In 2002, there was a protest in Vancouver called Woodsquat.

Activists occupied an
abandoned building and later set up a camp on the sidewalk. The protest was against
gentrification, government cutbacks, and homelessness. The camp attracted many
activists and homeless people.

Woodsquat had different meanings for different people. It was seen as a symbol of
opposition to private property and a place for homeless individuals to find safety.
The city obtained an injunction to remove the camp, and the protest disbanded later
that year.

Scholars have tried to understand Woodsquat using different perspectives. Some

analyze it in terms of social justice and citizenship, while others focus on the
challenge it posed to private property. Public space is also considered, as the
protest took place on the street. However, these perspectives may be limited and
miss important aspects of the situation.

When the City argued in court, they focused on specific objects and structures on
the sidewalk, rather than the broader political and citizenship implications of the
protest. The City saw the objects as obstructions and violations of municipal laws.
They considered the sidewalk as a public resource for pedestrian movement, and
anything impeding that flow was seen as a problem.

This perspective, known as pedestrianism, governs urban public space. It

prioritizes the orderly movement of pedestrians and views obstacles as potential
disruptions. The inner life or social standing of the individuals is not a concern.
The sidewalk is seen as municipal property, and the municipality has a duty to
regulate it for the public good.

Pedestrianism does not focus on aesthetic qualities or promoting public

citizenship. It sees the sidewalk as a unified space owned by the municipality, and
others using the sidewalk may be seen as trespassers encroaching upon that space.
To understand pedestrianism, we need specific theoretical and methodological tools.
We should recognize pedestrianism as its own distinct form of legal practice and
knowledge. Instead of focusing on rights, pedestrianism pays attention to placement
and flow. It has its own logic and internal truth. By studying the effects of
pedestrianism, we can learn how it works rather than what it is in abstract terms.
This approach allows us to explore the particular effects of the practices and
knowledge used in pedestrianism.

Pedestrianism involves a unique conception of state power, law, and governance. It

can be seen as a manifestation of "police powers," which aim to maintain order in
society through regulations on various matters such as weights and measures, the
sale of dangerous goods, street lighting, and market opening hours. Police powers
are expansive and less clearly defined governmental powers. They are most active at
the local level, exercised by officials like planning officials, liquor control
boards, municipal engineers, and environmental health officers. The objects of
police powers are "urban objects" that exist in towns, where dense coexistence is
present.

The roots of police powers can be traced back to a patriarchal tradition of

governance based on the household model. Early laws protected the household,
granting authority to the householder to protect and discipline members. This
expanded to the entire nation, with the sovereign responsible for maintaining order
and protecting the realm. Modern police power still follows this hierarchical
membership model, aiming to govern for the public good and orderly conduct.
Violations of these duties challenge the authority of the governing body and
disrupt the order of the household.

In summary, pedestrianism has its own unique legal practices and knowledge. It can
be understood as a form of "police powers" rooted in a patriarchal tradition of
governance focused on maintaining order. The emphasis is on the public good and
orderly conduct rather than protecting individual rights.

When the Woodsquat protestors blocked the sidewalk, they violated their civic duty
and disrupted the order of the larger community.

Police powers are a distinct form of governance that operates differently from
prevailing forms of liberal legality. Unlike law, which emphasizes autonomy and
self-government, police powers are based on heteronomy and government of people by
the state.

Police powers regulate behaviors and conduct through the suppression of nuisances
and the promotion of desired actions. They are preventive in nature, aiming to
anticipate and prevent future disruptions.

Police powers are comprehensive, universalizing, and characterized by open-ended

discretion. They encompass a wide range of objects, such as people, acts, and
things, and employ diverse regulations to maintain order and well-being.

Pedestrianism, as a form of police power, is distinct from prevailing perspectives

on public space. It focuses on flow, placement, and circulation rather than ethical
or political dimensions. It considers both bodies and things in their impact on
circulation.

In pedestrianism, the sidewalk is seen as publicly owned, and the state acts as a
trustee to advance the collective welfare and the public good. It ensures fair
access to public property and prevents the expropriation of property by specific
interests.

Pedestrianism challenges the traditional civic humanism perspective, as it

prioritizes functionality over ethical or political concerns, examines the
interrelationship between bodies and things, and sees public ownership as a means
to serve the collective welfare.

In simple terms, civic humanists believe that the sidewalk is a space for people,
and if there are objects on the sidewalk, they are seen as part of the people using
the space. In the Woodsquat case, protesters and their supporters opposed the
city's plan to remove the structures on the sidewalk. They argued that these
structures were essential for expressing their freedom of speech and that removing
them would take away the message they were trying to convey. The objects on the
sidewalk were seen as representations of their homelessness and a plea for help.

Pedestrianism, on the other hand, focuses on both people and things and how they
relate to each other legally. In the Woodsquat case, the city separated the
protesters from the objects on the sidewalk, considering the objects as mere
obstructions rather than extensions of the protesters' personhood.

The police, who are part of pedestrianism, are mainly concerned with maintaining
order and dealing with physical obstructions, without considering the motivations
or interior lives of individuals. Pedestrianism treats people as objects, either in
motion or at rest, and is primarily interested in whether they are causing
obstructions or not.

Pedestrianism challenges the traditional distinction between humans and objects,

emphasizing the interplay between people and things. It rejects the idea that
material objects are merely background elements in the production of human meaning
and instead treats them as active agents. This approach reconceptualizes the
relationship between people and things and acknowledges their mutual involvement in
shaping the environment.

The sidewalk, where the Woodsquat protest took place, is not just a physical space
but a legal space governed by regulations. Legal actors, such as judges and
municipal officials, oversee and interpret the use of the sidewalk. The sidewalk is
a space that is produced and made meaningful through various legal practices and
knowledge. Pedestrianism contributes to the establishment of specific spaces,
concerns about their placement and arrangement, notions of public and private, and
jurisdictional issues.

Understanding pedestrianism and the legal geography of spaces like the sidewalk is
essential to comprehending public spaces and how the interaction between people and
objects is regulated, interpreted, and ordered. Pedestrianism goes beyond being a
legal framework and becomes a way to understand the spatial dimensions of the law.

The relationship between pedestrianism and social justice is complex and not
straightforward. When we discuss the law and sidewalks, it often involves questions
of rights, citizenship, and justice. Public spaces are seen as sites for political
expression or control. Issues related to social justice have become closely
associated with the study of public spaces.

In recent times, the politics of public space has become more intense due to
factors such as street homelessness, the rise of entrepreneurial cities, and
stricter regulations. Any attempt to regulate public spaces, like in the case of
Woodsquat, can be seen as discriminatory and a threat to the inclusive nature of
sidewalks.

However, pedestrianism, which emphasizes the movement of pedestrians and the flow
of traffic, doesn't align neatly with these arguments. While it can sometimes lead
to the "purification" of sidewalks, it does so on its own terms, effectively
depoliticizing the sidewalk. Pedestrianism cannot be reduced to a tool of class
rule or exclusionary practices, although it is influenced by power dynamics.

Pedestrianism operates in a different way compared to the civic humanist worldview

that emphasizes inclusivity and tolerance. Conflicts regarding sidewalk use, often
involving social justice issues, arise from clashes between these two different
logics. However, pedestrianism often prevails in such conflicts.

In the Woodsquat case, the BC Supreme Court sided with the city and emphasized the
functional purpose of the sidewalk, primarily for traffic flow. The court
considered any structures obstructing this function as a violation. The court
justified the city's authority to regulate sidewalks in the public interest,
emphasizing the duty of the city to enforce by-laws for the protection of its
inhabitants.

Arguments based on individual rights receive little attention in these cases.

Sidewalks are primarily viewed as spaces for circulation, not speech. Unlicensed
structures that impede circulation can be removed. The power of pedestrianism lies
in its ability to depoliticize the sidewalk and bypass rights-based claims. The
sidewalk serves as a conduit for purposeful flow, rather than a space for the
exercise of individual rights.

Understanding the specificities of pedestrianism is crucial for recognizing its

political influence in shaping public space. It is tempting to focus on its effects
rather than understanding how it operates. By acknowledging the particular way
pedestrianism shapes the sidewalk, we can explore its implications for ethical and
political possibilities.

Pedestrianism can be easily characterized as a reflection of hidden agendas and

exclusionary logics. Its focus on circulation and flow can be seen as serving
commercial imperatives and excluding marginalized groups. However, it is a mistake
to reduce pedestrianism solely to these logics or consider it as a veil hiding
deeper agendas. Recognizing the importance of law's technicalities alongside power
relations is essential.

Treating pedestrianism on its own terms is necessary to understand its political

significance. By depoliticizing the sidewalk and emphasizing flow, pedestrianism
can diminish ethical and political possibilities. To challenge and counter its
influence, it is vital to have a comprehensive understanding of how pedestrianism
functions.

If we want to understand public space and its politics, we need to recognize and
understand pedestrianism. Pedestrianism shapes how public space is regulated,
perceived, and debated. It affects how public space is created, governed, and
discussed within the legal system. Pedestrianism has different forms in
administrative practices, judicial evaluations, and legislative debates. It has a
significant impact on the use of urban public space and often conflicts with
alternative views.

To understand pedestrianism, we need to examine prevailing perspectives on public

space, particularly focusing on the sidewalk. Scholars see the sidewalk as a
political space, urban designers view it as a civic arena, and mobility scholars
consider it a site for walking. The sidewalk is primarily seen as a space for
people to interact and engage in desired forms of politics and social interactions.

In contrast, administrative pedestrianism, discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, is a

perspective held by city bureaucrats and urban engineers. They view the sidewalk as
a space for pedestrians, prioritizing their movement over other uses. They use
codes, regulations, and engineering principles to design and control the sidewalk,
aiming for efficient circulation. Other considerations like aesthetics or
commercial interests are often disregarded or opposed in favor of pedestrian
movement. Administrative pedestrianism has historical roots tied to the
professionalization of urban engineering and the desire to order street users'
behavior and movement.

Pedestrianism is not limited to engineers but also influences judicial perspectives

on the sidewalk, explored in Chapters 5 and 6. Judges often rely on pedestrianism
to understand the sidewalk, drawing from common law principles related to rights of
way, public passage, and police powers. Courts prioritize mobility and often negate
arguments for other functions such as free speech or expression, limiting
opportunities for public dissent. Homeless individuals and marginalized groups are
disproportionately affected by pedestrianist logics, but even private interests can
conflict with pedestrianism.

Chapter 7 discusses political pedestrianism in public arguments supporting laws

that regulate public space, like begging controls. Political pedestrianism relies
on a neutral conception of autonomous individuals with negative rights, emphasizing
autonomy and mobility. Begging is seen as a violation of the rules governing public
encounters and threatens the pedestrian's right to move freely. This perspective
frames begging as a matter of legal concern.

In Chapter 8, the significance of pedestrianism in the study of public space is

highlighted. Despite its seemingly mundane nature, pedestrianism organizes and
shapes the sidewalk and its functions in ethically troubling ways. It should not be
solely seen as a cover for sinister motives but recognized as a distinct and
relatively autonomous logic, operating in an ambiguous relationship with broader
forces like capitalism and globalization.

In simple words, this passage talks about some interesting and unusual things that
happened in a neighborhood called Fremont in Seattle. It mentions a statue of a man
named Vladimir Lenin, a rocket on top of a building, and a troll under a bridge.
The neighborhood is known for being eccentric and unique. One day in 2001, someone
anonymously put a large metal pig on a sidewalk, and it became very famous. People
were curious about who did it and why. The media followed the story for months. It
turned out that the pig was made by two artists who wanted to make a statement
against consumerism. The pig was not allowed to be there, but it challenged the
rules and started discussions among people. The passage also mentions similar acts
of resistance in other cities around the world, where people are trying to reclaim
public spaces and create new meanings for them. The book intends to explore what we
can learn from these acts and how they affect our understanding of public spaces.

In simple words, public spaces in cities have always been important for people.
Places like parks, streets, and plazas are where people gather, socialize, and
participate in events. They are also where people express their opinions and engage
in political activities. Public spaces are not just physical areas, but they
represent social connections, political institutions, and community practices. They
are seen as places of democracy and open discussion, where everyone can participate
and express themselves. However, the reality is that public spaces often exclude
certain groups of people based on factors like gender, class, and race. Public
spaces have also been used to display and exercise power by those in authority. In
democratic societies, public spaces have become important for protests and
demonstrations, but they can also be controlled and limited by security measures.
Different cultures have different views on public space, with some countries having
strict control over it, while others prioritize individual and family obligations.

In simple words, public spaces in many Asian cities are often controlled by the
government and represent the official image of the city. However, the real vibrant
urban life often happens in the smaller streets and alleyways, away from the main
public areas. For example, in Seoul, South Korea, there are narrow alleys called
Pimagol where restaurants and shops have developed, creating a lively part of
everyday city life.
In the United States, the development of public parks has been influenced by biased
ideologies and regulations. Early parks were designed to provide relief from city
life by escaping to the countryside. Reform parks were created in immigrant and
working-class neighborhoods to keep children and adults off the streets and
assimilate them into American culture. Today, despite claims of inclusiveness,
certain groups, such as immigrants and ethnic minorities, may not feel welcome or
catered to in neighborhood parks.
There has been a decline in public space and public life in recent years. People
have become more focused on personal interests and private lives, leading to a lack
of social interactions in public spaces. Privatization of public spaces has also
become common, with downtown areas and suburban lands being transformed into themed
malls and marketplaces that prioritize business interests over public use. Public
spaces are increasingly controlled and commodified by private entities, limiting
their functions and meanings.
The control of public space has global implications, as private interests shape the
design and use of urban areas. Privatization diminishes opportunities for political
conversations and can turn public spaces into one-dimensional consumer venues. It
also hinders the formation of robust and inclusive public spheres. The
commercialization of public spaces has negative effects on civil society and the
public, as it reduces the diversity and complexity of public life.

In simpler terms, the question is whether it's still possible to imagine a public
space that is open and inclusive, considering the limitations and setbacks we've
seen historically and today. Some scholars argue that public space and its freedom
and openness have never been guaranteed, but have been achieved through struggles
and actions. They believe that the right to public space and social justice can
only be maintained and advanced through ongoing struggle.
Despite the increasing regulation and privatization of public spaces, there are
individuals and communities making efforts to reclaim freedom. For example, in San
Francisco, cyclists gather in large numbers for Critical Mass rides to reclaim the
streets from cars. In Beijing and Hong Kong, political dissent and community
gatherings occur in public spaces, challenging the control of authorities. New
technologies, like the internet and social media, have also enabled global
communication and mobilization for protests and activism.
On a smaller scale, citizen initiatives and informal activities are creating new
uses and forms of public space. Community gardens on abandoned properties have
become productive plots for cultivation, recreation, and education. These
grassroots efforts provide both private and public benefits, offering alternative
forms of public space.
Although these acts may not seem revolutionary, they often require grassroots
struggle and activism. Examples include community efforts to defend a garden from
real estate development in Seattle and illegal vendors in Taipei's night market
finding ways to evade police enforcement, creating a lively and dynamic
marketplace.
Overall, while public space faces challenges, there are still possibilities for
open and inclusive spaces through ongoing struggles, grassroots initiatives, and
the use of new technologies.

This book is about understanding how people create public spaces that go against
the usual rules and regulations. It focuses on alternative spaces, activities, and
relationships that have emerged in response to changes in society. Instead of
lamenting the loss of public spaces, the book explores new possibilities for
diverse, just, and democratic public spaces.

The book features essays from different professionals who have been involved in
creating these alternative public spaces through their work and activism. They come
from various fields such as anthropology, communication, geography, architecture,
art, community organizing, landscape architecture, and urban planning. The essays
share real-life examples and lessons learned from these experiences.

The book draws on previous publications that have explored similar topics, such as
the unintended uses of urban public space and the concept of everyday urbanism. It
also looks at playful uses of urban spaces, marginal and symbolic spaces, and the
idea of urban informality as a form of freedom.

The book is organized into different categories of actions and practices that shape
resistance and alternative urban practices. These categories include appropriating
existing public spaces for new purposes, reclaiming abandoned spaces for collective
functions, pluralizing public spaces to reflect the diversity of ethnic groups,
transgressing boundaries between private and public spaces, uncovering hidden
meanings and memories in urban landscapes, and contesting the rights and identities
associated with public spaces.

Overall, the book aims to imagine a different approach to creating public spaces
that are diverse, dynamic, and supportive of a more just society.

The stories in this book are about people and communities in the city who struggle
to find their place and express themselves. They challenge the boundaries and
meanings of public spaces. The individuals and groups involved include activists,
architects, community organizers, artists, immigrants, parents, planners, sex
workers, squatters, students, teachers, and urban farmers, among others. There are
many ways these individuals and groups actively engage in contesting and reshaping
public spaces and the city itself.

These actions range from converting private homes into community spaces to using
streets for alternative purposes. While these acts may seem small, they have a big
impact because they don't require large investments or infrastructure. They disrupt
the dominant urban landscapes and create new possibilities for interactions,
functions, and meanings in public spaces.

The creation of this alternative public space is more participatory and

spontaneous, making it more open and inclusive. It reflects the perspectives of
different people and allows for a wider range of individual and collective actions.
By resisting the dominant regulations and notions of public space, these
individuals and groups contribute to a broader contestation of ideas and
discussions in the public sphere of contemporary society.

The making of insurgent public space represents a different approach to city

development compared to traditional urban planning. Instead of relying solely on
professionals and experts, citizen groups and individuals play a distinct role in
shaping the urban environment. They take initiative and make changes without being
limited by planning regulations or limited opportunities for participation. This
can be seen as a form of guerrilla urbanism, where citizens defy the dominant
forces and make radical changes in the existing urban conditions.

As cities change socially, economically, and politically, the functions, meanings,

and production of public spaces also evolve. With diverse urban populations and
cultures, the production and use of public space become highly contested. Insurgent
public space represents a variety of actions and practices that enable and empower
this contestation. It nurtures and expresses alternative identities, meanings, and
relationships. It allows individuals and groups to actively participate in civic
exchanges and debates, renewing the city as a democratic and inclusive space.

The presence and creation of insurgent public space are indicators of the well-
being and inclusiveness of our society. They show that people are actively involved
in shaping their cities and challenging dominant norms and regulations.