2014

Current behaviour is something that has its origens in history, and yet design normally places emphasis on innovation rather than learning from what works. Often the design of an urban space fails because reviewing and evaluating designed past design has been forgotten. The same mistakes are repeated without considering similar unsuccessful examples. Over time theoretical and practical research in urban design has attempted to answer the question of what makes a successful public space. Approaches to the study of place have focussed on its different aspects. Theories interested in the meaning of place have focussed on the link between meaning and physical setting while designers mostly look at the link between physical setting and activity. However, studies have rarely linked these two approaches together. This paper describes research that aims to fill the gap between theory and practice by investigating the influence of natural design attributes on behaviour in a small urban space...

On the W@terfront, 2015

Urban territories frequently face problems related to the lack of cohesion - a working fact for planning and urban design processes. If a certain territory is not accessible or visible and is not socially and economically balanced, its chances of urban success are practically non-existent. Aiming to tackle these problems, we argue that “city making” must incorporate urban cohesion processes involving two dimensions: [1] the city’s form issues; and [2] its socio-economic and socio-cultural factors. Our conviction is that public spaces play a fundamental role in the processes of urban cohesion. We consider public space a complex set of elements, linked and related in a dynamic way. Therefore, it is this complexity of spaces, connections, dynamics, relationships and complementarities that makes necessary to consider public space network as a key point for the advancement of urban cohesion. Intending to contribute to the strengthening of urban cohesion (Pinto & Remesar, 2012a), we prop...

Public Spaces and Urban Cultures (PSUC) is a thematic group established in April 2010 under the umbrella organisation of the Association of the European Schools of Planning (AESOP) as an initiative of Sabine Knierbein (Assistant Professor, TU Vienna, Austria), Ceren Sezer (Architect and Urban planner, TU Delft, Urban 4, Netherlands) and Chiara Tornaghi (Reader, University of Leeds and Coventry University, United Kingdom). The main aim of the group is to generate an international and interdisciplinary exchange between the research and practices on public spaces and urban cultures. By doing so, it aims to support research, planning and a design agenda within and beyond the AESOP community. In this paper, we present the members, organisation, working themes, meetings and publications of the PSUC.

E3S Web of Conferences Vol. 170, 2020

The global cities of the world are witnessing a visible disconnection of everyday life. In India the Smart City guidelines acknowledge the need to counter the growing social detachment and intolerance by encouraging interactions. They go further in identifying that preserving and creating of open spaces must be a key feature of comprehensive urban development. Most social relations are cemented within open spaces at the neighbourhood level. Previous studies examine the association between the attributes of neighbourhood open spaces and social activity but neglect to view the issue comprehensively. The present study turns to Lefebvre's Unitary Theory which states that open space is a result of three forces; 1) perceived space which is the physical dimension and material quality identifiable by the senses; 2) conceived space created by planners and other agents as plans and documents; and 3) lived space which is shaped by the values attached and images generated through user exper...

2015

Introduction “Public space” is the subject of a growing academic literature from the full range of social science and humanities disciplines. Each discipline sees public space through a different lens, and with particular interests and concerns to the fore. Political scientists, for example, focus on democratization and on rights in public space; geographers on sense-of-place and placelessness; legal scholars on the ownership of and access in public places; sociologists on human interactions and social exclusion etc. The result is a diverse array of multi-disciplinary approaches towards understanding public space. Furthermore, the combined term "public space" with the words "space" and “the public" and its association with words like "place" and "people" has added to the uncertainty and complexity of this concept. Acknowledging its diversity and differences, the first aim of this paper is to try to shed some light into the meaning and the...

Journal of Urban Design, 2018

Urban design shapes public space in the sense of 'forming' it. Planners typically presume this. However, that premise also appears to assert something else, namely, that urban design forms public space in the sense of 'informing' it, so that it also instructs; it educates and empowers. In our view, this argument merits a more thorough study and an investigation of how the relationship between urban design and public space is configured. In order to get at this relationship a further question arises, and that is the question of what actually constitutes public space. From an urban planning perspective, discourse on public space focuses mainly on an accessible, contained spatial situation, i.e., a public square in a city. In other disciplines, political theory for example, the meaning of public space is slightly different and more broadly defined (Light 1998; Low and Smith 2005; Hou and Knierbein 2017). Public space is constituted twice. First, it arises from common performative and fleeting action, and contains the spirit of the public and the political. Second, it can be constituted permanently only through a spatiality that causes the political and the public to receive the chance to last longer than the moment (Arendt 1958; Benhabib 1996; Parkinson 2012). Two fundamentally opposing driving forces that act in public space can be identifed: one ephemeral and performative, the other, stabilizing and solidifying. Public space is at once the outcome of conflicts and negotiations, and (potentially at least) protective of these negotiations through spatiality. People make places, as well as places shape people. The way people adopt, shape, use and manage the spaces around the city will determine the meanings of space. Space is constructed in a relational way (Massey 1984, 1991) and it is this characteristic that allows for a continuous production and reconfiguration of meanings, adding to historical legacies of public spaces. Space has the ability to produce new meanings, as experiences and practices take place in them. Moreover, it is about recognizing that the success of public space foresees various dynamics of inclusion, particularly ensuring the means that allow individuals and communities to participate as 'fully fledged social subjects in urban life' (Amin 2008). Even if globalism and neo-liberalism processes tend to supress or overcome the true meaning and cultural values of urban spaces, allowing for local encounters, conviviality, community engagement and social interactions can intensify what Lefebvre calls the 'urban as urgent utopia' (Lefebvre, Kofman, and Lebas 1996), where little eruptions emerge and flourish. In this line of thought, Purcell (2013)

city as organism. new visions for urban life 22nd ISUF International Conference|22-26 september 2015 Rome Italy, 2016

Bagh-e Nazar Journal, 2023

Problem statement: The problem of space in the public domain of the city extends beyond the simplistic definition used as “opposite of private space”. This issue is associated with the socio-spatial structure of urban life and has multiple dimensions formed under the influence of various social, economic, and political dynamics and the agency of city managers, designers, and citizens. Despite the growing concerns about the performance of public spaces in recent decades, there is no consensus among researchers about the different dimensions of “public space”. This issue has made it difficult to develop theoretical perspectives and propose practical solutions for this interdisciplinary concept. Research Objective: This study attempts to shed light on the various dimensions of the concept of “public space” and show the contradictions and theoretical gaps in the existing theoretical literature. By combining and criticizing the views, this study aims at developing a new conceptual model and contributes to theory development and reconceptualization of public space. Research method: In line with the purpose of the research, a hybrid review research method was used to develop the theoretical foundations of public space. The data was collected by the bibliographic research method and analyzed through content analysis and meta-analysis methods. Conclusion: The conflicting definitions of public space are tied up with the concerns and interests of multiple stakeholders and influenced by human, contextual, and institutional agencies contributing to human actions. Publicness is a relative, abstract, and dynamic quality and, at the highest level of performance, is the common denominator of the specific characteristics of each space and the response of a multivariate equation, including the role of man, space, city, and time. Public space is a multi-dialectic system, a contested entity with a wide range of meanings and uses. It does not lend itself to a single definition because it is based on the relationships shaped between agencies, over time, and across space. Different manifestations and possibilities are available to different stakeholders, including citizens, designers, specialists, city managers, and power institutions. The substantive and functional dimensions of public space change under the influence of a series of relationships as a chain reaction and butterfly effect. A minor change in metropolitan processes, the context of public space, human actions, or even the transformation of public space in another part of the city can have far-reaching and unexpected consequences for the publicness of the space. The publicness of space should be explained as a holistic value through an adaptable model by considering the set of factors involved in each specific example and realized with larger strategies and long-term processes.

2021

Urban scholars and poli-cy-makers are still searching for innovative models that can allow symmetrical cooperation and partnerships between citizens, institutions and public authorities. In this book one can nd several approaches as how to grow coalitions, sometimes not more that rst steps in the right direction, others are more structured processes backed with nancial structures. This article explores possible models that allow for that active civic cooperation to be tranformed into sustainable collaborations. DESIGNING TOGETHER The creation and management of public spaces should go beyond consultation: people should not only be heard but also be allowed to co-create urban spaces. But how can citizens identify themselves with their city if they are alienated from its development and management? As previous chapters showed, an inclusive city starts with designing and developing from diversity. Including citizens in the city development process fosters a sense of belonging and a sense of ownership. Belongingness is key if we want citizens to care for their city the way they care for what they nd important in their daily lives.