Think Public Space
Work title: AN AGGRESSION- CONTAINING PUBLIC SPACE
The proposal expounds two ideas: mutual dependence of the private and the public; public protest in dialogue, in the context of capricious economic climate in European cities.
There is a subtle relationship between the private and the public as demonstrated in urban public spaces. As private interests give way to economic and political significance in order to secure international prowess at public spaces, the institutional ensures egalitarian participation of public activities at public spaces for each individual. There is no absolute distinction between the private and the public and they each supports the other.
When public ideology fails, private economic interests are at loss and people hold demonstrations not because of ideological beliefs but their personal loss. On the contrary, when private interests are satisfied, the public ideology seems sustained. There is some sort of inherent hypocrisy in individual’s behaviour that urge them to protest against the collective in order for the public to rectify their personal problem; they ignore the fact that they embraced the unsuccessful ideology because it used to generate individual benefit and when the benefit discontinued, they could not propose any solution but to blame the government and their policies.
I think architecture in the form of potential protesting ground needs to make people aware of such hypocrisy by juxtaposing private and public activities and to show their mutual dependence: the individual support the public while the public provide shelter for the private. This translates architecturally into transparent protesting ‘stages’ supported by columns which can be partitioned easily to form market stalls underneath.
As protests are sometimes inevitable at public places, it is important that they are carried out peacefully. The best way to contain violence is to let people voice out their different opinions and hence I propose two ‘stages’ on two opposing sides of the public square with steps down to the centre that encourage people from one canon to watch the speech of the other. The ground is manipulated so that it slopes up towards to centre to discourage the use of force and further promote dialogues.
From the entrance, people can choose to go up the stage, to sit on the steps or to go to the market stalls at the back. The simultaneous public and private activities forge another kind of dialogue whereby the public demagogues have people’s private interests in mind when speaking and vice versa. People’s attachment to their individual interests thus helps prevent unscrupulous destruction of the public facilities, which are private shelters at the same time.
In all, public interests could be discussed with private interests in mind to reflect more honestly individual’s desires while it is made clear that sustaining public order can protect private benefits.