This scribbling is about two different approaches to public spaces and city planning. It is a reflection on the benefits and disadvantages of ‘managing’ and regulating the behaviours of people in the open. It is about what an individual can enjoy within these two ways of ordering a city.
It is purely based upon my own subjective thoughts and experiences at the moment of it being written.
The original messy square
Imagine a town square that was built before the modern communication technology era. The purpose of the square itself is for people to meet and interact with each other. It has been maintained with this idea in mind. It is loosely policed, and all sorts of people use it for all sorts of activities and businesses.
It is a very lively, at times dangerous, public space. While it has its nice and lovely side, it is also ugly, smelly, and partly derelict. It offers some calm and green vegetation, away from the city noise, but it is not without its own perils.
The essence of this square is for people to meet other people, whoever they are, whatever they do.
The cleaner replica square
This square was intended to replicate the good sides of the original square, without the downsides. Maybe the essence of the original square was even meant to be cloned into this square.
It is nicer in appearance; probably greener and cleaner as well. It is certainly safer, as it is regularly patrolled and equipped with surveillance cameras. You will find it very populated at times (mostly with people taking selfies) and deserted at other times.
Everything looks under control in this square: there even is a place with authorized graffiti to replicate the wild ones of the original square.
The essence of this square is to be a postcard. It projects a positive image of the city and is a perfect background for visitors taking pictures.
So what?
Both squares have their purpose. However, the idea of cloning the essence of the first one into the second one is an illusion. They are intrinsically different in nature. This is why people behave differently in them: a museum is not the same as a high street.
I do not disparage the second square; however I feel the first one serves more basic needs for the local people. There is an organic feeling to the first one that is very much needed in a city. Without it the city feels soulless.