Came across the “Brooklyn commons” public space this rainy Monday and started thinking about how the word “commons” gets thrown a lot in both web3 and urban planning. 

privately owned public space (POPS), carry a lot of contradictions. they’re created when developers get zoning concessions in exchange for providing “public” acess. 

These spaces are often beautiful and genuinely offer green space and refuge in the city. but they don’t function as a true “public good.” they come with long lists of rules enforced by the nypd— and we know those rules aren’t applied equally.

yes, its a public space, but its also highly controlled and sanitized, shaped by private funding and interests. It’s worth asking whose needs are actually being served. a “commons,” sure, if that means a privatized space that decides who gets to belong. 

I do think these spaces bring value to cities. but we just need to bffr about what makes them possible, and who they’re really built for

Urbanist thinking about open places, open access, and open web
/urbanism + https://zora.co/@miawintam

I agree, though these developer concessions are ultimately paid for by the increased cost of housing, so it's a hidden tax on the renters that they barely benefit from. Localized costs + diffuse benefits = public good.