3 ms·
> Pseudo-public space – squares and parks that seem public but are actually owned by corporations – has quietly spread across cities worldwide. As the Guardian
by weberc2 9y ago
> Pseudo-public space – squares and parks that seem public but are actually owned by corporations – has quietly spread across cities worldwide. As the Guardian maps its full extent in London for the first time, Jack Shenker reports on a new culture of secrecy and control, where private security guards can remove you for protesting, taking photos ... or just looking scruffy
This is confusing. Why is the Guardian trying to make private property sound scary and oppressive? Why should I expect that I can use someone else's property however I like and without permission from the owner?
- nerdponx 9y agoBecause it's duplicitous on the part of the property owners, and it also probably isn't a welfare-maximizing use of space. Whenever I see a corporate campus with a huge manicured lawn, it raises my blood pressure.
- weberc2 9y agoThere's nothing duplicitous. A private entity is providing a free service along with terms of use. Why should anyone think they're entitled to another person's property? > it also probably isn't a welfare-maximizing use of space. Probably not, but that doesn't make the property any less private. Anyway, it hardly sounds like the corporations' terms are unreasonable, or significantly worse for "welfare" than those of a public park.
- a-saleh 9y agoThere might be certain expectation in society that certain kind of property is public, which usually means, that you can use it within certain limits, even if you don't own it. Often this is because the property would be owned by i.e. state/city, and that would provide citizens certain freedoms, such as freedom to gather on a public square.
- weberc2 9y agoI understand that many people might see a park and assume it's public because frequently parks are publicly commissioned, but that doesn't explain why I should feel afraid or oppressed. Even if I thought a park was public and then escorted away with the explanation that the park was private, I wouldn't (and shouldn't, contrary to the Guardian's implication) feel like my rights were infringed upon.
- a-saleh 9y agoWell, in my country, there is this a "Freedom to roam" that guarantees me the ability to travel through private parcels (with some exemptions, i.e. you can walk through the middle of somebody's pasture, unless there are animals you could disturb). Same thing applies for forests (as long as I am not logging, or driving off-road). If somebody would want to escort me from forest while I am foraging berries, or hiking or something, I would (according to our civil code, should) feel like my rights were infringed upon. Based on this experience, I would like, if there is similar right given for things in cities that appear as public spaces, even if they are a privately owned parcels. I understand that if you i.e. live in the US, this might see m weird, because the right of owner to restrict access to their land seems to be stronger there.
- michaelmrose 9y agoWhen liberty attaches to ownership and all property including the rented space your bed is sitting in now belongs to someone else it is scary and oppressive you just haven't noticed.
- weberc2 9y agoYes, it's unnerving that your security is bound up in your relationships with the people and groups around you, but this is the bedrock of every successful society. Anyway, my point isn't "why is private property scary?", it's "why are privately-owned parks uniquely scary?".