In this paper, I outline and test a framework for analyzing control and freedom in urban public space. The framework, based on a model of the commons developed by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, assesses control across three layers: physical, code, and content. I deploy the framework in a case involving a controversial proposal to erect a six-foot-high iron fence around Philadelphia’s iconic Independence National Historical Park. The framework proves a robust conceptual and operational means for analyzing how intended actions impact personal and group freedoms.
AurigiA.De CindioF.2008. Augmented urban spaces: articulating the physical and electronic city. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
2.
BenklerY.2000. From consumers to users: Shifting the deeper structures of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access. Federal Communications Law Journal52:561-79.
3.
BenklerY.2000. From consumers to users: Shifting the deeper structures of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access. Federal Communications Law Journal52:561-79.
4.
BennS.GaussG.1983. The public and the private. In Public and private in social life, edited by BennS.GaussG., 3-30. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
5.
Benton-ShortL.2007. Bollards, bunkers and barriers: Securing the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25: 424-46.
6.
BlackmarE.2006. Appropriating the commons: The tragedy of property rights discourse. In The politics of public space, edited by LowS.SmithN., 49-80. New York: Routledge.
7.
BollierD.2002. Silent theft: The private plunder of our common wealth. New York: Routledge.
8.
CarrS.FrancisM.RivlinL.StoneA.1992. Public space (Environment and behavior). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
9.
CoaffeeJ.2009. Terrorism, risk and the global city—Towards urban resilience. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
10.
DayK. (1999). Introducing gender to the critique of privatized public space. Journal of Urban Design4:155-78.
FraserN.1991. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Habermas and the public sphere, edited by CalhounC., 109-42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
GrahamS.2010. Cities under siege: The new military urbanism. London: Verso.
14.
HardinG.1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science162:1243-48.
15.
HowellO.2005. The “creative class” and the gentrifying city. Journal of Architectural Education59:32-42.
16.
IvesonK.2007. Publics and the city. Oxford: Blackwell.
17.
KaydenJ., New York City Department of Planning & Municipal Art Society. 2000. Privately owned public space: The New York City experience. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
18.
KohnM.2004. Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. New York: Routledge.
19.
LefebvreH.1968. Le droit á la ville. Paris: Anthropos.
20.
LefebvreH.1991. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
LessigL.2001. The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House.
22.
LowS.TaplinD.ScheldS.2005. Rethinking urban parks: Public space & cultural diversity. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
23.
LowS.SmithN. (Eds.). 2006. The politics of public space. New York: Routledge.
24.
MadanipourA.1999. Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities?Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26:879-91.
25.
MerrifieldA.1993. Place and space: A Lefebvrian reconciliation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers18:516-31.
26.
MillerK.2007. Designs on the public: The private lives of New York’s public spaces. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
27.
MitchellD.2003. The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. New York: Guilford Press.
28.
NPS (National Park Service). 2007. Visitor use and security: Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell (Finding of no significant impact). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
29.
NPS (National Park Service). 2010. Superintendent’s compendium of designations, closures, permit requirements and other restrictions imposed under discretionary authority. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
30.
NémethJ.2006. Conflict, exclusion, relocation: Skateboarding and public space. Journal of Urban Design11:297-318.
31.
NémethJ.2009. Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space. Urban Studies46:2463-90.
32.
NémethJ.2010. Security in public space: An empirical assessment of three US cities. Environment and Planning A, 42:2487-2507.
33.
NémethJ.HollanderJ.2010a. Security zones and New York City’s shrinking public space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research34: 20-34.
34.
NémethJ.HollanderJ.2010b. Closing Times Square is a bad idea. Pocono Record, June4.
35.
NémethJ.SchmidtS.2007. Toward a methdology for assessing the security of publicly accessible spaces. Journal of the American Planning Association73:283-79.
36.
NémethJ.SchmidtS.2011a. The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design38:5-23.
37.
NémethJ.SchmidtS.2011b. Publicly accessible space and quality of life: A tool for measuring the openness of urban spaces. In Quality of life community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management. Social indiactors research series, edited by BudrukM.PhillipsR., 41-66. New York: Springer.
38.
OstromE.1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
39.
RuddickS.1996. Constructing difference in public spaces: Race, class and gender as interlocking systems. Urban Geography17: 132-151.
40.
SchmidtS.NémethJ.BotsfordE.2011. The evolution of privately owned public spaces in New York City. Urban Design International16.
SmithN.LowS.2006. Introduction: The imperative of public space. In The politics of public space, edited by LowS.SmithN., 1-16. New York: Routledge.
43.
SorkinM. (Ed.). 1992. Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang.
44.
StaeheliL.MitchellD.2008. The people’s property? Power, politics, and the public. New York: Routledge.
45.
TaplinD.ScheldS.LowS.2002. Rapid ethnographic assessment in urban parks: A case study of Independence National Historical Park. Human Organization61:80-93.
46.
TownsendA.2008. Public space in the broadband metropolis: Lessons from Seoul. In Augmented urban spaces: articulating the physical and electronic city, edited by AurigiA.De CindioF.Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
47.
VarnaG.TiesdellS.2010. Assessing the publicness of public space: The Star Model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design15:575-98.
48.
WarrenR.2002. Situating the city and September 11th: Military urban doctrine, “pop-up” armies and spatial chess. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research26:614-19.
49.
WhyteW.1988. City: Rediscovering the center. New York: Doubleday.
