Understanding Public Space Today - Essay Example

?Public Space Today Introduction It is fascinating to explore the ways in which spaces are interpreted and used across cultures and generations. Urban buildings and landscapes are reinterpreted in a number of ways by various generations, with their distinct perspectives, preferences, and ideas. The various generations, embedding distinct clusters of interpretations and insights on the spaces that they occupy or experience, naturally have personal interpretations of their experiences. The main point of this paper is the unpredictability of meaning of public space relative to how it is perceived today. Understanding Public Space Today Public space can be classified as places like city squares and parks. Semi-public spaces might comprise places with controlled public usage or be commonly used by specific groups within the community like school playgrounds (Woolley 2003). A description of various kinds of public space, both outside and inside, has been defined as well by Walzer (1986) who proposes that: Public space is space where we share with strangers, people who aren’t our relatives, friends or work associates. It is space for politics, religion, commerce, sport; space for peaceful coexistence and impersonal encounter. Its character expresses and also conditions our public life, civic culture, everyday discourse (as cited in Erickson 2006, 307). Hence as public spaces become familiar with more and more individuals as the 21st century progresses the perceptions of people occupying those public spaces are relevant. Regardless of how public spaces are described, or the condition they are in, it is certain that all urban spaces have large numbers of them. Certainly individuals who utilise these public spaces do not invest a lot of time talking about descriptions of the kinds of spaces they are occupying, neither do they discuss about the advantages offered by public spaces, instead they encounter the advantages and at times ignore these public spaces (Carmona et al. 2008). However, they do give importance to and ‘occupy’ such public spaces and utilise them as a component of their everyday existence. Therefore, these public spaces contribute significantly to the quality of life of a community and an individual in the urban environment. A summary of the interpretations of public spaces, an assumption of shared observations between a 19th century naturalist, a supporter of public parks, and a landscape architect, remains relevant today (Woolley, 2003): (1) Individuals need interaction with their immediate environment in order to be strong spiritually, emotionally, and physically; (2) The growth of industrial urban areas has basically damaged the natural environment, at the expense of the people; (3) It is the purpose of public spaces to restore to the urban areas the advantages of the natural environment and to give every individual the chance to experience a natural architecture; (4) The level to which an urban area gives these opportunities and the level to which it produces public spaces to meet the needs and demands of its people are means of determining the growth of democracy. In spite of their weaknesses these interpretations can contribute to the recognition of the fact that numerous of the advantages of public spaces have been embraced as realities historically. Public spaces are vital to everyone’s everyday activities. The opportunities and advantages that can be provided by various public spaces, whether they are civic, neighbourhood, or domestic, all over the urban foundation can offer a chance to improve the quality of life. According to some scholars, it is certain that a number of metropolises, like Sheffield, Bristol, and London, already have functioning informal and formal systems of public space (Madanipour 2003). The case studies included in this discussion evidently confirm the interpretation that numerous components of life for communities and people in urban areas can be enhanced by the presence of public spaces. It is demonstrated in the case studies on Venice and Siena that remarkable public spaces created for walkers should be maintained for their utility and not littered with vehicles such as, for instance, Place Stanislas in Nancy (see Appendix A). The studies of Rossi will be taken note of; that the ‘marvel’ of a city dwells in its public spaces, like shrines, that in their absence it will cease to be that specific city (Madanipour 2003). A number of studies also explored the utility of less common spaces like housing zones’ street areas and station courtyards. A lot of these public spaces have been typified as ‘everyday spaces’, a notion that points to their practical, commonplace, informal utility (Hill 1998). With regard to this, the public spaces studied transcended the description of ‘public space’ presently dominant in urban design theory founded on the urban renaissance programme (Webster 2007). These usually are predisposed to focus on city spaces and plazas, where tourism and commerce purposes and requirements are regarded to be the more vital strategic objectives (Jones et al. 2005). As remarked by Dines and colleagues (2006, 3), “Discussions on regeneration in central and local government as well as the media are typically dominated by architectural and design prescriptions about what constitutes good-quality public space.” Contrary to the notion that public space can be entirely identified spatially, as a specific cluster of urban design compositions, all of the studies abovementioned propose that public space is ‘collectively created’. In other words, it only takes form when it is set in motion by the individuals according to time frames and evolving and active patterns. This can result in the linkage of specific places to specific tasks or population (Dines et al. 2006). Among the quite effective public spaces studied were places that motivated individuals to contribute to the development of activities and to the formation of these places. The technique used to design and manage a particular public space can improve or hamper the public’s use of it. Inadequate markers unintentionally indicate that there is trivial attention given to town plazas aside from shopping, and lots of remarkable historical places and local landmarks usually go unseen and ignored (Larice and Macdonald 2006). Effectual lighting initiatives can generate a greater sense of safety at night, especially for more at risk people and those with no vehicles. In case studies of local boulevards in the peripheries of town plazas, guests and dwellers conveyed high satisfaction levels with the type and selection of local businesses, edifices, and other features offered, and enjoyed the chance to become acquainted with the people and witness street life (Kottas 2007). Nevertheless, according to Jones and associates (2007), these good points were counteracted by a string of unpleasant features, specifically the high prevalence of traffic jam in the architecture of the streets, the bleak condition and design of the streets and bordering features, and the absence of public restrooms, seating, and foliage. These aspects require more attention. It was observed by Holland and colleagues (2007) that in Aylesbury “People are drawn to, and tend to stay longer in, public spaces that offer interest and stimulation and/or a degree of comfort. Survey and observation data show that people appreciate and look for special events and activities in public spaces, both locally and in the town centre” (p. 1). In contrast, brilliantly planned public spaces in the inappropriate site, with weak linkages to commerce, public services and transport, can remain vacant and unexploited. Callaghan Square in Cardiff (see Appendix B) is a recently constructed public space with slanting stone pavements, marble counters, and fountains. But at particular times it failed to draw the attention of and mesmerise visitors, and was void and ‘characterless’ (Holland et al. 2007). Likewise, a recently planned housing in Aylesbury confronted difficulties stemming from its architecture and management. The location was planned to comprise a new plaza, but this was consequently seized by car parking, and the town court rapidly became a rendezvous site for youngsters (Holland et al. 2007). Imitative housing designs that copy town characteristics, while simultaneously permitting vehicles to take over public spaces, dampen community spirits. The discrepancy between social effects and design purposes can be quite substantial (Woolley, 2003). According to Holland and colleagues (2007), the major components of ‘inclusive architecture’ of public spaces are (1) the involvement of all social and age groups in the design, planning, and execution, (2) fostering a sentiment of unique cultural identity, and (3) exploring an array of spaces with various safekeeping systems, such as lighting policies. Conclusions It is predicted that in the next two decades half of the total population of the world will be residing in urban areas. Hence public spaces will become severely vital to the everyday activities and lives of more and more individuals all over the globe. The quality of the public spaces will have an effect on a broad array of aspects of everyday life such as work and leisure, health, education, and housing, both for populations or societies and individuals. In various nations across the globe the quality of life in urban areas will be influenced by aspects influencing each specific nation as economic and physical circumstances and human needs differ. A paradigm of needs has been introduced by Maslow (1954 as cited in Woolley 2003)—physiological, security, attachment, esteem, self-actualisation, and aesthetic. The preliminary needs in this paradigm, physiological, security, and attachment, are introduced as being the most powerful and hence more fundamental needs, whilst the later needs, self-actualisation and aesthetic, are the most fragile. Therefore it is probable that in various regions of the world various societies will exist at distinct stages of Maslow’s paradigm. For example, in less developed nations initiatives are more likely to be focused on attaining the preliminary needs, whilst in numerous developed nations the comfort of the more fragile needs can be manifested in ways like the enjoyment of splendour in the natural environment. This implies that the different interpretations of public spaces nowadays are more intricate than they appear. References Carmona, M., Magalhaes, C. & Hammond, L. (2008) Public Space: The Management Dimension. London: Routledge. Dines, N., Cattell, V., Gesler, W. & Curtis, S. (2006) Public spaces, social relations and wellbeing in East London. London: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Erickson, D. (2006) MetroGreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities. New York: Island Press. Hill, J. (1998) Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User. London: Routledge. Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J. & Peace, S. (2007) Social Interactions in Urban Public Places. London: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. (2005) Architecture and Participation. New York: Routledge. Jones, P., Roberts, M. & Morris, L. (2007) Mixed use streets: Enhancing liveability and reconciling conflicting pressures. London: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Kottas, D. (2007) Urban Space: Squares & Plazas. Barcelona: Links. Larice, M. & Macdonald, E. (2006) The Urban Design Reader. London: Routledge. Madanipour, A. (2003) Public and Private Spaces of the City. New York: Routledge. Webster, C. (2007) “Property Rights, Public Space and Urban Design” The Town Planning Review, 78(1), 81+ Woolley, H. (2003) Urban Open Spaces. New York: E & FN Spon. Appendix A Place Stanislas in Nancy Appendix B Callaghan Square in Cardiff Read More