impossible?

This article points to something I have been wondering for a while in respect to this project. Is it really even possible to create a spontaneous "meeting point" without it having to do with the oppressed, the homeless, the poor, the outsider-artists etc.? I don't think it is a coincidence that the imagery I chose to illustrate the type of "meeting place" includes a largely "urban" demographic (referring to the word's popular usage of "outside the cloistered world of architecture"). Also, the logo, which was a remnant of earlier talk of a metaphorical/literal stencil, has a semiotic connection to this "urban" spatial culture, in it's faux-spray paint appearance and the idea of "tagging" (which nate mentioned in an earlier post).

I think it is a challenge to come up with a way to facilitate this kind of spontaneous congregation without lessening it's potential impact. The reason that Parisian situation worked so well was that those people were not legally supposed to be on that land. The moment you set up a space for people to "meet spontaneously" or even set up some type of civic framework to allow more "spontaneous congregation" some of the spontaneity and impact is lost.

The Beatles played on a London recording studio rooftop in 1969, first conceiving the idea only four days earlier, and resulted in traffic being stopped for blocks and the police to come in and shut them down. When the Today show has a concert in the streets in front of their studios, it doesn't have quite the same impact. When the police are protecting you instead of shutting you down, the cultural impact of your actions are dampened quite a bit.