Tan Yifan

    cicitan2011@gmail.com

    AT a recent workshop held at the South Reading Room of Shenzhen Library, experts from various cities across the world shared their views on the definition of public space, which they agreed helps form the spirit of a city.

    Architect Dominique Lyon from France, Liu Heng and Du Juan from Hong Kong and Feng Guochuan from Shenzhen, together with local media professional Wang Shaopei, Taiwan art critic Huang Qianfang, Sichuan-based architect project manager Wang Xiang joined a two-hour discussion initiated by the Shenzhen Roundtable Project to share their views on what is public space and what is a good public space.

    Sitting at the center of a well-planned urban space, the members of the discussion panel had divided views on the definition of a public space.

    Feng said some Chinese city planners have a bad tendency to regard the city lands as boring spaces. “All they can do is to decide how large a space should be built for the public. For example, in theory, if a resident is allowed to enjoy a 75-square-meter space, then a 5-square-meter should be allocated to him,” he explained. “However, a public space shouldn’t be quantified or regarded as a financial resource for a local government; instead, it should be defined as a place that makes people feel cared for, feel free to express themselves and gather together.”

    Wang Shaopei agreed with Feng, saying that a public space is where public discussions and information exchange can happen. “I also think that the Internet is an extension of a public space because many public events and discussions are happening online now,” he said. “Without the involvement of the public, even if a space is open to the public, it can’t be called a real public space.”

    As an architect, Lyon disagreed with the previous views, especially the argument of including the Internet as a public space.

    “Public spaces are free from the influence of politics, culture and economy,” he said. “Individuals can find a way to communicate and exchange ideas in such a space. It is poetic.

    “But the Internet is a bad example. It might be public, but not a space. Communication there is virtual; there is no real life. You can control [negative things] in a real public space, but you can’t control if it is online.”

    “We have a very good example for the definition of public space,” said Bouman. “In Shenzhen, public space is all around you. In Baishizhou, at night, near the subway station, you can find different activities intertwining when the streetlamps light up. A good public space encourages people to congregate there. You can do whatever you want.”

    Huang had some resonant ideas. She gave examples from Taiwan. She said crowds made the square of Taipei’s Hsimenting a good public space since people could express themselves freely. “Unlike Hsimenting, the public space in Renhuai night market [in Taipei] disappeared when the local government removed the stalls and disturbed the usual public life of the residents there,” she said, adding that the best way to build a public space is to respect residents’ choices and help protect them.

    Organized by the Civic Culture Forum (市民大讲堂), Shenzhen Center for Design and Shenzhen Social Science Association, the Shenzhen Roundtable Project is a new addition to the Civic Culture Forum.