Absence, Urban Space, and Civil Participation in Rabin Square
The square was meant to be a space “intended as an urban social instrument (page 26).” There are many different parts to the square that were determined by three different competitions. The first was in 1947 and the main goal was to create a continuous façade around the site. This was a great idea, but the spaces and local shops around the square ended up getting more business and use than the square. The second competition was focused more on the plaza itself and third was focused on a building for city hall. I think that by having city hall on the plaza, it makes the plaza a more political environment. Using Tel Aviv in comparison to Boston city hall, I get the same feeling. Both environments are uninviting and cold, in my experience with Boston city hall. I think that both plazas should attempt to be more inviting and less cold. I think that having a park in front of the buildings would be more beneficial and welcoming to the public. The spaces would become livelier than what they are now. Boston city hall always seems to be dead and the reading states, “The empty plaza stands in…contrast with the lively space around it (page 27).” The reading gives the impression that the plaza is empty most of the time and that the spaces around the plaza are livelier.
The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space
In regards to question four of the reading question, author D. Mitchell says that the right to housing is a privately owned things that the public have a right to control if things happen to get out of hand. This means that police can come and can control any type of disturbance. This concept is much different than the right to inhabit since, this right says that it is where one lives that makes it one’s home, but this can also be controlled by the public, because this can be considered squatting in or on someone else’s private property.
No comments:
Post a Comment