The American Review

of Public Administration
http://arp.sagepub.com/

The Concept of Public Space and Its Democratic Manifestations

Charles T. Goodsell
The American Review of Public Administration 2003 33: 361
DOI: 10.1177/0275074003254469
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/4/361

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Public Administration

Additional services and information for The American Review of Public Administration can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/4/361.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2003

What is This?

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

10.1177/0275074003254469
ARPA
Goodsell
/ December
/ THE CONCEPT
2003
OF PUBLIC SPACE

ARTICLE

THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE AND

ITS DEMOCRATIC MANIFESTATIONS
CHARLES T. GOODSELL
Virginia Tech

The term public space has multiple meanings depending on the scholarly discipline. One aim of this article is to develop a unified concept of public space that draws on varied pertinent literatures, while at the
same time expanding the ideas coverage to incorporate the impacts of television and information technology. A second objective is to utilize the concept to explore empirically the practical possibilities for
making public space more democratic, using for this purpose several photographs of actual public
spaces.

Keywords: public space; public sphere; civic space; urban space; public architecture

The term public space is frequently used in academic writing, but its meanings
are diverse. Authors in different disciplines employ the term quite differently. The
most striking contrast is between those who refer to it as the social realm of unfettered discourse on matters of public concern and those who conceive of it as a physical, public place, such as a town square or urban plaza. At the same time, considerable commonality is found in these uses, suggesting that the term is amenable to a
more clarified definition. The features in common are the openness of public space,
its importance to democratic life, and perceptions of its degeneration under conditions of modernity.
In this article I seek to expand the academic value of the public space concept by
proposing a unified concept of public space that combines concern for its social and
political implications with features of its design. I then amplify this concept to
incorporate the phenomenon of media broadcasting from public space and the
emergence of information technologies that transform it. The revised concept is
then used to explore the ways and extent to which actual public spaces are or are not
democratic. This is accomplished by means of assessment standards derived from
the unified definition. These, in turn, are applied to nine photographs I have taken
over the years that illustrate various contrasting physical settings. An underlying
premise of the analysis is that although some public spaces in America run counter
Initial Submission: January 16, 2003
Accepted: March 24, 2003
AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 33 No. 4, December 2003 361-383
DOI: 10.1177/0275074003254469
2003 Sage Publications

361

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

362

ARPA / December 2003

to the democratic ideal, others display positive features that should be encouraged.
In short, the degeneration of public space is not seen as inevitable.

THE DEMOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS

In political and moral philosophy a name frequently associated with public
space is that of Hannah Arendt. To her, public space is the sphere of public action
essential to democratic citizenship. It is the realm in which citizens engage in collective deliberation and in joint action on behalf of the public good. Unfortunately,
she contends, modernitys psychological and economic forces have pulled citizens
away from public space to a private world of introspection and economic pursuit,
destroying the distinction between public and private. Alienation from the public
world must be reversed, Arendt argues, along two dimensions. One is an expressive
aspect called the space of appearances, by which she means individual speech
acts and attempts at persuasion on public matters. It is in this dimension of public
space that citizens disclose their identities and establish relations of reciprocity and
solidarity with each other. The second dimension of public space is the common
world, by which she means the artifacts, institutions, and settings of public action
that separate us from nature and provide a context for our public life. Arendts interest in the subject stems primarily from her concern for countering the individuals
separation from this common world. Thus she does not dwell on the specific properties of public space as such (Hansen, 1993; Passerin dEntreves, 1994).
The philosopher Juergen Habermas is likewise closely associated with the general idea of public space, a term rendered by translators in his case as public sphere.
In an encyclopedia article on the topic, he describes the public sphere as the realm
of conversation and discussion by private individuals on matters of public interest.
The discourse ranges from intimate and personal discussion to open dialogue in the
public prints. A key feature of the public sphere is universal access. Anyone should
be able to enter it, and communication within it is ideally free from any constraints.
This includes being capable of rendering independent judgment and criticism,
including criticism of the intentions and actions of the state (Habermas, 1974).
Habermas (1989) book-length treatment of the subject is The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Its thesis is that under postfeudal conditions of rising capitalism and the emerging liberal state, the public sphere became a critical
intermediary between the civil society and the state. Its participants included educated public leaders, debaters in intellectual salons, members of political clubs, and
editors of partisan newspapers. This bourgeois public sphere was transformed,
however, by the modernizing forces of mass democracy, commercial advertising,
the public relations concept, and the welfare state. It became a semiprivate, semipublic realm where reasoned debate over matters of common import is replaced by
strategic manipulation of opinion. Informed criticism of the state is overshadowed
by private demands for economic privilege and for social rights. Parliamentary
democracywhose rational deliberation over state policy once operated at the very

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

363

heart of the public spherebecame a rubber-stamping, posturing institution preoccupied with achieving popular approval of predetermined plans (Habermas, 1989).
These ideas of Arendt and Habermas have generated much subsequent comment. Sayla Benhabib points out that the views of the two are parallel but not identical. Arendts public space is primarily an arena of political action, whereas
Habermass public sphere is essentially a medium of public communication. As
we have seen, both thinkers are preoccupied with decay in democratic vitality.
Benhabib herself is not entirely pessimistic, however. She contends that public
space potentially performs two functions: a holistic one that brings forth cohesive realizations about what should be done, and an epistemic function that produces the enlarged mentality that transforms multiple self-interests into a recognized common interest (Benhabib, 1996, pp. 200-201). Rosalyn Deutsche, a
feminist theorist of public space, is less sanguine. She anticipates that this kind of
emergent consensus will inevitably constitute a masculine-inspired suppression of
truly democratic dialogue. She tells us that public space should be regarded as
inherently empty of substantive content, in that its only source of legitimacy is liberated discourse itself, not the outcomes therefrom. The prospect of reaching a consensus within it is the product of an unacceptable unity vision of space that seeks
to halt conflict and drive out dissent (Deutsche, 1996).
Another issue under debate is whether parliamentary institutions are an adequate space for deliberative democracy. As noted, Habermas regards parliamentary
democracy as part of the public sphere in the past, but not today. Similarly, Russell
Hardin states that in view of the catch-phrase posturing needed in legislative politics to mobilize interest groups and raise campaign funds, parliamentary debate
should be regarded as antithetical to sincere deliberation (Hardin, 1999). Alberto
Melucci and Leonardo Avritzer criticize legislative deliberation further by claiming that a legislative aggregation of values will always leave out extreme groups. By
its nature, representative democracy overlooks the right of individuals not to be
represented at all. Moreover people should be able, if they wish, to drop out of the
polity entirely (Melucci & Avritzer, 2000). In an overview of the current state of
democratic theory, Mark Warren points out that whereas some theorists reject representative government as unacceptably restrictive and nonegalitarian, others
believe democracy depends on taking advantage of whatever forms and forums of
political interaction that exist, whether within the framework of constitutional liberalism or outside the purview of the state (Warren, 2002).

THE URBAN PLANNERS

In addition to political philosophy and democratic theory, a second principal
source of literature on public space is urban planning. This perspective on the subject is concerned with creating open physical places within cities that will adequately function as sites of public use and citizen interaction. Streets, pedestrian
ways, parks, plazas, malls, squares, and shoreline beaches are seen as vital to a

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

364

ARPA / December 2003

sense of community identity and urban well-being. Several values are seen as
served: allowing residents to escape the stress and hubbub of city life; promoting
connectedness among citizens and groups; helping to create a sense of community
identity; and furnishing a site for political dialogue and protest. A leading text on
the subject describes public space as the stage upon which the drama of communal
life unfolds. Such places are seen as a social binder for current residents and a connector to the past through accumulated personal memories and showcased historical monuments (Carr, Francis, Rivlin, & Stone, 1992).
At the same time, most urban theorists concede that America is not a caf society
like Europe in which citizens spend hours over coffee in an outdoor setting. Indeed,
a common concern in the field is that American urban plazas and similar places are
not sufficiently used, and urban designers ask themselves what can be done to correct the situation. Recommendations include making spaces more human scale,
tying them closer to commercial shops, incorporating suitable venues for concerts
and art shows, and having them seem physically safe (Marcus & Francis, 1998).
Another line of argument is that not much can be done to enliven center-city
spaces because of long-term trends in residential living. The great migration to the
suburbs causes downtown public spaces to be abandoned except for business
employees at noon and the homeless at night. Locomotion across the suburban
topography is not on foot but by automobile. The enclosed shopping mall replaces
the public plaza, placing consumption rather than community at the center of attention (Mattson, 1999). Alone this same line, Michael Walzer has argued that
whereas at one time Americans entered public spaces for multiple reasons including people watching and just being there, now they go to such places only for preplanned, single-minded purposes, such as shopping, attending a concert, or conducting personal transactions with government. This pattern undercuts the social
spontaneity of urban life, Walzer says, and also diminishes public spaces capacity
to educate the populace in civic deportment, such as becoming tolerant of cultural
and ethnic differences (Walzer, 1986).
Anthropologist Setha Low points out that the urban plaza is of value not only for
recreation, convenience, and community identification but also in the political
sense as well. Drawing on an ethnographic study of the plazas of San Jos, Costa
Rica, she concludes that vital urban public spaces are essential to the maintenance
of a participatory democracy. Diverse political agendas become embedded in them.
This means their design should be influenced by the people as well as the regime.
However, she says, government communicates implied political messages by
erecting barricades and removing undesirables. To allow antiregime messages, she
insists, the spaces should be completely open so as to serve as one of the last democratic forums for dissent in a civil society (Low, 2000, p. 240).
Thus much of the urban planning literature on public space presents, in effect, a
deterioration thesis of public space that is not unlike the decay seen by democratic
philosophers. Yet Michael Brill departs from this orthodoxy by deriding most writings on urban public space as a literature of loss infected with nostalgia and

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

365

mourning. The Euro-urban ideal is romanticized, he says, influenced by period

motion pictures that depict lively festival markets and exhilarating street-corner
speeches. Actually, he contends, much of this public life was never lost because it
never happened (Brill, 1989).
Taking us on a different tack of innovative thinking, Manuel Castells contends
that urban physical space, regardless of its past role, is now fast becoming irrelevant. The information technology revolution, he says, is causing the industrial city
and its operating base of physical place to be supplanted by the informational city
that rests on flows of electronic exchange among network nodes and hubs. Elites
still rule, but by controlling networks, not territory (Castells, 2000).

THE ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSTS

A third major source of literature on public space is from the field of political
analysis of public architecture. In this work, a common theme is how the design and
symbols of physical space reinforce political power. Murray Edelman, for example, points out how the sanctity of the White House Oval Office inspires awe in the
visitors mind and, for the moment at least, suppresses doubts over its current
incumbent. At a more prosaic level, government departments maintain front offices
and meeting rooms whose size and dcor reinforce the impression of just authority.
Edelman contends that such effects go beyond interiors to exteriors. Fortress-like
buildings like the Pentagon and FBI headquarters in Washington present themselves as a reassurance to the public that the dangers of war, crime, and terrorism
will be overcome. The very monumentality of significant public buildings itself
exudes a sense of clarity, order, timelessness, and predictability with respect to the
authority of government. At the same time, the emotive significance of architecture
is subjective, Edelman points out. Spaces like legislative halls and courtrooms symbolize legitimacy and equality to some but to others stand for state oppression or
elite domination (Edelman, 1995).
Thomas Markus offers a somewhat different analysis of the relationship of
buildings and power. In an examination of monasteries, courthouses, and concert
halls, he concedes that these structures confer power over the abbots, judges, and
conductors active there by means of alters, benches, and podia. At the same time,
however, these asymmetries are accompanied by equities, for example common
locker rooms and cafeterias. More important, the buildings house the organization
as a whole and thereby incorporate all its members in a universal way regardless of
individual status. Hence the structure itself provides a tangible symbol of the common bond of membership (Markus, 1993).
In my own study of another building type, the American state capitol, I similarly
noted that prominent public buildings can exude exalted state power before the
humble citizen and enable that citizen to identify emotionally with his or her own
state. In other dualities, the statehouse is at the same time an imposing and open

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

366

ARPA / December 2003

edifice, a daily symbol of sovereign authority yet also representative government,

and a display case for furniture and decoration of high culture on one hand and
objects and memorabilia associated with popular culture on the other. As a consequence, visitors to these temples of democracy find the temple part awesome but
the democratic part reassuring (Goodsell, 2001).
Political analysis of public architecture explores various correlates of power.
Marcel Henaff and Tracy Strong, in their book Public Space and Democracy,
emphasize the importance of human vision to power. They recall that St. Augustine
nominated three faculties as essential to the essence of being human: memory,
which recalls the past; will, which constructs the future; and sight, which visualizes
the present. In politics, Henaff and Strong argue, visualization of the presently
experienced situation is physically staged in a way calculated to augment the presence of power. A principal way this is done is to place key figures at a central point
in the audiences line of sight. This is the theatrical aspect of power, examples of
which are given in the same volume by Marcel Detienne. In ancient Greece, the
agora where political deliberation occurred was located in the center of the city. In
France following the Revolution, the National Assembly convened in a semielliptical space with the speakers tribune at front center. Anthropologists who visit
Ethiopian tribes find that elders deliberate and spoils are divided within a central
circle of rocks surrounded by the people (Henaff & Strong, 2001).
Other physical dimensions of power also seem to possess pan-cultural meaning.
In a survey of 16 civilizations and 60 cultures, political scientist J. A. Laponce
found that, in all but a handful of examples, the physical position of up was
regarded as superior to that of down. This may be explained, he says, by a feature
of the human form whereby the sense organs and brain are concentrated at the top
of the body (Laponce, 1981). Another student of the subject, sociologist Barry
Schwartz, speculates that the association of height with superiority stems from the
fact that children must look up to their parents (Schwartz, 1981). In a study I conducted of city council chambers, I found that in spaces constructed prior to 1920 the
presiding officer commands a more elevated position than all others on the floor, as
measured by platform heights, sight-line angles, and chair-back heights. These differentials were largely eliminated in later rooms built at a more democratic time
(Goodsell, 1988).
Harold Lasswell, a pioneering political scientist who became interested in architecture late in his career, proposed that authoritarian rulers tend (more often than
democratic ones) to withdraw architecturally from the body politic vertically and
horizontally, for example to mountain strongholds. In addition, he speculated, they
may be less inclined to perforate their buildings with large windows and doors
(Lasswell, 1979). With respect to physical openness, Elizabeth Grossman offers a
self-styled radical analysis of architectural space by linking Habermass accessible
public sphere concept to the building designs of the architect Zaha Hadid. Her
buildings seemingly eliminate the inside-outside distinction through means of confusing and irregular wall arrangements, tilted floor planes, ruptured edges, transparent surfaces, and interior replications of exterior features (Grossman, 2000).

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

TABLE 1

Reference
Focus
Issues

367

A Comparison of Literatures that Treat Public Space

Political Philosophy
and Democratic Theory

Urban Planning
and Design

Political Interpretation
of Architecture

A social realm
Public discourse
Alienation and state
sponsorship

An urban site
Urban life
Revival or replacement

A public building
Social meaning
Intimidation or
identification

COMPARING THE THREE LITERATURES

As a first step toward developing a unified concept of public space, I analyze
more systematically the bodies of literature just covered. This is done by means of
three categories: (a) the concepts principal reference, (b) the central focus of its
inquiry, and (c) the primary issues confronted. Table 1 summarizes the results of
this analysis.
As we have seen, public space means different things to different people. For the
philosophers of democratic discourse, public space (or public sphere) is a social
realm, an arena of human action and communication. It is public in the sense that it
is accessible to all and, under ideal conditions, directed to matters of common concern. For some democratic theorists, public space is a realm in which only private
individuals and groups of the civil society are active, although other commentators
include state actors, such as deliberating lawmakers. Arendt and Habermas diagnose in modern society tendencies for the definitional integrity of public space to
break down. For Arendt, this is the consequence of self-regarding introspection and
the pursuit of personal gain, a form of alienation from the common world. For
Habermas, it is the result of the manipulation of public opinion by advertisers and
officials, reinforced by preoccupation with economic privilege and personal rights.
By contrast, in the urban planning literature public space is defined in physical
terms. It is an open sitesuch as a street, sidewalk, plaza, or parklocated in the
midst of the city. These largely exterior spaces are meant for public use, allowing or
facilitating relaxation and recreation, the formation of social bonds, the establishment of connections to the past, and the creation of community identity. For the
more politically oriented urban scholars, public space also performs as a stage for
dissent and opposition to the establishment, via rallies and demonstrations. Many
observers of traditional downtown urban spaces regret diminishment in their use
and their replacement by suburban malls that possess a commercial orientation.
Interpreters of the political meanings of architecture also define public space in
physical terms, but their concept is centered on the public building, such as the
courthouse, the city hall, legislative capitol, or departmental headquarters. Much
such interpretation is directed to the placement, design, and furnishing of ritual
interior spaces inside these buildings, places I call civic space (Goodsell, 1988).
Such space is usually open to the public and hence directly affects the relationship between the governors and the governed. Examples are legislative chambers,

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

368

ARPA / December 2003

courtrooms, and outer offices of executives. This literature also examines the exterior facades and settings of government buildings as potent image-producing edifices accompanied by monuments and other devices of enhancement.
Turning to the central focus of inquiry in the three literatures, for the philosophers of democracy the principal subject of interest is public discourse. This may be
summarized as unimpaired discussion about matters of collective concern and on
behalf of the public good. All ideas are game, all agendas are accepted, and all interested parties may participate. The nature of the discourse ranges from personal conversations to informal discussion to formal debate. Active participation in public
discourse lies at the heart of citizenship and hence is of sacred import in the array of
democratic values. Although some democratic theorists insist that public discourse
remain uncontaminated by a state presence, others see state involvement as potentially legitimate, for example in policy debates between parties and candidates and
in legislative deliberation over statutes.
For urban theorists, the focal idea regarding public space is its potential contribution to the quality of urban life. Plazas, parks, and commons are places where
crowded city dwellers can linger, escape stress, come together in close interaction,
enjoy an aesthetic experience, and engage the citys symbolic essence. The symbolic importance of urban public places is demonstrated by how pictures of them
are often found in public relations brochures. Such places constitute physical statements of community pride and self-identification.
To political scientists studying the public spaces of architecture, the central
focus is their social meaning. That is to say, scholars seek to interpret the societal
significance of the built political environment. This environment expresses embedded historical or regime values, affects the conduct of contemporary users, and
projects images for consumption by passing viewers. These meanings are, however, difficult to decipher, in that they change over time, are the subjective consequence of human perception, and are difficult to measure. For the most part, conclusions must be based on empirical observation, informant reports, and reasoned
speculation. They may also in some instances be tied to cross-cultural evidence
related to such spatial specifics as visual centrality, superior height, and intervening
barriers.
The third category of cross-cutting analysis among the literatures is the primary
issues confronted. In political philosophy, the key issue for Arendt regarding public
space is alienation of the individual from the public world. The forces of modernity
are seen as having drawn people away from active participation in public space,
thus undermining if not destroying the citizen role. To regain active involvement in
the public sphere, Arendt says, the individual must reappear in the sphere of
appearances and engage the common world.
As mentioned, a key issue for public discourse is whether it can, under certain
circumstances, be sponsored by the state. Many democratic theorists would regard
such sponsorship as antithetical to the core idea of uninhibited conversation. Official rhetoric and parliamentary deliberation are seen as contrived, artificial,
stacked, and confined to the received worldview. Others, such as Habermas, would

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

369

accept such debate as potentially within the realm of the public sphere if it meets
certain standards, such as relative openness.
As for issues of public space for the urban planners, paramount in their view is
the perceived loss of well-used urban public places at downtown centers. One possible answer is to attempt to revive the downtown urban space of old. This would be
done through a combination of physical redesign and the construction of new
spaces that incorporate an integrated cluster of commercial and entertainment facilities. A more drastic answer is to replace urban physical space with cyberspace.
Castells (2000) tells us this is now fast occurring, as the territorial city is transformed into an information city. His space of flows is limited not to e-mail and
Internet chat rooms but could also include cell phones, instant messaging, facsimile
transmission, teleconferencing, computer conferencing, and a variety of other
technologies.
In the literature on political interpretation of public architecture, the most prominent issues raised center on political power. Studies emphasizing that places such as
the White House or Pentagon inspire awe conclude that a primary function of public space is to intimidate the populace. In addition to monumentality and ornateness, this is accomplished by placement techniques of centrality, elevation, and barrier that raise the status of the powerful and segregate them from the mass. This
practice sheds pessimistic light on aspirations for democracy. Just as discourse
theory visualizes a deterioration of citizenship and the urban planning literature
mourns the weakening of community, analyses of public architecture tend to
perceive a dark, antidemocratic side to the public structures of a supposedly free
society.
A somewhat different interpretation is that great public buildings and their grand
public interiors also satisfy the citizens urge to be proud of the civic polities to
which they identify. This can be translated into appreciation if not admiration of
grand symbols of civic identity. Indeed, a common pattern at major symbolic edifices such as the Statue of Liberty and Washington Monument is that they are visited daily by hoards of citizens.

A UNIFIED CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

I now develop a unified concept of public space. In so doing I draw from the
three literatures described but, by necessity, chart some new ground. A number of
new definitions of public space are proposed, and they are given in Table 2.
A good place to begin is the basic meaning of the term. Democratic theorists
conceive of public space as a social, not physical, realm of action and communication. Urban planners visualize it as largely exterior places in the cityscape, with
cyberspace an added possible form. Political scientists who interpret architecture
think of public (or civic) space in terms of the facades and interiors of public
buildings.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

370

ARPA / December 2003

TABLE 2

Proposed Definitions of Public Space

Generic definition of public space: A space-time continuum for connected and interactive political
discourse.
Place-bound public space: The above consisting of face-to-face interaction in a single physical
location.
Electronic public space: The above achieved at dispersed geographic locations through information
technology.
Extended public space: The above when broadcast by television, radio, Internet, or other means.
Pure definition of democratic public space: The above when open to all, unrestricted as to conduct,
and unconditional as to participation.
Practical definition of democratic public space: The above when public access is encouraged, the
status of state authority is muted, barriers between governors and governed are minimized, staging
is arranged by the people as well as officials, and conditions conducive to deliberation are
fostered.

I propose a generic albeit specific definition of public space that draws on

these disparate orientations but goes beyond each. My definition is a space-time
continuum for political discourse. By this phrase I mean the capacity for a connected and interactive human process of communicative experience. Discourse in
such a setting is connected in the sense that all participants can see and/or hear each
other on an immediate basis. Mutual presence in the space binds them together for
this purpose. The continuum is also interactive, by which I mean the capacity for
participants to hear and react to each others comments immediately, without significant delay. This temporal aspect of the continuum permits spontaneous reactions back and forth. The discourse is political in that it concerns the nature and
future of the community and the public good.
The traditional form of space-time continuum that creates public space is the
common physical place, such as a meeting hall or town square. In this place-bound
public space all persons present are within direct visual and audible range. Their
mutual contact is face-to-face, within a reasonable distance. Probably this form of
public space is the most efficient in terms of achieving true connection and interactivity. This is the kind of public space contemplated by the urban planners for
their plazas and the architectural analysts in their ceremonial rooms.
The generic definition of public space as a space-time continuum also covers
discourse made possible by contemporary information technologies. Televised
conferencing systems, Internet chat rooms, comprehensive-distribution listservs,
open Web logs or blogs, and computer-based oral discussion programs permit people who are dispersed geographically to enter into a space-time continuum. Such
electronic public space is unassembled, to use an old term for civil service examinations. As such, it bears some resemblance to the idea of public space as social
realm that is associated with the democratic theory literature. The difference is that
it is more concertedly connected and is restricted to interaction within a concentrated period of time, thereby excluding the long-term evolution of ideas as occurs
during protracted media coverage. I make this distinction because, although

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

371

breadth of scope can have its advantages, to be useful for theory and research a unified concept needs reasonably sharp focus.
Increasingly, discourse that occurs in place-bound public space is broadcast for
external consumption by television or radio coverage. The proceedings of electronic public space can be transmitted to a wider audience as well. Public broadcasting alters importantly the nature of the space-time continuum. The space is, in
effect, extended to an adjunct audience that can see or hear but not participate. This
fact becomes known to those within the public space, causing them to speak or act
with the outsiders in mind. As a consequence, those engaged in the discourse may
have their attention drawn from the business at hand to the imagined perceptions of
the external audience. Hence the reach of public space is greatly extended but at the
same time its nature is changed. I call this variant of the concept extended public
space.
In abstract terms, a pure definition of democratic public spaceif we abide by
the precepts of the democratic theorists and urban plannerswould be: open to all,
unrestricted in character, and unconditional as to participation. In short, it can be
entered by any person, and those present can conduct themselves as they wish.
Practicalities will inevitably interfere to complicate this absolute, however. With
respect to place-bound public space, it may not be possible to get a room or plaza
big enough to accommodate everyone. This physical limit is theoretically overcome in electronic public space, but even here problems may arise from inadequate
notification or unknown addresses. As for allowing unqualified conduct within
public space, any intelligible discourse would seemingly require some moderator
role, some agenda formation, and ways to allocate speaking time fairly. A truly
deliberative discourse, in which participants focus on a common problem and honestly exchange opinions and stand ready to learn as the dialogue flows, will in practice require conscious encouragement.
So, what in practical terms must a definition of democratic public space
entail? One aspect is to come to terms with the states association to public space.
As we have seen, this is a contentious issue in the philosophical literature. A large
portion, probably most, of public space as hereby defined is privately organized and
conducted. Its degree of democratic manifestation can and should be normatively
assessed. At the same time, the democratic quality of state-associated public space
is obviously critical. Indeed, because of the states unique authority and capacity to
translate discourse into policy, the issues it raises with respect to democracy are
crucial.
One question is whether government itself will own or control the public space,
either place bound or electronic. Clearly, this arrangement privileges those in
authority. The state is in a position to promote constructions of public space that
accentuate its power, a major point made in political interpretation of architecture.
This can be achieved by theatrical staging in place-bound spaces or manipulation of
the leader function in computer or teleconference programs. It should be quickly
added, however, that it is conceivable that representatives of the state who are consciously committed to a democratic ethos may wish to do the opposite, that is

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

372

ARPA / December 2003

moderate their dominance in favor of a relatively egalitarian situation and process.

They may also choose to move the discourse to a private or neutral site, such as a
nongovernment auditorium or Web site. However, even if this happens, it does not
guarantee a level playing field, so to speak. The mere presence of a government
representative can tip the scales by encouraging deference or reducing resistance
to the official line.
Probably, as a practical matter, the goal of perfect equality is impossible when
the state is directly involved. This is certainly true for place-bound public spaces
located in government buildings. The implication of this for democracy is thatfor
place-based space at leastmany of the ideas generated by the analysts of public
buildings are germane to a study of democratic public space. Inasmuch as physical
locations also serve as the backdrop for both broadcast images, these ideas have a
wider relevance than merely the interiors or grounds of government buildings.
Thus the discussion that follows on operational standards for achieving democratic
content in public space draws heavily on this literature. I will leave it to other scholars using other literatures to analyze the design settings of electronic public space,
such as the layout of Web sites and organization of chat rooms.
The architecture literature, as I have noted, in effect poses several key questions
for considering the democratic content of place-bound public space. Is open access
portrayed by clear entrances, ample fenestration, and generous interior dimensions? Is participation encouraged by downplaying the conveyed superior status of
official power in terms of height, barriers, and separation? Are excessively theatrical presentations of leaders forgone in favor of emphasis on more egalitarian staging? Is staging accomplished by the governed as well as the governing? Are furniture arrangements in spaces intended for deliberation actually conducive to that
form of interaction?
It is my contention that a meaningful exploration of what specific adaptations of
public space might flow from these questions requires that we go beyond general
principles to actual cases, as is done in the law. My method for this is to examine
several photographs I have taken at various locations in the United States in recent
years. In selecting the images, contrasting situations have been selected: exterior
spaces as well as interior, contrived settings as well as those informally arranged,
and spaces more consistent with the democratic ideal and those less so. Needless to
say, the nine photographs offered that appear in this article do not explore the subject systematically but only open it up.

MANIFESTATIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE

The first example, shown in Figure 1, is the executive cabinet room of the state
government of Florida. It is located on the executive floor of the state capitol in Tallahassee. The room is not open in the Habermasian sense. Although anyone can
enter the space on passing a security check, public access to it is not encouraged.
The room is small and can accommodate only a limited number of visitors. The low

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

373

Figure 1 Cabinet Room in Florida State Capitol, Tallahassee

ceiling and absence of windows make it psychologically confining. The chairs

shown are for the press, giving the impression that presentations are not directed to
the seated audience so much as the readership of newspapers. In other words, it is a
setting for press conferences, not public interaction.
The Florida chamber exudes an authoritarian air. The seven cabinet members
are seated behind a common bench, which presents them as a monolithic whole.
The bench is raised and deep, thus emphatically separating the office holders from
the onlookersthey are withdrawn vertically and horizontally, in Lasswells
words. Those seated below are given an upward sight line by which to view this superior level of power. The cabinets status is enhanced further by high-back chairs
and prominent nameplates. The governors position is at the center, theatrically
focused below the state seal.
Figure 2 shows the central atrium of Scottsdale City Hall in Arizona. Unlike the
Florida cabinet room, it is a big, high space. Its degree of openness allows detecting
the entrances to several departments, including the city managers office. These
destinations are well marked by signage, and pathways to them are clearly evident.
Barriers are minimal, and elevated heights exist because of upper-floor location
only. Theatrical qualities are largely absent, with operating features of the receptionists workspace plainly visible. Plants add a human touch.
Not only are barriers few in Scottsdale City Hall, but boundaries separating the
spaces functions are indistinct. Although clearly identified, the individual departments are not sharply delineated. Although the photograph does not reveal it, a
large sunken floor lies behind the receptionist area that constitutes the citys council

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

374

ARPA / December 2003

Figure 2 Interior Kiva Atrium of City Hall in Scottsdale, Arizona

chamber. Architect Bennie M. Gonzales intended the atrium to suggest a kiva, the
partially underground chamber used for centuries by the Pueblo Indians for elder
deliberations (Goodsell, 1988). Thus this all-purpose room is (in addition to the
headquarters of the city bureaucracy) the communitys principal space for public
discourse. Hence the politics-administration dichotomy is erased in a spatial sense.
Figure 3 is Boston City Hall, located on a large brick plaza in the Government
Center area at the heart of the city. Its construction was completed in 1969, as part of
an urban renewal project intended to eliminate Scollay Square, considered a disreputable locale for bars and brothels. Although the building itself was designed by a
trio of then-unknown architects, the paved plaza on which it rests was created by the
famous I. M. Pei. It is said his model for the project was the shell-shaped Piazza del
Campo in Siena, Italy, which is ringed by busy cafs and attracts thousands of tourists in the summertime (Carr et al., 1992).
Unfortunately, Peis Boston plaza did not work out. With no cafs or shops
nearby, it is deserted at night and on weekends. Its main purpose is to highlight the
overbearing, top-heavy structure of city hall. The buildings upper two floors, used
for administrative offices, jut outward to form a crown of projecting, relatively
small apertures. At the next level below is a more perforated political level of mayoral offices and council chamber. The voluminous, open space situated below is
beyond human scale and dominated by the stark massiveness overhead. Entering
this covered court to transact business on the floors above is like being thrust into
the bowls of a civic fortress. I do not know if this space is used for protest meetings,
but if so the demonstrators would feel oppressed by the weight of authority

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

375

Figure 3 The Boston City Hall and Surrounding Plaza Designed by I. M. Pei

overhead. This exemplifies to an extreme the elevation and separation of official

power from the people.
Figure 4 shows the pedestrian mall outside the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing. It was built by the state to create a unified complex for the old capitol building
and newer state office structures. Functionally, the mall is a public space comparable to a municipal plaza, in that it is open to public visitation. In practice it works
quite well. On pleasant days, civil servants use it to walk at noontime and eat lunch
outdoors. It also affords aboveground circulation routes among the buildings. The
latticed facades of these structures define its outer boundary. Subdivisions of space
are partially formed by large pieces of sculpture, akin to Grossmans ruptured
edges. As abstract geometric objects, the pieces do not, however, make social or
historical connections in the manner of park statues or monuments.
The Lansing mall is useful for the staging of demonstrations. The persons
shown in the photograph are state workers preparing for a public protest on behalf
of smokers rights. In academic language, the protesters are, in effect, entering
Arendts space of appearances, although on behalf of their own rather than societys interests. Unlike Lows San Jos plazas, no police barricades are present. The
legislatures regulations require all demonstrations to be scheduled in advance,
however, creating the possibility of disapproval.
In Figure 5 we see yet another demonstration, this time indoors at the Ohio statehouse in Columbus. In this instance the cause is environmental protection, a popular theme of protest on behalf of the perceived public good. The protestors are congregated just feet away from the formal locus of power, the governors office. The

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

376

ARPA / December 2003

Figure 4 Demonstrators Preparing for Smokers Rights Rally in Lansing, Michigan

Figure 5 Demonstration Outside Statehouse Office of the Governor of Ohio

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

377

Figure 6 News Conference in Connecticut Legislative Office Building, Hartford

hallway in which they are gathered is the axial corridor for the buildings first floor,
which means they are situated on a busy and visible pedestrian avenue.
The purpose of the Ohio statehouse gathering is not to attract the attention of
passersby, but the lens of the television camera. Being staged is what we call
extended public space. The leader of the group is being televised as he presents the
groups message. Presumably experienced in media politics, he stands before a jutting marble pilaster to achieve theatrical focus. When in range of the camera, portraits of past governors hanging on the wall behind add gravity to the scene. The
young demonstrators grouped around convey numerical strength to the television
audience and impart an identification with the young. All participants carry the
same sign with its simple wording and ominous symbol, enriching further the television picture. Although done by the people and not the authorities, this staging was
skillfully executed.
Figure 6 portrays extended public space staged by the political establishment.
The location is a legislative committee room in the Connecticut legislatures office
building in Hartford. As with the Florida cabinet room, it is windowless and has a
closed feeling. The space is dominated by a circular committee bench, whose function is to separate, identify, and dignify committee members when the room is
being used for hearings. The benchs fine woods imply the ample resources of official power. At the moment shown, no hearings are scheduled, and the room is doubling as a television studio, an arrangement normally unavailable to citizen lobbies.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

378

ARPA / December 2003

Figure 7 New Hampshire House of Representatives Convened in Special Session

The Connecticut scene no doubt looks good on television. The lighting and cameras are professional. The formally attired speaker stands before a raised lectern
festooned with microphones. Colleagues and aides grouped around the perimeter
of the bench show establishment support. A theatrical focus is subtly completed by
the state seal on the wall behind. For the moment this chamber (constructed specifically for interactive deliberation on public policy) is a setting for one-way external
mass communication.
The next scene, Figure 7, shows the Hall of Representatives in the New Hampshire statehouse in Concord. In this instance, a public space built for making policy
is being used for its intended purpose. Yet the halls characteristics are more like
that of an auditorium than legislative chamber. The reason is the unusual size of the
New Hampshire lower house, which at 400 constitutes the biggest state legislative
body in the country. As its membership grew over the decades, the room had to be
expanded twice. These citizen solonswhose numbers in relation to residents is a
ratio of less than 1:3,000meet every second year and proudly earn only $200 per
biennium, a figure unchanged since 1889 (Goodsell, 2001).
Because of the bodys size in relation to its space, the New Hampshire hall does
not provide conditions conducive to independent and interactive deliberation.
Members are jammed together such that unless located on aisles they cannot leave
their seats to address the body or confer with colleagues. They possess no individual standing from a furniture standpoint, not even a swinging leaf attached to their

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

379

Figure 8 The Senate of Michigan in Session at the State Capitol in Lansing

chair on which to write. In that the seats are unassigned, a fixed plate identifying
their name and district is impossible. Moreover, seating is not by political party,
hence partisan conduct is discouraged. In short, the room fosters planned presentations from the rostrum rather than independent action or partisan debate.
A sharply contrasting example of legislative space is pictured in Figure 8. It is
a photograph of the Michigan senate in session in its chamber in the capitol in
Lansing. The body has only 38 members, permitting a more generous use of floor
space than in New Hampshire. There is sufficient room for lots of furniture. Distances between the pieces of furniture and a flat floor permit members to walk
around freely and to confer with colleagues. The rooms configuration is essentially square, meaning that despite its large size no desks are relegated to a remote
backbench area. As is customary in state legislative chambers, the desks are
arranged in a shallow arc facing the rostrum, creating a convergence of sight lines
on the speaker.
The Michigan accommodations promote the independent importance and
standing of each senator. Desks and chairs are permanently assigned, with a nameplate designating the senator. More than simple pieces of furniture, each ensemble
incorporates a computer and communication console as well as aides chair. Members chairs swivel, allowing senators to watch each other in all directions around
the room. They address the body directly from their seats as well as from the rostrum, encouraging a spontaneous flow of deliberation. Democrats sit on the right

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

380

ARPA / December 2003

Figure 9 City Council of Santa Rosa, California in Session at City Hall

side of the aisle (presiders perspective) and Republicans on the left, thereby promoting party consciousness.
The final photograph, Figure 9, is of the city council chamber in Santa Rosa,
California. The council meets in a sunken, circular space 50 feet in diameter centered in a square council building 60 feet on each side. From a symbolism standpoint, this floor plan achieves the basic configuration of the mandala, considered in
many Eastern religions as a representation of the cosmos. Council members sit at a
concave dais, as do the administrators across from them. Hence, furniture-wise,
both groups are depicted as corporate bodies. Their matching tables and common
elevation portray them as equivalent in status.
A noteworthy feature of the Santa Rosa chamber is its treatment of citizens. In
the New Hampshire Hall of Representatives, members of the public were seated
upstairs in a rear balcony, similar to a theater. In the Michigan senate, they sat in an
upstairs gallery embracing three sides of the room. These locations, separated from
the legislative floor, signify a passive observer role for citizens. In Santa Rosa, by
contrast, visitors are seated in what might be described as a half-circle amphitheater, raked at 25 degrees. That puts them at about the same level of the officials and
within the mandalas circle. Overflow crowds, as shown in the photograph, are permitted along the sides and backs of the mandalas square, but not directly behind
council members. The concave dais and half-circle amphitheater together form a
rough circle, united in the same symbolic cosmos (Goodsell: 1988).

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

381

SUMMARY AND FINAL REFLECTIONS

In this article I have argued that a unified concept of public space, drawn from
the literatures of political philosophy, urban planning, and architectural interpretation, can be used to create a coherent and usable theoretical vehicle. I further contend that such a concept can be cast in such a way as to incorporate two upheavals
experienced by public space, the television revolution of the 20th century and the
information revolution of the 21st century. One revision is to recognize the presence of a massive television audience of millions that observes but does not participate. The other is to conceive of public space as not just unitary physical space but
also sets of dispersed electronic connections, made possible by information technology. The generic notion of space-time continuum permits us to take both of
these steps without losing the concepts analytic power.
The normative theme of the article is the need to democratize public space to the
extent possible. The impetus for this is not cynicism about the establishment or fear
of an authoritarian state, but a recognition that the state is in a position to dominate
public discourse if conscious counter-efforts are not made. Although the settings of
public spacewhether place bound or electronicwill not in the long run determine the vitality of our democratic discourse, they can set in motion constructive
influences. This potential, if realized, backs away from the pessimism found in
much of the literature on public space, according to which its democratic value has
irretrievably degenerated.
Effective efforts in this direction must, however, go beyond abstract principles,
such as total openness and lack of restriction. In addition, they must accept the
states participation in, although not monopoly of, public space. The normative
objective then becomes to achieve feasible operational goals for a democratic public space. These include an encouragement of access, a muting of authority, a minimization of barriers, unofficial as well as official staging, and an attempt to create
conditions favorable to deliberation.
Exploring the possibilities, complexities, and subtleties involved in applying
these goals cannot be done in an empirical vacuum. Concrete manifestations must
be employed to comprehend the range of issues and to stimulate thought. In this
article, I begin such a process by studying photographs of building interiors, outdoor plazas, television stages, and legislative chambers.
What was found in these examples? Four of them, namely the Florida cabinet
room, Boston City Hall, the Connecticut committee room and the New Hampshire
statehouse, have much to be desired from a democratic standpoint. The first is
closed and controlling, the second overbearing and oppressive, the third contrived
and establishment-oriented, and the fourth presumably egalitarian but in reality
manipulative.
However, the remaining five examples hold out promise for reasonable attainment of democratic public space, and it is from them that we can take some

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

382

ARPA / December 2003

encouragement. Scottsdale City Hall is characterized by openness and accessibility, a fluid and muted depiction of authority, and substantial elimination of peoplegovernment barriers. The Michigan capitol plaza is a defined, accessible, inhabited, and well-located place for demonstrations, even though they must be approved
in advance. The Ohio statehouse corridorwith its distinguished backdrops and
proximity to the center of poweris ideal for televised citizen protest. In the Michigan senate, the generous yet contiguous space and prestige-conferring furniture are
conducive to independent deliberation among equals. In the Santa Rosa council
chamber dual democratic values are advanced: equality between elected officials
and professional managers, and integration of the observing citizenry into a symbolic community of interest.
In short, by unifying divergent literatures and enlarging the scope of our topic,
the opportunities for solid and relevant research on public space are expanded.
Then too, by turning our attention from abstract generalizations to concrete cases,
the normative search for democratic public space is advanced to where those who
design and use public space can be stimulated to think more deeply about the
subject.

REFERENCES
Benhabib, S. (1996). The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brill, M. (1989). Transformation, nostalgia, and illusion in public life and public place. In I. Altman &
E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public places and spaces (pp. 7-29). New York: Plenum.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Deutsche, R. (1996). Evictions: Art and spatial politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Edelman, M. (1995). From art to politics: How artistic creations shape political conceptions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Goodsell, C. T. (1988). The social meaning of civic space: Studying political authority through architecture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Goodsell, C. T. (2001). The American statehouse: Interpreting democracys temples. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Grossman, E. (2000). Radical spatial practices/radical public spheres. Thresholds, 21, 7-12.
Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article. New German Critique, 3, 49-55.
(Reprinted in 2000, Democracy: A reader, R. Blaug & J. Schwarzmantel [Eds.], pp. 509-514. New
York: Columbia University Press.)
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hansen, P. (1993). Hannah Arendt: Politics, history and citizenship. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Hardin, R. (1999). Deliberation: Method, not theory. In S. Macedo (Eds.), Deliberative politics: Essays
on democracy and disagreement (pp. 103-119). New York: Oxford University Press.
Henaff, M., & Strong, T. B. (Eds.). (2001). Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Laponce, J. A. (1981). Left and right: The topography of political perceptions. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012

Goodsell / THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SPACE

383

Lasswell, H. D. (In collaboration with Merritt B. Fox). (1979). The signature of power: Buildings, communication, and policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Low, S. M. (2000). On the plaza: The politics of public space and culture. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (2nd ed.).
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Markus, T. A. (1993). Buildings and power: Freedom and control in the origin of modern building types.
London: Routledge.
Mattson, K. (1999, summer). Reclaiming and remaking public space: Toward an architecture for American democracy. National Civic Review, 88, 133-143.
Melucci, A., & Avritzer, L. (2000). Complexity, cultural pluralism and democracy: Collective action in
the public space. Social Science Information, 39(4), 507-527.
Passerin dEntreves, M. ((1994). The political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London: Routledge.
Schwartz, B. (1981). Vertical classification: A study in structuralism and the sociology of knowledge.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walzer, M. (1986, fall). Pleasures & costs of urbanity. Dissent, 33(4), 470-475.
Warren, M. (2002). Deliberative democracy. In A. Caster & G. Stokes (Eds.), Democratic theory today
(pp. 173-202). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Charles T. Goodsell is emeritus professor of public administration at the Center for Public
Administration and Policy of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. In addition to several works in public
administration and political economy, he has authored two books (see references) and several
articles on social and political aspects of public architecture. In recent years, his photographs
have appeared on the covers of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory and
the Journal of Public Affairs Education. He received the Dwight Waldo Award for his contributions to the literature in public administration in 2003.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Oana-Valentina Suciu on October 5, 2012