The term public space has multiple meanings depending on the scholarly discipline. One aim ofthis article is to develop a unified concept of public space that draws on varied pertinent literatures, while at the same time expanding the idea’s coverage to incorporate the impacts oftele vision and information technology. A second objective is to utilize the concept to explore empirically the practical possibilities for making public space more democratic, using for this purpose several photographs of actual public spaces.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benhabib, S. (1996). The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
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.
3.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society(2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
5.
Deutsche, R. (1996). Evictions: Art and spatial politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Edelman, M. (1995). From art to politics: How artistic creations shape political conceptions. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
7.
Goodsell, C. T. (1988). The social meaning ofcivic space: Studying political authority through architecture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
8.
Goodsell, C. T. (2001). The American statehouse: Interpreting democracy’s temples. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
9.
Grossman, E. (2000). Radical spatial practices/radical public spheres. Thresholds, 21, 7-12.
10.
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. New York: Columbia University Press.)
11.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Hansen, P. (1993). Hannah Arendt: Politics, history and citizenship. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
Hardin, R. (1999). Deliberation: Method, not theory. In S. Macedo (Eds.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement(pp. 103-119). New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Henaff, M., & Strong, T. B. (Eds.). (2001). Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
15.
Laponce, J. A. (1981). Left and right: The topography of political perceptions. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.
16.
Lasswell, H. D. (In collaboration with Merritt B. Fox). (1979). The signature ofpower: Buildings, communication, and policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
17.
Low, S. M. (2000). On the plaza: The politics ofpublic space and culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
18.
Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space(2nd ed.).New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
19.
Markus, T. A. (1993). Buildings and power: Freedom and control in the origin ofmodern building types. London: Routledge.
20.
Mattson, K. (1999, summer). Reclaiming and remaking public space: Toward an architecture for American democracy. National Civic Review, 88, 133-143.
21.
Melucci, A., & Avritzer, L. (2000). Complexity, cultural pluralism and democracy: Collective action in the public space. Social Science Information, 39(4), 507-527.
22.
Passerin d’Entreves, M. (1994). The political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London: Routledge.
23.
Schwartz, B. (1981). Vertical classification: A study in structuralism and the sociology of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Walzer, M. (1986, fall). Pleasures & costs of urbanity. Dissent, 33(4), 470-475.
25.
Warren, M. (2002). Deliberative democracy. In A. Caster & G. Stokes (Eds.), Democratic theory today (pp. 173-202). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
