Garrett Sibinga

History of the American City

The Politics of Zoning and Privately Owned Public Spaces

The failures of privately owned public space have manifested themselves through the

protest of the members of the Occupy Wallstreet movement in Zucotti Park. The Occupy

movement engenders serious questions about the legitimacy of this privately owned public

space, and whether by interests of private corporations are compatible with needs of the public

sphere. In privately owned public spaces there is a unique intersection of three distinct realms of

society, with ownership residing in the private sector, user base of the public sphere, and the

generation through zoning enacted by the government.

In order to understand the politics of the public space that the movement has occupied, it

is important to form a definition, and examine the historical context of government and public

space. Public space provides universal access, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, or status, to the

population of a given society. This idea of “a space of appearance”1 historically limited to the

population with money, has persisted throughout history as a place where the public meet to act

together, bound by a common belief. Public space also has unique connotations as idyllic space

embodying the utopian cultural ideals of societies.

Beginning with the idea of the Agora, the hellenic term for the public forum in ancient

Greece , public space was an arena where honest and thoughtful critique of government action

1 Hannah Arendt Politics of Totalitarianism

1

was valued above all. The government in the Greek tradition was a non-representational

democracy, and the Agora was the stage, the setting, and the platform from which voting citizens

(propertied males) were to make their speeches and argue their points, in the drama of self-

governance. The theatrical nature of the space engendered this dialogic and dramatic approach to

government, empowering the public sphere, and edifying the utopian democratic city-state.2

As a backdrop for the bourgeois royal court in Renaissance France, the gardens of

Versailles were a structured and dominating forum in architecture. The space impressed upon the

people of the court the power and legacy of the ruling monarchy. Public space was used as a

representational arm of the the government, and the structure reflected the dominant nature of

the ruling party. It was no longer a forum for free speech, but an overwhelming monument that

discouraged dissent3. Reflecting the absolute power of the government, these spaces dominated

the public sphere, squeezing out any thoughts of conversation through inapproachable scale and

didactic use of monument. The rigidity of the planting, and the lavish glamour provided by the

sumptuous landscape were indicative of the power, and wealth of the government, embodying

utopian ideals of beauty.

Proliferated by the rise of the arcades in Paris, came a discursive culture (referred to as

offentlichkeit4) which involved the active participation of the public sphere in the shaping of the

government, through critique and discussion. The arcades presented a utopian cultural institution

where the bourgeois had a space of appearance. Not only were the arcades beautiful spaces, but

they were spaces that offered amenities, and the total freedoms of public space. The architectural

language of the arcades was that of iron, columns, and glass; of technology, democracy, and

2 Gregor Eichinger Urban Manifestos p. 413 Jurgen Habermas Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere4 ibid

2

transparency. This architecture provided space that inspired intelligent and rational discussion of

enlightened topics, leading to a vibrant, knowledgeable bourgeois culture, with considerable

power. This marked increase in the relevance of the public sphere eventually conspired with the

proletariat to topple the french monarchy, Ancien Regime, united through common goals of

wealth, freedom and inclusion. This discursive culture was the by-product of favorable spaces

for self expression. Not only was the arcade culture a space for discussion, but it was a space for

habitation, a public space that allowed a society to develop lifestyles and critical atmospheres

that otherwise could not have existed. Haussman’s rise to power, and his strategic destruction of

many of the arcades, signaled the decline of the discursive culture, further exacerbated by the

onset of the industrial revolution, and the rise of capitalist mass consumer culture.

Mass consumer culture, made possible by increased productivity and the

commodification of goods during the industrial revolution, effectively pacified the public sphere

through consumption. Public spaces became spaces of consumption, and the public sphere

became a passive one, ceding its advisory position with regard to government5. The increased

power of the private sector, in conjunction with the manufactured passivity of the public sphere

became the factors which tipped the balance of power in favor of the private sector. This

disempowered public was stripped of its voice, and had to be provided for as it consumed. The

government was now fending for the wellbeing of the disenfranchised consumer public.

It is the nature of the private sector and the competitive market to attempt to gain every

advantage possible through the exploitation of public resources. In the capitalist, consumer based

market, the industrial revolution spurred competition to new levels, and attempts to capitalize on

public resources became more pronounced than ever. In the phenomenon known as “The

5 Jurgen Habermas Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

3

Tragedy of the Commons6” the private sector will continue to exploit universal resources until

they are entirely depleted, resulting in decreased value in the long run as existing stock is

devalued. Space is not an exception to this rule, and as productivity and profits soared, space

endured increasingly fierce competition. The overbuilding of certain areas demonstrated this

competition distinctly, and subsequent decline of property values marked the overtaxation of the

resource. It became clear as the industrial revolution progressed, and manufacturing continued to

boom, that the laissez-faire approach to government had done great things for American

Industry, but if measures were not taken, New York City would tear itself apart through the

increasing density and disparity of its buildings and its citizens.

Greed in the private sector in New York City was rampant towards the end of the 19th

century, and public spaces became crowded and devalued. The de-valuation of private property

through marginalized quality of public space, was widespread. Caused by overbuilding, it was

extremely pronounced in areas inhabited by the most disenfranchised, and the most powerful. In

the building of tenements, developers squeezed as many units and as many immigrant families as

possible into tiny spaces in an effort to maximize profits. This exploitation created public spaces

that were crowded, unsafe, squeezed of all their value by overpopulation. The streets were filled

with immigrants who literally could not fit into their dwellings, attempting to derive some value

from the little space remaining to them. This rampant overbuilding created spaces that were

dirty, crowded and extremely de-valued.

6 Garrett Hardin Tragedy of the Commons

4

Mulberry Street, 1909 - Image from fordham.edu

On the other end of the spectrum, building on Wall Street had also become an exercise in

squeezing the most profit possible out of universal resources, at the expense of the public good.

Albert Levering's 1907 cartoon entitled “The Future of Trinity Church7” (fig. 1) describes the

growing concerns over dystopic growth, and the 1915 Equitable Building (fig. 2) depicts the

realization of this concern. The Equitable building rose 43 stories straight in to the sky from the

edge of its lot line, casting a shadow as large as seven acres at times on the buildings around it.

In 1916, in a revolutionary move, the city imposed the first ever comprehensive regulations on

building, attempting to create controls which would maintain adequate amounts of light and air

to the city streets, regulating the bulk of buildings and requiring them to setback as they rose.

7 Albert Levering Puck Magazine

5

Fig. 1 Future of Trinity Church- Puck 1906 Fig. 2 The Equitable Building -

wikipedia.org

The ordinance created regulations that protected the city from the greed of the private

sphere through the regulation of their use of public space. This was an unprecedented move and

halted the rapid and serious disruption of spatial quality that was being caused by unregulated

overbuilding. Not only had the city halted irresponsible building, but it had also laid claim to an

extremely valuable asset, from which it could derive a new revenue stream: space. This space

was not on the ground, nor was it really existing space, it was prospective built space and the

conception and manipulation of its value empowered the government and the public sphere in a

new way.

After its conception zoning aimed to protect the health, wealth, and aesthetics of the

6

public realm, through restriction and guidance of the growth of the private sector. Zoning

ordinances reflected theories of modernity, and visions of a progressive future from the time they

are passed, addressing contemporary concerns for the city. The document was drafted to

generate a future cityscape, a fascinating implication, which sometimes had unpredictable

results. Each major amendment to the zoning laws represented a generation of planners

attempting to enact legislation that generated a city akin to their ideal utopian vision. Implied in

the creation of utopias, is a break from the current tradition, a rejection of the contemporary

norms that leads to action, an attempt to distance themselves from antiquity (even in the recent

past)8. This idea of crafting the documents which would guide the growth of the city into utopian

forms and provide the best possible environment for the future was one that had not been tested

before. It was an exercise in generative programming on a massive scale.

The zoning ordinance of 1916 was overall a success, but after nearly forty years, it

became clear that there were new ideas about utopia, and that in a changing society the ideal

visions of the society of tomorrow were changing too. With the constant construction of larger

buildings, the existence of public space was stretched increasingly thin as all developable land

was converted into rentable, profitable, privately owned space. In a capital market, any space

which was not serving the direct functional utility of creating revenue was being wasted. This

mindset was leading to a barren and overdeveloped city, with its amenities funneled into towers

and off the street, no longer accessible to the public sphere, servicing only a removed private

sector.

The concerns over the diminishing streetscape amenities of the city, began a discussion

of possible measures to secure public space, accessible to the general population, on street level.

8 Walter Benjamin The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility p. 97

7

Public space is a controversial issue, and when the juggernaut of private ambitions and the

promotion of the public good collide through the institution of zoning, they have contrasting

goals, and service polarized populations. This space was supposed to increase the value of

associated real estate, and provide accessible open space to the general public. By leveraging the

value of the rights to undeveloped airspace against contributions to the wellbeing of the public,

planners were able to enact legislation which secured the creation of public spaces in densely

populated areas at no cost to the city. This plan seemed like an unbelievable stroke of genius for

the city, and they immediately attempted to capitalize on it. With over three hundred privately

owned public spaces, the city became both an experiment and a battleground as the story

unfolded.

Harrison, Ballard & Allen Plan for Rezoning, 1950 - nyc.gov

These privately owned public spaces did not turn out to be the utopian gardens in

between towers that planners had hoped for. The spaces failed the public sphere because they

were unprogrammed and uninspired. Developers were not following the spirit of the law, but

only the letter, capitalizing on valuable concessions made by the city, and giving back as little as

8

possible to the public. In a study done by Jerrold Kayden and the Municipal Arts Society in

2000, nearly forty percent of the plazas were given the quantitative rating of marginal. The

plazas were concessions made by private companies on the ground level to the public realm, in

exchange for benefits on the top floors of private buildings. Most of these companies preferred to

spend as much money as possible on the top floors (the most profitable floors) and then build the

public plaza as cheaply as possible. In many cases the plazas that did not even follow the

approved plans.9 These spaces of marginal utility began to populate the city, the physical

manifestations of the private sectors contempt for the well-being of the public. These firms then

laid claim to the unwanted marginally useful semi-public spaces, limiting access and introducing

rules to monitor usage.

The two goals of the space, are difficult and contrary, creating forseeable discrepancies

between public and private interests. The spaces are owned by private corporations, and so their

maintenance as spaces to increase real estate value supersede, in the mind of the caretakers, their

programs to provide accessible public space. If there are uses that the public desires, but which

cannot be fulfilled without decreasing the value of the space, they are prohibited by the

governing private corporation. This precedence of private sector programs creates spaces which

are prohibitive in nature, stating upon entry, long lists of don'ts. The institution of rules within

these spaces is not limited provided that they are “reasonable”. This ambiguity leads to

remarkable restriction of freedoms, and they are often pointed in their restriction of uses by

certain populations. If a population within the public is deemed to compromise value, they are

often targeted for exclusion.

9 Jerrold Kayden newyorktimes.com

9

List of rules at 787 7th Avenue Plaza

The utopian model proposed in the institution of the 1961 Zoning Ordinance was closely

linked to the theories put forward in Le Corbusier's Ville Radieuse, and the equation of open-

space with all things good in urban contexts. This influence created a lot of very bleak, deserted

urban spaces which offered little to no tangible utility. A break with the recent trend of super-

dense urban development, the planners hoped to create an ordered social landscape that

alternated between ultra dense high rises and open spaces. This utopia was an oversimplification.

The distillation of modernism had furnished planners with ideas about the function of urban

spaces that did not translate into the actual uses of the space or the language of developers.

Rather than qualitative assessments of value in these public spaces, each must be

assessed for its quantitative amenities in order to keep the developers honest. The conception of

value in urban spaces as numbers of trees, chairs, and tables did not create a system of vibrant

public spaces as planned, but rather bleak sterile concessions from developers which fell short of

catalyzing street life. While the 1961 zoning ordinance created an enormous quantity of space,

10

the quality of this space raised questions about the ideals of utopia in a consumer society.

Today the tokens of this utopian vision are quite varied, with some exemplary spaces, but

a disturbingly large proportion -forty percent by the calculation of Jerrold Kayden10- still remain

spaces of marginal utility. As spaces that neither offer appealing settings for relaxation and

discussion, or useful functional programs, many of them have receded from the Public sphere

entirely, returning to the limited access of their private counterparts. The only spaces that are

consistently well appointed and inviting are those that have something to sell. Walking into the

Sony Building plaza on Fifth Avenue, it is impossible to miss the luxurious snow-flake display

of Sony TV’s on the wall, or the illy coffee bars making use of the chairs and covered atrium.

Covered Atrium at the Sony Building- with Sony TV Display and illy coffee bar

10 Jerrold Kayden ARCHdaily

11

Bleak Public Plaza at 54th St. Commercial Space within Public Plaza

The protestations of the Occupy Wall Street Movement come from a split in the view of

utopian ideals with the planners. While the planners created much open, public space, the nature

of this space is dominated by private interest. At worst this spaces are bleak, and excluding, and

at best they are the representational arms of large corporations. In the spaces where corporations

stand to gain directly from the presence of the public, the furniture and atmosphere are quite

inviting, in contrast to any space where the public will not benefit the private sphere directly, and

they are all but excluded through the use of uncomfortable furniture and prohibitive rules.

Displays of corporate wealth such as the Sony Building, or the Trump Tower Nike Town at 590

Madison Avenue, directly aim at promoting consumption within the public sphere. These spaces

become monarchical in the nature of their space, representational spaces of the power of the

private sector, where the public is given things to consume and instructed to be passive.

The Occupy movement finds fault with this conception of the public as a herd of

mindless consumers, and uses Zucotti Park as a space of appearance. The message of the

Occupiers was simple, “we want to be heard.” The protest looked for democratic space where

12

they could voice their opinions and protest the conception of a passive public. As they began to

speak, projecting their message through loudspeakers and amplification, the private owners of

the space came down on them, citing prohibitive rules, banning the use of any amplification.

Undeterred, the protesters devised the human microphone, a system where a group of protesters

amplified the message of a comrade11. This human microphone, seems to capture the spirit of the

movement in a unique way, as they ask for a return to a primal democracy, a representative

democracy in the form of the Greeks, they ask for it in protestations shouted through an

amplifier of their peers.

The utopian vision that Occupy offered was not one of glamour, but one of democracy. It

showed a distinct break from the utopian vision of city planners, saying resolutely that they

would trade in the prohibitive, passive spaces that private corporations have given to the public

in the last 50 years, for a little more democracy. The occupiers of Zucotti park did not propose

solutions, or ways in which the government would function after revolution, rather it was a case

of disenfranchised members of society inserting themselves into public space in the attempt to

reclaim what they believe to be the lost dialogic qualities of public space.

The Occupy movement raises serious questions about the nature of our public space.

Where are the theaters and art galleries? Why is the public destined to be a passive consumer

pool for large corporations? Should the public be excluded if they are not willing to buy

something? Hannah Arendt’s conception of the space of appearance is contingent on material

wealth, as was the Greek’s representational democracy, and the society of the bourgeoisie. Is the

public sphere exclusive to the rich? It is possible that the Occupy movement has raised more

questions than it has answered. What these questions do however, is to codify arguments against

11 Reinhold Martin Occupy: The Day After

13

the limited scope of the public space built in the past fifty years, and make a strong argument for

removing the interests of the private sector, from the amenities of the public.

If the future of public space means subjecting my freedoms to the whims of private

corporations, I will go without. The token plazas of the zoning ordinance of 1961 are

exclusionary and prohibitive, and I would rather put on my rollerblades, pump up the volume on

my boombox, and feed the birds in the street, than sit quietly, eat my lunch, and swallow the

rules in a privately owned public space. The heart of the American people, and the pride of New

Yorkers rests in a freedom of self-expression, and unless we are prepared to abandon these rights

in our cities, privately owned public spaces are not adequate replacements for public space.

Works CitedArendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. [La Vergne, TN]: Benediction Classics, 2009. Print. Avena, Camille. "Tenement Houses and Progressive Solutions by Camille Avena." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_l/special_programs/honors_program/hudsonfulton_celebra/homepage/progressive_movement/tenements_32232.asp>. Benjamin, Walter, Michael William. Jennings, Brigid Doherty, Thomas Y. Levin, and E. F. N. Jephcott. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2008. Print. Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 162.3859 (1968): 1243-248. Print. Harrison, Ballard, and Allen. Plan for Rezoning the City of New York. 1950. MS. City of New York, New York, NY. Web. Kayden, Jerold S. Privately Owned Public Space: the New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley, 2000. Print. Kayden, Jerrold. "Meet Me at the Plaza." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/>.

14

Kayden, Jerrold. "Occupying Wall Street at the Public Private Frontier." Web. 10 Dec. 2011. Martin, Reinhold. "Occupy: The Day After." Design Observer. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. <http://designobserver.com>. "The Shocking Truth about the Crackdown on the Occupy Movement." The Guardian. 26 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <guardian.co.uk>.

15