One of the deep structures of city form is the relationship between public space and private space. When that relationship changes everything else changes.
The Charles Bridge was not actually sponsored by Charles. Indeed Prague does not seem to have either a Charles Bank or a Charles Supermarket Chain.
The bridge simply belongs to the common heritage of this place. It is part of the public domain so that even the visitor feels an absolute right to walk across the bridge, and lean over the parapets to watch the Vltave River flow by.Walking either east or west from the bridge through the network of cobbled streets the sense of belonging remains. The historic town has not yet been destroyed by a market economy where everything has a price, and nothing has value.
At least it seems certain that in the midst of traumatic political change some things are beyond change.
The wide promenade along the edge of the Vltave River seems as immutable as the Queen's Chain along the foreshore of New Zealand. In New Zealand our history is short enough for us to be astonished at the foresight of those visionaries who set aside the Queen's Chain. What brilliant planning it was to see what might be, and to catch the coastline before it was despoiled, so that it would never need to be clawed back metre by metre, with never a chance of regaining its full glory.
This is the kind of planning which we could exercise now by banning all non-reversible architecture in Antarctica, and establishing a World Park before we destroy what never belonged to us. The cry for the right to exist by the people of Lithuania and the lichens of Antarctica may seem to be worlds apart but they are linked by the common need to make the right decision at this time of traumatic change.
Visions of stewardship do not spring out of the void of the abyss. The promenade in Prague existed before the Queen's Chain. The lessons are there, just as the warning signs are there. The people of Prague cannot be expected to understand the threat to their vernacular traditions which is posed by the overseas experts who are rushing to sell them advice. New Zealand politicians can be excused as being simply ignorant when they set out to destroy the Queen's Chain, and Treasury has never been remarkable as a bastion of culture. What can be said though for the /Institute of Architects when they fail to defend our heritage and seek instead to ensure a profit by requesting a guarantee that all the buildings onthe Queen's Chain should be designed by architects?
The changes taking place when New Zealand moves away from democracy are just as profound as the changes taking place when Czechoslovakia moves towards democracy. When the role of government is redefined it is necessary to acknowledge the changing relationship between public and private.
Vaclav Havel, the playwright president of Czechoslovakia, observed recently that "these revolutionary changes will enable us to escape from the rather antiquated straightjacket of this bi-polar view of the world, and to enter at last into an era of multi-polarity."
Multi-polarity has existed in our perceptions of the city for a long time but it does not seem to have been recognised in the thinking of planners and architects.
An art gallery, for example, is a public space, even though it may have some restrictions on access and the eating of sandwiches. It is part of the "commonwealth" of the community. This is why it seems entirely appropriate that it should occupy a dominant site in the public domain. Even people who are turned away at the door of the Aotea Centre because they cannot afford a ticket to get in still regard it as a public facility rather than a private club.
In contrast when a private office building fronts onto a "public" square the square itself is privatised. If the market economy sets out to privatise the public spaces of Prague in the same way that office buildings set out to privatise Albert Park the feeling of belonging will be eroded away.
In Prague "public buildings" declare that the pu~lic spaces are indeed what they ought to be. The presence of public buildings in a city make us feel we belong. It is an astonishing experience to be able to walk alone through the grounds of the castle in Prague long after the city has gone to sleep for the night.
City markets, and even shops, are also perceived as part of the public domain. A shop may well be privately owned, but people assume they will have access to the shop, and would be surprised and angry to be turned away at the door. People feel they own Harrods, and the Arabs take care not to destroy the feeling.
Nevertheless the tendency to seek to privatise the public domain is constantly with us. We all know of gallery directors who do not like people with sweaty breaths standing ih front of "their" paintings. We all know of librarians who dislike people coming in to look at "their" books.
We have all been into shops where we have been made to feel unwelcome.
There is also an architecture of alienation. The glass facade and the brutalism of granite repel human contact. Prague abounds in good architecture which is "user friendly".
When people feel they belong they become stewards of their place. Visiting other people's gardens is very different
from walking in your own garden. In your own garden you pause to pluck out a weed or water a wilting plant because it is yours, although of course if you stop to think you do not own the flower, any more than you own the city.
In architects' perspectives the sculptural forms of housing along the waterfront can be very appealing, but the housing privatises the public space. In contrast barges going up the Vltave, fishing fleets in the Waitemata, and even storage tanks, are part of the public domain.
The common good is better served by the retention of public activities which are perceived as part of the "commonwealth", than it is by the provision of so called public spaces which are in fact an extension of private space.
The challenge faced in Prague is similar to the challenge faced in Auckland. We wish them well in their struggle.
Published in "Home and Building" August/September 1990 p133