The Politics of Space in Urban Redevelopment: The Place of Street Vendors in a “Redeveloping” City

Abstract

Re-structuring and re-development of cities in the name of urbanization is always a murky process. It highlights how the social production of public spaces underscores the intricate interplay between society and its physical environment and the sociospatial ramifications of the power dynamics that maneuver the redevelopment of cities. “(Re)development” leads to the (re)production of a public space which can lean either towards social inclusion or exclusion. Since the production of space hinges on social relations, exclusion is built on the very same. Examining the eviction of street vendors from Sri Lanka’s Galle Face Green reveals the power dynamics inherent in urban development. Drawing from diverse scholarly perspectives, including Henry Lefebvre's spatial theory, this study explores the contested nature of public space, the marginalization of certain groups, and the role of capitalism, politics, and culture in shaping urban landscapes. Highlighting solutions such as inclusive governance and legislation, it advocates for equitable spatial policies that recognize the contributions of marginalized communities while addressing sociospatial injustices.

Public spaces such as cities are constantly reshaped to accommodate “redevelopment” and “urbanization” plans. To do so, these public spaces need to be re-produced, bringing the intricate interplay between society and the space that they occupy to the surface. During the process of restructuring, society will be fragmented as those who belong within a “redeveloped” city space and those who are “ostracized.” As such then, social exclusion becomes the modus operandi that underpins redevelopment and urbanization.

A case in point is Sri Lanka’s Galle Face Green (a public space) controversy, where since February 4, 2024, in the quest of maintaining food standards, health and cleaning up the city, the “issovadai” (roughly translated as prawn pattie) carts (street vendors) were ripped off of their long-standing right to sell goods on the seafront because they were dubbed as “ugly,” “dirty,” “broken,” and as “discourage[ing] tourists” by the managing director of Sri Lanka Port Management Consultancy Services (Pvt) Ltd (Plan to move sellers into underground shops: Director SLPMCS, n.d.).  Even though the vendors were re-located to the Galle Face Road pavement for the time being, there has been no official word that guarantees the safety of their businesses. Because of this, Daily Mirror (Those familiar “issovadai” carts on Galle face green may soon be a thing of the past, n.d.), after interviewing a handful of the vendors, asks the question as to whether it is about “sanitation or gentrification” of a public space. In extending the thought, could this be an attempt to (further) privatize a public space?
 
As mentioned in an Instagram post by Colombo Urban Lab (2024); a collaborative and interdisciplinary space that enables connections between research, practice, and public policy, this hostility towards the vendors was once preceded by them being “dispossessed from their homes in Kompannyaveediya (Slave Island) due to beautification and development projects.” And while there could be many angles from which this narrative can be approached, one that persists is how “development” leads to the (re)production of a public space which can lean either towards social inclusion or exclusion. Since the production of space hinges on social relations, exclusion is built on the very same. Therefore, (re)producing a space is inevitably a power move and will result in sociospatial ramifications. Subsequently, a decision to spatially reshape a defining location of the city brings a string of questions to the forefront. Such questions include: Who shapes the city? What type of city is under scrutiny? (Colombo is the economic/financial capital of Sri Lanka) What place image are they trying to conjure? Who is being Othered (Us/Them dichotomy) in the process? What are the social odds and finally what is the lingering aftermath of such a spatial-social reordering?  

Space, be it public or private, is socially produced. It is not an empty vessel where things happen nor is it merely a backdrop for social and cultural events to unfold. It is rather an agent that shapes society and its discourse. The spatial turn that defined the 1990s viewed “spatiality as a cause-and not merely a consequence considered as a (collateral) effect-of social justice or injustice” (Vives-Miró, 2022, p.43). When reading this one-amidst-many-cases (read WIEGO’s “Street Vendors and Public Spaces” for other case studies) along the lines of spaces (private and public alike) as socially produced, it is vital to know the process involved in (re)producing space. It is also important to understand why evicting street vendors is often one of the first choices when it comes to redeveloping a public space. Henry Lefebvre states that the production of space is compiled of three interrelated branches namely, representations of space (conceived space-usually imagined by institutions such as governments, authorities, NGOs for the inhabitants/users of it), spatial practices (perceived space), and spaces of representation (lived space) (Lefebvre, 1992). In instances such as redevelopment of cities, there are tensions between the conceived space and lived space due to the strained relationship between the living situation of the inhabitants and the restructuring plan forced on them by authorities. Initially, most scholars believed the power relationships defined by capitalism and economics functioned as the buttress that defined the production of space. Gradually, other schools of thought brought forth the opinion that limiting space only as a production of capitalism and economics negates the role that vital factors such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability status play in construing a place and its image (Morgan, 2000).

As such then, urban cities—a prime example of produced spaces—are far from being neutral entities; they embody power dynamics that dictate who belong and who is marginalized. Spatial exclusion materializes in numerous forms ranging from the gentrification of streets to the unequal distribution of resources such as parks, schools, and healthcare facilities. The spatial organization of a city reflects and reinforces existing social hierarchies, privileging the affluent while disenfranchising the marginalized. Gentrification, for instance, displaces low-income residents from their neighborhoods, pushing them to the peripheries where they will be divorced and socially isolated from having access to essential services and employment opportunities. This spatial segregation endorses and feeds on cycles of poverty, adding fuel to the burning issue of social inequality. Paradoxically, this issue has also spread into public spaces; ones that are supposed to be available for anyone’s disposal. On a superficial level, “public space” implies being accessible to everyone. Ideally, it is a “common space open to all members.” Semantically, the term is laden with heavy political connotations. With the influx of internal migration from rural to urban areas, the “public space” transitions into a contested site that begins to function on new sociospatial relationships. Ensuing a mutation as such, groups such as street vendors and the “urban poor” are sacrificed for the sake of “gentrification and ‘beautification’ of cities” (Iwatani, 2019, p.31).

In effect, an act like removing street vendors who had played a vital role in producing the city with the arbitrary excuse of redevelopment of the very same, to elevate the country’s image will result in social exclusion on political, economic, and cultural levels. However, spearheading the specific case study used here, is the “economic redevelopment” component where the eviction of the street vendors is directly related to their individual market valuation, job type, where their job belongs territorially, socially, politically, and how they fare when pitted against the monetary value of a/the land which constitutes a “modernized” city. Inevitably, what is considered grotesque will often be replaced by symbols of affluence. This also resonates closely with capitalistic efforts to privatize public spaces, homogenize diverse landscapes, and make them more exclusive. Extrapolating street vendors from a “core” locality and relocating them to a “peripheral” locality will create a civil war between the territories as well (Even though ironically, “core” and “peripheral” localities is a continuum of one another rather than an anti-thesis). Unsurprisingly, bestowing importance to the “economy over society and culture, and glorifying the particular path taken by Western industrialized states, “economic development” became a main policy objective for the so-called Third World from the 1950s” (Perera, 1998, p.133).
 
Pessimistically (or realistically), a reproduction of a public space can happen in the name of the holy trinity of a capitalistic ploy, a political gimmick, a lie needed to promote vested interests in the guise of development or an orchestrated effort of all three. From a glass-half-full viewpoint, changing the landscape of a public space could be attributed to positive urbanization, creating a “world-class image” and ameliorating the quality of life of the general public, even though it begs the question as to which strata of the society will receive the well-wishes. The redevelopment of cities involves both the exclusion of some and the inclusion of others. Unfortunately, in a capitalistic society, striking a balance between these two binaries is how the social fabric is weaved and maintained.

Solutions for the issue at hand often look promising on paper but lack a foundation when put into practice because most of them have loose frameworks that don’t take ground-level issues/opinions into consideration. Additionally, it is inadvisable to follow a cookie-cutter measure for sociospatial problems which are always deeply rooted, locally. One solution for an intervention as such would be for the inhabitants of the lived space (in this case street vendors), the ones placed (geographically and socially) in the grassroots level, to counter the strong forces imposed by the ideologies of the conceived space. While this is easier said than done, it is notable how liquefying the identity of spaces is how activism against social injustice thrives. Ultimately, it is wise to incorporate SDGs that align with equity and inclusion to produce a framework that will benefit all. This means two important things. On the one hand, decision making should happen as a collective effort where those affected should have a say in the final call. On the other hand, harmful myths that negate the crucial role street vendors play in urban environments must be overwritten/overridden. Because, contrary to popular beliefs, they bolster revenue through taxes and fees, stimulate demand for goods and services, improve food security and public safety, and add to the overall appeal of urban areas. A commendable example of acknowledging and following inclusive regulations that vouch for the safety of street vendors’ livelihoods is that of India's Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. This legislation, grounded in principles of recognition and accommodation, is an approach that credits the vendors' contributions and ensures their integration into urban planning (WIEGO, n.d.).

Naturally, a vision for building a nation should be an attempt to include all, where no one is disadvantaged. While this sounds idealistic, there should at least be attempts to flatten out hierarchies that thrive on power and discrimination, which is why government intervention is vital. But the question lies in whether dissolving a hierarchical society could dismantle all power struggles or pave way to the replication of something equally authoritarian or worse. Because while it is true that power relations maneuver social production of space, it is equally true that power is not fixed and is subjected to change (Chandhoke, 1993). As cynical as the thought sounds, it is something worth mulling over.

¹Note that Galle Face Green is a place known for public gatherings and was used in 2022 as a site of protest for the “Aragalaya.”

²Some places are inherently ableist which makes it difficult for persons with physical disabilities to access those locations. An example would be how France had to reshape the city to host the 2024 Paralympics.
 
³The terms “core” and “peripheral” localities were cited from Gough, Eisenschitz, & McCulloch (2006), p.65.

References

@Colombo Urban Lab (2024, April 11) https://www.instagram.com/p/C5njJtLNT5R/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Chandhoke, N. (1993). On the social organization of urban space: Subversions and appropriations. Social Scientist, 21(5/6), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3517815
Gough, J., Eisenschitz, A., & McCulloch, A. (2006). Spaces of social exclusion. Psychology Press.
Iwatani, A. (2017). Streets as spaces of social inclusion and exclusion: The case of street vendors in Ahmedabad. In M. Mio & A. Dasgupta (eds.), Rethinking social exclusion in India: Castes, communities, and the state. Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. (1992). The production of space. Wiley-Blackwell.
Morgan, J. (2000). undefined. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 8(3), 273–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360000200099 
Perera, D. (2022, May 2). Isso vade: The spicy snack that unites Sri Lanka. BBC Breaking News. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220501-isso-vade-the-spicy-snack-that-unites-sri-lanka
Perera, N. (1998). Society and space: Colonialism, nationalism, and postcolonial identity in Sri Lanka. Westview Press.
Plan to move sellers into underground shops: Director SLPMCS. (n.d.). Print Edition: The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka. https://www.sundaytimes.lk/240331/news/plan-to-move-sellers-into-underground-shops-director-slpmcs-553557.html
Street vendors and public spaces: Essential insights on key trends and solutions. Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO).
Those familiar “issovadai” carts on Galle Face Green may soon be a thing of the past. (n.d.). Print Edition: The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka. https://www.sundaytimes.lk/240331/news/those-familiar-issovadai-carts-on-galle-face-green-may-soon-be-a-thing-of-the-past-553559.html
Vives-Miró, S. (2022). The urbanization of poverty: Rethinking the production of unjust geographies. Fennia—International Journal of Geography, 200(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.103192