Résumé
This paper seeks to shed light on the multidimensional nature of public space and analyze its representations, particularly in the context of urban privatization. Public spaces hold significant democratic value as ideal venues for the communication of ideas. They embody intersectional spheres of social exchange and serve as privileged sites for political expression.Sociologist Thomas Gieryn has shown that attachment to a place results from lived biological experiences, which define group boundaries, contribute to memory formation, and, by extension, foster affiliation with a community. He asserts that "social processes such as difference, power, inequality, or collective action occur thanks to the material forms that we conceive, build, use, and proclaim." Thus, the loss of a space—particularly a public one—can have harmful effects on collective identity. The question then becomes: how can collective identity be constructed in privatized places?Privatized spaces, such as malls, corporate plazas, and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), often limit opportunities for collective identity formation by excluding marginalized groups and prioritizing consumerist values. These spaces are increasingly viewed as sites of profitability rather than public gathering. In light of growing privatization, surveillance, and the shrinking of genuinely public spaces, the shaping of collective identities has been profoundly altered. Drawing from concrete examples in the contemporary Californian landscape, this paper interrogates the philosophies and discourses underpinning various conceptions of public space, particularly in relation to neoliberalism and the urban transformations it fosters.