From Japan to Boston to Singapore and beyond, the concept is a recurring ingredient in urban buildings that negotiate public and private interests. What exactly is it?
I like the use of a Venn diagram to illustrate your ideas. Keeping with this set-based perspective, is a city room a subset of a larger circle that some would call “the commons” (meaning both built and natural environments accessible to the public)?
I think at their best, city rooms are active participants in the “commons”. They certainly have the potential to have a very high “civic impact : square foot” ratio!
There is a murky line between spaces that are truly (and legally) “public” vs merely “accessible to the public”, which is ripe for exploitation. This may often lead to contested spaces whose “publicness” may change over time. That itself makes these a kind of simulacra of the larger city which is anything but static!
The similarity/distinction between “city room” and POPS is an interesting one. Highly enjoyed this more theoretical (?) yet more logical piece!
I like the use of a Venn diagram to illustrate your ideas. Keeping with this set-based perspective, is a city room a subset of a larger circle that some would call “the commons” (meaning both built and natural environments accessible to the public)?
I think at their best, city rooms are active participants in the “commons”. They certainly have the potential to have a very high “civic impact : square foot” ratio!
There is a murky line between spaces that are truly (and legally) “public” vs merely “accessible to the public”, which is ripe for exploitation. This may often lead to contested spaces whose “publicness” may change over time. That itself makes these a kind of simulacra of the larger city which is anything but static!