Prominent British architecture critic Hugh Pearman, editor-in-chief of the RIBA Journal (the official journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects), published there a note on the fate of Paternoster Square in London.
This square is located very close to St. Paul's Cathedral; in the 1960s, the quarter around it was rebuilt, but unsuccessfully. In 2003, a new reconstruction was completed with a classic "touch", with a triumphal column in the center. Its architectural qualities were challenged by critics, but nevertheless, it was a spacious public space, in the buildings surrounding the square were offices and the London Stock Exchange, and on their ground floors there were cafes and shops.
But in October 2011, the already familiar space suddenly turned out to be closed for the townspeople. The square wanted to accommodate members of the Occupy London movement, demanding social responsibility from British financiers, modeled on the New York protests of Occupy Wall Street. In response, the current owners of Paternoster Square blocked it from all sides, and only tenants of neighboring buildings and their "allowed guests" can get into it, and both of them can only be presented with an identity card.
The square will remain closed until the owners decide to re-open access to all comers; when this will happen is unknown: Occupy London is still functioning nearby, practically on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral (from there they are also trying to expel them, but with much more difficulty; besides, the ministers of the church turned out to be more sensitive to the ethical side of the matter).
It is possible to relate differently to the goals and methods of the protesters, who supposedly represent 99% of the world's population, but the fact remains: London Square has become private in the process of the necessary reconstruction, and now it can be closed for the townspeople at least forever - there would be a desire. The situation is the same in London's docks, in Liverpool One - a new commercial area in the center of Liverpool, in many other spaces, public in form but private in nature. All of them - still open - acquired owners in the course of reconstruction, which the state could not have carried out with its own money.
Hugh Pierman concludes his text with a question: Is this renewal worth the destruction of a truly public space? One can speculate in response about the grimaces of capitalism, but it should be remembered that in New York, the "occupiers" also protested in a private square (park), and its owners first tried to drive them out, but under public pressure they resigned themselves to the situation. In the end, in the United States, the demonstrators were dispersed by the city authorities, who considered the camp, which had existed for 2 months, a source of unsanitary conditions and disturbances in public peace (which was true - at least in part). That is, this is a question - of private, public and private-public space - rather, a reflection of the state of society than a specific economic situation.
N. F.
