti Park highlight the continued inadequacy
> of the laws regarding privately owned public spaces. Other than the
> requirement that this space remain open 24 hours a day, the owners were left
> to promulgate their own rules; the only limit is that they be “reasonable.”

> Until last month, Brookfield’s rules barred skateboarding, in-line skating
> and bicycling, but said nothing about long-term occupation by any group. New
> rules, announced Oct. 13, permit passive recreation only and prohibit things
> like camping and lying down on the ground or benches if it interferes with
> others. The rules remain unenforced; no one is sure what will happen next.

------
PascLeRasc
A micro-version of this that really bothers me is sidewalk signs for
businesses. I think if someone can take up half the width of the sidewalk for
personal gain, it should be legal to take the sign.

~~~
toomanybeersies
At least in my city, businesses need a permit for a sidewalk sign, and there
are restrictions on the size of the sign. If they don't follow the rules, they
get a fine.

------
timthorn
The Manifesto Club has been campaigning on related issues for some years:
[http://manifestoclub.info/category/public-
space/](http://manifestoclub.info/category/public-space/)

An interesting map of regulations on actual public space in London:
[http://www.bannedinlondon.co.uk/map.html](http://www.bannedinlondon.co.uk/map.html)

------
usmeteora
in my hometown Charlotte, NC, the downtown had some of the worst crime growing
up, now many spaces that were completely ignored are beautiful parks,
futhermore, dozens of artists have received financial support for soemtimes a
lifetime of work or otherwise significantly reimbursed by the local banks that
utilize and maintain the public spaces and install artwork.

There is the obvious concept of the potential for abuse encompassing all
spaces so you could conceivably not ever be allowed to walk outside without
potentially being discriminated against, or utilizing artwork to convey
disturbing messages to try to influence public opinion, however, this can be
the cases for government owned lands in all countries as well, and it is their
private land, and I find the idea of not allowing people or organizations to
own private land just because the public who is sitting in the park created to
be used by them are noticing its not owned by the government, as an immediate
abuse of government power to intervene on weather companies can buy land, and
furthermore, choosing to take away their rights to do so because they are
creating public spaces for everyone and making them nicer, and its annoys the
public who benefits from it, as opposed to the perceived threat that one day
it could be abused. Everything that is currently legal can be potentially
abused, it just so happens in this case its not at all, and turning abandoned
dumps and warehouses into public parks, green spaces, open musuems, and
hosting events for the public on them.

in NYC, many of the parks when I worked there were previously total dumps and
havens for crime, entire areas of manhattan have been turned around and they
have the following effects

1\. free urban green space the government cant afford 2\. a clustering of
small businesses around parks who pop up and do very well catering to lunches
and outdoor cafes, 3. immense number of otherwise unrecognized groups being
supported such as fashion shows, concerts and other events companies choose to
support, public ice skate arenas 4\. paying otherwise unrecognized artists
millions to install their artwork in one of the most coveted places in
Manhattan, etc 5\. Making urban places desireable places to live and not just
work, which is im pretty sure what the goals are for progressive humanity

Furthermore, I've never personally observed people being removed for looking
scruffy, and I think in general you are removed for harrassing people, which
police would do anyways.

In the current area I used to live in, there are 28 parks. 27 of them are
complete dumps and noone takes care of them, particularly the young activists
in town. There is one nice gated park own privately by a private community,
who takes care of it, and you must live in the nieghborhood to have a key.
Given the rest of the city is ridden with crime, its a safe spot for families
to take their kids, or a women to read in the park without fear of beign a
victim.

Regardless, despite the 27 other parks which the local government has asked
hippie acitivists to come in and help clean etc, they are fixated on the idea
of the one private park and trying to make it public, without understanding
that the only reason its nice and noticeable is because its privately
maintained, and the only reason people want to hang out there is because its
safe, which is also because its privately maintained. Instead of taking the
concepts that make the park desireable, and putting in the work to show that
any of the other 27 complete dump parks could also become desireable and safe
for gentrified communities to inhabit, and then use that as proof of concept
that this park can be public and safe as well, and benefit more people, it
turns out thats more effort than they are willing to put in. They only want to
take the one nice park that is, without any plan on how to make the park not
turn into the other 27 which are basically abandoned places people are sacred
to go so, and as a female I would never go to alone. The government is too
broke to maintain them.

~~~
aaronchall
This is a beautiful indictment of the backwards thinking of left-wing
"activists".

We should promulgate a principle that until the left can demonstrate success
with public assets, they should not get more of them.

------
mrskeltal
Why do corporations acquire these kind of spaces? What do they gain from it?

~~~
7952
To build a development you need planning permission. This will often include
an agreement that public open space will be provided as an amenity for the
community. Sometimes this will be as mitigation for loss of other space. Or
just as a something the local authority wants. It is probably better than
stricly gated communities that exclude the public community, which is what the
councils want to avoid.

Also, the council may not have the funds to properly maintain the open space
if it was handed to them. It makes commercial sense for operators to do
landscape work themselves if that is something that matters to them. People
want retail, housing developments or high end office blocks to be attractive
and well maintained.

------
code4tee
This is being painted as somewhat of a negative thing but in many places this
is part of good urban planning. It's private property (generally with large
buildings) where as part of the agreement to build a giant building one also
needs to build and maintain some public space. Yes it's technically still
private property. Would people rather these landowners just put up a fence and
a keep out sign?

------
mdekkers
There is no "insidious creep" \- this is private land, and owners are -- or at
least should be -- free to allow what they like. be glad they turn some of it
in a space that can be enjoyed. If you don´t like it, you should turn to your
government to get them to buy it back, and make it real public space.

~~~
vidarh
Why should they be free to allow what they like? I don't know of any culture
where there is an assumption that private property is absolute - that's a
pretty extreme view.

On the other end of the spectrum, though, you will find plenty of examples of
cultures - and nation states - where there is a historic assumption that the
public good and/or liberty _requires_ substantial restrictions on property
rights, on the basis that land is a scarce resource and that while some
property rights are necessary, or even desirable for the economic benefits it
may bring, other such rights severely restricts the liberty of everyone else
by depriving them of access, or actively harms society (e.g. most places place
restrictions on carrying out various dangerous activities on your property
without appropriate permissions).

For my part, the shock of moving to London (from Norway) where many parks have
gates that are locked at night, was something I have still not quite gotten
over - 17 years later. It feels oppressive, after being used to open spaces -
most parks in Oslo have no gates or fences, and most of those that do have
large gaps and any fencing is largely to block specific routes. Part of this
is more public lands, part of it is a culture where fencing in semi-public
private spaces is largely still seen as offensive restrictions on others
freedom, helped by extensive rights of access ("freedom to roam") outside
urban areas that gets people used to expect to be free to access open spaces.

To me the idea of liberty in a society with strict property rights makes a
total mockery of liberty.

~~~
clarkmoody
I disagree with you and take the extreme absolute property rights view.

I believe that only through strong property protections can we experience
liberty: when one's ownership in property is secure, then one may plan for the
future. Conversely, when one's control of property is subject to the arbitrary
whims of the state, then one may not plan for the future, and economic growth
is not possible.

Many poor nations, for instance, have terrible land title systems, and the
land may be taken from you by the local magistrate if you are not the proper
color / religion / race or have not paid the proper bribes. Such is not a good
environment in which to experience liberty. Sure, your empty field will always
be open for the public to play football, but there will _never_ be a factory
in that field providing jobs and improving the general prosperity.

I won't attempt to tackle "the public good" or "actively harms society" here.

(I'm assuming that when you mention property that you mean "outside,
unenclosed spaces." Do you also extend your view to the buildings on property?
Offices? Private homes?)

~~~
literallycancer
I've been to most countries in Europe, but I have only seen large swaths of
land fenced off in the UK. So freedom to roam must be working well enough at
least somewhere. There are a few legitimate reasons to have fences e.g. to
along highways to keep out animals, but there is no reason why there couldn't
be a gate every few hundred meters.

~~~
vidarh
Actually most of Europe do not have freedom to roam in the legal sense, though
might have more limited forms of it, and customs certainly are for not fencing
everything in even when there is not explicit legal right of access. The UK on
the other hand _does_ have a legal form of freedom to roam that's very new,
but very limited in terms of what is covered, so it affects very little land.

Compare to the Nordic countries where e.g. it is actively illegal to e.g.
fence in a privately owned forest most places, and barring restrictions on
disturbing farm animals or ruining crops you can walk almost anywhere in rural
areas, freely pick berries (outside of planted fields), mushrooms etc. even on
private land, and even camp without needing to ask permission (but custom is
to ask where it is convenient if you want to do so e.g. near a farm).

Norway (the others might too, but it's Norway I know about) also have strict
legal restrictions on building near the sea and blocking access to beaches
etc. to protect public access.

