In this day and age, a public space is defined as an area that is open for use to all the public, and such public spaces include plazas, squares, parks, and street markets, to name a few. Although these locations may seem like ordinary elements of an everyday community, they are in fact crucial for maintaining each community. Public spaces are very beneficial, as they provide several “cultural opportunities, attract tourism, encourage volunteerism, improve the environment, reduce crime, and attract business investments” (Kent). In simpler terms, a public space allows all kinds of people from different backgrounds to gather together and create relationships and memories with one another, and as the public becomes closer together from their interactions, the managing of the public space will also be more successful. However, it is no secret that throughout history there have been altercations “over the use and control of public spaces” (Rascovar, iv). Specifically, two sites that have encountered such difficulties are Washington Square, located in Greenwich Village in Lower Manhattan, and Tompkins Square, located in East Village. There have been “inner-city struggles over space” (Von Hassell, 375) in these two locations for a long period of time. On the other hand, when comparing the events that had occurred in Washington Square and Tompkins Square it is revealed that the latter had experienced more struggles over space, and with these struggles, have confronted social, political, and economic obstacles.
As was mentioned before, Tompkins Square has faced several conflicts over space in a social point of view. Tompkins Square Park is a public area that easily presents the major issue of access to space as the members of this community themselves have issues regarding how their fellow neighbors use the little space that is provided to them. To explain, although the park is small, it is divided into different sections so that the public may participate in the activities that
they wish to, from playing all kinds of sports to simply sitting on park benches hoping to have a relaxing day. Although this structure may seem ideal, some sections do overlap with one another. In other words, the division of this park is somewhat disorganized. As a result, the struggle for space is clear as the community “debate, negotiate, re-negotiate and act upon the issue of who has a right to space and how it will be used” (Mattson, 131). One of the main problems brought up is the challenge that individuals faced when trying to obtain their personal space. Many come to Tompkins Square Park in order to have some personal time for themselves, but of course they struggle to fulfill this because many cannot seem to have a moment of peace. Interviews were conducted on members of the community for are frequent to the park, and a certain individual was Mr. Verdant, who gladly gave his opinion regarding the situation during that time. He states that “The park is better off without Tent City” (Mattson, 131). This man in particular is one who likes to spend his time sitting on a park bench in the sun while facing the green scenery, but he claims that it is difficult to have the quiet time that he desires when the homeless tends to start up a conversation with him. Although he feels sympathy for them, he prefers to keep a distance from them. Another situation involving personal space revolves around the children’s courtyard. This area is enclosed by fences and at the entrance lies a sign that says “‘Children and their Guardians Only'” (Mattson, 133). Even though the admission requirements are quite clear, the elderly and others still use this area in order to seclude themselves from the other noisy sections of the park. There are several other examples, but from these examples alone, it is easily noticed that, because of the limited space within the park, those individuals who prefers to spend their free time alone cannot completely fulfill this desire. In other words, they cannot be completely satisfied with how this space is used.
Tompkins Square, other than an open space, is also known as a political space, so it is only natural that there have been struggles over space in a political sense. It began when tension emerged between “‘the German workers and their German employers’ and between workers and native employers and elites” (Shine, 111). Workers would “regulate the labor market” alongside with family and friends, so their labor was also seen as family affairs. Each worker had a close-knit relationship to one another that gave them a sense of empowerment, but this was soon threatened as sectionalism began to corrupt social order. As a result, being the only open space in that area, Tompkins Square soon became the stage for protests and riots. During 1857, Tompkins Square had several clashes occur there, such as the Dead Rabbit Riot, which was a “Democratic uprising against Republican efforts to consolidate power” (Shine, 111), the Bread riot, and simply workers demanding for “public works employment” (Gardner, 233). Due to this behavior of the community, the city decided that they should be punished by turning the park into a military parade for the New York National Guard, specifically, the First Division’s Seventh Regiment, and this was established in 1866. From their purpose of suppressing the riots, which only led to more problems by heightening the tension within the community, it also put the public’s beloved open space in danger. To explain, because of the First Division’s newly established drill-ground in Tompkins Park, the “New York Senate introduced a bill that mandated the removal of all the features that made Tompkins Square a park” (Shine, 114). Such elements included the removal of the fountain and the grass in order to build the physical drill-ground. Naturally, this only resulted in more riots as the community fought to preserve the space that was meant to be open for all, and thus, another struggle over space that they had to confront.
Finally, Tompkins Square also had its share of problems in regards to the economy during that time. In the 1970s, the economy began to deteriorate due to the fiscal crisis and
failing housing stock. In an attempt to turn things around, the city placed the government policy called “planned shrinkage” (Von Hassell, 378). This policy would basically eliminate “services to low-income communities” (Von Hassell, 378). In other words, this action would negatively affect only the lifestyles of thousands of low-income families. To add on, the Fiscal Crisis of 1975 only worsened the situation. After 1975, the government policy was then called “treat and trickle down,” and with this the city’s plan was to cut city expenditures in low-income communities and instead focus more in investing in upper-income communities in the hope that this policy would save the suffering economy. However, such hopes are not so simple to achieve. As time passes by, the appearance of the area eventually becomes an area filled with “rubble-strewn lots and vacant buildings” (Von Hassell, 378), but it does not end there. The final outcome is a neighborhood known for its “unemployment, poverty, drugs, crime, and lack of affordable housing” (Von Hassell, 378). Due to this, there was much conflict as thousands of people fought for the use space, from landowners burning buildings down to earn some profit to members of the community struggling to obtain and preserve affordable housing from the burning. It is easy to see that each individual in these circumstances struggled to get a hold of space for their own use.
Despite all the information and evidence provided, one can argue that it was Washington Square who experienced more struggles over space or that neither site actually had it worse than the other. For example, in 1826 the city developed the land and was “officially declared as Washington Military Parade Ground” (Rascovar, 37). An individual may argue that since Washington Square Park also became a military parade for a period of time, both sites must have gone through the same struggles. Although it is a good argument, Washington Square Park actually became a military parade before an actual neighborhood began to emerge. As such, it
can be analyzed that although both sites were at one point used for the military, they are still different from each other. Washington Square’s community took its root after the establishment of the military parade. As for Tompkins Square Park, a neighborhood was already established long before the military parade. In other words, their public space was basically stolen from them, whereas Washington Square Park was never stolen because nothing was placed in that area yet. Of course, Washington Square faced other conflicts, such as the fight against Robert Moses, who wanted to build a roadway through the park, destroying several sections of the neighborhood. In this case, it does seem that this area was threatened at some point, but I continue to feel that the community did not have much to worry. This is because those who opposed and fought for the prevention of this plan included “local residents, business owners, New York University officials, Jane Jacobs, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Lewis Mumford” (Rascovar, 40). From this alone, they had several groups on their side, and naturally they were victorious in the end. In my opinion, this community was rather fortunate to have many on their side, while Tompkins did not have much supporters, and so struggled on a much larger level.
As was mentioned earlier, a public space is very beneficial to the stability of any and every community and therefore should not be taken for granted because no one will know when and if we’ll lose the privilege to have and use such public spaces. Several locations have already learned this lesson, such as Tompkins Square and Washington Square, who overcame many battles in order to be at least satisfied with the resulting outcome. However, although it is fair to say that both communities faced difficulties, with the support of all the information provided, I also believe that is safe to say that Tompkins Square faced harsher difficulties when compared to Washington Square. Tompkins Square were forced to overcome several obstacles if they were to preserve their treasured public space, and it was not wasy to win a victory in each obstacle. Even
though Washington Square did meet some obstacles, I cannot say that it was as much as Tompkins Square nor was it on the same level of difficulty. Nonetheless, it is of great importance to protect and respect the public spaces in New York today, for it nourishes the growth of each community and each neighborhood and only helps to create a closer and friendlier community.
Bibliography:
Gardner, Deborah S. “Tompkins Square: Past and Present.” The Journal of American History, Vol. 77, no. 1, 1990, pp. 232-238. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2078657.
Mattson, Andrew O., and Stephen R. Duncombe. “Public Space, Private Place: The Contested Terrain of Tompkins Square Park.” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, vol. 37, 1992, pp. 129-161. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035458.
Rascovar, Anna. (2017). Washington Square Park: Struggles and Debates over Urban Public Space, The Graduate Center, All Graduate Works by Year: Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects.
Shine, Jacqueline. “‘Open to the People for Their Free Assembly’: Tompkins Square Park, 1850-1880.” Journal of Social History, vol. 45, no. 1, 2011, pp. 108-124. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41678819.
Von Hassell, Malve. “NAMES OF HATE, NAMES OF LOVE: CONTESTED SPACE AND THE FORMATION OF IDENTITY ON MANHATTAN’S LOWER EAST SIDE.”Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 23, no. 4, 1998, pp. 375-413. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29790585.
Time Spent In Activist Space 