The more and more I think about public spaces, the more and more I’m confused as to what constitutes them. I was in downtown LA the other day in a not so friendly neighborhood. The streets were filled with graffiti and the pavements were filled with people who were high on a variety of different drugs. I contrasted that to the neighborhood where my parents live in. Their neighborhood is very suburbanesque and it shields itself from the outside world by being caged in behind bars. We talked a lot about public spaces in class and how a public space is somewhere that’s home to expression. Why is it that the streets of Los Angeles, certain ones of course, fulfill that requirement but other neighborhoods don’t? Why is it that you can express yourself, the message you have, and what drives you on the walls of Downtown Los Angeles but in Beverly Hills, Culver City, and certain parts of Santa Monica you must refrain from doing so? It got me thinking about who lives where and how economic status might play a factor. In the more affluent locations there isn’t really room for self-expression and I don’t think it’s considered a public space the way the streets in less affluent locations are considered. A lot of what is considered public space depends on who is included and who is excluded. A public space therefore can’t be anywhere that is owned or home to the affluent because they won’t make it readily available to the public.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2015
Categories |