Infrastructure: Key Drivers for Action

Posted on May 24, 2020 by Rashid Faridi

 A truly holistic approach to infrastructure requires stepping away from a silo/sector-based approach and understanding that infrastructure is made up of not just physical things or assets, but consists of three major parts: assets, knowledge, and institutions.

Embracing this concept provides the clarity required to further understand how infrastructure governs the function of society and acts as the enabling vehicle for desired societal changes and development outcomes.

The continuing and increasing pressure of population growth specially in cities makes the efficient consumption of natural resources by infrastructure systems absolutely essential if conflict rooted in the issues surrounding equitable access to and use of natural resources is to be understood and managed. There are also further benefits that can be gained through approaches such as that proposed by McKinsey and Company, by understanding and implementing improvements in efficiency and rationalization of existing infrastructure systems.

• Understanding the linkage between availability, accessibility, affordability and adequacy of basic services for the realization of human rights and well being. Basic services are central to the realization of a wide range of human rights, including water, sanitation, housing, health and education. It is, therefore, crucial to ensure that these services:

  • are available and physically accessible to all;
  • are affordable to all;
  •  are culturally adapted (Local Culture add to sustainability of city) to various groups of the populations;
  •  do not discriminate in their access or delivery;
  • are safe to use for all, including for women and children.

• Policy Reforms

In the face of the challenges posed of rising demand for services, the current inequitable distribution of services and infrastructure, the existing spatial and socio-economic segregation and failure to implement future demand based planning, there is a need for a comprehensive reform of urban infrastructure policies to:

  •  improve the enabling environment for investment;
  •  create more effective incentives for greater efficiencies in supply and consumption, as well as the payment of services;
  • impose more effective methods for infrastructure planning and service delivery ;
  • create stronger regulatory frameworks;
  • remove institutional rigidities and create space to attract and enable the private sector, NGOs, community groups and households to play a greater role in financing and service provision.

• Building viable and well-managed institutions aligned with infrastructure systems knowledge. The quality of services provided by urban infrastructure is directly related to the capacity of the institutional frameworks and knowledge.

While some progress has been achieved in the past two decades, much is  to be done in ensuring  effective management of the institutions responsible for the regulation, planning and management of urban infrastructure. Its time for change.

Some sectors have made little progress in addressing the need for institutional reform and financial sustainability, these include urban sanitation, solid waste management in low and middle-income countries, and urban drainage.

• Legal and regulatory frameworks within which development takes place. Understanding that the provision of services and infrastructure does not solve all issues created by poor urban planning or a lack of, for example development in unstable or high-risk areas. Thus, the where and how the assets are created and who decides which assets to create, is as important as the network of assets themselves.Effective Urban Planning is the key attribute here.

• Developing effective and integrated infrastructure planning. Urban infrastructure is capital intensive and facilities need to be continuously improved and expanded through balanced programs of demand-based planning for the extension of services to meet increasing urban populations and needs. Effective infrastructure planning requires a complete mindset change, all forms of infrastructure need to be considered and planned beyond the current limitations of a sector-based approach, to provide an ‘enabling vehicle’ for societal change and development. New planning approaches and technologies will support progress in the need to reduce the unit costs of infrastructure provision, improving efficiency and quality, ensuring that services are aligned with urban plans, and to plan for optimal expansion of infrastructure to support the urbanization process. Infrastructure and services interventions have a strong impact on city form and city development and thus need to be tied to an  overall urban planning and city development strategies, shaping a sustainable and equitable future that addresses a wider communities’ rights.

• Enhancing coordinated implementation of urban infrastructure. Beyond the planning process, there is a need to ensure that the infrastructure is developed and implemented through the understanding of the assets, knowledge, and institutions of infrastructure. In addition, the recognition and understanding of the critical interdependence amongst all spheres of government are needed. This is particularly relevant for metropolitan areas where fragmentation creates missed opportunities for service provision efficiencies; spillovers across jurisdictional boundaries; and regional income and service level inequalities. Coordination mechanisms are emerging: inter-municipal cooperation, legal incentives for cooperation, planning and development agencies, cost-sharing arrangements for metro-wide service delivery, metropolitan development funds, coordinated tax agreements, pool financing, improved linkages between national and local governments’ programs and policies to ensure efficiency and reduce the imbalance.

• Developing new business models and strategic partnerships. Rapid urbanization has increased the scope and complexity of service provision. New business models are now needed to integrate the strengths and capacities of the public sector, private companies, NGOs, and Community-Based Organizations. New approaches are particularly needed in sectors such as urban drainage, sanitation, solid waste, mobility, clean energy provision, and in delivering services to the informal settlements. Although governments in developing countries generally provide, own, and operate all infrastructure, there are alternative approaches that are effective in the provision of services and infrastructure. These alternatives address the need for new business models, such as financial returns on land value increase provided by new infrastructure, green infrastructure, and investment guarantee schemes. Green infrastructure is low-cost, and often high-return, investment approach that has been used to great effect in many cities worldwide. Particularly with regard to the private sector, the development and provision of investment guarantee schemes to attract private investment and to enhance the capacity of governments to make the necessary legal and contractual arrangements aligned with a capacity to regulate and manage private sector entities that provide the physical services provides achievable benefits and opportunities. These approaches have the added advantage of freeing up government capacity to undertake fully integrated networks and systems of infrastructure planning that further ensures that the vital bottom-up validation of such planning is implemented.

• Fostering and applying technological innovation. Technological innovation has become a critical driver for action in the light of emerging challenges, such as water shortages, the unsustainability of energy systems based on fossil fuels, the need to increase the reuse and recycling of waste, and the increasing frequency and intensity of climate change effects. However, while much is being done to develop new technologies to address these problems, there is a growing need to create platforms to bring together the researchers, the policymakers, the decision-makers, the infrastructure managers and regulators and the knowledge management agencies to more effectively target research to the problems being encountered and to create platforms for pilot testing, application and dissemination of the innovative technologies. The increasing demand for energy in urban areas, estimated at 8% annually in African cities, could be addressed in part by making use of renewable energy potentials that exist in cities.

In fact transforming municipal waste into energy, dual repurposing such as rain and grey water recycling, replacing linear water supply systems with closed-circuit systems, exploiting the water-waste-energy nexus are key potentials. Green infrastructure, seen as networks of multifunctional green spaces, has been shown to offer a range of ecological, social, and economic benefits that enhance ‘grey’ urban infrastructure, if strategically planned and managed . Green roofs, permeable vegetated surfaces, street trees, public parks, community gardens and urban wetlands can offer ‘ecosystem service benefits’ as diverse as improving residents’ health and wellbeing, providing food, lowering wind speeds, reducing storm-water run-off, modulating ambient temperatures, reducing energy use and sequestering carbon. Green infrastructure thus holds the potential to cushion cities against many expected climate change impacts.

• Adopt inclusive participatory processes, and increased access to information for all residents: In addition to improving transparency as well as the access and diffusion of information, public participation has contributed to improved planning outcomes in the formulation and implementation of plans by addressing the distinct needs of various groups, especially marginalized populations.

Source:

Habitat Papers

Posted in Class Notes, earth, urban morphology, Urban Studies | Leave a comment

Defining Urban Space

Posted on May 21, 2020 by Rashid Faridi

It is not  easy to develop a definition of urban space because such a definition must consider the social parameters of its constituent parts: urban and space. The difficulty of defining urban space is enhanced if one considers that urban space is an artifact of urbanization – a social process that describes the manner in which cities grow and societies become more complex. For example, a synergistic perspective of space situates the location of ‘‘urban’’ as an outcome of social and institutional forces associated with urbanization. In contrast, a structural perspective of space identifies ‘‘urban’’ as the product of social structures and relationships that typify urbanization. Combining the synergistic and structural perspectives results in the identification of social features associated with urban space:

(1) diversity of social roles and relationships, and

(2) institutional arrangements and social networks necessary for efficient social order. No matter which perspective one adopts, one thing is clear: urban space is a dynamic aspect of urbanization.

Urbanization is certainly aided by population growth and institutional expansion. For Urban Systems to grow people must come together in large enough numbers that they are situated in a space that makes them noticeably different from less populated human groupings. In addition, the social diversity of the people situated in the same space promotes a form of social interaction characterized by formal role relationships rather than intimate or informal (e.g., familial) role relationships.  A distinction emerges between highly populated space (urban) and less populated space (rural).

The aggregation of people inhabiting the same space serves as a social force that brings together persons with diverse lifestyles and work ethics. In most cases people migrate to the same space because of shared interests or shared expectations regarding lifestyles and work ethics. There are many reasons of migrating or not migrating.Interestingly, social contact between persons in the population sharing the same space enhances the social diversity of the population by increasing familiarity with different lifestyles and work ethics. In turn, the diversity of lifestyles and work ethics necessitates the development of institutional structures for their expression; for example, churches for religious expression and a labor market for demonstrating a work ethic.

At the institutional level, cohabiting of  a large number of persons with a diversity of lifestyles and work practices in the same space required the centralization of social life. The dynamic aspect of increased social contact between persons required the development of formal relationships between persons and institutions.

For example, in order to promote the efficient expression of social life, economic organizations such as banks and labor markets developed in order to provide a network of services that utilized labor, raw materials, and capital. The network of services, in turn, centralized the production of services that meet the needs of a growing population. As such, a large and growing population, coupled with an institutional structure designed to promote centralization and social efficiency, created a context for defining urban space: the situating of a large number of persons with diverse lifestyles and work ethics in space nested within an institutional structure that promotes centralization and social efficiency.

In in early nineteenth century Parisian society the aristocracy and growing bourgeoisie moved to the margins of the city to escape the increasing numbers of the ‘‘popular classes’’ in Paris. The access to capital and valued resources enjoyed by the upper and middle classes allowed them to situate themselves on the margin of urban space. In  effect, access to capital or valued resources served as a social force to extend the boundaries of urban space into rural space. As a result, what is often referred to as a suburb – space adjacent to or on the periphery of urban space – took rudimentary expression as the ability of persons with capital to differentiate themselves by class from persons subject to the homogenizing effects of the ‘‘popular class’’ on persons sharing the same urban space.

One finds in American society a similar phenomenon in the twenty first century. The increasing perception that urban space is pregnant with social problems such as crime, homelessness, and poverty has resulted in persons and families fleeing to space located on the periphery or within traveling distance of urban space. During the 1970s and early 1980s in the US, moving from urban space to the suburb was often characterized as ‘‘white flight’’ because it was a movement that was mostly driven by white persons and families. These were white persons and families that had accumulated equity in their homes located in urban space that permitted them to sell their homes and buy new larger homes in the suburbs. (Unfortunately, most of those left behind in urban space were racial and ethnic minorities who did not own their homes, thus resulting in the racialization of the suburbs.) Ironically, in some cases the number of persons and families moving from urban space to the suburbs was so drastic that suburbs became mirror images of the urban space persons and families were fleeing. The suburbs have become so much like urban space that persons and families are moving into rural areas, resulting in ‘‘suburbs of the suburbs,’’ or what population experts refer to as exurbs.

Interestingly, as persons and families moved from urban to suburban space, the uses of public space have come into question. Who is entitled to occupy public space? In urban centers, the poor and homeless have been identified as targets for city redevelopment projects. For example, redevelopment policies have been used by cities to implement ‘‘eminent domain’’ practices to remove older homes, often occupied by the elderly on fixed incomes, to make room for upscale townhouses or condominiums that appeal to young people and families, especially those with white collar or professional occupations. Redevelopment policies have been designed by cities that establish vagrancy zones in downtown areas that make loitering on public walkways a misdemeanor – a strategic tool for criminalizing the homeless in downtown areas. As a result, city redevelopment practices seek to remove the poor and homeless from public space not so much to ‘‘clean up’’ the city, but so as to create an attractive locale for bringing back the capital that left the city when persons and families moved to the suburbs.

In the suburbs the fight is over how to allocate public space to parks and recreation areas versus businesses and commercial interests. For example, many of the suburbs’ residents commute to work in urban centers. In order to develop a system of services that meet the needs of growing suburbs, city councils in the suburbs have courted businesses, especially manufacturers, to relocate to the suburbs in order to generate sales tax revenue and jobs, thus keeping residents in the suburbs and improving their quality of life by providing jobs that do not require commuting. The push for attracting businesses, however, comes at a cost to residents. Public space that has been designated for recreational use is used as a carrot by city councils to attract businesses. As a result, public space in the suburb is a contest between resource used by people versus economic benefits for businesses.

In summary, if one considers the social construction of population centers, one might say that urban space is typified by what is called a ‘‘city.’’ A city is a collection of people and institutional structures that promote the efficient interaction between persons and place. Urban space has often increased in population to the point that it serves as a synergistic force for the social construction of the suburb. Ironically, suburbs have decided that the only means for their survival is to mirror urban areas – formal social relationships and complex institutional arrangements. In turn, the suburb has served as a synergistic force to create its own alter ego, the exurb. As a result, the rapid growth of suburban populations makes it difficult to exclude the suburb from consideration as urban space because it is a product and catalyst for the social construction of urban space. It is possible to consider the rise of the suburb as an extension of urban space that seeks to accommodate the expression of increasing diversity in lifestyles and work ethics. It is not clear, however, how increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the US population will shape the synergistic link between urban and suburban space. Ironically, what urban and suburban spaces have in common is the transformation of public space into contested terrain.

Source:

Sociology

Posted in Class Notes, earth, urban morphology, Urban Studies | Leave a comment

Don’t Limit Others

Posted on May 19, 2020 by Rashid Faridi

Orlando's avatarOrlando Espinosa

Don’t tell others who they are, who they are supposed to be or what they are capable of accomplishing! You do a disservice to others when you limit what they can do.

View original post

Posted in earth | Leave a comment

Democratic Public or Social Space

Posted on May 19, 2020 by Rashid Faridi

Authors

Nahal Sohbati, Academy of Art University, San Francisco, Studying for Masters of Landscape Architecture

Rivka Weinstock, University of Pennsylvania, Studying for Masters of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning

Democratic Public Space, as defined as an ideal for all public spaces, is a place that is publicly owned, universally accessible, both physically and in perception; allows for a diversity of voices and users in all stages of design and occupancy; allows for flexibility of use; is freely used by all individuals and encourages freedom of speech and expression.

Definition of Democracy

Democracy is a mode of living together in which people manage for themselves the conditions of their own existence through collective decision making.

Image from "Le Droit À La Ville" by Henri Lefebvre

Democracy provides citidens with “the right to the city,” which includes the right to participation and appropriation in their shared urban environment. By citidens, we use Henri Lefebvre’s term, which combines citizen (a citizen of the nation-state) and denizen (an inhabitant of the city, who is not necessarily a citizen of the nation-state) (Purcell, 314; Parkinson, 25).

The right to participate maintains that citidens should play an integral role in any decision that contributes to the design or making of urban space. The urban space refers to several urban areas and their related multicentric municipalities forming a whole in a single stretch. In the multicentric urban space, the urban areas are either adjoining or linked together by multicentric municipalities. This space forms a connected whole. An urban space comprising just a single urban area is said to be monocentric.The right to appropriation is the right to occupy and use urban space, as well as the right to produce urban space so that it meets the needs of inhabitants (Purcell, 102).

Relationship between Democracy and Public Space

The first declaration issued by the people’s assembly of Syntagma square (Greece, 2011) read, in part:

“For a long time decisions have been made for us, without consulting us. We….have come to Syntagma Square (Greece, 2011)…because we know that the solutions to our problems can only be provided by us. We call all residents of Athens…and all of society to fill the public squares and to take their lives into their own hands. In these public squares we will shape our claims and our demands together.”  (Purcell, 321)

Public space allows for the free appropriation and expression of space in our cities by all inhabitants. (Within our current system, public spaces do not necessarily always allow for the right to participation, though we argue that to be truly public, they should also include the right for full participation). Without public space, our society will shift into a polarized, privatized arena, dividing society into smaller target groups and segregating people along socio-economic classes. Public spaces are arenas for encountering difference, where we can learn to understand and tolerate the other, as well as participate and view the “theatres of everyday life” providing us with a picture of what makes up our society (Shaftoe, 5, Arendt, Poposki, 713).

Public spaces provide three dimensions of contact that can lead to civic engagement. The first is social contact with diverse populations, which many urban theorists say lead to tolerance (see Benjamin, Simmel, Mumford, Lefebvre, Jacobs). Seeing people who are different than you responding to a space in similar ways creates a temporary bond, which can lead to tolerance of the other. On the other hand, others argue that casual contact can sometimes have the opposite result (for example, snippets of conversation on the street are likely to strengthen adverse social-associations) (Wessel, 12). However, preference for common stimuli (for example, using the same community garden, playing a team sport, or enjoying the same music performance) and extended contact (which leads to familiarity, and then the possibility of friendship), seem to increase the positive effects of contact (Wessel, 7, 12). Programming that increases these elements should therefore be pursued.

The second dimension of public space that leads to civic engagement is contact with the physical, material and temporal nature of public space, which provides a sense of identification with the “pulse of the city”.

The third dimension, referred to as “symbolic projection”, is the symbolic and sensory expression of the currents and moods of public culture manifested in public space. This includes iconography (for example, the quality of design, images of consumption and advertisements and architectural expression) as well as active code (routines of usage and public gathering and what is appropriate behavior in a certain public space). Symbolic projections are powerful codes of public culture, both summarizing cultural trends as well as shaping public opinion (Amin, 2006).

The cultural and social cues of a space affect the type of user group that feels welcome in a space.

Why Now? Relevance Today

The origins of public space as we know it are Greek agoras and Roman forum, which were designed to allow for citizens to gather and take political action. With the transformation of our cities into industrial centers, then car-centric transportation systems, and finally, with digital technology, and a production economy aimed at and encouraging mass-consumption, the city has lost much of its democratic landscape. Public space is no longer for citizens, but designed for consumers, tourists, or employees and no longer controlled by citizens, but by developers, investors, business associations, governments, and police. Commercialization of public spaces segregates people into smaller target groups, and excludes non-paying citizens, seen as loitering. (Shiwari, 209; Parkinson, 4; Benerjee, 10-11).

Some may argue that much of our political life has moved to the digital realm. While the digital realm has made gathering more global, convenient and efficient, using social media as the only political platform runs the risk of echo chambers, and exclusion of diverse voices. Physical public gathering space allows for converging camps and a mix of peoples and perspectives beyond one’s personal network. Finally, we, as people, still take up, occupy and share space and so public and free space is still key to understanding ourselves vis a vis our influence on the larger world (Parkinson; Toloudi; Tiwari, 12).

Democratic Public Space vs. Public Space

Once we agree that public space is necessary in a democratic society, the question then becomes, how should our public spaces function? One way to look at it is as a controlled and orderly space for retreat and recreation, where a properly behaved person can enjoy the spectacle of the city. Another way to look at it is as a space for open interaction, representation, and accessible to all, including marginalized people (Mitchell, 115). This type of public space allows for chaos and disorder. Public Space in the latter respect, though sometimes messy, is extremely important in allowing for the observation and engagement with “difference,” without which we are in danger of becoming increasingly prejudiced and passive, as we delve deeper into our enveloped daily routines (Shaftoe, 19).

Mint Plaza, San Francisco [CMG]

Design and Democracy We need to constantly construct democracy, from the way that we approach the entire process of the production of urban space, including outreach, design and management, to the smallest detail of our experience sitting next to a stranger on a park bench. The process should be as equally important as the outcome.

The design profession focuses primarily on the economic and environmental sustainability of our cities, but we must think deeply and critically about social sustainability (Woodcraft et al. 2012). “Social sustainability”, defined by Woodcraft, “combines the design of the physical realm with the design of the social world” (Woodcraft et al., 2012). In our current system cities are products of professionals, instead of being the outcome of an engaging process of involved users, alienating users from their built environment. Places are not just containers for social life, but themselves social accomplishments, things we make together. And thus, our role as designers is not just as genius creatives, but as mediators and facilitators between the professional world and actual everyday users (Brain, 21).

The community engagement processes we use are token; a process is not more democratic simply because there are more people in the meeting. In our current engagement process there are many voices that are not heard, including young, ethnic minorities, socially marginalized groups, the elderly and people who choose not to participate. Maximum effort must be put into reaching out to voices that are unheard. The process of building a public space needs to expand outward to include education, community building, and then physical change (Frisk, 8).  By educating the public, they will be equipped with the necessary sets of skills to express themselves and their needs. In this process, designers and other professionals need to employ a language that can be understood and is accessible to all, which can be used in public debate.

By providing a community with the tools and language necessary to negotiate the complexities of the built environment, we give them the capacity to make collective decisions about their shared spaces. This is not only good for the design process and the specific community at hand, this is an investment in creating a democratically constructed city (Brain, 23).

There may not be one right way to design a democratic public space, but by learning and experimenting, testing assumptions, and responding, and by putting the citidens or users in the center of the process, we are performing democracy (Baker and Hurely, 11). Design also teaches us that the physical space around us is a manifestation of the way we construct our society and in turn how it constructs us. As Winston Churchill suggested, when we shape the city, in turn, it shapes us.

Washington Square Park, NYC

Given that context plays such a large role in what makes a design successful in any given place, there isn’t one way to design a democratic public space. For example, when Walter Hood was asked to redesign Lafayette Park in Oakland, it was used mainly by homeless people, drug users and other “undesirables.” Calls for a redesign were seen by some as a way to rid the space of “undesirables,” but Hood’s design attempted to accommodate the existing users, as well as include a wide array of new users. He did this by creating a series of spaces for different users, separated by berms, while maintaining visual connections. In designing a democratic public space, there’s not one right way to approach it; by setting diversity as the goal, and by understanding context, culture and users’ needs, the methods to achieving that goal will differ (Hester, 81).

In his book, Convivial Urban Spaces, Henry Shaftoe studied several successful public urban spaces (successful in that they are used), and found that they share some common attributes, which he broadly categorizes under physical, geographical, managerial, and psychological/sensual (Shaftoe 139-141).

Physical

  • Plenty of sitting places
  • Good quality and robust
  • Adaptable (both for different uses and over time)
  • Asymmetrical, yet well proportioned (balance without symmetry)
  • Variety and intriguing details (i.e. not monolithic)
  • Carefully considered and appropriate horizontal surface treatments
  • Not too large – or too small
  • Permeable edges

Geographical

  • Location (urban core, neighborhood or suburb)
  • Clusters, sequences and strings of spaces
  • Relation to transport (motorized and pedestrian routes)

Managerial

  • Diversity of use
  • Promotion of a relaxed, round-the-clock culture
  • Inclusiveness
  • Well maintained and clean
  • Vehicular circulation banned or tightly controlled
  • Adequately lit
  • Animation/Activation

Psychological and Sensual

  • Human scale
  • Individuality and uniqueness
  • Feeling of safety (unthreatening)
  • Comfortable microclimate
  • Visually satisfactory
  • Incorporation of natural elements
  • Acoustically pleasant
  • Opportunities to eat and drink

Democratic Public Space as a System

When we talk about public spaces, we often construct a clear duality between public spaces and private spaces. Instead, it could be useful to bring more nuance into the way we understand public. Public Spaces could have one or more of the following features: (1) it is openly accessible; (2) it consumes collective resources (it’s owned by the public sector); (3) it has common impact; (4) it is a stage for the performance of public roles (Parkinson, 201).

Every public space should not have to perform every public role. It is important to look at the degree to which a particular city provides space for a variety of experiences and performances of democratic practices (Parkinson, 185).

Streetscapes – residential, commercial and civic boulevards

Square/Plaza – civic square (commons), church square, college campus

Park – garden, cemetery, large park, neighborhood park, regional park, national park

Linear Systems – bikeways, paths and trails

Outdoor Sport and Recreational Facilities – playgrounds, sport fields, school sites, golf courses, skate parks, outdoor fitness parks

Campground and Picnic Areas

Nature Preserves

(Sandalack and Uribe, 47)

Democratic Public Space should include the following:

  • Access
    • Accessibility to and from the space/connectivity
    • Universal Accessibility in the space
    • Mental/Psychological Accessibility
    • Inclusion and Belonging
    • Curfews/Policing
      • A safe, accessible and equitable space for all users regardless of physical or cognitive ability. Perceived accessibility is just as important as physical accessibility. Policing access and curfews discourage freedom of expression and use, which is essential to democratic public space.
  • Diversity
    • Diversity of users: inclusive across age, race, ethnicity, income, sexual identity, gender, religion, ability.
    • Diversity of voices in the design process
    • Promoting diversity and unity
      • Ensuring that a diversity of users are welcome and encouraged to use the space, ensuring a diversity of voices in the planning and design process. Ensuring that redesign of spaces promotes a diversity of users and does not exclude “undesirables”.
  • Ownership/Engagement/Guardianship
    • Owned by the public (as opposed to POPOS)
      • Public participation in the design process
      • Public guardianship post-occupancy
        • Public ownership of public space ensures that people have freedom of use and expression (and are not kicked out for self-expression, as in the case of Zucotti Park). How can we ensure that spaces are truly designed by the people and for the people? Are our current public engagement practices radical enough? Should public spaces be designed at all?
  • Flexibility
    • Programming/Usage
    • Spatial
    • Present and Future
      • Flexible to different users’ needs and different types of events, from social to more intimate. It should also consider present and future uses.
  • Freedom of Expression/Speech
    • Allowing for freedom of expression and speech
    • Serving as a “commons” – a space for expressions of community (ex. art events, festivals, celebrations, mourning, etc.)
      • Allowing for a mix of people and perspectives to freely express, exchange, debate, and dissent
  • Perception
    • Considering how a space is perceived and how that relates to all of the above categories.

References

Amin, Ash. “Collective Culture and Urban Public Space.” City, Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action vol. 12 no. 1 (2008): 5-24.

Arendt, Hannah.  [1958] 1998.  The Human Condition, 2nd edition.  Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Baker, William and Hurley, Nick thevotingproject.com. “Designing Direct Democracy.” In Designing Democracy: How designers are changing democratic spaces and processes, edited by The London Design Commission, 2015.

Banejeree, Tridib. “The future of Public Space” APA Journal vol. 67, no. 1 (Winter 2001): 5-24.

Benjamin, Walter.  2002.  The Arcades Project, edited by Rolf Tiedmann, translated by Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin.  New York: Belknap Press.

Brain, David. “Democarcy and Urban Design: The Transect as Civic Renewal [The Transect]” Places vol. 18 no, 1 (2006): 18-23.

Frisk, Rasmus, Aarup Die, Thomas and Pilehchian, Yalda. “Building Cities with People, Democratic Urban Design  Co-Creating Cities: the process of citizen involvement in urban design practice through innovative tools and new technologies.” Paper presented at the 8th International Urban Design Conference Empowering Change: Transformative Innovations and Projects Brisbane QLD, 16-18 November 2015.

Gehl, Jan and Matan, Anne. “Two Perspectives on Public Spaces.” Building Research and Information vol. 37 no. 1 (2009) 106-109.

Jacobs, Jane. “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” New York: Vintage Books, 1961.

Gehl Studio, “The Public Life Diversity Toolkit, 2.0” https://issuu.com/gehlinstitute/docs/20160128_toolkit_2.0 Accessed on August 10, 2017.

Hester, Randolph T. “Design for Ecological Democracy” Boston: The MIT Press, 2010.

Lynch, Kevin.  1990 (1972).  “The Openness of Open Spaces,” Pp. 396 – 412 in City Sense and City Design: Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch, edited by T. Banerjee and M. Southworth.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mitchell, Don. “The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers vol. 85, no. 1 (1995): 108-133.

Parkinson, John. “Democracy and Public Space, The Physical Sites of Democratic Performance.” New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Poposki, Zoran. “Spaces of democracy, art, polotics, and artivism in the post-socialist city.” Studia Politica: Romanian Political Science Review vol 11 no. 4 (2011): 713-723.

Purcell, Mark. “Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the

inhabitant.” GeoJournal 58 (2002): 99-108.

Purcell, Mark. “The right to the city: the struggle for democracy in the urban public realm.” Policy and Politics, vol 43, no. 3 (2013): 311-327.

Sandalack, Beverly A. and Alaniz Uribe, Francisco G. “Open Space Typology as a Framework for Design of the Public Realm.” University of Calgary Urban Lab. http://www.ucalgary.ca/urbanlab/files/urbanlab/Typology%20of%20Public%20Space_Sandalack-Uribe.pdf Accessed on August 10, 2017.

Sennett. Richard.  1977.  The Fall of Public Man.  New York: Knopf.

Shaftoe, Henry. “Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places.” London: Earthscan, 2008.

Soja, Edward. “The City and Spatial Justice.” Space and Justice no. 1, Sept 2009. https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JSSJ1-1en4.pdf Accessed on Augsut 10, 2017.

Tiwari, Sudarshan. “The Democratic Street.” Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy 1 (2017).

Wessel, Terje. “Does Diversity in Urban Space Enhance Intergroup Contact and Tolerance?” Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography vol 91 no. 1 (2009): 5-17.

Whyte, William, “The social Life of Small Urban Spaces.”

Zukin, Sharon. “Politics and aesthetics of public space: The ‘American’ model.” Public Space,, 1998 http://www.publicspace.org/en/text-library/eng/a013-politics-and-aesthetics-of-public-space-the-american-model, Accessed on August 8, 2017.

Source(s) and Link(s):
Posted in Class Notes, earth, urban morphology, Urban Studies | Leave a comment