Residents’ private claiming of public spaces both reinforces and subverts urban spatial order

Evidence

This paradox is even more apparent relative to residents, particularly resident colonizers. On the one hand, the establishment of home territories contributes greatly to the spatial segregation of persons. This bar is taken over by homosexuals, that cafeteria by elderly ladies, this hot dog stand by motorcycle buffs, that section of the park by mothers with small children, and so forth. Through the unplanned, uncoordinated actions of all these individuals and groups, the pervasive ethic of the modern city that there is a place for everyone (and everything) and that everyone (and everything) should be in its place is strengthened. — Lyn H. Lofland, World of Strangers_ Order and Action in…, 774

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• XREF: Core material for the reader’s cross-reading with Simmel and Cole: colonization both answers blasé detachment (creating knowable pockets) and intensifies the segregation that produces it.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how does informal colonization by citizens relate to formal redlining and surveillance-driven segregation that dominate the literature on ‘there is a place for everyone’?

Related

• Territorial colonization both reinforces and destabilizes urban spatial order (similarity 0.87)
• Groups behave like residents and take over public space with abandon (similarity 0.81)
• Urban space residents’ behaviors vary by employment status and group approval (similarity 0.79)
• Third-party authority limits how far colonizers can privatize public space. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Residents’ proprietary attitudes toward public places can deter crime there #complicates (0.60) — Lyn H. Lofland, World of Strangers_ Order and Action in…, 772