the concept of public space and its democratic manifestations

http://arp.sagepub.com/The American Review of Public Administration

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/4/361The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0275074003254469 2003 33: 361The American Review of Public Administration

Charles T. GoodsellThe Concept of Public Space and Its Democratic Manifestations

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Public Administration

can be found at:The American Review of Public AdministrationAdditional services and information for

http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/4/361.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2003Version of Record >>

by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10.1177/0275074003254469 ARTICLEARPA / December 2003Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE ANDITS DEMOCRATIC MANIFESTATIONS

CHARLES T. GOODSELLVirginia Tech

The term public space hasmultiplemeanings dependingon the scholarly discipline. One aim of this arti-cle is to develop a unified concept of public space that draws on varied pertinent literatures, while at thesame time expanding the ideas coverage to incorporate the impacts of television and information tech-nology. A second objective is to utilize the concept to explore empirically the practical possibilities formaking public space more democratic, using for this purpose several photographs of actual publicspaces.

Keywords: public space; public sphere; civic space; urban space; public architecture

The term public space is frequently used in academic writing, but its meaningsare diverse. Authors in different disciplines employ the term quite differently. Themost striking contrast is between those who refer to it as the social realm of unfet-tered discourse onmatters of public concern and thosewho conceive of it as a phys-ical, public place, such as a town square or urban plaza. At the same time, consid-erable commonality is found in these uses, suggesting that the term is amenable to amore clarified definition. The features in common are the openness of public space,its importance to democratic life, and perceptions of its degeneration under condi-tions of modernity.

In this article I seek to expand the academic value of the public space concept byproposing a unified concept of public space that combines concern for its social andpolitical implications with features of its design. I then amplify this concept toincorporate the phenomenon of media broadcasting from public space and theemergence of information technologies that transform it. The revised concept isthen used to explore theways and extent towhich actual public spaces are or are notdemocratic. This is accomplished by means of assessment standards derived fromthe unified definition. These, in turn, are applied to nine photographs I have takenover the years that illustrate various contrasting physical settings. An underlyingpremise of the analysis is that although some public spaces in America run counter

Initial Submission: January 16, 2003Accepted: March 24, 2003

AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 33 No. 4, December 2003 361-383DOI: 10.1177/0275074003254469 2003 Sage Publications

361


to the democratic ideal, others display positive features that should be encouraged.In short, the degeneration of public space is not seen as inevitable.

THE DEMOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS

In political and moral philosophy a name frequently associated with publicspace is that of Hannah Arendt. To her, public space is the sphere of public actionessential to democratic citizenship. It is the realm in which citizens engage in col-lective deliberation and in joint action on behalf of the public good. Unfortunately,she contends, modernitys psychological and economic forces have pulled citizensaway from public space to a private world of introspection and economic pursuit,destroying the distinction between public and private. Alienation from the publicworldmust be reversed, Arendt argues, along two dimensions. One is an expressiveaspect called the space of appearances, by which she means individual speechacts and attempts at persuasion on public matters. It is in this dimension of publicspace that citizens disclose their identities and establish relations of reciprocity andsolidarity with each other. The second dimension of public space is the commonworld, by which she means the artifacts, institutions, and settings of public actionthat separate us fromnature and provide a context for our public life.Arendts inter-est in the subject stems primarily from her concern for countering the individualsseparation from this common world. Thus she does not dwell on the specific prop-erties of public space as such (Hansen, 1993; Passerin dEntreves, 1994).

The philosopher Juergen Habermas is likewise closely associated with the gen-eral idea of public space, a term rendered by translators in his case as public sphere.In an encyclopedia article on the topic, he describes the public sphere as the realmof conversation and discussion by private individuals on matters of public interest.The discourse ranges from intimate and personal discussion to open dialogue in thepublic prints. A key feature of the public sphere is universal access. Anyone shouldbe able to enter it, and communication within it is ideally free from any constraints.This includes being capable of rendering independent judgment and criticism,including criticism of the intentions and actions of the state (Habermas, 1974).

Habermas (1989) book-length treatment of the subject is The Structural Trans-formation of the Public Sphere. Its thesis is that under postfeudal conditions of ris-ing capitalism and the emerging liberal state, the public sphere became a criticalintermediary between the civil society and the state. Its participants included edu-cated public leaders, debaters in intellectual salons, members of political clubs, andeditors of partisan newspapers. This bourgeois public sphere was transformed,however, by the modernizing forces of mass democracy, commercial advertising,the public relations concept, and the welfare state. It became a semiprivate, semi-public realmwhere reasoned debate over matters of common import is replaced bystrategic manipulation of opinion. Informed criticism of the state is overshadowedby private demands for economic privilege and for social rights. Parliamentarydemocracywhose rational deliberation over state policy once operated at the very

362 ARPA / December 2003


heart of the public spherebecame a rubber-stamping, posturing institution preoc-cupiedwith achieving popular approval of predetermined plans (Habermas, 1989).

These ideas of Arendt and Habermas have generated much subsequent com-ment. Sayla Benhabib points out that the views of the two are parallel but not iden-tical. Arendts public space is primarily an arena of political action, whereasHabermass public sphere is essentially a medium of public communication. Aswe have seen, both thinkers are preoccupied with decay in democratic vitality.Benhabib herself is not entirely pessimistic, however. She contends that publicspace potentially performs two functions: a holistic one that brings forth cohe-sive realizations about what should be done, and an epistemic function that pro-duces the enlarged mentality that transforms multiple self-interests into a recog-nized common interest (Benhabib, 1996, pp. 200-201). Rosalyn Deutsche, afeminist theorist of public space, is less sanguine. She anticipates that this kind ofemergent consensus will inevitably constitute a masculine-inspired suppression oftruly democratic dialogue. She tells us that public space should be regarded asinherently empty of substantive content, in that its only source of legitimacy is lib-erated discourse itself, not the outcomes therefrom. The prospect of reaching a con-sensus within it is the product of an unacceptable unity vision of space that seeksto halt conflict and drive out dissent (Deutsche, 1996).

Another issue under debate is whether parliamentary institutions are an ade-quate space for deliberative democracy. As noted, Habermas regards parliamentarydemocracy as part of the public sphere in the past, but not today. Similarly, RussellHardin states that in view of the catch-phrase posturing needed in legislative poli-tics to mobilize interest groups and raise campaign funds, parliamentary debateshould be regarded as antithetical to sincere deliberation (Hardin, 1999). AlbertoMelucci and Leonardo Avritzer criticize legislative deliberation further by claim-ing that a legislative aggregation of valueswill always leave out extreme groups. Byits nature, representative democracy overlooks the right of individuals not to berepresented at all. Moreover people should be able, if they wish, to drop out of thepolity entirely (Melucci & Avritzer, 2000). In an overview of the current state ofdemocratic theory, MarkWarren points out that whereas some theorists reject rep-resentative government as unacceptably restrictive and nonegalitarian, othersbelieve democracy depends on taking advantage of whatever forms and forums ofpolitical interaction that exist, whether within the framework of constitutional lib-eralism or outside the purview of the state (Warren, 2002).

THE URBAN PLANNERS

In addition to political philosophy and democratic theory, a second principalsource of literature on public space is urban planning. This perspective on the sub-ject is concerned with creating open physical places within cities that will ade-quately function as sites of public use and citizen interaction. Streets, pedestrianways, parks, plazas, malls, squares, and shoreline beaches are seen as vital to a

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE 363


sense of community identity and urban well-being. Several values are seen asserved: allowing residents to escape the stress and hubbub of city life; promotingconnectedness among citizens and groups; helping to create a sense of communityidentity; and furnishing a site for political dialogue and protest. A leading text onthe subject describes public space as the stage uponwhich the drama of communallife unfolds. Such places are seen as a social binder for current residents and a con-nector to the past through accumulated personal memories and showcased histori-cal monuments (Carr, Francis, Rivlin, & Stone, 1992).

At the same time,most urban theorists concede thatAmerica is not a caf societylike Europe inwhich citizens spend hours over coffee in an outdoor setting. Indeed,a common concern in the field is that American urban plazas and similar places arenot sufficiently used, and urban designers ask themselves what can be done to cor-rect the situation. Recommendations include making spaces more human scale,tying them closer to commercial shops, incorporating suitable venues for concertsand art shows, and having them seem physically safe (Marcus & Francis, 1998).

Another line of argument is that not much can be done to enliven center-cityspaces because of long-term trends in residential living. The great migration to thesuburbs causes downtown public spaces to be abandoned except for businessemployees at noon and the homeless at night. Locomotion across the suburbantopography is not on foot but by automobile. The enclosed shopping mall replacesthe public plaza, placing consumption rather than community at the center of atten-tion (Mattson, 1999). Alone this same line, Michael Walzer has argued thatwhereas at one time Americans entered public spaces for multiple reasons includ-ing people watching and just being there, now they go to such places only for pre-planned, single-minded purposes, such as shopping, attending a concert, or con-ducting personal transactions with government. This pattern undercuts the socialspontaneity of urban life, Walzer says, and also diminishes public spaces capacityto educate the populace in civic deportment, such as becoming tolerant of culturaland ethnic differences (Walzer, 1986).

Anthropologist Setha Low points out that the urban plaza is of value not only forrecreation, convenience, and community identification but also in the politicalsense as well. Drawing on an ethnographic study of the plazas of San Jos, CostaRica, she concludes that vital urban public spaces are essential to the maintenanceof a participatory democracy.Diverse political agendas become embedded in them.This means their design should be influenced by the people as well as the regime.However, she says, government communicates implied political messages byerecting barricades and removing undesirables. To allow antiregimemessages, sheinsists, the spaces should be completely open so as to serve as one of the last demo-cratic forums for dissent in a civil society (Low, 2000, p. 240).

Thus much of the urban planning literature on public space presents, in effect, adeterioration thesis of public space that is not unlike the decay seen by democraticphilosophers. YetMichael Brill departs from this orthodoxy by deridingmost writ-ings on urban public space as a literature of loss infected with nostalgia and



mourning. The Euro-urban ideal is romanticized, he says, influenced by periodmotion pictures that depict lively festival markets and exhilarating street-cornerspeeches. Actually, he contends, much of this public life was never lost because itnever happened (Brill, 1989).

Taking us on a different tack of innovative thinking, Manuel Castells contendsthat urban physical space, regardless of its past role, is now fast becoming irrele-vant. The information technology revolution, he says, is causing the industrial cityand its operating base of physical place to be supplanted by the informational citythat rests on flows of electronic exchange among network nodes and hubs. Elitesstill rule, but by controlling networks, not territory (Castells, 2000).

THE ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSTS

A third major source of literature on public space is from the field of politicalanalysis of public architecture. In thiswork, a common theme is how the design andsymbols of physical space reinforce political power. Murray Edelman, for exam-ple, points out how the sanctity of theWhite House Oval Office inspires awe in thevisitors mind and, for the moment at least, suppresses doubts over its currentincumbent. At amore prosaic level, government departmentsmaintain front officesandmeeting rooms whose size and dcor reinforce the impression of just authority.Edelman contends that such effects go beyond interiors to exteriors. Fortress-likebuildings like the Pentagon and FBI headquarters in Washington present them-selves as a reassurance to the public that the dangers of war, crime, and terrorismwill be overcome. The very monumentality of significant public buildings itselfexudes a sense of clarity, order, timelessness, and predictability with respect to theauthority of government. At the same time, the emotive significance of architectureis subjective, Edelman points out. Spaces like legislative halls and courtrooms sym-bolize legitimacy and equality to some but to others stand for state oppression orelite domination (Edelman, 1995).

Thomas Markus offers a somewhat different analysis of the relationship ofbuildings and power. In an examination of monasteries, courthouses, and concerthalls, he concedes that these structures confer power over the abbots, judges, andconductors active there by means of alters, benches, and podia. At the same time,however, these asymmetries are accompanied by equities, for example commonlocker rooms and cafeterias. More important, the buildings house the organizationas a whole and thereby incorporate all its members in a universal way regardless ofindividual status. Hence the structure itself provides a tangible symbol of the com-mon bond of membership (Markus, 1993).

Inmy own study of another building type, theAmerican state capitol, I similarlynoted that prominent public buildings can exude exalted state power before thehumble citizen and enable that citizen to identify emotionally with his or her ownstate. In other dualities, the statehouse is at the same time an imposing and open



edifice, a daily symbol of sovereign authority yet also representative government,and a display case for furniture and decoration of high culture on one hand andobjects and memorabilia associated with popular culture on the other. As a conse-quence, visitors to these temples of democracy find the temple part awesome butthe democratic part reassuring (Goodsell, 2001).

Political analysis of public architecture explores various correlates of power.Marcel Henaff and Tracy Strong, in their book Public Space and Democracy,emphasize the importance of human vision to power. They recall that St. Augustinenominated three faculties as essential to the essence of being human: memory,which recalls the past; will, which constructs the future; and sight, which visualizesthe present. In politics, Henaff and Strong argue, visualization of the presentlyexperienced situation is physically staged in a way calculated to augment the pres-ence of power. A principal way this is done is to place key figures at a central pointin the audiences line of sight. This is the theatrical aspect of power, examples ofwhich are given in the same volume by Marcel Detienne. In ancient Greece, theagora where political deliberation occurred was located in the center of the city. InFrance following the Revolution, the National Assembly convened in a semi-elliptical space with the speakers tribune at front center. Anthropologists who visitEthiopian tribes find that elders deliberate and spoils are divided within a centralcircle of rocks surrounded by the people (Henaff & Strong, 2001).

Other physical dimensions of power also seem to possess pan-cultural meaning.In a survey of 16 civilizations and 60 cultures, political scientist J. A. Laponcefound that, in all but a handful of examples, the physical position of up wasregarded as superior to that of down. This may be explained, he says, by a featureof the human form whereby the sense organs and brain are concentrated at the topof the body (Laponce, 1981). Another student of the subject, sociologist BarrySchwartz, speculates that the association of height with superiority stems from thefact that children must look up to their parents (Schwartz, 1981). In a study I con-ducted of city council chambers, I found that in spaces constructed prior to 1920 thepresiding officer commands amore elevated position than all others on the floor, asmeasured by platform heights, sight-line angles, and chair-back heights. These dif-ferentials were largely eliminated in later rooms built at a more democratic time(Goodsell, 1988).

Harold Lasswell, a pioneering political scientistwho became interested in archi-tecture late in his career, proposed that authoritarian rulers tend (more often thandemocratic ones) to withdraw architecturally from the body politic vertically andhorizontally, for example to mountain strongholds. In addition, he speculated, theymay be less inclined to perforate their buildings with large windows and doors(Lasswell, 1979). With respect to physical openness, Elizabeth Grossman offers aself-styled radical analysis of architectural space by linking Habermass accessiblepublic sphere concept to the building designs of the architect Zaha Hadid. Herbuildings seemingly eliminate the inside-outside distinction throughmeans of con-fusing and irregular wall arrangements, tilted floor planes, ruptured edges, trans-parent surfaces, and interior replications of exterior features (Grossman, 2000).



COMPARING THE THREE LITERATURES

As a first step toward developing a unified concept of public space, I analyzemore systematically the bodies of literature just covered. This is done by means ofthree categories: (a) the concepts principal reference, (b) the central focus of itsinquiry, and (c) the primary issues confronted. Table 1 summarizes the results ofthis analysis.

Aswe have seen, public spacemeans different things to different people. For thephilosophers of democratic discourse, public space (or public sphere) is a socialrealm, an arena of human action and communication. It is public in the sense that itis accessible to all and, under ideal conditions, directed to matters of common con-cern. For some democratic theorists, public space is a realm in which only privateindividuals and groups of the civil society are active, although other commentatorsinclude state actors, such as deliberating lawmakers. Arendt and Habermas diag-nose in modern society tendencies for the definitional integrity of public space tobreak down. ForArendt, this is the consequence of self-regarding introspection andthe pursuit of personal gain, a form of alienation from the common world. ForHabermas, it is the result of the manipulation of public opinion by advertisers andofficials, reinforced by preoccupationwith economic privilege and personal rights.

By contrast, in the urban planning literature public space is defined in physicalterms. It is an open sitesuch as a street, sidewalk, plaza, or parklocated in themidst of the city. These largely exterior spaces aremeant for public use, allowing orfacilitating relaxation and recreation, the formation of social bonds, the establish-ment of connections to the past, and the creation of community identity. For themore politically oriented urban scholars, public space also performs as a stage fordissent and opposition to the establishment, via rallies and demonstrations. Manyobservers of traditional downtown urban spaces regret diminishment in their useand their replacement by suburban malls that possess a commercial orientation.

Interpreters of the political meanings of architecture also define public space inphysical terms, but their concept is centered on the public building, such as thecourthouse, the city hall, legislative capitol, or departmental headquarters. Muchsuch interpretation is directed to the placement, design, and furnishing of ritualinterior spaces inside these buildings, places I call civic space (Goodsell, 1988).Such space is usually open to the public and hence directly affects the relation-ship between the governors and the governed. Examples are legislative chambers,


TABLE 1 A Comparison of Literatures that Treat Public Space

Political Philosophy Urban Planning Political Interpretationand Democratic Theory and Design of Architecture

Reference A social realm An urban site A public buildingFocus Public discourse Urban life Social meaningIssues Alienation and state

sponsorshipRevival or replacement Intimidation or

identification


courtrooms, and outer offices of executives. This literature also examines the exte-rior facades and settings of government buildings as potent image-producing edi-fices accompanied by monuments and other devices of enhancement.

Turning to the central focus of inquiry in the three literatures, for the philoso-phers of democracy the principal subject of interest is public discourse. Thismay besummarized as unimpaired discussion about matters of collective concern and onbehalf of the public good. All ideas are game, all agendas are accepted, and all inter-ested partiesmay participate. The nature of the discourse ranges frompersonal con-versations to informal discussion to formal debate. Active participation in publicdiscourse lies at the heart of citizenship and hence is of sacred import in the array ofdemocratic values. Although some democratic theorists insist that public discourseremain uncontaminated by a state presence, others see state involvement as poten-tially legitimate, for example in policy debates between parties and candidates andin legislative deliberation over statutes.

For urban theorists, the focal idea regarding public space is its potential contri-bution to the quality of urban life. Plazas, parks, and commons are places wherecrowded city dwellers can linger, escape stress, come together in close interaction,enjoy an aesthetic experience, and engage the citys symbolic essence. The sym-bolic importance of urban public places is demonstrated by how pictures of themare often found in public relations brochures. Such places constitute physical state-ments of community pride and self-identification.

To political scientists studying the public spaces of architecture, the centralfocus is their social meaning. That is to say, scholars seek to interpret the societalsignificance of the built political environment. This environment expresses embed-ded historical or regime values, affects the conduct of contemporary users, andprojects images for consumption by passing viewers. These meanings are, how-ever, difficult to decipher, in that they change over time, are the subjective conse-quence of human perception, and are difficult to measure. For the most part, con-clusions must be based on empirical observation, informant reports, and reasonedspeculation. They may also in some instances be tied to cross-cultural evidencerelated to such spatial specifics as visual centrality, superior height, and interveningbarriers.

The third category of cross-cutting analysis among the literatures is the primaryissues confronted. In political philosophy, the key issue forArendt regarding publicspace is alienation of the individual from the public world. The forces of modernityare seen as having drawn people away from active participation in public space,thus undermining if not destroying the citizen role. To regain active involvement inthe public sphere, Arendt says, the individual must reappear in the sphere ofappearances and engage the common world.

As mentioned, a key issue for public discourse is whether it can, under certaincircumstances, be sponsored by the state. Many democratic theorists would regardsuch sponsorship as antithetical to the core idea of uninhibited conversation. Offi-cial rhetoric and parliamentary deliberation are seen as contrived, artificial,stacked, and confined to the received worldview. Others, such as Habermas, would



accept such debate as potentially within the realm of the public sphere if it meetscertain standards, such as relative openness.

As for issues of public space for the urban planners, paramount in their view isthe perceived loss of well-used urban public places at downtown centers. One pos-sible answer is to attempt to revive the downtown urban space of old. This would bedone through a combination of physical redesign and the construction of newspaces that incorporate an integrated cluster of commercial and entertainment facil-ities. A more drastic answer is to replace urban physical space with cyberspace.Castells (2000) tells us this is now fast occurring, as the territorial city is trans-formed into an information city. His space of flows is limited not to e-mail andInternet chat rooms but could also include cell phones, instantmessaging, facsimiletransmission, teleconferencing, computer conferencing, and a variety of othertechnologies.

In the literature on political interpretation of public architecture, themost promi-nent issues raised center on political power. Studies emphasizing that places such astheWhite House or Pentagon inspire awe conclude that a primary function of pub-lic space is to intimidate the populace. In addition to monumentality and ornate-ness, this is accomplished by placement techniques of centrality, elevation, and bar-rier that raise the status of the powerful and segregate them from the mass. Thispractice sheds pessimistic light on aspirations for democracy. Just as discoursetheory visualizes a deterioration of citizenship and the urban planning literaturemourns the weakening of community, analyses of public architecture tend toperceive a dark, antidemocratic side to the public structures of a supposedly freesociety.

A somewhat different interpretation is that great public buildings and their grandpublic interiors also satisfy the citizens urge to be proud of the civic polities towhich they identify. This can be translated into appreciation if not admiration ofgrand symbols of civic identity. Indeed, a common pattern at major symbolic edi-fices such as the Statue of Liberty and Washington Monument is that they are vis-ited daily by hoards of citizens.

A UNIFIED CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

I now develop a unified concept of public space. In so doing I draw from thethree literatures described but, by necessity, chart some new ground. A number ofnew definitions of public space are proposed, and they are given in Table 2.

A good place to begin is the basic meaning of the term. Democratic theoristsconceive of public space as a social, not physical, realm of action and communica-tion. Urban planners visualize it as largely exterior places in the cityscape, withcyberspace an added possible form. Political scientists who interpret architecturethink of public (or civic) space in terms of the facades and interiors of publicbuildings.



I propose a generic albeit specific definition of public space that draws onthese disparate orientations but goes beyond each. My definition is a space-timecontinuum for political discourse. By this phrase I mean the capacity for a con-nected and interactive human process of communicative experience. Discourse insuch a setting is connected in the sense that all participants can see and/or hear eachother on an immediate basis. Mutual presence in the space binds them together forthis purpose. The continuum is also interactive, by which I mean the capacity forparticipants to hear and react to each others comments immediately, without sig-nificant delay. This temporal aspect of the continuum permits spontaneous reac-tions back and forth. The discourse is political in that it concerns the nature andfuture of the community and the public good.

The traditional form of space-time continuum that creates public space is thecommon physical place, such as a meeting hall or town square. In this place-boundpublic space all persons present are within direct visual and audible range. Theirmutual contact is face-to-face, within a reasonable distance. Probably this form ofpublic space is the most efficient in terms of achieving true connection and inter-activity. This is the kind of public space contemplated by the urban planners fortheir plazas and the architectural analysts in their ceremonial rooms.

The generic definition of public space as a space-time continuum also coversdiscourse made possible by contemporary information technologies. Televisedconferencing systems, Internet chat rooms, comprehensive-distribution listservs,openWeb logs or blogs, and computer-based oral discussion programs permit peo-ple who are dispersed geographically to enter into a space-time continuum. Suchelectronic public space is unassembled, to use an old term for civil service exami-nations. As such, it bears some resemblance to the idea of public space as socialrealm that is associated with the democratic theory literature. The difference is thatit is more concertedly connected and is restricted to interaction within a concen-trated period of time, thereby excluding the long-term evolution of ideas as occursduring protracted media coverage. I make this distinction because, although


TABLE 2 Proposed Definitions of Public Space

Generic definition of public space: A space-time continuum for connected and interactive politicaldiscourse.

Place-bound public space: The above consisting of face-to-face interaction in a single physicallocation.

Electronic public space: The above achieved at dispersed geographic locations through informationtechnology.

Extended public space: The above when broadcast by television, radio, Internet, or other means.Pure definition of democratic public space: The above when open to all, unrestricted as to conduct,

and unconditional as to participation.Practical definition of democratic public space: The above when public access is encouraged, the

status of state authority is muted, barriers between governors and governed are minimized, stagingis arranged by the people as well as officials, and conditions conducive to deliberation arefostered.


breadth of scope can have its advantages, to be useful for theory and research a uni-fied concept needs reasonably sharp focus.

Increasingly, discourse that occurs in place-bound public space is broadcast forexternal consumption by television or radio coverage. The proceedings of elec-tronic public space can be transmitted to a wider audience as well. Public broad-casting alters importantly the nature of the space-time continuum. The space is, ineffect, extended to an adjunct audience that can see or hear but not participate. Thisfact becomes known to those within the public space, causing them to speak or actwith the outsiders in mind. As a consequence, those engaged in the discourse mayhave their attention drawn from the business at hand to the imagined perceptions ofthe external audience. Hence the reach of public space is greatly extended but at thesame time its nature is changed. I call this variant of the concept extended publicspace.

In abstract terms, a pure definition of democratic public spaceif we abide bythe precepts of the democratic theorists and urban plannerswould be: open to all,unrestricted in character, and unconditional as to participation. In short, it can beentered by any person, and those present can conduct themselves as they wish.Practicalities will inevitably interfere to complicate this absolute, however. Withrespect to place-bound public space, it may not be possible to get a room or plazabig enough to accommodate everyone. This physical limit is theoretically over-come in electronic public space, but even here problemsmay arise from inadequatenotification or unknown addresses. As for allowing unqualified conduct withinpublic space, any intelligible discourse would seemingly require some moderatorrole, some agenda formation, and ways to allocate speaking time fairly. A trulydeliberative discourse, in which participants focus on a common problem and hon-estly exchange opinions and stand ready to learn as the dialogue flows, will in prac-tice require conscious encouragement.

So, what in practical terms must a definition of democratic public spaceentail? One aspect is to come to terms with the states association to public space.As we have seen, this is a contentious issue in the philosophical literature. A largeportion, probablymost, of public space as hereby defined is privately organized andconducted. Its degree of democratic manifestation can and should be normativelyassessed. At the same time, the democratic quality of state-associated public spaceis obviously critical. Indeed, because of the states unique authority and capacity totranslate discourse into policy, the issues it raises with respect to democracy arecrucial.

One question is whether government itself will own or control the public space,either place bound or electronic. Clearly, this arrangement privileges those inauthority. The state is in a position to promote constructions of public space thataccentuate its power, a major point made in political interpretation of architecture.This can be achieved by theatrical staging in place-bound spaces ormanipulation ofthe leader function in computer or teleconference programs. It should be quicklyadded, however, that it is conceivable that representatives of the state who are con-sciously committed to a democratic ethos may wish to do the opposite, that is



moderate their dominance in favor of a relatively egalitarian situation and process.They may also choose to move the discourse to a private or neutral site, such as anongovernment auditorium or Web site. However, even if this happens, it does notguarantee a level playing field, so to speak. The mere presence of a governmentrepresentative can tip the scales by encouraging deference or reducing resistanceto the official line.

Probably, as a practical matter, the goal of perfect equality is impossible whenthe state is directly involved. This is certainly true for place-bound public spaceslocated in government buildings. The implication of this for democracy is thatforplace-based space at leastmany of the ideas generated by the analysts of publicbuildings are germane to a study of democratic public space. Inasmuch as physicallocations also serve as the backdrop for both broadcast images, these ideas have awider relevance than merely the interiors or grounds of government buildings.Thus the discussion that follows on operational standards for achieving democraticcontent in public space draws heavily on this literature. I will leave it to other schol-ars using other literatures to analyze the design settings of electronic public space,such as the layout of Web sites and organization of chat rooms.

The architecture literature, as I have noted, in effect poses several key questionsfor considering the democratic content of place-bound public space. Is open accessportrayed by clear entrances, ample fenestration, and generous interior dimen-sions? Is participation encouraged by downplaying the conveyed superior status ofofficial power in terms of height, barriers, and separation? Are excessively theatri-cal presentations of leaders forgone in favor of emphasis on more egalitarian stag-ing? Is staging accomplished by the governed as well as the governing? Are furni-ture arrangements in spaces intended for deliberation actually conducive to thatform of interaction?

It is my contention that ameaningful exploration of what specific adaptations ofpublic space might flow from these questions requires that we go beyond generalprinciples to actual cases, as is done in the law. My method for this is to examineseveral photographs I have taken at various locations in the United States in recentyears. In selecting the images, contrasting situations have been selected: exteriorspaces as well as interior, contrived settings as well as those informally arranged,and spacesmore consistent with the democratic ideal and those less so. Needless tosay, the nine photographs offered that appear in this article do not explore the sub-ject systematically but only open it up.

MANIFESTATIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE

The first example, shown in Figure 1, is the executive cabinet room of the stategovernment of Florida. It is located on the executive floor of the state capitol in Tal-lahassee. The room is not open in the Habermasian sense. Although anyone canenter the space on passing a security check, public access to it is not encouraged.The room is small and can accommodate only a limited number of visitors. The low



ceiling and absence of windows make it psychologically confining. The chairsshown are for the press, giving the impression that presentations are not directed tothe seated audience so much as the readership of newspapers. In other words, it is asetting for press conferences, not public interaction.

The Florida chamber exudes an authoritarian air. The seven cabinet membersare seated behind a common bench, which presents them as a monolithic whole.The bench is raised and deep, thus emphatically separating the office holders fromthe onlookersthey are withdrawn vertically and horizontally, in Lasswellswords. Those seated below are given an upward sight line by which to view this su-perior level of power. The cabinets status is enhanced further by high-back chairsand prominent nameplates. The governors position is at the center, theatricallyfocused below the state seal.

Figure 2 shows the central atrium of Scottsdale City Hall in Arizona. Unlike theFlorida cabinet room, it is a big, high space. Its degree of openness allows detectingthe entrances to several departments, including the city managers office. Thesedestinations are well marked by signage, and pathways to them are clearly evident.Barriers are minimal, and elevated heights exist because of upper-floor locationonly. Theatrical qualities are largely absent, with operating features of the recep-tionists workspace plainly visible. Plants add a human touch.

Not only are barriers few in Scottsdale City Hall, but boundaries separating thespaces functions are indistinct. Although clearly identified, the individual depart-ments are not sharply delineated. Although the photograph does not reveal it, alarge sunken floor lies behind the receptionist area that constitutes the citys council


Figure 1 Cabinet Room in Florida State Capitol, Tallahassee


chamber. Architect Bennie M. Gonzales intended the atrium to suggest a kiva, thepartially underground chamber used for centuries by the Pueblo Indians for elderdeliberations (Goodsell, 1988). Thus this all-purpose room is (in addition to theheadquarters of the city bureaucracy) the communitys principal space for publicdiscourse. Hence the politics-administration dichotomy is erased in a spatial sense.

Figure 3 is Boston City Hall, located on a large brick plaza in the GovernmentCenter area at the heart of the city. Its constructionwas completed in 1969, as part ofan urban renewal project intended to eliminate Scollay Square, considered a disrep-utable locale for bars and brothels. Although the building itself was designed by atrio of then-unknown architects, the paved plaza onwhich it restswas created by thefamous I. M. Pei. It is said his model for the project was the shell-shaped Piazza delCampo in Siena, Italy, which is ringed by busy cafs and attracts thousands of tour-ists in the summertime (Carr et al., 1992).

Unfortunately, Peis Boston plaza did not work out. With no cafs or shopsnearby, it is deserted at night and on weekends. Its main purpose is to highlight theoverbearing, top-heavy structure of city hall. The buildings upper two floors, usedfor administrative offices, jut outward to form a crown of projecting, relativelysmall apertures. At the next level below is a more perforated political level of may-oral offices and council chamber. The voluminous, open space situated below isbeyond human scale and dominated by the stark massiveness overhead. Enteringthis covered court to transact business on the floors above is like being thrust intothe bowls of a civic fortress. I do not know if this space is used for protest meetings,but if so the demonstrators would feel oppressed by the weight of authority


Figure 2 Interior Kiva Atrium of City Hall in Scottsdale, Arizona


overhead. This exemplifies to an extreme the elevation and separation of officialpower from the people.

Figure 4 shows the pedestrian mall outside the Michigan State Capitol in Lan-sing. It was built by the state to create a unified complex for the old capitol buildingand newer state office structures. Functionally, the mall is a public space compara-ble to a municipal plaza, in that it is open to public visitation. In practice it worksquite well. On pleasant days, civil servants use it to walk at noontime and eat lunchoutdoors. It also affords aboveground circulation routes among the buildings. Thelatticed facades of these structures define its outer boundary. Subdivisions of spaceare partially formed by large pieces of sculpture, akin to Grossmans rupturededges. As abstract geometric objects, the pieces do not, however, make social orhistorical connections in the manner of park statues or monuments.

The Lansing mall is useful for the staging of demonstrations. The personsshown in the photograph are state workers preparing for a public protest on behalfof smokers rights. In academic language, the protesters are, in effect, enteringArendts space of appearances, although on behalf of their own rather than soci-etys interests. Unlike Lows San Jos plazas, no police barricades are present. Thelegislatures regulations require all demonstrations to be scheduled in advance,however, creating the possibility of disapproval.

In Figure 5we see yet another demonstration, this time indoors at theOhio state-house in Columbus. In this instance the cause is environmental protection, a popu-lar theme of protest on behalf of the perceived public good. The protestors are con-gregated just feet away from the formal locus of power, the governors office. The


Figure 3 The Boston City Hall and Surrounding Plaza Designed by I. M. Pei



Figure 4 Demonstrators Preparing for Smokers Rights Rally in Lansing, Michigan

Figure 5 Demonstration Outside Statehouse Office of the Governor of Ohio


hallway in which they are gathered is the axial corridor for the buildings first floor,which means they are situated on a busy and visible pedestrian avenue.

The purpose of the Ohio statehouse gathering is not to attract the attention ofpassersby, but the lens of the television camera. Being staged is what we callextended public space. The leader of the group is being televised as he presents thegroupsmessage. Presumably experienced inmedia politics, he stands before a jut-ting marble pilaster to achieve theatrical focus. When in range of the camera, por-traits of past governors hanging on the wall behind add gravity to the scene. Theyoung demonstrators grouped around convey numerical strength to the televisionaudience and impart an identification with the young. All participants carry thesame sign with its simple wording and ominous symbol, enriching further the tele-vision picture.Although done by the people and not the authorities, this stagingwasskillfully executed.

Figure 6 portrays extended public space staged by the political establishment.The location is a legislative committee room in the Connecticut legislatures officebuilding in Hartford. As with the Florida cabinet room, it is windowless and has aclosed feeling. The space is dominated by a circular committee bench, whose func-tion is to separate, identify, and dignify committee members when the room isbeing used for hearings. The benchs fine woods imply the ample resources of offi-cial power. At the moment shown, no hearings are scheduled, and the room is dou-bling as a television studio, an arrangement normally unavailable to citizen lobbies.


Figure 6 News Conference in Connecticut Legislative Office Building, Hartford


TheConnecticut scene no doubt looks good on television. The lighting and cam-eras are professional. The formally attired speaker stands before a raised lecternfestooned with microphones. Colleagues and aides grouped around the perimeterof the bench show establishment support. A theatrical focus is subtly completed bythe state seal on thewall behind. For themoment this chamber (constructed specifi-cally for interactive deliberation on public policy) is a setting for one-way externalmass communication.

The next scene, Figure 7, shows the Hall of Representatives in the New Hamp-shire statehouse in Concord. In this instance, a public space built for making policyis being used for its intended purpose. Yet the halls characteristics are more likethat of an auditorium than legislative chamber. The reason is the unusual size of theNew Hampshire lower house, which at 400 constitutes the biggest state legislativebody in the country. As its membership grew over the decades, the room had to beexpanded twice. These citizen solonswhose numbers in relation to residents is aratio of less than 1:3,000meet every second year and proudly earn only $200 perbiennium, a figure unchanged since 1889 (Goodsell, 2001).

Because of the bodys size in relation to its space, the NewHampshire hall doesnot provide conditions conducive to independent and interactive deliberation.Members are jammed together such that unless located on aisles they cannot leavetheir seats to address the body or confer with colleagues. They possess no individ-ual standing from a furniture standpoint, not even a swinging leaf attached to their


Figure 7 New Hampshire House of Representatives Convened in Special Session


chair on which to write. In that the seats are unassigned, a fixed plate identifyingtheir name and district is impossible. Moreover, seating is not by political party,hence partisan conduct is discouraged. In short, the room fosters planned presenta-tions from the rostrum rather than independent action or partisan debate.

A sharply contrasting example of legislative space is pictured in Figure 8. It isa photograph of the Michigan senate in session in its chamber in the capitol inLansing. The body has only 38 members, permitting a more generous use of floorspace than in New Hampshire. There is sufficient room for lots of furniture. Dis-tances between the pieces of furniture and a flat floor permit members to walkaround freely and to confer with colleagues. The rooms configuration is essen-tially square, meaning that despite its large size no desks are relegated to a remotebackbench area. As is customary in state legislative chambers, the desks arearranged in a shallow arc facing the rostrum, creating a convergence of sight lineson the speaker.

The Michigan accommodations promote the independent importance andstanding of each senator. Desks and chairs are permanently assigned, with a name-plate designating the senator. More than simple pieces of furniture, each ensembleincorporates a computer and communication console as well as aides chair. Mem-bers chairs swivel, allowing senators to watch each other in all directions aroundthe room. They address the body directly from their seats as well as from the ros-trum, encouraging a spontaneous flow of deliberation. Democrats sit on the right


Figure 8 The Senate of Michigan in Session at the State Capitol in Lansing


side of the aisle (presiders perspective) and Republicans on the left, thereby pro-moting party consciousness.

The final photograph, Figure 9, is of the city council chamber in Santa Rosa,California. The council meets in a sunken, circular space 50 feet in diameter cen-tered in a square council building 60 feet on each side. From a symbolism stand-point, this floor plan achieves the basic configuration of themandala, considered inmany Eastern religions as a representation of the cosmos. Council members sit at aconcave dais, as do the administrators across from them. Hence, furniture-wise,both groups are depicted as corporate bodies. Their matching tables and commonelevation portray them as equivalent in status.

A noteworthy feature of the Santa Rosa chamber is its treatment of citizens. Inthe New Hampshire Hall of Representatives, members of the public were seatedupstairs in a rear balcony, similar to a theater. In theMichigan senate, they sat in anupstairs gallery embracing three sides of the room. These locations, separated fromthe legislative floor, signify a passive observer role for citizens. In Santa Rosa, bycontrast, visitors are seated in what might be described as a half-circle amphithe-ater, raked at 25 degrees. That puts them at about the same level of the officials andwithin themandalas circle. Overflow crowds, as shown in the photograph, are per-mitted along the sides and backs of the mandalas square, but not directly behindcouncil members. The concave dais and half-circle amphitheater together form arough circle, united in the same symbolic cosmos (Goodsell: 1988).


Figure 9 City Council of Santa Rosa, California in Session at City Hall


SUMMARY AND FINAL REFLECTIONS

In this article I have argued that a unified concept of public space, drawn fromthe literatures of political philosophy, urban planning, and architectural interpreta-tion, can be used to create a coherent and usable theoretical vehicle. I further con-tend that such a concept can be cast in such a way as to incorporate two upheavalsexperienced by public space, the television revolution of the 20th century and theinformation revolution of the 21st century. One revision is to recognize the pres-ence of amassive television audience of millions that observes but does not partici-pate. The other is to conceive of public space as not just unitary physical space butalso sets of dispersed electronic connections, made possible by information tech-nology. The generic notion of space-time continuum permits us to take both ofthese steps without losing the concepts analytic power.

The normative theme of the article is the need to democratize public space to theextent possible. The impetus for this is not cynicism about the establishment or fearof an authoritarian state, but a recognition that the state is in a position to dominatepublic discourse if conscious counter-efforts are notmade. Although the settings ofpublic spacewhether place bound or electronicwill not in the long run deter-mine the vitality of our democratic discourse, they can set in motion constructiveinfluences. This potential, if realized, backs away from the pessimism found inmuch of the literature on public space, according to which its democratic value hasirretrievably degenerated.

Effective efforts in this direction must, however, go beyond abstract principles,such as total openness and lack of restriction. In addition, they must accept thestates participation in, although not monopoly of, public space. The normativeobjective then becomes to achieve feasible operational goals for a democratic pub-lic space. These include an encouragement of access, a muting of authority, a min-imization of barriers, unofficial as well as official staging, and an attempt to createconditions favorable to deliberation.

Exploring the possibilities, complexities, and subtleties involved in applyingthese goals cannot be done in an empirical vacuum. Concrete manifestations mustbe employed to comprehend the range of issues and to stimulate thought. In thisarticle, I begin such a process by studying photographs of building interiors, out-door plazas, television stages, and legislative chambers.

What was found in these examples? Four of them, namely the Florida cabinetroom, Boston City Hall, the Connecticut committee room and the NewHampshirestatehouse, have much to be desired from a democratic standpoint. The first isclosed and controlling, the second overbearing and oppressive, the third contrivedand establishment-oriented, and the fourth presumably egalitarian but in realitymanipulative.

However, the remaining five examples hold out promise for reasonable attain-ment of democratic public space, and it is from them that we can take some



encouragement. Scottsdale City Hall is characterized by openness and accessibil-ity, a fluid and muted depiction of authority, and substantial elimination of people-government barriers. The Michigan capitol plaza is a defined, accessible, inhab-ited, andwell-located place for demonstrations, even though theymust be approvedin advance. The Ohio statehouse corridorwith its distinguished backdrops andproximity to the center of poweris ideal for televised citizen protest. In theMichi-gan senate, the generous yet contiguous space and prestige-conferring furniture areconducive to independent deliberation among equals. In the Santa Rosa councilchamber dual democratic values are advanced: equality between elected officialsand professional managers, and integration of the observing citizenry into a sym-bolic community of interest.

In short, by unifying divergent literatures and enlarging the scope of our topic,the opportunities for solid and relevant research on public space are expanded.Then too, by turning our attention from abstract generalizations to concrete cases,the normative search for democratic public space is advanced to where those whodesign and use public space can be stimulated to think more deeply about thesubject.

REFERENCES

Benhabib, S. (1996). The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Brill, M. (1989). Transformation, nostalgia, and illusion in public life and public place. In I. Altman &

E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public places and spaces (pp. 7-29). New York: Plenum.Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Deutsche, R. (1996). Evictions: Art and spatial politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Edelman, M. (1995). From art to politics: How artistic creations shape political conceptions. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Goodsell, C. T. (1988).The social meaning of civic space: Studying political authority through architec-

ture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Goodsell, C. T. (2001).TheAmerican statehouse: Interpreting democracys temples. Lawrence:Univer-

sity Press of Kansas.Grossman, E. (2000). Radical spatial practices/radical public spheres.Thresholds, 21, 7-12.Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article. New German Critique, 3, 49-55.

(Reprinted in 2000, Democracy: A reader, R. Blaug & J. Schwarzmantel [Eds.], pp. 509-514. NewYork: Columbia University Press.)

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category ofbourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hansen, P. (1993).Hannah Arendt: Politics, history and citizenship. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Hardin, R. (1999). Deliberation:Method, not theory. In S. Macedo (Eds.),Deliberative politics: Essayson democracy and disagreement (pp. 103-119). New York: Oxford University Press.

Henaff, M., & Strong, T. B. (Eds.). (2001). Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Laponce, J. A. (1981).Left and right: The topography of political perceptions. Toronto,Ontario:Univer-sity of Toronto Press.



Lasswell, H. D. (In collaborationwithMerritt B. Fox). (1979). The signature of power: Buildings, com-munication, and policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Low, S. M. (2000).On the plaza: The politics of public space and culture. Austin: University of TexasPress.

Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (2nd ed.).New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Markus, T. A. (1993).Buildings and power: Freedomand control in the origin of modern building types.London: Routledge.

Mattson,K. (1999, summer). Reclaiming and remaking public space: Toward an architecture forAmeri-can democracy. National Civic Review, 88, 133-143.

Melucci, A., & Avritzer, L. (2000). Complexity, cultural pluralism and democracy: Collective action inthe public space. Social Science Information, 39(4), 507-527.

Passerin dEntreves, M. ((1994). The political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London: Routledge.Schwartz, B. (1981). Vertical classification: A study in structuralism and the sociology of knowledge.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Walzer, M. (1986, fall). Pleasures & costs of urbanity. Dissent, 33(4), 470-475.Warren, M. (2002). Deliberative democracy. In A. Caster & G. Stokes (Eds.),Democratic theory today

(pp. 173-202). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Charles T. Goodsell is emeritus professor of public administration at the Center for PublicAdministration and Policy of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. In addition to several works in publicadministration and political economy, he has authored two books (see references) and severalarticles on social and political aspects of public architecture. In recent years, his photographshave appeared on the covers of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory andthe Journal of Public Affairs Education.He received the Dwight Waldo Award for his contribu-tions to the literature in public administration in 2003.



the concept of public space and its democratic manifestations

Documents

openness of public space

public place

concept toincorporate

revised concept isthen

democratic life

american society

fromthe unified definition

information technology