Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1st Amendment to the US Constitution)
Democracy depends on the free and open discussion of ideas, and the right to free speech and peaceful assembly depends on the public space. In antiquity, proto-democratic space was the agora, a place to discuss and deliberate the good. In the city plazas, streets, sidewalks, parks, squares, piazzas, and other spaces act as these places for events.
What has happened to these public spaces in the last fifty years? The suburban space is essentially designed around the car. Jackson's suburbs, and those of many other US cities, began an exponential rate of growth after the introduction of the interstate in the late 60's. Along with the automobile came a decline in sidewalks and increase in gated communities. Instead of increased interaction of ideologies, suburban sprawl has encouraged clustering. Groups of like-minded individuals have assembled together to fight the culture war. Voting lines can be drawn to match spatial divides.
Sprawl has given rise to a particular suburban institution to which we must pay careful attention - the shopping mall. The shopping mall makes that which was once public space into private, controlled territory. In "Reclaiming and Remaking Public Space: Toward an Architecture for American Democracy" Kevin Mattson writes:
Though it draws citizens to a public square of sorts, the shopping mall is de facto a private space - run by a management company and owned by investors. Due to this private status, many mall managers believe they have no responsibility toward the U. S. Constitution and its protection of free speech. . . . Unlike civic spaces of yore the shopping mall was created to encourage the private act of consumption. In fact, contemporary architects design the mall for shopping - and shopping alone. (National Civic Review, Vol 88: 2, Summer 1999, 134-35)
The legal debate (ex. Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner) over whether malls, indoor and out, are public or private space has continued to rage, with some states erring more on the side of the protection of private properties and others more on the side of free speech.
What about Renaissance at Colony Park, Dogwood, Northpark, just to name a few? Although the debate is important, doesn't the larger problem seem to be that of the architect, the urbanist, and the developer rather than the lawyer and the judge?
What is to be done? Is the solution New Urbanist communities, such as Seaside, FL or Lost Rabbit in Madison, MS, which are created from scratch to be "ideal towns"? What about the older core of the city, Downtown Jackson and State St? New Urbanism still has an air of omnipotence about it that, in contrast, no one can claim over Jackson. In a consumer society, does the privatization of the public square scare us anymore?
Image from ChuckJr2000 on Flickr
Jan Mattiace, the marketing director for Mattiace Properties (one of the developers, along with H. C. Bailey Companies), described Renaissance by saying "You feel like you're in a city." The real question is, "are you?"
