Uncommon Ground

Prioritizing profit undermines civic interaction


Change is afoot in Prague. Following the heady exuberance of the early 1990s, the sobering reassessments at the turn of the millennium and the consolidations of the first Václav Klaus presidency, the city is thrusting itself into a new transitional phase. Keen to position itself as a thriving metropolis, alert to contemporary challenges and opportunities, Prague can point to growing prosperity, a flirtation with hosting the Olympics, a proliferation of new shopping centers, major real estate development, a proactive approach to issues such as homelessness and “anti-social behavior,” and plans for more pedestrian zones in the center.
While these seemingly disparate signifiers of success appear to reflect well on the approach of city government in providing a framework for business-led development, backed by urban planning and socially aware law enforcement, closer inspection reveals more. Common to all these trends is the destruction of “common space” — the zones of interaction and social potential where access is not restricted to certain groups and outcomes are not predetermined. New “public-private” hybrid spaces are replacing the commons, our behavior is ever more closely regulated and we run the risk of being infantilized into consumerist conformity.
The benefits of pedestrianization are clear — particularly in the case of Wenceslas Square — but the downsides are less discernible as they often reside in the motivations accompanying such schemes
The pro-business governing elite would not support plans such as the creation of pedestrian zones unless the benefits for their constituents outweighed the inconvenience to car owners and businesses. In 2005, The Prague Post noted that: “Casinos, kitschy tourist shops and tacky clubs now line the boulevard, along with fast-food stands.”
It seems this is no longer the image that Prague wishes to project and that an opportunity has been seen to extend the row of gilded boutiques from Pařížská to Opletalova. The relatively low margin businesses listed above — many of which are run by immigrants — cannot compete with the Guccis, Diors and Vuittons neither in margin nor rent, nor in image to a city keen to embrace the extremes of Western consumer culture, under the impression that it exudes class.
This move toward higher margins is consistent with a drive to take Prague “upmarket” and attract a better (read “wealthier”) class of tourist, while simultaneously “cleaning house.” Pedestrianization is partnered with a sweep to rid the square of pickpockets, prostitutes, pimps and junkies who might scare off the wealthy consumers. While pickpocketing is not to be condoned, there is obvious hypocrisy in morally justifying such “cleanups” while just around the corner, brothels masquerading as strip clubs operate with impunity.
The desire to sweep away “problems” is also evident in the much lauded new scheme to tackle homelessness in Prague, announced this summer by Councilor Jiří Janeček. Though cloaked in the “progressive” language of outreach and opportunity, the plan appears to be aimed at cleansing the city of any unpleasant reminders of the precariousness of our own positions and prevent the abject or unproductive from appearing unannounced in the middle of shopping spree or business liaison. As was noted on these pages in June: “Tourists … [and] locals would feel annoyed or even threatened by people begging for money.” Police forcibly transported the “unpleasant characters” with their “unpleasant odors” (as was referenced in the same story) away from the city center. The plan portends to compensate for this violation of rights by providing access to healthcare and employment opportunities. All those hoping to benefit from these provisions are registered in a new, comprehensive database. Should someone fail to engage with what is on offer, they are blacklisted or placed, as Janeček says, “out of the game.”
As this newspaper reported at the time, the plan seems to ignore the reality of the people who “live in a different, internal world that doesn’t mesh with the strictures of society” and who the Salvation Army say often require multiple attempts to get back on their feet. Is this really a progressive scheme or one designed to permanently exclude more of those that this newspaper likened to weeds? According to Janáček: “The goal is to protect regular citizens from the negative phenomenon of homelessness.”
The development of city-center shopping complexes — like Palladium on náměstí Republiky — only reinforces exclusionary practices. Not only do these cathedrals of consumerism provide spectacular reminders of who is in and who is out, they also come replete with surveillance technology and guards, which not only protect the property but also create what architecture critic Steven Flusty calls “interdictory spaces” to intercept, repel or filter would-be users. Similar phenomena can be found in new residential developments, especially luxury ghettoes or gated communities. We can expect watered-down versions in the myriad midmarket and nový panelák schemes planned or under construction.
These examples highlight the restrictions on access to common space for those deemed to be undesirable, but what about those who are still considered includable — readers of this article, for example? Recent legislative and policing innovations help to shed light on this. This summer saw the drinking of alcohol banned in a large number of public spaces in Prague, accompanied by the introduction of stiff penalties for those who litter or drop cigarette butts. As Prague city police spokeswoman Radka Bredlerová put it: “It aims to solve problems connected with drinking in certain public spaces, especially those places where a number of not socially integrated citizens hang out and who, after they drink, tend to bother other citizens, litter or use the street as a bathroom.”
Supposedly targeted measures dealing with problems from “socially unintegrated” citizens result in limitations on everybody’s freedoms. This is the key to understanding the destruction of common space — access to and presence in the space is dependent on staying within increasingly narrowly prescribed limits. Step outside the strict boundaries of what has been deemed acceptable and you become “anti-social,” no longer “socially integrated” and will be punished or excluded.
In a report on “The Hyper-regulation of Public Space,” London-based group the Manifesto Club described “booze bans” as infantilizing, with our ability to mutually mediate interaction being damaged by this over-regulated approach. We need to be aware of the identity and motivations of those deciding which groups and activities are undesirable. Many would say that public spaces still exist — just look at all the squares and parks, even the streets — and, even if we can’t drink there, what is to say that a café or a pub is not a public space? This again goes back to the issue of exclusion, with those who are not model consumers, conformists or “socially integrated” all too easily kept out. Those cafés, bars and other businesses that occupy the fringes of common space encroach and transform this into public-private hybrid space. Along with this comes the “shoo away” of the “undesirable,” so as not to be bothered, and we actually become creators and guarantors of interdictory space.
Our spaces should not be put at the service of the economy, cranking out pseudo-common experiences for the lucky insiders within the tight constraints and pre-determined outcomes of the profit motive. Rather, they should serve as platforms for human interaction, where no one is illegal and all are invited to engage and interact in order to mutually explore our potential in the spirit of solidarity. This means (re)creating genuine common spaces, which, as architect Wim Cuyvers notes, are spaces of needing, understanding, creating and doing that put people first, not profit.
Common spaces are currently characterized by waste, transgression and powerlessness. We must have the courage to make them into spaces of “unfear” where we embrace uncertainty and the possibility of failure that is inherent to genuine human interaction — especially with those who don’t look the same, act the same or follow the same life paths as we do. Genuine tolerance involves recognizing that others have a right to do things that we may not like and that they can do this in spaces that we may share.
In this spirit, we need to look critically at what is happening in our common spaces on a daily basis. We must challenge senseless restrictions on our freedom that only serve the interests of particular groups. We need to stand in solidarity with excluded groups and fight for our right to access and use common space.
Practically, this is as simple as a group of friends going for a beer in the park.