There has been two news stories out of Indianapolis and Cincinnati within the past week that have stuck with me and got me thinking about regulation and its effect on the urban environment. Recently, an Indianapolis planning board denied the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) from installing a new sign which featured a variable message screen outside its headquarters on Washington Street in downtown. Meanwhile, news broke that downtown Cincinnati is finally getting their first dog park, joining the many other wonderful dog parks throughout the City.
First, let me clarify something. The reason why the opening of the dog park was such a big deal in Cincinnati is because of an existing regulation that does not allow dogs on Fountain Square, downtown’s premiere public space. Since this regulation went into effect within the past few years, dog owners have been clamoring for a dog park, and now they have one! So these two stories are directly related, even if it isn’t evident at first glance.
The regulation on Fountain Square banning dogs is something I find particularly interesting and, when it comes down to it, quite ridiculous. Supporters of the law would tell you how such regulation is needed to mitigate dog litter and its associated problems. Opponents of the law (myself) would argue that such regulations dehumanize a public space, discourage users from using a space naturally, and encourage a lack of spatial civic ownership.
Similarly, I find the principles behind the recent decision to ban the IBJ’s sign ridiculous. The urban design guidelines for downtown Indianapolis were created in response to concerns over urban feel and clutter. As a result, signage in downtown Indianapolis must fit certain requirements, be of specific sizes, use certain lettering sizes, and follow various other signage control regulations. Proponents of this regulation would tell you that this law is important to create a desired ‘feel’ for downtown and ensure the streetscapes are consistent. Opponents of such laws (myself) would argue that such regulations encourage homogenous streetscapes, creating predictability and monotony in a place that ought to celebrate the ‘human touch’ and allow for diversity and eclectic environments.
I am an urban planner/designer by trade, and have written signage standards before, so I understand the need for certain regulations in today’s capitalistic society. With that said and with these types of regulations occurring in our urban centers, I think some regulations going too far and see alarming trends happening on a number of levels. General regulations, represented here by the Fountain Square dog ban and the IBJ sign ban, are an attempt to control the use of public spaces and create predictability for its users, the human. The human, being an unmanageable, unique, and complex being, will over time naturally reject such a space. As a result, a human is less likely to form a bond or connection with the space, leading to a lack of civic ownership and sense-of-pride of the space.
With this lack of space ownership or caring comes other users who thrive on abandonment, forcing remedies such as ‘no loitering’ and surveillance through cameras and police officers. Soon enough, this endless cycle of dehumanization spirals out of control and you’re left with a barren, sterile space rid of anything resembling human. On the flip side, if public spaces and associates streetscape elements are completely humanized, allowing users to use the space as they see fit and in various ways, the community will eventually feel ownership of the space. As a result, small tasks like picking up your dog’s crap will become a communal expectation that a user would be held responsible for. Yes, this scenario seems quite idyllic, and critics would argue that while nice on paper, this scenario almost never plays out and users will simply take advantage of the space and its lack of regulations.
I am sure this is true to certain extents in the American city, but my observations in European and North African cities point to the contrary, and show public spaces with little to no obvious regulation, high user count, and a sense of chaos and order all at once. In places as diverse as Iraklion to Tripoli or Amsterdam to Athens, it was my observation there was little to no surveillance of the public spaces (compared to American counterparts). If I had to summarize a typical public place, it would be one of no policemen keeping a watchful eye, no visible cameras watching your every move, and little to no urban designs that obstructed movement throughout the spaces. Further, all space, whether it was public or private, seemed to be integrated into the public realm. There were no signs that said ‘Private Property: Keep Off’ or no security guards banning you from certain places. Essentially, the city’s public spaces felt communal, as if all types and creeds of people were welcome to wander the streets and frequent the businesses.
In particular, the Greek and Libyan public realm seemed to rely not on surveillance and the ‘purifying’ of public spaces but rather allowed a more bottom-up approach to dominate the public sphere. In Athens, Iraklion, and Tripoli, it was my observation that spaces were controlled by the surrounding community and they set the ‘rules of the street’ if you will, where community members were responsible for a hands-off regulatory structure. This way, the space was humanized and owned by the community itself, something that lead to place identity creation and thus a higher user count. Because there was a higher user count, so too was there a higher populace diversity.
This hands-off regulatory structure is something places like Indianapolis and Cincinnati ought to implement. While I am aware that the Midwest is by no means Europe, I do think public spaces in each city could stand to become more humanized and allow users to ‘own’ the space and form an intrinsic identity with public spaces, thus making people more likely to pick up that dog crap off the grounds at Fountain Square. Thus, the regulation itself isn’t needed as the community is by nature and need regulating themselves and from the ‘bottom up’ and not the ‘top down.’ I’ve seen it occur in other places in this world, so why not Indianapolis and Cincinnati? If achieved, a more vibrant, energetic, and urban public realm can be created in these two Midwest cities, something that ought to be attempted for an increasingly urban population.
The sign denial does seem silly, and the dog ban on Fountain Square is also quite peculiar while it is also understandable.
Evidently the hard surfaces used on Fountain Square do not react well to urine, and allowing dogs on the square, and thus allowing dogs to urinate on the square, would be damaging to the significant investment that was made to remake the square several years ago.
It is particularly interesting with the dog owners because I do not recall dog owners flocking to Fountain Square prior to the dog ban. It seems to me like a case of wanting something you can’t have, just because you’re told you can’t have it.
In Atlanta, and other cities around the country, they have the dog stations all around town that provide pick-up bags and a bin to dispose of your dog’s waste. In Midtown Atlanta in particular, there are lots of dog owners, and there are these stations on every single block. As a result, the streets stay clean of dog waste and dog owners are kept happy by having many locations to take their pets to do their business. This would seem a simple, and inexpensive way to mitigate the issues associated with dog ownership in a dense urban environment.