Developing a model to evaluate the publicness of urban spaces

Document Type : Theoretical Articles

Authors

1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Shahid Beheshti Unversity, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Design-Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism- Shahid Beheshti University- Tehran -Iran

Abstract

As one of the prominent elements in urban structures, urban public spaces include squares, streets, plazas, parks, etc. These spaces have been always important for urban design and their quality of publicness has been discussed. The recent inclination towards semi-public spaces has led to the decline of these spaces’ publicness and function and has dragged them down from their previous position which has resulted in the emergence of spaces with unfavorable publicness quality.
The present study seeks to explore the concept of publicness and models used to evaluate it, present a conceptual framework, and eventually propose a model for the evaluation of urban spaces’ publicness.
To compile the conceptual framework, evaluation models proposed by domestic and international scholars were studied and the proposed model for evaluating the publicness of urban spaces was thus developed consisting of four components, seven sub-components, and 30 indicators. 12 urban experts and professionals were asked for their opinions using the hierarchical analysis method to assess the validity and assign weights to the model. Then the scores were normalized for better and more accurate comparison and the mean scores of the expert group were calculated for each component, sub-component, and indicators in a range between 0 to 1.
Results of experts' weighting and determination of the final coefficients of each indicator led to the compilation of the final model for urban space publicness evaluation with four components, seven sub-components, and 26 indicators. Two components of “physical configuration” and “urban life” are related to the substantial dimension of urban design but the other two components of “ownership” and “management” are related to the procedural dimension of urban design. Three indicators of the “physical configuration” component consisting of “furniture flexibility”, “green-blue elements”, “bicycle facilities”, and CCTV indicator of “management” component were excluded. Hence, the four components of physical configuration (0.33), urban life (0.31), management (0.2), and ownership (0.16) make up the publicness of urban spaces. This model can be used as a tool alongside other conventional methods to evaluate the publicness of urban spaces from the perspective of designers and users' lived experiences.

Keywords

References

Akkar, M. (2005). The changing ‘publicness’ of contemporary public spaces: a case study of the Grey's
Monument Area, Newcastle upon Tyne. Urban Design International, 10(2), 95-113.
Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S., & Smith, G. (1985). Responsive environments: A
manual for designers. Routledge.
Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification. Urban design, 15(2), 157-
173.
Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative.
Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(4), 373-405.
Carmona, M., & Wunderlich, F. (2013). Capital spaces: the multiple complex public spaces of a global
city. Routledge.
Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C., & Hammond, L. (2008). Public space: the management dimension.
Routledge.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.
De Magalhães, C. (2010). Public space and the contracting-out of publicness: A framework for
analysis. Urban Design, 15(4), 559-574.
De Magalhães, C., & Freire Trigo, S. (2017). ‘Clubification’of urban public spaces? The withdrawal or
the re-definition of the role of local government in the management of public spaces. Urban
Design, 22(6), 738-756.
Di Giovanni, A. (2001). “How To Turn a Place Around. A Handbook for Creating Successful Public
Spaces”(Project for Public Spaces, Project for Public Spaces Inc., New York, 2000).
Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2020). Mapping the publicness of public space: An access/control typology.
In Companion to Public Space (pp. 234-248). Routledge.
Ekdi, F. P., & Çıracı, H. (2015). Really public? Evaluating the publicness of public spaces in Istanbul by
means of fuzzy logic modelling. Urban design, 20(5), 658-676.
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People (Vol. 1). Washington, Covelo.
Ghavimi, A., Haghighat Naiini, G., Gharaii, F., & Habibi, M. (2020). Comparison of Urban Space
Publicness Components in Iranian-Islamic and Western Cities. The History of Islamic
Civilization, 52(2), 257-288. (In Persian)
Kohn, M. (2004). Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. Routledge.
Lang, J. T. (1995). The human dimension of urban design. Urban Futures (Canberra), (17), 25-36.
Lang, J. T. (2007). The Roles and Limitations of Urban Design in Shaping Cities and Their Precincts in a
Globalizing World.
Langstraat, F., & Van Melik, R. (2013). Challenging the ‘end of public space’: A comparative analysis of
publicness in British and Dutch urban spaces. Urban Design, 18(3), 429-448.
Leclercq, E., & Pojani, D. (2021). Public space privatisation: are users concerned?. Urbanism:
International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1-18.
Leclerq, E. (2018). Privatisation of the production of public space. A+ BE| Architecture and the Built
Environment, (5), 1-384.
Lopes, M. (2015). The changing publicness of urban spaces.University of Porto.
Lopes, M., Santos Cruz, S., & Pinho, P. (2019). Revisiting publicness in assessment of contemporary
urban spaces. Urban Planning and Development, 145(4), 04019013.
Lopes, M., Santos Cruz, S., & Pinho, P. (2020). Publicness of Contemporary Urban Spaces: Comparative
Study between Porto and Newcastle. Urban Planning and Development, 146(4), 1-13.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process. New York:
Wiley.
Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. Routledge.
Mantey, D. (2017). The ‘publicness’ of suburban gathering places: The example of Podkowa Leśna
(Warsaw urban region, Poland). Cities, 60, 1-12.
Mehta, V., & Palazzo, D. (Eds.). (2020). Companion to Public Space. Routledge.
Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2007). Toward a methodology for measuring the security of publicly
accessible spaces. The American Planning Association, 73(3), 283-297.
Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring
publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5-23.
Van Melik, R., Van Aalst, I., & Van Weesep, J. (2007). Fear and fantasy in the public domain: the
development of secured and themed urban space. Urban design, 12(1), 25-42.
Varna, G. M. (2011). Assessing the publicness of public places: towards a new model. University of
Glasgow.
Varna, G., & Damiano, C. (2013). Making the publicness of public space visible: From space syntax to
the star model of public space. In EAEA-11 Conference 2013, Track 1 Visualizing Sustainability:
Making the Invisible Visible. 101 (Vol. 107).
Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness.
Journal of urban design, 15(4), 575-598.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation
Foundation.
Zebardast, E. (2002). Application of analytic hierarchy process in urban and regional planning. Honar ha
ye ziba, 10, 13-21. (In persian)
 
Urban Planning Knowledge
Volume 6, Issue 3
2022
Pages 65-82

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 February 2022
  • Revise Date: 21 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 10 January 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics