Participation, visibility and power-relations as intertwined in public space Public spaces contribute greatly to the increased participation of a diverse range of individuals and groups in society (Manuel, 2013). In our ‘desired city,’ space should be produced and re-produced through an active participation of all its citizens (Harvey, 2008, as cited in Busà, 2009). The connection between visibility and urban space, urban space being seen as a material and symbolic place of visibility, has been well established (Saint-Blancat & Cancellieri, 2014). An important issue to consider is that being out in public space is not in itself enough to ensure visibility; indeed it is the “access to the places of visibility” that is of importance as a critical political question (Brighenti, 2007, p. 329, as stated in Saint-Blancat & Cancellieri, 2014). Public spaces obtain meaning through a common struggle, what Mitchell (2003) talks about when saying ‘taking a place and ‘making it public.’ Furthermore, Goffman relates visibility to empowerment; visibility being important to those in society who may be invisible and may need a voice and a space for expressing that voice (Goffman, 1971, as cited in Saint-Blancat & Cancellieri, 2014). Additionally, the connection of social interactions and asymmetries of power, with visibility, has been established (Brighenti, 2007, as stated in Saint-Blancat & Cancellieri, 2014). As Barnes et al. (2004) confirms, when considering public participation and whether it challenges or reinforces social exclusions we must also consider the power relationships in place. Gaventa (2004, as cited in Barnes et al., 2004) concludes that when power relations are more or less equal is when the most empowering, and effective, participation happens. Therefore, when exploring the work of placemakers one must keep power-relations at play in mind. Placemaking and participation As part of the placemaking movement there has been truly impressive and wide-ranging, cross-disciplinary and global work that has been done on engaging users of public spaces,
Project for Public Spaces (2014). PPS Grassroots Placemaking Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.pps.org/pdf/grassroots.pdf. Project for Public Spaces (n.d.) A guide to neighbourhood placemaking in Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.placemakingchicago.com/cmsfiles/placemaking_guide.pdf. Project for Public Spaces (1981). Bryant Park: Intimidation or relaxation? New York. Reclaim the Streets (n.d.). Reclaim the Streets! The pollution of capitalism. Retrieved from http://rts.gn.apc.org/prop07.htm. Ricketts, A. (2008). Participation in place-making: Enhancing the wellbeing of marginalised communities in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Retrieved from Rodman, M. (1992). Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality. American Anthropologist, 94(3), 640-656. Saint-Blancat, C., & Cancellieri, A. (2014). From invisibility to visibility? The appropriation of public space through a religious ritual: the Filipino procession of Santacruzan in Padua, Italy. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(6), 645-663. Schneekloth, L., & Shibley, R. (1995). Placemaking: The art and practice of building communities. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Smith, C. (2004). Whose Streets? Urban Social Movements and the Politicization of Space. Public: Art/Culture/Ideas, 29, 156-67. Social Life (n.d.). Placemaking in the US: Project for Public Spaces. Retrieved from http://www.social-life.co/blog/post/PPS_blog. Sutton, S. E., & Kemp, S. P. (2011). The Paradox of Urban Space: Inequality and Transformation in Marginalized Communities. New York Palgrave Macmillan. The University of Chicago Urban network (2014). How Placemaking Helps Residents Shape
and Connect to Their Communities. Retrieved from Torres, C. A. (2014). First Freire: Early Writings in Social Justice Education, Teachers College Press. UN-HABITAT (2013). Streets as Public Spaces and Drivers of Prosperity. UN- Habitat Headquarters, Nairobi.