Infraction-structures
Dalakoglou’s discussion of the private versus public – whereby the built environment grows for the sake of the private sector following Bourdieu’s “utopia of unlimited exploitation” – made me consider the recent discussion over “pseudo-public” space. Over multiple articles, The Guardian’s Cities-section and Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) have mapped areas of London such as parks and squares that despite “appearing public”, are privately owned by large corporations. Comment fields and opinion pieces express outrage over the loss of the perceived right to one’s city: in Garrett’s piece (linked below) the public space is compared to an organ and a potentiality in a manner not dissimilar to how technologies and infrastructures are discussed in this week’s readings. There has been some work on hostile or “anti-homeless” architecture- spikes, rails and racks installed to discourage rough sleepers and certain kinds of use. Similarly, the emergent pseudo-public space challenges citizens’ right to gather, protest, and traverse areas in a way that has effect on their potential to actuate movements of ideas and bodies. I think the topic could inspire a thoughtful analysis of the power exerted via infrastructure and access to networks, as well illuminating the moral or ethical, such as in attitudes towards the homeless.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/25/squares-angry-privatisation-public-space
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-poverty-undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile
Contributed by EveliinaKuitunen on 16/02/2018
