Content uploaded by Stephan Schmidt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephan Schmidt on Jul 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Cornell University Library]
On:
26 August 2010
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 915425291]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Urban Design
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713436528
Space, Place and the City: Emerging Research on Public Space Design and
Planning
Stephan Schmidta; Jeremy Némethb
a Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA b Department of
Planning and Design, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA
Online publication date: 26 August 2010
To cite this Article Schmidt, Stephan and Németh, Jeremy(2010) 'Space, Place and the City: Emerging Research on Public
Space Design and Planning', Journal of Urban Design, 15: 4, 453 — 457
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2010.502331
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502331
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
INTRODUCTION
Space, Place and the City: Emerging Research on Public
Space Design and Planning
STEPHAN SCHMIDT*& JEREMY NE
´METH**
*Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA; **Department of
Planning and Design, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA
Our understanding of urban public space has evolved dramatically in recent
decades. On the heels of urban race riots and civil strife in the late 1960s and early
1970s, the social sciences—in particular, the fields of social geography, urban
planning and legal studies—began to take a more critical look at the role of space
and place in understanding the city. The debate was framed by philosophers like
Henri Lefebvre who argued that space should not be merely thought of as a
physical place, a neutral container or backdrop for action, but as an entity actively
produced by society. How space is produced and experienced, and by whom,
became the question of the day. Works by Kevin Lynch (1960), Jane Jacobs (1961)
and Gordon Cullen (1961) supported these notions, arguing that the urban
environment shapes our behaviour, knowledge and disposition. This produced an
unprecedented interdisciplinary interest in critically examining the role of power,
race, gender, identity and representation in public space.
Chief among these attempts to theorize social space and its implications for the
public sphere was Habermas’s theories of communicative rationality, with which
he argued that unmediated interaction was vital to advancing social justice in a true
democracy (Calhoun, 1992). Although this work offered potential solutions to the
growing fissures in urban society, some, including Iris Young (1990), were sceptical
of communicative rationality, arguing that such theories assumed a homogeneous,
universal ‘public’. Instead, Young offered a version of a democratic ideal that
emphasized diversity and difference. For her, socially just outcomes could only be
achieved by creating universally inclusive spaces that embraced the needs and
desires of a diverse citizenry. These truly public spaces encourage social interaction
among individuals with diverse interests, opinions and perspectives. Groups and
individuals thus assert their right to the city by making themselves directly visible
in public space (Fraser, 1990; Ne
´meth, 2006).
That public spaces serve social ends is neither surprising nor groundbreaking;
after all, urban reformers, city planners and municipal officials since the nineteenth
century have claimed that public space serves a number of social and political ends,
from public health to cultural assimilation (Schmidt, 2008). What is new, however,
is that instead of serving as a means to an end, the production of public space is now
interpreted as a normative goal unto itself. Nevertheless, much of this discussion
Correspondence Address: Jeremy Ne
´meth, Department of Planning and Design, University of
Colorado, CB 126, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO, USA. Email: jeremy.nemeth@colorado.edu
Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 15. No. 4, 453–457, November 2010
1357-4809 Print/1469-9664 Online/10/040453-5 q2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2010.502331
Downloaded By: [Cornell University Library] At: 19:22 26 August 2010
has been removed from consideration of actual built space. Critics who lament the
loss of public space are often more concerned with the diminution of the public
sphere than they are with the reduction of physical space itself (Kohn, 2004). Most
argue that public space takes on meaning only insofar as it is the site of the
development of the public sphere, while conversely, the public sphere requires “the
occupation or active creation of public space” in order to have one’s claims heard
(Blomley, 2001, p. 3). Thus, in order to understand how the social or political
meaning of public space is affected by its actual physical environment, there must
first be an examination of the context in which our public spaces are created and
managed.
Public Space in the Twenty-first Century
Despite the academic discussion, the common perception of public space remains
largely uncontested, and the provision of public space enjoys enormous broad
based popular support, often from groups and interests that may otherwise be at
odds. This should not come as a surprise as publicly accessible space
simultaneously serves myriad functions and needs, and is incorporated into a
number of planning approaches, from New Urbanism to Smart Growth to
economic growth and development schemes, with the understanding that public
spaces are necessary to create a safe, viable and sustainable urban environment.
Proponents of public spaces argue that ‘more is better ’,citing studies that show that
public space (and open space more generally) is directly correlated with adjacent
property values, increased physical activity and improved public health levels,
especially among youth (RWJF, 2010).
However, recent political and economic shifts taking place in the mid- to late-
twentieth century have accelerated changes in the way cities provide and manage
public space. Most notably, economic globalization and the increased flexibility and
mobility of capital, the rise in telecommunications technology, which allows
transactions and communication to take place instantly and on a global scale, and
the decrease in federal aid to cities, have all forced business and political leaders to
assume an entrepreneurial role in promoting economic growth and expansion (see
Logan & Molotch, 1987). In addition, deindustrialization and suburban growth
have meant that cities must compete against one another to attract itinerant, or
‘footloose’, capital investment by making themselves as attractive as possible to
potential suitors. Many planning departments now serve primarily as economic
development agencies, intent on attracting the top firms and the best and the
brightest residents. These fundamental shifts in the political economy of cities have
resulted in a transformation in how public space is produced. Many metropolitan
area planning and design strategies are organized around growth promotion,
amenity creation, ensuring quality of life and providing safe, sanitary, business-
friendly downtowns. These strategies often promote visual coherence, spatial
order and aesthetic improvements over unmediated social interaction.
As a result, the traditional functions of parks, plazas, sidewalks and atria are
frequently challenged by new trends in public space provision and management,
and several important trends have emerged. First, the provision and management
of public space has become increasingly privatized, with developers, property
managers and local business associations taking the lead in providing and
maintaining parks, plazas and atriums. Often, cash-strapped municipal govern-
ments provide incentives, usually in the form of density bonuses, to the private
454 S. Schmidt & J. Ne
´meth
Downloaded By: [Cornell University Library] At: 19:22 26 August 2010
sector in exchange for the provision and management of public space. These
privatized public spaces include the traditional suburban shopping mall, but also
gated communities, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and festival market-
places. Partially as a result, hybrid ownership and management regimes have
emerged, involving both public and private sectors in complex relationships;
exemplary cases include New York City’s Bryant Park and Central Park, both
owned by the City of New York but managed by the privately-funded Bryant Park
Restoration Corporation and the Central Park Conservancy, respectively.
Proponents of privately owned or operated spaces argue that the efficiency of the
private sector in distributing public goods outweigh any potentially negative social
impacts.
Second, planners and designers have placed increased emphasis on securing
public spaces, especially after 11 September 2001. A general consensus exists among
planners, developers and consultants that publicly accessible spaces must be
perceived as safe in order for them to fulfil their potential. Realand perceived safety
remains a top concern for the majority of the public, and a number of Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs) have based entire park rehabilitation schemes on
developing safer spaces. Usually this method is predicated on the ‘eyeson the street’
approach espoused by Jane Jacobs (1961). This approach involves not only an active
security policy, but also the prioritization of natural surveillance techniques, based
on the notion that creating safe spaces involves a critical mass of law-abiding,
desirable users who can identify unlawful activities themselves. To attract this
critical mass, these schemes rely on extensive programming and event planning.
Third, the increased reliance on the private sector to provide publicly
accessible spaces has encouraged the creation of increasingly busy, heavily policed,
highly programmed ‘festival’ spaces centred on the production of a consumption-
based environment (Sorkin, 1992). Those who contribute by purchasing goods and
services are welcomed in these spaces, while those who fail to contribute are
discouraged; this latter group often includes children or youth, homeless persons,
or just the general, non-consuming public (Turner, 2002, p. 543). In this way, the
economic exchange value of a space is prioritized over its use value, as space is
made available to those with “real or apparent ability to pay” (Flusty, 1994, p. 16). In
addition, events such as Fashion Week in New York City’s Bryant Park or Pepsi’s
sponsorship of Washington, DC’s National Mall signal that public space itself is a
commodity.
Finally, recognizing that some of the most vital and vibrant spaces are
‘discovered’ by users, some have questioned whether public space should even be
rationally and formally planned. Recent work, especially in response to the recent
economic downturn, argues that marginal, vacant, under-utilized or abandoned
spaces—the ‘cracks in the city’ (Loukaitou-Sideris, 1996)—can be reclaimed as
recreational space, community gardens, temporary performance space, or even
urban beaches (Stevens & Ambler, this issue). These spaces generally lie outside the
formal planning or administrative structure and arise as a result of commun ity- and
neighbourhood-based initiatives.
We are left with a number of questions concerning the relationship between
public space and urban society. First, how can city officials, urban designers and
planners balance these concerns while still providing viable, accessible and
inclusive public space? Second, in this increasingly fragmented urban landscape,
how do we begin to define and catalogue public space, particularly as the public is
constantly contested, redefined and reformulated (Ne
´meth, 2009)? Finally, how can
Space, Place and the City 455
Downloaded By: [Cornell University Library] At: 19:22 26 August 2010
we conceptualize ‘publicness’ itself, given that a diverse population might have
different interpretations of what public space is, or should be? Drawing on the work
of a number of scholars, this issue of the Journal of Urban Design contributes to these
and other related debates. Our aim is to look critically at the current state of public
space design and planning in cities around the globe, from Bogota
´to Belfast, from
Paris to Phoenix.
Several papers in this issue examine the specific role of planners, designers and
city leaders in creating and managing public space. Renia Ehrenfeucht and
Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris examine the difficulty in planning effectively for
multifaceted, contested spaces like sidewalks. They note the paradox of planning
for a diversity of sidewalk functions, especially since they are traditionally
considered only as conduits for unimpeded movement. They outline traditional
attempts to control, privatize and gentrify sidewalk space, but argue that planners
must balance efforts for control and order with concerns for vibrancy and
spontaneity. To do so, planners must reconsider their actions in three facets of
sidewalk planning: sidewalks as infrastructure, sidewalks as spaces of everyday
life and sidewalks as leisure destinations.
Emily Talen looks at the distribution of parks in Phoenix and Chicago to test an
assertion by Jane Jacobs that what matters most about parks and open spaces is
what surrounds them. She examines the ‘spatial logic’ of parks, with particular
attention to proximity, diversity and social need of populations surrounding parks.
Finding this spatial logic lacking in her test neighbourhoods, she offers a clear set of
planning recommendations, as well as guidance on producing more innovative
and proactive design codes.
Nonetheless, new forms and expressions of public space continually surface,
especially when the appropriate use, or meaning, of that space is contested by
multiple groups. Frank Gaffikin, Malachy McEldowney and Ken Sterrett examine
characteristics of cities with history of conflict, contestation and division, focusing
their empirical work on Nicosia and Belfast. Their paper offers a thoughtful set of
design and policy measures that can facilitate a more integrated urban landscape in
such disputed contexts. Quentin Stevens and Mha iri Ambler discuss the emergence
of urban beaches in formerly disused or abandoned areas in non-coastal European
cities such as Paris and Berlin. They argue that these informal spaces are created
through post-Fordist placemaking, insofar as their production is flexible, mobile,
complex, temporary and innovative. Rachel Berney then turns her attention to
Bogota
´, Colombia to examine the important role played by politicians in producing
a comprehensive vision fulfilled by the city’s planners and designers. She shows
how public space was used as both setting and tool for reinventing a ‘culture of
citizenship’ in the face of civil strife and endemic poverty. In this regard, public
space in Bogota
´has become a structuring force in the city’s redevelopment efforts.
Theorizing the publicness of public space, Claudio De Magalha
˜es moves
beyond discussions of privatization and outlines the complex redistribution of
roles, rights and responsibilities when public space is produced, managed or
governed by the private sector. He proposes a useful framework for examining
publicness in the context of privatized governance and then discusses the impact
on ideals such as accountability and transparency. George Varna and Steve Tiesdell
then problematize the notion of public space, locating publicness at the intersection
of five dimensions: ownership, control, civility, access and animation. They draw
on previous work to produce a new model of publicness with wide application to
the field of planning and design. This model is not only useful in comparing public
456 S. Schmidt & J. Ne
´meth
Downloaded By: [Cornell University Library] At: 19:22 26 August 2010
spaces across these dimensions but can also serve as tool for organizing value-
driven judgements.
In the Practice Paper, Nan Ellin laments the approach taken by Phoenix and
other sprawling metropolises in producing disconnected suburban development
patterns. She argues that urbanists must strive for a more integrated urbanism.
She describes a progressive attempt by Phoenix’s planners, designers and
academics to produce a “desert urbanism”, one that recognizes the indispensa-
bility of the desert landscape and in particular its canal system, which is more
extensive than those of Amsterdam and Venice combined.
These papers demonstrate the continuing vitality of urban space, showing that
new forms of space and spatial relations are indeed possible. The form and function
of public space will continue to change, and further research will be needed to
examine the evolving social, political, and economic context of public space. For
example, our conception of public space is no longer limited to physical places:
many of us spend significant time using web-based social networking such as
Facebook and Twitter. Mobile technologies have also changed the way we interact
in traditional public spaces, as users can physically be in a space, but mentally be
elsewhere. These online public forums challenge the necessity for material or
physical, space: do we really need public spaces anymore? While this question
poses a fundamental challenge to our professions, we must engage with it more
rigorously and earnestly.
References
Blomley, N. (2001) Introduction, in: N. Blomley, D. Delaney & R. Ford (Eds) The Legal Geographies Reader:
Law, Power, and Space, pp. 3– 5 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Calhoun, C. (Ed.) (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape (Oxford: Architectural Press).
Flusty, S. (1994) Building Paranoia: The Proliferation of Interdictory Space and the Erosion of Spatial Justice
(Los Angeles: Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design).
Fraser, N. (1990)Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to actually existing democracy, Social Text,
25/26, pp. 56–79.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage Books).
Kohn, M. (2004) Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space (New York: Routledge).
Logan, J. & Molotch, H. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press).
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1996) Cracks in the city: addressing the constraints and potentials of urban
design, Journal of Urban Design, 1(1), pp. 91–104.
Lynch, K. (1960) Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Ne
´meth, J. (2006) Conflict, exclusion, relocation: skateboarding and public space, Journal of Urban
Design, 11(3), pp. 297– 318.
Ne
´meth, J. (2009) Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space, Urban Studies,
46(11), pp. 2463– 2490.
RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) (2010) Parks, playgrounds and active living, Research
Synthesis (February).
Schmidt, S. (2008) The evolving relationship between open space preservation and local planning
practice, Journal of Planning History, 7(2), pp. 91 –112.
Sorkin, M. (Ed.) (1992) Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space (New
York: Hill and Wang).
Turner, R. (2002) The politics of design and development in the postmodern downtown, Journal of
Urban Affairs, 24(5), pp. 533–548.
Young, I. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University).
Space, Place and the City 457
Downloaded By: [Cornell University Library] At: 19:22 26 August 2010
