Privatisation remains one of the most studied and impactful forces shaping public space development and governance. Public space, while valued for its social and cultural contributions, often lacks direct measurability in economic terms, relegating it to a lower priority in urban planning (Low, 2023). Additionally, the taken-for-granted nature of public spaces results in their appreciation only after they are commodified or redeveloped for commercial purposes. This process, often linked to neoliberal urbanism, has been analyzed extensively since the 1980s, with recurrent concerns over the gradual erosion of genuinely public spaces (Mitchell, 2017).
Commodification and the Gentrification Frontier
Privatisation often materializes through commodification, where spaces become embedded in capital accumulation processes. Sorkin (1989) describes this as the “Disneyfication” of urban centers, seen in the transformation of downtown areas into sanitized, consumer-driven environments, the emergence of mall-based neighborhoods, and the proliferation of skybridges and underground tunnels that disconnect pedestrian life from the streets. In New York City, a widely studied example, zoning incentives allowed developers to create Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) in exchange for increased building height and density. However, these spaces, while nominally public, often impose restrictive access policies, extensive surveillance, and exclusionary management practices (Nemeth, 2009). The privatization of public spaces also aligns with broader urban securitization trends, where heightened policing and surveillance cater to affluent populations and real estate interests rather than fostering inclusivity (Vigneswaran et al., 2017).
Governance and Public Accountability
Privatisation is facilitated by governance models that minimize or bypass public consultation. Schulze-Seeger (2023) highlights how planning councils and development organizations often limit citizen influence in decision-making, shifting the purpose of public spaces toward commercial rather than collective interests. This phenomenon is evident in cases like Allianz Park in Munich, where public feedback was excluded from redevelopment plans, and in Australia’s Unsolicited Proposal policy, which allows private firms to propose urban projects without open competition or community input (Rogers & Gibson, 2023). These shifts align with a broader neoliberal logic in urban governance, where market efficiency is prioritized over democratic engagement.
Privatisation and Urban Citizenship
Low (2023) identifies key dimensions of public space—physical form, ownership, governance, access, symbolic meaning, and political activity—all of which are shaped by privatisation. The relationship between ownership and access is particularly significant; while streets and sidewalks typically remain the most accessible spaces, parks and plazas with private funding often impose spatial exclusions through surveillance and policing. This dynamic is evident in spaces like Central Park, where heavy surveillance can deter marginalized groups, and in gated communities, which explicitly exclude those deemed undesirable (Iveson, 2018).
The exclusionary nature of privatised public spaces has direct implications for urban citizenship. Nemeth (2007) found that across 163 public spaces in New York, private ownership curtailed the rights of marginalized groups, undermining their ability to participate fully in civic life. Davis (2006) extends this critique, framing exclusion as a mechanism of capital accumulation that actively displaces certain populations. However, some scholars argue that privatization can also generate civic benefits, such as job creation, improved urban aesthetics, and enhanced safety perceptions (Gałkowski & Antosz, 2022). Mitchell (2017) further examines how privately managed public spaces often employ curated programming—such as corporate-sponsored cultural events—to promote engagement while maintaining control over acceptable uses. Thus, the relationship between privatisation and publicness is complex, shaped by trade-offs between market-driven governance and democratic accessibility.
The “End of Public Space” Debate
The theoretical discourse on privatisation frequently engages with the idea of the “end of public space,” a concept popularized in the 1990s amid growing concerns over its commodification (Bodnar, 2015). Mitchell (2017) applies Lefebvre’s (1991) theory of abstract space, arguing that capitalism inevitably transforms public spaces into exchange-value commodities, subordinating their social function to economic imperatives. This abstraction manifests in restrictive regulations, securitization, and even the spatial management of protests, where authorities negotiate with activists to designate pre-approved areas for demonstrations (McPhail et al., 1998). While these constraints suggest a diminishing public realm, counter-movements—such as urban activism, public art interventions, and the use of social media in mobilization—demonstrate resistance to privatisation trends (Mitchell, 2017; Low, 2023).
Belina (2012) offers a critical perspective on the “end of public space” thesis, arguing that public space itself has always been subject to exclusionary power structures. Rather than lamenting its decline, he suggests that scholars should focus on addressing structural inequalities that hinder equitable access. This study contributes to this debate by analyzing how privatisation manifests in Australian cities, assessing its impact on accessibility and urban citizenship.
Securitisation and the Surveillance Paradigm
A key dimension of privatisation is the securitisation of public space, which intensified following events like the Arab Spring, where urban squares became focal points for political mobilization (Jebnoun, 2022). Foucault (1979) conceptualized this spatial regulation as a function of neoliberal governance, where the perception of constant surveillance fosters self-regulation among urban inhabitants. This extends into contemporary urban planning, where defensive architecture, biometric surveillance, and predictive policing reinforce socio-economic stratification.
The post-Cold War era saw a surge in militarized urban design, justified by narratives of public safety (Hess & Mandhan, 2023). In New York City, the response to vehicular attacks in the 2010s led to the “fortification” of high-profile public spaces, installing security barriers that altered their usability. These interventions, while aimed at enhancing safety, also serve as mechanisms of spatial control, restricting spontaneous public gatherings and limiting political expression.
The proliferation of surveillance technologies—ranging from facial recognition to algorithm-driven policing—raises concerns over privacy, discrimination, and due process (Heaven, 2020). Jacobs et al. (2024) describe the emergence of “AI-cologies” in urban security, where automated surveillance systems operate with minimal public oversight. The risks associated with these technologies have prompted regulatory responses, such as Australia’s legal action against Clearview AI for privacy violations (Matulionyte, 2024). However, the broader implications of AI-driven securitisation on urban citizenship remain unresolved, necessitating further scrutiny.
Barangaroo Public Space Study 