Public spaces, as places of consumption, are windows onto unequal economic structures. In this chapter, I discuss different aspects of real and perceived inequalities in Tehran. I demonstrate that massive structural changes, such as the expansion of infrastructure and public transportation, have facilitated access to different parts of Tehran and a more equal experience of the city, yet different forms of inequality persist and are reproduced. Many public spaces offer a variety of opportunities for using space, ranging from walking in a public park to eating in high-end restaurants, all in very close proximity. Depending on what can be consumed and where it happens, public spaces bring inequalities to the fore as different groups often segregate within the same public space, following patterns that usually correlate with their ability to pay for products and services. Thus, in Tehran, as much as urban development may appear to work as an equalizer – bringing different socioeconomic groups together in newly shared public spaces – it highlights economic and social inequalities and makes disparities even more visible.

In Chapter 6, I offer a narrative of how Tehran, as both a physical reality and a conceptual entity, captures the imagination of its residents. The chapter is organized around two emerging cities. The first is a material city that is sometimes admired as “modern,” “developed,” or “comparable to other modern capitals,” and sometimes criticized as “a betrayal of Tehran’s history,” “superficial,” “fake,” “a parody of other cities, with no authenticity.” I explore a second emerging city, a perceptual Tehran, through the narratives that engage with the city as a symbolic entity. Through these expressions, I lay out how Tehran is perceived by its residents, showing that identifying with the city is common and that place identities are more influenced by a sense of belonging to the city than to specific neighborhoods. Furthermore, Tehran has become a new source of inspiration for an unprecedented number of artworks and literature in recent years. Accordingly, while the chapter explores perceptions of the city through narratives of its residents, it also draws on examples of works of art and literature to examine how the city is reproduced and, thus, remembered and celebrated.

In this chapter, I argue that geographical location and spatial orientation influence how residents of Tehran think about who they are and how they define and negotiate boundaries. In Tehran, the spatial locations of self and others in the hierarchical structure of the city remain signifiers of social status, yet the use of public spaces in different parts of the city and easier access to these spaces have complicated established social relations. I discuss how social, symbolic, and spatial boundaries are negotiated in a changing urban environment and how such processes create a sense of belonging or alienation – of being included or excluded – in different spaces. Furthermore, I show that while dividing lines among social groups in Tehran are conceptually powerful, they are not entirely class-based; rather, they are defined by a complex set of values and relations that are constantly questioned and renegotiated in public spaces.

The Introduction situates the book within the context of urban sociology, highlights the importance of the study, and outlines the arguments and contributions. I discuss my approach to the study of public spaces as multilayered sociological entities, rather than mere physical containers of events, people, and the built environment of cities. Studying how public spaces function at the city level, I argue that the meanings and values assigned to places are closely tied to where they are located and how they are used. Approaching public spaces as places where economic, political, gender, and social hierarchies are both reinforced and undermined, I show the complexity of social relations and coexistence in a rapidly changing urban environment. Key themes from urban sociology, sociology of culture, and inequality will be used to lay out the book’s arguments and contributions. I will also discuss my methods and provide an overview of the rest of the chapters.

Economic inequality is not the only form of inequality in urban contexts. In this chapter, I discuss other forms of marginalization in public spaces. Although my main focus is on social relations among citizens, the state’s control of public spaces is consequential in creating and sustaining structural inequalities that directly or indirectly impact social relations in public spaces. Whether controlling appearance and behavior (particularly for women) or suppressing certain belief systems and lifestyles, these state-imposed restrictions create inequalities that extend well beyond economic inequality in use of space. I argue that discriminatory laws or conventions (especially against women and those whose lifestyles or beliefs are not aligned with the ideals promoted by the state) are translated into unequal power relations in public spaces. This chapter examines how these inequalities impact perceptions of class and culture as social groups interact in public spaces and how public spaces are used to create spaces of being and belonging for marginalized groups.

In the conclusion, I bring the components of the book together, arguing that the findings in each chapter relate to a broad framework that explains the social functions and meanings of public spaces. I discuss how perceptions of self and others, in both the economic and cultural senses, act as essential components of urban experience. Through these discussions, this concluding chapter lays out the opportunities and limits of studying public spaces as a means of understanding social relations in changing urban contexts, and it suggests potential paths for future research.

This chapter provides an overview of Tehran’s urban development and shows how the city’s growth has been influenced by natural settings, cultural ideals, and economic and political processes. I explain the class structure of the city (moving from the north to the south, one perceives a gradual shift from wealthier neighborhoods to poorer ones) and its historical and geographical evolution. With an emphasis on grand urban visions, I discuss how natural, historical, and political forces have contributed to the unequal structure of the city.

This chapter elaborates on the relationship between space and coexistence, and ways in which hegemony is reproduced in public space. Constitutionalism plays an ambivalent role in the reproduction of this hegemony, not least through the reproduction of a thick sense of publicness. This thick sense of publicness can be asserted against a range of “others”, such as religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities, whose identities may be subject to privatisation and retreat from public spaces. At the same time, constitutionalism offered a tangible alternative for the old order of toleration, recognising that religious divisions would be permanent, and that legal and social frameworks of accountability might support peace and order. Given that religious intolerance and the foundation of political order were entwined in early modernity, the establishment of the freedom of religion and the more general protection of religious minorities were vital to the project of the modern state.

This chapter focuses on the spatial element in the Linguistic Landscape (LL). The public space is understood in terms of a twofold spatial metaphor, in which the LL can be contained by the public space, but in which the language display of the LL in fact creates the public space. The argument that the term landscape has long-standing links to denotations of social activity and organisation directly supports an understanding of the LL not as ‘a view of the land’, but as human activity that is engaged with the built and natural environment. The chapter thus proposes a model of spatial indexicality, in which units of the LL point not only to the space which they occupy, but to nearby spaces to which they refer, and potentially to other spaces which are far removed or which may be imaginary. Within this model, examples are analysed which illustrate the regulation of spatial divisions by signage, spatial and material properties of sign units, the use of metaphor to establish authenticity and to stake cultural claims, and references to imaginary spaces. The counter-balancing potential for units in the LL to express messages which are not anchored in spatial reference is also examined.

During the privatization craze of the 1980s, libertarians advocated toll roads as the cure for America’s “crumbling infrastructure” problem. As Gerald Gunderson writes in “Privatization and the 19th-Century Turnpike,” Americans invented an “ingenious” market mechanism for supplying its road deficit: the public–private partnership. However, as libertarian commentator Timothy B. Lee concedes: “Roads are deeply intertwined with governments. They always have been and as far as I can see they always will be. This means that theyll never be truly private in the sense that other private companies like restaurants or shoe factories can be.” Chapter 3 illustrates Lee’s insight and argues that highways and roads were a defining feature of “publicness” in the American antebellum experience. Although turnpikes were organized as private businesses and charged tolls in order to recoup considerable investment and turn a profit, in the end they could really not be operated as private businesses: they were inherently political undertakings that required the participation of legislatures, courts, investors, and the general public. Moreover, turnpikes were built in a field of political contestation in which Americans often resisted the privatization of customary public spaces.

This chapter examines the application of the principles underlying artistic freedom in the public space, as well as graffiti and street art. To which extent are States obliged to promote, protect or safeguard artistic freedom when clashing with public interests, public order or public morality standards? Does the qualification ‘illicit’ or ‘commissioned’ play a role in preserving artistic freedom? And do these obligations go as far as safeguarding the individual artist’s right to artistic freedom in case of unpopular, controversial or offensive art and performances in the public space – or urban planning considerations, as in the case of the ‘La Demeure du Chaos’ (Abode of Chaos)? Furthermore, the chapter discusses the question of hateful, racist, sexist, misogynous or homophobic art in the public space, epsecially in light of State obligations to raise awareness and eliminate stereotyping. Last, drawing on numerous case studies such as the Great Wall of Los Angeles and murals painted in post-aparheid South Africa, the chapter explores potential obligations to preserve and safeguard street art – and artists’ frededom – especially in the case of large murals reflective of broad community participation and those that reflect human rights ideals.