5 ms·

>That’s all fine, but who pays? It’s true that large-scale urban redevelopment projects can be very expensive. However, engaging with private capital has proven

>That’s all fine, but who pays? It’s true that large-scale urban redevelopment projects can be very expensive. However, engaging with private capital has proven to be a viable strategy both in and outside of the UK. >Few years ago, when I was serving as an elected official in Moscow, I was the only outspoken YIMBY in my district. Once at the public hearings I was even accused of being bribed by the developer — just because I supported a private park project! So this is just a play to privatize public land? I like walkable areas and I really like areas that anyone can walk in. Who cares how walkable a space is when your ability to actually walk there is subject to the whims of a private individual?

xxpor 9y ago
There's plenty of examples of private spaces that have to remain open to the public. Usually it's done to get a zoning variance. An example: Trump Tower's lobby :)
dublinben 9y ago
Presumably this park would have been built on private land, so it wasn't going to "privatize" any public land.
sethhochberg 9y ago
"Privately owned public spaces" do indeed have a pretty mixed history... but if projects can be structured in such a way as to let a private entity provide support for public land, the results can be fantastic. The Central Park Conservancy or Bryant Park Corporation in NYC are great examples - public land, managed and principally funded by private entities, going way beyond what a public parks department could ever hope to accomplish on their own. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned-public-spaces-audit https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned... POPS projects can work if the government enforces them properly. They aren't replacements for public parks, but are better than nothing on a block that might otherwise not have any public space at all - and even public parks can benefit from private investment and control if done properly. Both the city and developers though should avoid the trap of thinking a POPS is a substitute for a public park. They serve different purposes.
- sp332 9y ago
  Another example: Occupy Wall Street was forced out of Zuccotti Park repeatedly for trespassing. That's because it's not really a public space.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Cities frequently limit opening hours for public parks and force out people who are present after hours.
    - sp332 9y ago
      "About half of the privately owned plazas are required to be open 24 hours a day, according to the Department of City Planning." This includes Zuccotti Park. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-... Edit: you know what, I'm not going to get into it here... it was years ago and people can look up what happened if they're interested.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    OWS was easily the most visible public protest in decades, going on for two months. Not sure that example exactly supports your thesis.
LeanderK 9y ago
as someone who was once part of various eco-activism movements, you really start to notice all the privately owned public places. Usually, all political rallies or demonstrations are not allowed there. I think this is really unhealthy for the society, as activism and rallies etc. are an important part of the political discourse. Public places need to stay public to allow them to reflect all the facets of society. Homeless people don't disappear because you ban them, pollution doesn't disappear because you ban public stunts trying to get the focus of the society, rallies raisinw awareness about the limitation of personal freedoms, surveillance etc. Living in a bubble of happiness is not the reality for most people and it's getting easier and easier to either don't notice or purposely ignore it. I understand you view, but a place only governed by law and not by private motives is something very valuable.
jpao79 9y ago
Here's an example of a 'privatized' but urban walkable village with 'public' spaces in Silicon Valley: http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstructed-walking-tour-santana-row http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstruct... It's pretty nice and seems like it'd be a nice place to live but I haven't lived there nor have a talked with anyone who has.
- nradov 9y ago
  The people who live at Santana Row generally like it … which isn't surprising since they're affluent enough to live somewhere else if they wanted to. Although it's entirely artificial it is a nice place to live with low crime (private security), decent property maintenance, lots of retail close by, and easy access to major roads.
- microtherion 9y ago
  If you want to try it, there is a Hotel that is part of it. The whole thing is definitely walkable, but ultimately it just feels like an outdoors shopping mall to me.

xxpor 9y ago

There's plenty of examples of private spaces that have to remain open to the public. Usually it's done to get a zoning variance. An example: Trump Tower's lobby :)

dublinben 9y ago

Presumably this park would have been built on private land, so it wasn't going to "privatize" any public land.

sethhochberg 9y ago

"Privately owned public spaces" do indeed have a pretty mixed history... but if projects can be structured in such a way as to let a private entity provide support for public land, the results can be fantastic. The Central Park Conservancy or Bryant Park Corporation in NYC are great examples - public land, managed and principally funded by private entities, going way beyond what a public parks department could ever hope to accomplish on their own. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned-public-spaces-audit https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned... POPS projects can work if the government enforces them properly. They aren't replacements for public parks, but are better than nothing on a block that might otherwise not have any public space at all - and even public parks can benefit from private investment and control if done properly. Both the city and developers though should avoid the trap of thinking a POPS is a substitute for a public park. They serve different purposes.

sp332 9y ago
Another example: Occupy Wall Street was forced out of Zuccotti Park repeatedly for trespassing. That's because it's not really a public space.
- nradov 9y ago
  Cities frequently limit opening hours for public parks and force out people who are present after hours.
  - sp332 9y ago
    "About half of the privately owned plazas are required to be open 24 hours a day, according to the Department of City Planning." This includes Zuccotti Park. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-... Edit: you know what, I'm not going to get into it here... it was years ago and people can look up what happened if they're interested.
- mseebach 9y ago
  OWS was easily the most visible public protest in decades, going on for two months. Not sure that example exactly supports your thesis.

LeanderK 9y ago

as someone who was once part of various eco-activism movements, you really start to notice all the privately owned public places. Usually, all political rallies or demonstrations are not allowed there. I think this is really unhealthy for the society, as activism and rallies etc. are an important part of the political discourse. Public places need to stay public to allow them to reflect all the facets of society. Homeless people don't disappear because you ban them, pollution doesn't disappear because you ban public stunts trying to get the focus of the society, rallies raisinw awareness about the limitation of personal freedoms, surveillance etc. Living in a bubble of happiness is not the reality for most people and it's getting easier and easier to either don't notice or purposely ignore it. I understand you view, but a place only governed by law and not by private motives is something very valuable.

jpao79 9y ago

Here's an example of a 'privatized' but urban walkable village with 'public' spaces in Silicon Valley: http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstructed-walking-tour-santana-row http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstruct... It's pretty nice and seems like it'd be a nice place to live but I haven't lived there nor have a talked with anyone who has.

nradov 9y ago
The people who live at Santana Row generally like it … which isn't surprising since they're affluent enough to live somewhere else if they wanted to. Although it's entirely artificial it is a nice place to live with low crime (private security), decent property maintenance, lots of retail close by, and easy access to major roads.
microtherion 9y ago
If you want to try it, there is a Hotel that is part of it. The whole thing is definitely walkable, but ultimately it just feels like an outdoors shopping mall to me.