ABSTRACT
As anyone who ever felt disturbed by traffic congestion, construction noise or littered sidewalks can confirm, urban spaces are contested. One person’s use of such spaces affects that of other persons, and while the effect may sometimes be welcome – such as when a vibrant street life is seen as attractive – it is not always so, with people’s judgements of what constitutes a positive addition to their perceptual environment varying widely on top. Nuisances may have the emphemerality of a cigarette butt on the pavement but can also be more permanent, such as when formerly public spaces are fenced in or when new buildings change accustomed views. Very few such interventions will be seen as negative by everyone; usually, some people benefit, often very considerably. The question, then, is how to reconcile these benefits with the losses of others, particularly when the latter derive from the development of privately owned real estate. Who has the right to decide over the city, particularly its publicly accessible parts, and what benefits are offered in compensation when these public parts are negatively affected? These are perennial concerns in cities the world over.
