S(mall) P(ublic) S(paces) and design principles

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

Public space DOES SIZE MATTER?

Cpt854 research based design project i Sept. 2014 i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592 1

2

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

contents p.

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................... 4

p.

7 Design preparation............................................................................................................................ 38

7.1 Analysis............................................................................................................................... 38

7.1.1 Large scale context analysis - Municipality of Thessaloniki................................. 39

7.1.2 Medium scale - city center and immediate context............................................ 41

7.1.3 Medium scale - city center................................................................................... 42

7.1.4 Site area analysis.................................................................................................. 45

7.2 Analysis of the specific spaces........................................................................................... 51

7.2.1 Athonos square.................................................................................................... 52

7.2.2 Monastery courtyard in Makenzy King st............................................................ 53

8 Introduction to design....................................................................................................................... 61

8.1 Vision.................................................................................................................................. 61

8.2 General objectives.............................................................................................................. 61

8.3 Strategic framework........................................................................................................... 61

8.4 Configuration of the concept idea..................................................................................... 67

8.5 Brief configuration.............................................................................................................. 74

Abstract................................................................................................................................................ 5 List of figures and tables....................................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Background infromation..................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Researh question................................................................................................................ 8

1.3 Research aims.................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Research objectives............................................................................................................. 8

1.5 Small Public Spaces to redevelop........................................................................................ 9

1.6 Limitations.......................................................................................................................... 9

1.7 Structure of the report........................................................................................................ 9 2 Literature review................................................................................................................................ 10

2.1 Public space......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Small Public Spaces............................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Summary of findings........................................................................................................... 12

9 Design proposal................................................................................................................................. 76

9.1 Design of the whole route.................................................................................................. 76

9.2 Design proposal for the two spaces.................................................................................... 79

9.2.1 Monastery courtyard in Makenzy King st............................................................ 81

9.2.2 Athonos square................................................................................................... 86

3 Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Selected methods............................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Method of sampling............................................................................................................ 14

3.2.1 Barcelona as comparable city ............................................................................. 14

3.2.2 Barcelona selected precedents............................................................................ 16

3.2.1 Thessaloniki selected precedent.......................................................................... 17

3.3 Method of community involvement................................................................................... 17

10 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 99 11 Appendixes...................................................................................................................................... 100

11.1 Case studies combination tables...................................................................................... 100

11.2 Questionnaires................................................................................................................. 102

11.3 Configuration of the final table of design principles......................................................... 103

11.4 Special characteristics of the Greek context..................................................................... 106

11.4.1 Urban fabric characteristics............................................................................... 106

11.4.2 Daily life............................................................................................................. 106

11.4.3 Outcomes supported design.............................................................................. 106

11.5 Process of field visit and results........................................................................................ 110

11.6 Precedents........................................................................................................................ 112

11.7 Form exploration sketches................................................................................................ 114

11.8 Ethical approval form....................................................................................................... 116

4 Analysis of precedents....................................................................................................................... 18

4.1 Process and limitations....................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Fossar de les Moreres, Barcelona...................................................................................... 18

4.3 Placa de las Navas, Barcelona............................................................................................. 21

4.4 Placa de John Lennon, Barcelona........................................................................................ 24

4.5 Katouni square, Thessaloniki.............................................................................................. 27

4.6 Summary of findings and interpretation............................................................................. 30

4.7 Additional outcomes that inform design quidelines........................................................... 31

5 Community involvement.................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Aims................................................................................................................................... 32

5.2 Objectives........................................................................................................................... 32

5.3 Stakeholders........................................................................................................................ 32

5.4 Findings............................................................................................................................... 33

5.5 Outcomes that inform design guidelines............................................................................ 34

12 References....................................................................................................................................... 119

6 Responding to research question...................................................................................................... 36

3

acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Marga Munar Bauza for all her constant support, guidance and inspiration that enable me to develop this project. I would also like to thank Louie who helped me a lot in the beginning of the project and my reviewer Melina for her useful feedback and comments.

Additionally, special thanks to all the anonymous interviewees who participated to my community involvement process and provided me with data extremely useful for the outcomes of the research and the development of the design project.

Last but not least, I would like to deeply thank my family and my beloved Kleanthis for the enormous support and encouragement during this whole year of ups and downs.

4

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

abstract This study investigates the design principles that should apply in the creation of Small Public Spaces integrated to the urban fabric in order for them to play a major role in the morphology of the city but also in people’s daily life. The research tries to identify how and which principles should guide the design of a SPS in the compact city center of Thessaloniki, Greece through the study of three cases in the city of Barcelona and one in Thessaloniki. The case studies of Barcelona are: the square Fossar de les Moreres, the Placa de las Navas and the Placa de John Lennon, while from Thessaloniki is the Katouni square.

After the analysis and along with the support of the community involvement a set of design quidelines was arisen which was used for the design of a network of SPS in the city center of Thessaloniki.

In the paper it is argued that when it comes to small scale of the urban space what differs from the design of larger open spaces, is the hierarchy in which design principles should be used. As the size changes some of the principles’ importance changes as well.

5

list of figures and tables List of figures 1.1 Relation between sizes 1.2 Athonos Square 1.3 Monastery courtyard in Makenzy King st 2.1 Landscape typologies 2.2 Palley park, NY 2.3 Square Four Public Garden, Lebanon 2.4 Comparison between essential elements for a public space and small public space according to the literature review 3.1 Nauarinou square, Thessaloniki - an example of a small public space in the city center.

3.2 Placa de la Vila de Madrid, Barcelona - an example of a small public space in the city center.

3.3 Diagrammatic illustration of the sampling method 3.4 Fossar de les Moreres, image and figure ground 3.5 Placa de las Navas, image and figure ground 3.6 Placa de Jonh Lennon, image and figure ground 3.7 Katouni square, image and figure ground 4.1 Pictures of the plaza Fossar de les Moreres 4.2 Site plan and section 4.3 No of routes leading to the site 4.4 Types of surrounding streets 4.5 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces 4.6 Lighting 4.7 Pictures of the placa de las Navas 4.8 Site plan and section 4.9 No of routes leading to the site 4.10 Types of surrounding streets 4.11 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces 4.12 Lighting 4.13 Pictures of the plaza de John Lennon 4.14 Site plan and section 4.15 No of routes leading to the site 4.16 Types of surrounding streets 4.17 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces 4.18 Lighting 4.19 Pictures of Katouni square 4.20 Site plan and section 4.21 No of routes leading to the site 4.22 Types of surrounding streets 4.23 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces 4.24 Lighting 4.25 Diagrammatical illustration of SPS layouts 5.1 People approached during the CI process 5.2 Contact card

7.1 Google map aerial view with study area 7.2 Road hierarchy 7.3 Hébrard’s urban plan for Thessaloniki 7.4 Open spaces 7.5 Land use distribution map 7.6 Points of interest 7.7 Population per block 7.8 Open spaces 7.9 Road hierarchy 7.10 Bus and cycle lanes 7.11 Immediate context base map 7.12 Green links 7.13 Tree lines around the sites 7.14 Ground green corridors 7.15 Classification of open spaces 7.16 Examples of decorative greenery along pedestrian only routes 7.17 Examples of green islands 7.18 Neighborhood serving open space 7.19 Representative space (DIkastirion square) 7.20 Footfall volumes and bus stops 7.21 Existing vehicular and pedestrian movement pattern 7.22 On street car parking 7.23 Sections on different types of streets 7.24 Historic monuments 7.25 Listed buildings 7.26 Location of the spaces and distance between them 7.27 Size of spaces in relation with the size of Leicester square, London 7.28-7.29 Small independent shops 7.30 Restaurant and outdoor seating area 7.31 Market 7.32 Bird eye view 7.33 Athonos square and surrounding public realm 7.34 Bazzar area in Hébrard’s plan and Athonos Square 7.35 No of routes leading to the site 7.36 Ground floor land use 7.37 Upper floors land use 7.38 Plan 7.39 Section AA 7.40 Section BB 7.41 Pictures from the site 7.42 Field behavioral mapping 7.43 The interior of the monastery 7.44 The entrance to the catacombs 7.45 Bird eye view 7.46 The courtyard and surrounding public realm 7.47 Ground floor land use 7.48 Upper floors land use 7.49 No of routes leading to the site 7.50 Plan 7.51 Pictures from the site 7.52 Section AA 7.53 Section BB 7.54 View from street level 7.55 The glass facade 7.56 Field behavioral mapping

6

8.1 Route and degradation of privacy 8.2 Sequence of views map and pictures 8.3 Linear pavement 8.4 Colour line 8.5 Lighting line 8.6 Grass lines 8.7 Proposed traffic system 8.8 Car parking 8.9 Legibility study 8.10 Signposting examples 8.11 Building lighting 8.12 Parklet / seating area 8.13 Change in the floor layout 8.14 Use of existing spaces and proposed uses 8.15 Tourists’ potential routes 8.16 Visitors’ potential routes 8.17 University students’ potential routes 8.18 Workers’ potential routes 8.19 Residents’ potential routes 8.20 Overlapping routes - metro lines 8.21 Shanghai metro line map 8.22 Different spaces are poping up during the route 8.23 Actual line between stops 8.24 Simplification of the line 8.25 Ground floor land use along the route 8.26 Change in lengths according to walking distance 8.27 Proposed walking speed and stopping points 8.28 Pavement orientation different for movement or stopping points 9.1 Masterplan (scale 1:1500) 9.2 Water drainage forms a line running along the route - breaks are covered with spotlights or change in pavement material 9.3 Water drainage is covered by granite slabs 9.4 Spotlights to continue the line 9.5 A tree line also reinforces the route direction and creates a pathway to be used potentialy as a cycle lane.

9.6 Space between water drainage and tree line 9.7 Pattern used along the route: tree - bench - tree 9.8 “Stops” that will be presented 9.9 General connection with the surroundings 9.10 Creation of a path connecting the space with the theatre 9.11 Need to highlight the view to the church from the public space 9.12 Uses, convertion of vacant spaces and focal point 9.13 Uplift of the ground and general access to the monastery by the courtyard of the basilica 9.14 Configuration of the shape 9.15 The dome of St. Sophie 9.16 Ground floor plan (scale 1:500) 9.17 Underground plan (scale 1:500) 9.18 Different views to basilica 9.19 Section AA (scale 1:500) 9.20 Section BB (scale 1:500) 9.21 Activities or things to observe outside the space 9.22 Activities or things to observe inside the space 9.23 Allocation of seatings facing activities

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

list of figures and tables 9.24 Configuration of different areas inside the space 9.25 Simple form 9.26 Lighting of the square 9.27 Creation of a path and provision of a focal point 9.28 Different types of people arrive from each side 9.29 Different areas 9.30 Reinforcing the legibility of the space 9.31 Uses and convertion of vacant spaces 9.32 Height difference as boundary 9.33 Plan (scale 1:500) 9.34 Surrounding geometry forms the shape of the square - a rectangle inside a rectangle 9.35 Main movement pattern sketch 9.36 Plan (scale 1:200) 9.37 Section AA (scale 1:200) 9.38 Pavement details 9.39 Section BB (scale 1:200) 9.40 Water presence around the space 9.41 Water changes level is covered or open around the space 9.42 Circulation of water diagram 9.43 Activities outside the space 9.44 Activities inside the space 9.45 Allocation of seatings facing activities/ combination of seatings with and without back 9.46 Seatings used for art display when not in use 9.47 Configuration of different areas inside the space 9.48 Simple form 9.49 Lighting of the square 9.50 View to the square from the southern entrance 9.51 View to the square from the North 9.52 View to the square from the East 9.53 View from inside the square 9.54 Night view 11.1 Basic information combination table 11.2 Opportunity to observe combination table 11.3 Accessibility and connectivity combination table 11.4 Physical comfort and addtional factors combination table 11.5 Sample of the questionnaire translated in English 11.6 The 4 predominant factors and their specific dimensions (in red are the new dimensions to focus on) 11.7 The revised 4 factors according to needs of a city center and adddition of a new one 11.8 The revised 4 factors according to needs of locals and adddition of new ones 11.9 Additions according to specific need of the city of Thessaloniki and its citizens 11.10 Additional layout factor 11.11 Typical section of a perimeter block 11.12 Types of land use distribution in a city center building 11.13 Differences between high streets and secondary streets in the city center of Thessaloniki 11.14 Daily routine of a University student (weekdays, weekends, Winter, Summer) 11.15 Daily routine of an office worker (weekdays, weekends, Winter, Summer) 11.16 Daily routine of a worker in a store (weekdays, weekends, Winter, Summer) 11.17 Pedestrian movement in Athonos square

11.18 Pedestrian movement in Monastery courtyard 11.19 Samir Kassir Public Garden, Beirut Lebanon 11.20 Placa de la vila de Madrid, Barcelona 11.21 Carretera antiga d’ Horta, Barcelona 11.22 Combination of fixed and movable benches in Plaça les jardins d elx in Barcelona.

11.23 Design proposal for the regeneration of Leicester square in London.

11.24 Shape exploration sketch 1 11.25 Shape exploration sketch 2 11.26 Shape exploration sketch 3 11.27 Shape exploration sketch 4 11.28 Shape exploration sketch 1 11.29 Shape exploration sketch 2 11.30 Shape exploration sketch 3 11.31 Shape exploration sketch 4

List of tables 3.1 The 4 predominant parameters and their specific dimensions to look at 4.1 Basic information table 4.2 Opportunities for observation table 4.3 Accessibility table 4.4 Connectivity table 4.5 Physical comfort table 4.6 Additional factors table 4.7 Basic information table 4.8 Opportunities for observation table 4.9 Accessibility table 4.10 Connectivity table 4.11 Physical comfort table 4.12 Additional factors table 4.13 Basic information table 4.14 Opportunities for observation table 4.15 Accessibility table 4.16 Connectivity table 4.17 Physical comfort table 4.18 Additional factors table 4.19 Basic information table 4.20 Opportunities for observation table 4.21 Accessibility table 4.22 Connectivity table 4.23 Physical comfort table 4.24 Additional factors table 4.25 Basic information combination table 4.26 Factors that affect more each of SPS type 6.1 The 4 predominant factors and their specific dimensions (in red are the new dimensions to focus on) 6.2 The revised 4 factors according to needs of a city center and adddition of a new one 6.3 The revised 4 factors according to needs of locals and adddition of new ones 6.4 Additions according to specific need of the city of Thessaloniki and its citizens

7

6.5 Additional layout factor 6.6 Final parameters and dimensions 9.1 Additional information table 9.2 Responding to security principle 9.3 Additional information table 9.4 Responding to security principle 10.1 Comparison between the significance of each principle in the design of Small Public Spaces (SPS) and Public Spaces (PS)

List of charts 5.1 Participants’ gender and age groups 5.2 Participants’ gender and age groups 5.3 Reasons for visiting the city center 5.4 Frequency of visiting the city center - non residents 5.5 Way of approaching the city center - non residents 5.6 Purpose of visiting public spaces 5.7 Time of visiting 5.8 Important elements in public space 5.9 Need of visual control 5.10 Feeling comfortable to sit near other people 5.11 Frequency of visiting SPS No1 5.12 Purpose of visiting SPS No1 5.13 Evaluation of specific elements of SPS No1 5.14 Frequency of visiting SPS No2 5.15 Purpose of visiting SPS No2 5.16 Evaluation of specific elements of SPS No2 5.17 Purpose of visiting a public space (residents and workers’ opinion) 5.18 Desires from a public space (residents and workers’ opinion)

1

Introduction “less is more”

topic area

why this topic

1.1 Background infromation

1.2 Research question

The phrase “less is more” by Mies van der Rohe, the ultimate principal of minimalism, is now valid more than ever. Especially when it comes to the urban dimension and deals with the public space, the adoption of a maneuverable way to exploit the existing stock of vacant plots or misused small open spaces, would be very useful.

The creation of the essence of a small public space could not be done differently than manipulating and designing each of its elements in order for them to meet their functional purpose, freed from all the unnecessary. And sometimes a space like this can convey a strongest meaning or play a more important role to people’s daily life. This is because in dense urban environments and growing cities people may need more a friendly and cosy space to stay rather than an enormous place (Shaftoe 2008). Of course, there is no attempt to disregard the importance of big open spaces, parks and gardens but there are some cases in which a smaller space can fit better to the human scale and respond more effectively to everyday needs.

“ Which are the factors guiding the design of a small public space in the dense compact city center of Thessaloniki, Greece?

This study explores how important Small Public Spaces (SPS) are for the morphology of the city and its people. It investigates their special characteristics and develops an argument for their efficiency regardless of their size as they usually serve a different scope. For instance, a large public square could be a representative space that may reflect city’s glory and serve a high number and range of people, whereas a smaller one acts either as neighborhood serving public space usually responding to local people’s needs or as a space created to convey a very specific meaning (such as memorial spaces or historic sites). The study argues that size, as a relative factor, should not affect the quality of a public space. On the contrary, it can be that characteristic to make it unique and attractive.

1.3 Research aims

The broad topic area was selected due to my personal interest to small scale urban interventions that can smartly respond to many different needs without compromising in terms of quality and comfort. It is an excellent method of recycling the land stock and make it work in a different and efficient way. In the last few years there has been a successful attempt in many countries to take advantage of the small open spaces in order to convert them into high quality public squares (see for example the network of SPS in Copenhagen, Barcelona or New York ) which are oasis for the locals but also another element that a city can be known for. But how this can be a reality in a Greek context? This study argues that there is a need to activate such spaces in Greece as the broad economic crisis does not leave many options for making large costy interventions in the public realm. Consequently, Greece needs to target to the smallest that gives the biggest result. Exploitation of the SPS and reuse of the existing spaces to improve the quality living can be one of the actions that can take place.

• how can a SPS keep its local character while being integrated to the multifunctional context of a city center that serves a wide variety of users,

8

Until now Thessaloniki has not introduced any specific strategy or political framework to encourage the design of SPS in the city core by highlighting their importance and contribution to the quality living like other cities have done. For example Barcelona, while being prepared for the Olympics in 1992, took advantage of the left over spaces and created a network of over 150 public spaces (pocket spaces and squares) offering a “breathing space” inside the dense city (Landry and Bianchini 1995). But this is not only about using left over spaces but also regenerating existing public spaces that have failed to meet public demands.The research question is more about how the existing stock of SPS can be re-activated and which are the essential characteristics that they should convey in order to attract local people and manage improving their daily life.

This study aims to cover the gap in knowledge regarding the necessity, function and essential characteristics that a SPS should have to be an active core of the city center of Thessaloniki.

1.4 Research objectives This study is to identify: • how a SPS in Thessaloniki can be a destination point serving different needs,

• how can a SPS or a network of spaces improve predominantly the quality living of the locals (residents and workers) and which are those urban design elements that would contribute to this.

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

1

1.5 Small Public Spaces to redevelop selected SPS

what is considered as small

what is considered as public space

For the design project, two sites will be selected in the city center of Thessaloniki and are currently secondary small public spaces that have failed to attract people. A more detailed description will be given later on in the report.

As “small” differs from one city to another or even one district to another for the research “small” is defined by the comparison between the size of the space and the size of the surrounding blocks but also by the relationship with the size of the surrounding open spaces. For the city of Thessaloniki a small public space is currently no more than 3,000m2 and in general when the size of the space is less than half of the size of the average surrounding blocks, the space will be considered as small (figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 Relation between sizes

In addition, this research focuses only on public squares and not other public spaces such as pedestrian streets, alleys etc. So, when Small Public Space is mentioned it is assumed that this refers only to public square or piazza.

1

1.6 Limitations

1. Athonos Square, 1,144m2

- Tight timescale. Both research and design project were to be done in a short period of time. Therefore some issues have not been as further and deeply investigated as they could have been if there was more time.

2.Monastery courtyard in Makenzy King st., 1,110m2

- Precedents in Barcelona used for the research have not been visited.

1.7 Report structure The rest of the report will be developed in 7 main topic areas as follows: 1 literature review 2 methodology 3 analysis of case studies

Space No1 4 community involvement

5 Informing the design project

Figure 1.2 Athonos Square

6 design project 7 outcomes-conclusions Space No2

Figure 1.3 Monastery courtyard in Makenzy King st.

9

2

2

literature review integration

sociability, flexibility and vitality

sense of belonging and symbolism

connectivity, accessibility, security

additional elements

classification of public spaces

2.1 Public space According to Lord Rogers’ Urban Task Force report published in 1999 public open spaces should not be considered as a seperate unit but as an integral part of the urban fabric with its own pariticular land uses and urban synergies. Dimensions, proportions, relation with the surrounding urban fabric are some of the factors that contribute to the integration of the public space (Gatje, R.F 2010 and Montgomery 1996).

Public space is a place for people to communicate with each other while enjoying some moments away from the stressful daily life (Thompson 2002). The number of people and the quality of their social interaction together with the level of offering numerous opportunities for activities and recreation are the main factors that make a public space work in its context (Gehl 1996). As Gehl (1996) claims, most people would rather stay in a public place where they can find people to communicate than sit in their private courtyard. Montgomery (1996) in addition, says that vitality is the key difference between “successful urban areas and the others”. But according to him what leads to vitality is the transaction base: the proximity to a busy street that receives high footfalls and the ability of the space to accommodate cultural activities througout the year. In general the level of flexibility is one of the basic characteristics that a public space should have either this refers to the level of offering different opportunities for activities or the level that it can be transformed through the time and provide the sence of discovery to its users (Marcus & Francis 1990 and Carr 1992).

ery 1998). Furthermore in public spaces one can find several typologies that appear around the city scale (Sanchez Vidiella & Zamora 2011). These are:

where small lies

Community gardens

Linear parks

Small parks and gardens

Squares

City blocks interiors

In my view, SPS usually play the role of a local space or a space of a small neighborhood and it can acquire several characters or meanings. However, such places while being substantial, cannot easily have a representative character as this role is usually played by larger squares which act as landmarks for the city. As for the typologies, SPS are usually small parks and gardens or city blocks interiors but they can also be sites related with history highlighting its meaning.

2.2 Small Public Space

definition and significance

In addition there are many other essential elements for a public space including the physical comfort (Marcus & Francis 1990 and Carr 1992), the delight, the fact that it serves a specific purpose (Gatje, R.F 2010) and the unique identity that it should have (APA 2013). However, summarising the above findings, the three most important features appear to be the non physical comfort (the sense of security, the opportunity for mental and psychological relaxation, sun and shade, windiness), the flexibility and the integration to urban fabric.

Public spaces can be classified according to their catchment area (meaning from how far people are coming to visit the space) and size to: local open spaces, neighbourhood spaces, district spaces and regional spaces (Rutherford 2012). In addition open spaces can be classified according to their character or meaning to: meeting places, symbolic or representative and places that refer to culture and tradition (Montgom10

Historic parks and sites

Figure 2.1 Landscape typologies

In addition public space should be able to create a sense of belonging for its users and carry a symbolism that would make visitors feel like being a part of it and encourage them to discover its meaning (Montgomery 1996 and Carr et all 1992). However, in my opinion sence of belonging would be more important when the space is primarly used by the locals while symbolism appears to be more important when it comes to general visitors or tourists and helps in making the space unique inside the urban fabric.

Public spaces are main destinations that need to be related and connected to each other and to other points of interest or community facilities by a wide primary path system that is also complemented by other important points along the route (Gomez 2012 and The town of Erie 2010). Additionally, accessibility is another significant element of an effective public space. According to Marcus & Francis (1990) public spaces should be visually and physically accessible by everybody while offering a sense of safety to their visitors.

Urban parks

types

SPS are small proportions of open spaces (examples in fig 2.2, 2.3) allocated to different parts of the city providing a place to sit, rest, have lunch and enjoy social interaction. They can be considered as “small neighborhoodserving parks and plazas”, meaning that they are public spaces that respond to local needs (Peschardt et al 2012).

Local needs are usually refering to the needs of the immediate residential or working population with a service area of about 1/4 mile radius (Olmos 2008, Rutherford 2012 and Leflore 2012). Consequently their importance lies to the fact that SPS might contribute to satisfaction of the need for everyday experiences in the outdoor areas when the creation of big parks is not possible (Peschardt et al 2012). The research of Peschardt et al (2012) have shown that even a small amount of high quality open space, either it provides an opportunity for physical outdoor activities or not, would have a strong positive impact on people’s mental health. In general small public spaces are usually cheap interventions while adding great value to the surrounding area and streets (Chase et al 1999). Not to ignore of course the contribution to the improvement of the microclimate (Blake -no date) if well designed and also the fact that a well-design cluster of such spaces around the city can be a tourist destination point (Chase et al 1999).

SPS can be categorized into passive, active and bonus spaces (Leflore 2012). Active spaces are those which provide some kind of leisure activity, passive are those which have a central point of interest like a sulpture or a fountain but without presenting any particular type of recreational activity. Finally bonus space is considered by Leflore (2012) that space created by chance while people usually liked to stop and sat

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

2 there or created with the purpose to use a vacant space which was meant to be used by another project that never realised. the opportunity to observe

accessibility

connectivity

physical comfort

Figure 2.2 Palley park, NY

11

SPS should be highly physically and visually accessible by everybody (Olmos 2008), as usually such squares are not widely known and may be hidden into the urban fabric.

Accessibility brings the space up to the surface in order to be identified and visited.

Local public spaces are working better when they are centrally placed inside the neighbourhood and are clearly connected with the surrounding street layout, other open spaces and between them as well (Rutherford 2012 and Whyte 1980). Therefore, SPS should be part of a wider context and create a system with the surroundings.

Another element that seems to be more important here is the physical comfort meaning the provision of high quality seating area (Olmos 2008, Whyte 1980 and Malmstorm 2008). An adequate number of seats, properly designed, and convenient is one of the most essential characteristic of a public space (The city of NY 2014). Variety, placement and formulation of the seating area can improve public space’s image and increase the level of communication and interaction (The city of NY 2014). Seating area becomes more important in SPSs as it plays the role of a meeting and gathering place in the neighbourhood when one cannot experience many different activities except for simply sit, rest and spend time enjoying the serenity or socialising with other people.

non physical comfort

However, non physical comfort matters as well. The sense of feeling safe and secure, the presence of sunlight or shade are some of the non physical elements that play an important role on how SPS are designed (Whyte 1980 and Dac and Cities 2014).

green space

Green space is also one of the elements that can increase the quality of SPSs. Whyte (1980) included the provision of green space in the list of the most important features that SPSs should have.

distinctive character

Figure 2.3 Square Four Public Garden, Lebanon

But which are the factors that can make a SPS work and how these differ from those for the public space in general? As Whyte claims (1980) it is not the size of public space that attracts people. Even a small proportion of public space can be relativelly active and vital if it fulfills a number of other conditions. It is worth mentioning that Whyte reported as the most usual activity in small public squares the observation of people. In general, the opportunity of observation is one of the most important elements that a SPS should provide. And this is not only for people and physical activities: a focal point (sculpture, fountain etc) could also be a point to observe (Carr 1992 and Olmos 2008).

Furthermore, it is important that SPS respect the local character and are able to demonstrate a unique identity in order to be memorised and clearly identified (Dac and cities 2014 and Rutherford 2012).

2 differences

potential placement

Finally, what is found out by this exploration, is that there are elements that even if they play major role for the quality of a public space, they do not seem so important when the case is a SPS. While some of the characteristics are kept the same, they have changed in terms of their level of importance or new have appeared (see fig 2.4).

Creation of small squares is the best way to recycle small or with no regular shape spaces. As a result, SPS can be appeared scattered around the city, wherever such a space was offered and it is a challenge how to connect them in order to create a network (Leflore 2002 and Chase et al 1999).

2.3 Summary of findings After reviewing the literature it came out that there is a set of characteristics that should appear in SPS in order for them to attract people, serve their purpose and in general manage to be remarkable cores of the urban fabric. As fig. 2.4 explains features that are less important in public spaces aquire a more significant meaning for the SPS. And this is because the specific of theses spaces, which is the small dimension, changes the nature and number of activities happening there, the target users and their level of their interaction with the urban fabric. In the case of SPS we do not deal with large symbolic or representative spaces or spaces that could be known for the activites or big events that may accommodate. Therefore, the four predominant parameters that are found (opportunity to observe, accessibility, physical comfort and connectivity) emphasize the way in which SPS are used and the neccessity for them to be placed and designed in a way that they could be identified by the potential users.

12

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

2 Gehl, J. (1996) Life between buildings: Using public space, Skive, Arkitektens Forlag Catharine Ward Thompson (2002), Urban open space in the 21st century, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 59-72 Olmos, M. (2008) Pocket park development standard [Online] Available at: http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4542 Accessed: 14 April 2014

Public space essential elements non physical comfort

flexibility

Small Public space essential elements opportunity to observe (view)

accessibility

Malmstrom, T. (2008) , A model for small public spaces – The city of Sacramento, University of California Leflore, A.J., 2012. Increasing urban open space through pocket parks, Tufts University

Dac and Cities (2014) Copenhagen - Pocket parks, a drop of urban green [Online] Available at: http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/all-cases/green-city/copenhagen---pocket-parks-adrop-of-urban-green/?bbredirect=true Accessed: 13 Jan. 2014 Whyte, W. (1980) The social life of small urban spaces, Washington DC, Conservation Foundation

Integration

physical comfort

sociability

connectivity

accessibility

non physical comfort

delight

green space

physical comfort

distinctive identity

John Montgomery (1998) Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design, Journal of Urban Design The Town of Erie (2010) Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Master Plan, Colorado, handbook on the park system

connectivity Carr, S, Francis, M, Rivlin, L, Stone, A, (1992), Public Space. Environment and behaviour series. Comfort, passive engagement, active engagement, Discovery

legibility

proximity to parking

Marcus, C. Cooper, & Francis, C. (1990). People places : design guidelines for urban open space. New York, N.Y.: Van Nostrand Reinhold Gatje, R.F (2010) Great public squares-An architect’s selection. New York - London: W.W. Norton & Company Rutherford, J. (2012) Classification framework for public open space.

Government of Western Australia, Department of Sport and Recreation. [online] Available at: http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au//assets/files/ Facilities/Framework for Open Space.pdf Accessed 8/7/14 APA (2013) Great Places in America: Public spaces [online] Available at: https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/characteristics. htm Accessed: 20/7/14

preserve local biodiversity

sense of belonging

integration

distinctive identity

Figure 2.4 Comparison between essential elements for a public space and small public space according to the literature review

Pedro S. Gomes (2012) Factors of good public space use Lab’URBA, Université Paris-Est and DCSPT, GOVCOPP, University of Aveiro

13

3

methodology theory to be tested

process and method of selection

3.1 Selected research methods The research approach is likely to be deductive. Below I will test whether the theory that wants the four predominant parameters to affect the quality of a SPS can apply to the Greek context of the city center of Thessaloniki. To go through this I selected to work with two different research methods : the method of sampling and the method of conducting a community involvement process.

3.2 Method of sampling In order to investigate the validity of the theory in the particular context, four different precedents will be analysed and evaluated under the four predominant parameters in order to see how do they respond to each of them (table 3.1) (similar methodology followed by Malmstrom 2008). In addition, at a later stage additional factors such as the presence of green space, the sense of security and the potential distinctive identity of the space will be taken into consideration. Finally, for each of them size, comparison with the size of the surrounding urban blocks and function will be noted down as the most basic data that can be compared in the beginning. The case studies were selected according to their relevance with the context of Thessaloniki and the way they are integrated into the urban fabric. In the end case studies will be compared and contrasted in order to draw a conclusion regarding how valid is the theory and which are the potential additional important elements for designing a SPS in Thessaloniki.

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE a.opportunity to observe pedestrian footfall b.activities inside or nearby the space c. focal point, water presence

accessibility

a.number of routes b.proximity to transport (distance from nearest stops, number of transport routes) c.types of streets (pedestrian only, busy roads, shared surface etc)

connectivity

a. connection with the existing urban fabric(boundaries)

a. number of seatings

b. connection with existing public spaces

c. seating material

(distance)

Table 3.1 The four predominant factors and their specific dimensions to look at.

3.2.1 Barcelona as comparable city similarities with Barcelona

Barcelona is a European city that has presented a remarkable and well known pattern of SPS. In general, open public spaces in Mediterranean cities are considered to be highly important for people’s daily life. According to Okabe (2011, pp 2): “In the Mediterranean cities that have inherited the Greek and Roman urban culture, squares and streets are considered the salons as well as the show cases of the city. People gathering in the urban spaces have come to embody a city’s attractiveness.”

Barcelona has been considered as a “network of voids” that have been trasformed into high quality SPS (Okabe 2011). The city has been selected as the most appropriate urban context to be compared with the city of Thessaloniki (table 3.2). Although Barcelona has larger population, both cities are the second biggest cities of the countries and are considered to be the cities that attract more young people, have strong cultural heritage and a vibrant environment. In addition, Thessaloniki and Barcelona have similar culture in terms of people’s daily habbits and general attitude but also a similarity in which urban fabric is formulated : clear street layout, perimeter blocks, ground floor only for retail or office land use and public spaces to enjoy the sun or the breeze during Summer (see Appendix 11.4 for more information about Greek context). In terms of the dimensions, the size of the public spaces in Barcelona are similar with those in Thessaloniki. However, in the center of Barcelona one can find smaller block sizes (half of those in Thessaloniki for medium and small sized urban blocks) and narrower streets. That is why each case study was selected according to the specific characteristics of its urban context in order to assure the relevance with the site areas in Thessaloniki.

14

physical comfort

Figure 3.1 Nauarinou square, Thessaloniki - an example of a small public space in the city center.

Figure 3.2 Placa de la Vila de Madrid, Barcelona - an example of a small public space in the city center.

b. capacity of seating people

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

3 thessaloniki Population: City of Thessaloniki: 322.240 inhab City center: 53.017 inhab Density: 16.703 inhab/km2 Green area per capita: 2,5m2

Aerial views

Figure ground of the city center

Climate conditions

Figure ground of the old city next to city center

barcelona Population City of Barcelona: 1,620,943 Ciutat Vella (historic center): 107,426 inhab Density: 25,000 inhab/km2 Green area per capita:5m2

Aerial views

Climate conditions

--> More than double population and higher density but double green space per capita.

Figure ground of the historic city center (old city)

Figure ground of the area next to city center

Table 3.2 Comparison between Thessaloniki and Barcelona

15

3 3.2.2 Barcelona selected precedents BARCELONA

From Barcelona 3 different precedents have been selected:

THESSALONIKI compare

1.Fossar de les Moreres, 989m2 (Passive space), District Ciutat Vella It is a small public space situated in an old cemetery, considered as a symbolic space that was created by knocking down an 1-storey building providing a breathing space in the intense area (El Haddad 2009).

District population: 107,420 inhab Density of the district: 25,000 inhab / km2 2.Placa de las Navas, 1750m2 (Active space), District Sants Montjuic A new green public space that was created in a vacant plot (El Haddad 2009).

District population: 180,020 inhab Density of the district: 8.320 inhab/ Km ²

3 precedents

1 precedent

contrast

Figure 3.3 Diagrammatic illustration of the sampling method

3.Placa de John Lennon, 1020m2 (Active space), District Gracia This is an example of contemporary urban development in a residential neighborhood integrated to the wider commercial area of Garcia district. (El Haddad 2009).

District population: 120,087 inhab Density of the district: 28,660 inhab / Km ²

Figure 3.4 Fossar de les Moreres, image and figure ground

Figure 3.5 Placa de las Navas, image and figure ground

Figure 3.6 Placa de Jonh Lennon, image and figure ground

16

2 existing open spaces (to be redesigned)

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

3 3.2.3 Thessaloniki selected precedent From Thessaloniki 1 precedent in the city center has been identified and selected as a case study: 1.Katouni square, 500m2 (Passive space) A public square inside a pedestrian only area surrounded by restaurants, in the heart of the city and near the seafront.

City center: 53.017 inhab Density: 16.703 inhab/km2 Figure 3.7 Katouni square, image and figure ground

3.3 Method of community involvement Community involvement in the form of questionnaires, is used only in the context of Thessaloniki to investigate what the citizens need from a public space and how their daily habits affect they way they use it. In addition, useful data aquired regarding the site areas that were redesigned in the project (similar methodology with Seymour et al 2010 and Peschardt et al. 2012).

17

4

ANALYSIS OF PRECEDENTS process

limitations

4.1 Process and limitations Analysis of precedents under the same factors for every public space aims to produce comparable data which in the end could be the key to find out which are the additional hidden dimensions that may affect their efficiency and have not been revealed.

In this way, more parameters that may be or not be relevant with urban design principles, would be identified. Consequently below I analyse and evaluate each space staying consistent to what theory says (came from literature review) in order to test whether this is valid or not in the specific cases.

b

c

d

Barcelona’s sites have been visited through Google street view tool. The analysis was based on drawings, base maps, photos, and literature aquired beforehand. Some of the information regarding the variety of users and the vitality throughout the day were assumed based on literature and my personal impressions and thoughts about the space. On the other hand, Thessaloniki’s precedent has been physically visited and observed to aquire all the neccessary data.

general information

4.2 Fossar de les Moreres, Barcelona Situated opposite Cathedral of Santa Maria del Mar, is among the most important landmarks of the district. The area is highy visited and it is a great example of the old Gothic Barcelona (Classistic 2014). Many people arrive to the site to visit the church, mostly during the daytime. Furthermore the plaza is used as a place for demonstrations during the National Day of Catalonia (Wikipedia 2013).

relevance

Relation with the history and role as a tourist attraction point make the space relevant with the site areas that will be redesigned in Thessaloniki. Also it is a space not only for residents but for visitors and tourists as well.

description

a

The area is dense and old and the space has acquired a historic meaning as it used to be the cemetery for the victims of the war of 1714 for the independence of Catalonia. So, the aim was not only to regenerate the area but also to create a symbol of that history (Arriola & Fiol -no date). To do this a curved red column was placed in the middle of the square with a flame on the top as a memorial to the victims (MuĂąoz -no date). What is very interesting is the clever use of the materials and the topography (reminding the piazza del Campo in Sienna)(figure 4.2).

Figure 4.1 Pictures of the plaza Fossar de les Moreres

Fossar de les Size Moreres 970m2

Comparison with block size

Type

2/4 of the average surrounding block size (1,932m2)

p a s s i v e symbolic space, short rest, space* used for gathering on annual national celebration

Function/Use

* Classification into active, passive or bonus spaces have been done according to Leflore (2012) mentioned in p.10 of this report

Table 4.1 Basic information table

18

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

4 Fossar de les Moreres

Activities Inside the space

Focal point

Potential to observe pedestrian footfall:

Water

Around the space

Seatings facing pedestrian activity

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

No visual barriers

Facing to busy and vital streets

visitors entering/exiting the church, taking photos Table 4.2 Opportunities for observation table

Fossar de les Moreres

No of routes

Types of routes

Transport

2

Mostly priority

walking distance

No of routes

2min AND 4min

2 AND 8 respectively

pedestrian

Table 4.3 Accessibility table

cathedral

0 1 0.5 2

4

wall used as a seat

inclination highlights the memorial and the cathedral

Figure 4.3 No of routes leading to the site

Figure 4.2 Site plan and section

19

cathedral

Figure 4.4 Types of surrounding streets shared surface pedestrian only busy road

4 Fossar de les Moreres

Distance from surrounding open spaces

No of closest open spaces

1-2 min walk

4

Boundaries Change on pavement material and change of level in one side

Table 4.4 Connectivity table

Fossar de les Moreres

No of units 1

capacity of seatings 50 (wall used as a seat)

material of seat polished red granit

Table 4.5 Physical comfort table

Fossar de les Moreres

Distinctive identity* Greenery HIGH MEDIUM LOW

MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

YES / NO

Sense of security Adequate night lighting

HIGH MEDIUM LOW Visual surveilance

Variety of users

*Evaluated according to the level of symbolism, the use of materials and the level of demonstrating a unique image easily identified and potentialy memorised.

Table 4.6 Additional factors table

Figure 4.6 Lighting

Figure 4.5 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces

20

Vitality during the whole day

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

4 general information

relevance

description

4.3 Placa de las Navas, Barcelona The triangular formed space (created above a car parking) was designed in a way to connect the different geometries colliding at this point of the urban fabric. In the end the square blends into the adjoining streets while keeping its shape clearly defined (El Haddad 2009). The lines of trees and the small cluster of the pine trees where there is a sculpture of Juan Rebull acting as a focal point, (Haddad 2009) are some of its special characteristics that make its geometrical shape clearer and its connection with the surrounding streets stronger.

The space has been selected because of its special role in locals’ daily life. As the design project aims to create a SPS that would predominantly serve locals it is crucial to investigate a space that has already done it.

The square is an active space, simply designed with movable seats that makes the area change image every now and then. This characteristic reinforce the sense of privatisation in a public space, bringing the square closer to its users who can now transform the space according to their needs.

Figure 4.7 Pictures of the placa de las Navas

Placa de las Navas

Size

Comparison with block size

Type

1,750m2

1.5/4 of the average surrounding block size (4,723m2)

a c t i v e social interaction and commuspace nication / gathering place for children and seniors

Function/Use

Table 4.7 Basic information table

Placa de las Navas

Activities Inside the space

Focal point Around the space

Water

Potential to observe pedestrian footfall: Seatings facing pedestrian activity

playground Table 4.8 Opportunities for observation table

21

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

No visual barriers

Facing to busy and vital streets

4 Placa de las Navas

No of routes 6

Types of routes Mostly vehicular streets with immediate access by a pedestrian only street

Transport walking distance 2min

Table 4.9 Accessibility table

pavement lines make the space seem wider

0 1 0.5 2

4

Figure 4.8 Site plan and section

Figure 4.9 No of routes leading to the site

22

Figure 4.10 Types of surrounding streets pedestrian only busy road

No of routes 3

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

4 Placa de las Navas

Distance from surrounding open spaces

No of closest open spaces

Boundaries

3-4 min walk

2

Slight uplift of the pavement,short posts around the space and street lamps

Table 4.10 Connectivity table

Placa de las Navas

No of units

capacity of seatings

25

material of seat timber movable benches

41

Table 4.11 Physical comfort table

Placa de las Navas

Distinctive identity HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Greenery MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

YES / NO

Sense of security Adequate night lighting

HIGH MEDIUM LOW Visual surveilance

Variety of users

Table 4.12 Additional factors table

Figure 4.11 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces

Figure 4.12 Lighting

23

Vitality during the whole day

4 general information

4.4 Placa de John Lennon, Barcelona This space is an example of a modern square located in the historic residential neighborhood of Garcia district, dedicated to the famous singer of Beatles. It is part of a network of SPS that took the place of the old industries that used to be there. The space is more used by the residents and local visitors than by tourists (El Haddad 2009).

relevance

Selected again for exploring the design elements of a square that basically serves the needs of the people living around.

description

a

b

The square is rectangular and in one of the building’s facade there is a plague dedicated to John Lennon. It is an active space accommodating children playing in the playground, seniors having a rest and adults having fun in the restaurant (El Haddad 2009).

Figure 4.13 Pictures of the plaza de John Lennon

Placa de John Size Lennon 1,020m2

Comparison with block size

Type

1.1/4 of the average surrounding block size (3,651m2)

a c t i v e social interaction and commuspace nication / gathering place for children and seniors

Function/Use

Table 4.13 Basic information table

Placa de John Lennon

Activities Inside the space playground/ people passing through the space or have a walk with their dogs

Potential to observe pedestrian footfall: Around the space presence of a coffee shop with outdoor seating area

Table 4.14 Opportunities for observation table

24

Seatings facing pedestrian activity

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

No visual barriers

Facing to busy and vital streets

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

4 Placa de John Lennon

No of routes 4

Types of routes

Transport

surrounded by vehicular walking distance No of routes streets - immediate access 6 with shared and pedestri- 4min an street

Table 4.15 Accessibility table

Diagonnaly paved with trees and benches following the pavement lines and create different areas.

Figure 4.15 No of routes leading to the site 0 1 0.5 2

4

Figure 4.14 Site plan and section

25

Figure 4.16 Types of surrounding streets shared surface pedestrian only busy road

4 Placa de John Lennon

Distance from surrounding open spaces

No of closest open spaces

Boundaries

3-4 min walk

2

Slight uplift of the pavement,short posts around the space, trees and street lamps

Table 4.16 Connectivity table

Placa de John Lennon

No of units

capacity of seatings

14

material of seat timber benches

42

Table 4.17 Physical comfort table

Placa de John Lennon

Distinctive identity HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Greenery MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

YES / NO

Sense of security Adequate night lighting

HIGH MEDIUM LOW Visual surveilance

Variety of users

Table 4.18 Additional factors table

Figure 4.17 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces Figure 4.18 Lighting

26

Vitality during the whole day

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

4 general information

relevance

description

4.5 Katouni square, Thessaloniki Situated near to city’s waterfront in a historic quarter of Thessaloniki; its history begins from 1900 and the whole area is under the preservation law from 1987 (Roumelioti 2013). The name of the square was given in the honour of the benefactor of Thessaloniki Dimitrios Katounis who funded the construction of new schools and hospitals in the city in the middle of 19C (Galatista-no date). The space is predominantly used by visitors arriving to the cafes and restaurants of the area and by local workers during their break or after the work.

It is situated in the city center of Thessaloniki and is the only example of a SPS that really attracts visitors. Although it does not refer to a resident serving public space it can be used in order to identify whether there are differencies in the way a SPS serving other people but residents should be designed. Furthermore, the character of the area is very similar with that around the Athonos square (one of the spaces that will be redesigned). Finally, as this is a space highly visited by the people of Thessaloniki it is interesting to see which are those characteristics that make it attractive.

Katouni square is located next to the terminal point of many bus routes and has a great level of vitality during the whole day till late at night. Minimal design, with a circular fountain defining its center and two curved benches around the fountain. There is usually a great variety of visitors: children playing with the water, young people drinking in the benches, seniors stopping for a rest etc.

Figure 4.19 Pictures of Katouni square

Katouni square

Size

Comparison with block size

Type

500m2

1/4 of the average surrounding block size (2,000m2)

passive space

Function/Use social interaction and communication / events

Table 4.19 Basic information table

Katouni square

Activities Inside the space

Focal point Around the space

Water

Potential to observe pedestrian footfall: Seatings facing pedestrian activity

outdoor seating area of bars/restaurants Table 4.20 Opportunities for observation table

27

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

No visual barriers

Facing to busy and vital streets

4 Katouni square

No of routes

Types of routes

Transport

5

Pedestrian streets

walking distance

priority

2min

Table 4.21 Accessibility table

0 1 0.5 2

4

Figure 4.20 Site plan and section

Figure 4.21 No of routes leading to the site

Figure 4.22 Types of surrounding streets shared surface pedestrian only busy road

28

No of routes 7

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

4 Katouni square

Distance from surrounding open spaces

No of closest open spaces

Boundaries

1-5 min walk

3

Slight uplift of the pavement and short posts around the space

Table 4.22 Connectivity table

Katouni square

No of units

capacity of sittings

2

material of seat marbel

10-12

Table 4.23 Physical comfort table

Katouni square

Distinctive identity HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Greenery

YES / NO

MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

Sense of security Adequate night lighting

HIGH MEDIUM LOW Visual surveilance

Variety of users

Table 4.24 Additional factors table

Figure 4.24 Lighting

Figure 4.23 Walking distance from surrounding public spaces

29

Vitality during the whole day

4 4.6 Summary of findings and interpretation As it is found, Placa de las Navas and Placa de John Lennon, appear to have many similarities to each other and this is quite important as they are more local serving spaces and differ from the others analysed. At this stage it is important to see which are the similarities and the differencies between designing a SPS mostly for locals and designing a symbolic space that conveys another meaning. In addition, the case study from Thessaloniki compared with the others will give information regarding how design changes or not in a context like the city center of Thessaloniki and especially whether there are additional elements that need to appear in such spaces (see combination tables of case studies analysis in Appendix 11.1). characteristics of more local spaces

differencies with Placa de les Moreres

Beginning with the more neighborhood serving spaces (No2, No3) we can only see similarities between them: • Both active spaces offering designated areas for children or seniors.

• Not next to vital streets but with presence of other activity inside or around the space.

• Mostly surrounded by vehicular streets but with immediate access to the site by pedestrian only, shared surface or both.

• 4-6 routes lead to the sites which are within 4min walking distance from public transport stops and within 4min walking distance from other 2 open spaces.

• Same types of boundaries (pavement uplift, short posts and street lamps) and have same number of seatings (41-42).

• Timber benches with the difference that in Placa de las Navas benches are movable which is very important as it transforms the image of the space very easily while encouraging users to participate on that. In this case we have an introduction of the flexibility as an important characteristic which brings us back to the literature review and the essential elements of a general public space where flexibility was the 2nd most important characteristic.

• Much greenery.

• High level of security.

Comparing now with the Placa de les Moreres, we can identify some differencies: • Higher level of potential observation. Despite the fact that the space does not have any inside activity it is located in an area that anyway receives a high number of visitors and has also a focal point. In addition, the space is an open free area with no visual barriers.

• Less routes are leading to the site.

• Located inside a pedestrian priority area and closer to more open spaces which can be reached within 1-2 min walk.

• Boundaries here are clear but not so strong aiming to separate the space from the surroundings. However, the space is still clearly defined by the change of pavement material and the topography.

• More formal approach regarding the materials used. It is seen that a symbolic space used by visitors, is part of city’s general image and materials may convey their own meaning.

• Higher level of dinstictive identity.

• Much less greenery and lower level of security.

30

comparison with Katouni square

characteristics of more local spaces

Moving to the last space in Thessaloniki, we can see that although it does not look like the Placa de les Moreres, results of analysis and evaluation show many similarities with it (distinctive identity, high level of observation, focal point, pedestrian priority context etc). And this is not surprising as Kantouni Square is also serving a wide range of people and cannot be considered as a local serving square. However, there are some unique characteristics such as: the vicinity to vital streets, the presence of water and the number of seatings inside the square which is much lower that the capacity of the other spaces. However, as the square is surrounded by bars and restaurants outdoor seating space may explain the reason why there is no actual need of additional seats.

After the analysis of the findings it is clearly found that factors may apply more or less not only according to the size of the public space but also according to their functional purpose and their users. To continue with the research, SPS are now seperated in those serving predominantly locals (residents and workers) and those serving a variety of users including visitors, tourists etc. It seems that a combination of users needs a combination of factors or the introduction of new ones. However, it is found that the four predominant factors (opportunity to observe, accessibility, connectivity and physical comfort) appear to be important for every space despite the fact that some of their dimensions may play a more significant role according to the type of the SPS.

Serving local people

Serving variable users

Greenery

Distinctive identity

Sense of security

careful selection of materials

Creation of designated areas

Integrated in pedestrian priority areas

Clear boundaries seating areas

Table 4.26 Factors that affect more each of SPS type

The sites that will be redesigned in Thessaloniki need to make a combination of those elements as they are in the city center but aim to serve predominantly the locals. As a result, they are going to be visited by a variety of users and be part of the general image of the city center but they need to correspond as much as possible to the needs of surrounding residents and workers.

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

4 4.7 Additional outcomes that inform design quidelines Except for the already found parameters, analysis of precedents revealed some additional design elements. It is identified that every space analysed presents a very clear and strong layout. The shapes are very geometrical and simple offering a visual balance which is followed by the street furniture and the pavement lines. And this is possibly because a SPS should be easily memorised (something that is much easier for a large open space) and must not be very complex. In addition, boundaries are very clearly defined and this helps in creating an enclosure which distinguish visitors from the surrounding crowd and make them feel that they fit and belong to that space. Finally all these seem to redefine the space and reinterpret the relation between mass and void.

Figure 4.25 Diagrammatical illustration of SPS layouts

31

5

community involvement 5.1 Aims The community involvement (CI) in the form of questionnaires (see sample in Appendix 11.2) conducted in Thessaloniki aimed to identify: - how people in Thessaloniki use the public space, - why the existing SPS in Thessaloniki have failed to be vibrant points of the city, and - appart from the factors related with the urban fabric and public realm, what else can play a major role for attracting Greek people in particular?

5.2 Objectives To find out: - how frequently people of Thessaloniki visit the existing SPS ,what for and whether they choose specific times or days for visiting a public space, in order to come up with a design brief for each space that would meet the demands of the stakeholders.

- what kind of activities they do in a public space, and - how they feel about the small dimension of a public space.

5.3 Stakeholders City center of Thessaloniki is an area highly visited by many people throughout the day so there is no strict specification about the group of stakeholders that CI should focus on as each person arriving in the city center and drop into the wider context of the site areas is a potential stakeholder. However, some data aquired by workers and residents in particular will be analysed seperately as well to identify what these particular groups look for in a square as these are the main target groups of the design project.

Figure 5.1 People approached during the CI process

Figure 5.2 Contact card Given to the interviewees at the end of the process in order to make them feel free to contact to get more information about the work progress and the final results or give additional comments.

32

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

5 general information

5.4 Findings • 19 out of 47 were residents or workers in the city center while 3 of them both live and work there.

• 24 out of 47 were visitors, who mostly come to the city center mostly for shopping and leisure.

• 50% of the non residents visit the city center more than 1-2 times/week while 75% live within 15'-30' distance.

38% 72%

28%

34

13

42,5% 17% 2%

Chart 5.1 Participants’ gender and age groups

• The most frequent mode of approaching the city center is by using the public transport (selected by more than the 50% of the participants) (charts 5.2 - 5.5). relationship with public space

• 44 people pointed that they enjoy visiting open public spaces.

• Most preferable time to visit a public square or a park: evening or night.

• 21 participants noted that they usually spend time there during the weekends.

• Most usual activities in a public square: enjoy the view, eat or drink, meet with friends and enjoy fresh air or sun (things that they cannot easily do or find in a balcony) (charts 5.6 - 5.7). Also potential for spending time there during a break from work or studies.

• 85% of the participants have access to a balcony and 34% have access to either a private garden or a communal space. The access to even a small proportion of open space (predominantly private) might change the desires from a public space.

required elements of a public square

•Most essential elements: presence of greenery, trees,water, seating areas and a free open space.

Chart 5.3 Reasons for visiting the city center Chart 5.2 Participants’ relationship with the city center

• Not to ignore the need for a playground or the importance of a focal point (ideally related to history or culture)(chart 5.8). comfort in a small space

• More than 50% of participants prefer to have visual access and control of the whole public square and they would enjoy sitting near other people (charts 5.9 - 5.10).

As a result they would feel comfortable in a small public space.

5,4% 13,5% 37,8%

24,3% 19%

Chart 5.4 Frequency of visiting the city center - non residents

33

Chart 5.5 Way of approaching the city center - non residents

5 relationship with the two sites

• 74,4% of participants either do not visit or go less than 1-2 times per month in each of the existing SPS. For the monastery courtyard there are also four participants stating that they do not know the place at all.

• Most positive characteristic for both: location.

To commu- To enjoy nicate with the sun or other people fresh air

To play (me or my children)

To spend my time after work, school,University or during a break

To eat or drink etc

To meet friends

To enjoy the view

• Most negative characteristics for both: pollution and surrounding noise.

other (events, exercise,short rest)

(charts 5.11 - 5.16 for more information). responses of residents and workers only

Chart 5.6 Purpose of visiting public spaces

Desires and purposes of visiting a public square have a similar trend when it comes only to residents and workers of the city center (charts 5.17 - 5.18). However, two differencies can be identified: 1. Locals rank higher the need of a seating area in a public space than the others and lower the need for a big free open space.

2. Locals have not mentioned the need of a food point or public toilet near the public square and that is reasonable for people who are living or working in the same area.

In addition, a provision of a food point is usually an attraction for the visitors and not so for locals.

5.5 Outcomes that complement to research and inform design guidelines Outcomes from the analysis of the case studies can be enriched and new essential elements for a public space in Thessaloniki may be revealed. So, according to the CI the additional characteristics are: • Proximity to public transport. Stops and accessibility must be taken into consideration during the design process.

• Opportunity for interim activities that workers or students can have.

• Presence of a remarkable view.

• Presence of a natural element (green space, trees, water) • Provision of a seating area

Chart 5.7 Time of visiting

free big seating general trees water focal play- space safety ade- prox- public food fence garbage variety point/ ground for culquate imity toilets point bin in maopen area greenery monutural ligthing to car terials space ment events parking

Chart 5.9 Need of visual control

Chart 5.8 Important elements in public space

34

Chart 5.10 Feeling comfortable to sit near other people

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

5 4

2% 10,6% 8,5% 19,1% 59,5%

Chart 5.11 Frequency of visiting SPS No1

Chart 5.14 Frequency of visiting SPS No2

Chart 5.12 Purpose of visiting SPS No1

Like Dislike

Chart 5.15 Purpose of visiting SPS No2

Additional comments on evaluation

Like

--> Low quality fountain Dislike

--> No proximity to car parking

Additional comments on evaluation --> Not easy access --> Drug dealers --> Nice sense of isolation

--> Safety issue --> Too many cars

Chart 5.13 Evaluation of specific elements of SPS No1

To communicate with other people

To enjoy the sun or fresh air

To play (me or my children)

To spend To eat or my time drink etc after work, school,University or during a break

Chart 5.16 Evaluation of specific elements of SPS No 2

To enjoy the view

To meet friends

free big open space

to exercise

Chart 5.17 Purpose of visiting a public space (residents and workers’ opinion)

seating area

general greenery

trees

water

focal point/ monument

playground

Chart 5.18 Desires from a public space (residents and workers’ opinion)

35

space for cultural events

sense of safety

adequate ligthing

proximity to car parking

garbage variety bin in materials

6

responding to research question

combination of factors

the four major factors

an SPS in the city center

an SPS in the city center focusing on locals’ needs

Thessaloniki contest

After the analysis of the precedents and the CI it has been identified that the four major factors, focusing though in specific dimensions, that affect the quality of a SPS are also valid for the context of Thessaloniki as they are valid for the similar context of Barcelona. However, to design a SPS in the mixed use city center, that would attract a variety of users aiming more though to the fulfillment of the locals’ needs, a combination of elements is required.

Opportunity to observe physical or non physical elements while visiting a small public space remains an essential element that every case study has provided. It does not matter the type of the observed element as long as there are at least two of them provided. The same with accessibility: proximity to transport and a high number of routes leading to the site could be very positive characteristics of a SPS. It is remarkable also the fact that the access to each of the case studies was achieved on ground level which means that in general easy access without changes in levels, is desirable. As for the connectivity, analysis showed that connection with other public spaces in close proximity is also a common and important element. Finally provision of a seating area with a capacity of more than 40 seating people is neccessary. Consequently, the four factors coming from the literature review, now aquire more specific dimensions that appear to be more important in the design of SPS in Thessaloniki (see in table 6.1 the dimensions in black letters of the 4 predominant factors).

As the selected sites that will be redesigned are situated in the city center of Thessaloniki and in places where a variety of users appear it seems that there some specific parameters that have to be added and refering to the types of SPS that also play a role in the city image (table 6.1 factors in red).

Now, as the basic objective is to see how an SPS, while contributing to the wider strong image of the city’s urban realm, clould also act as a local public space to meet the demands of the residents and workers of the neighborhood, the table of the necessary factors should be complemented with additional requirements such as the sense of security and provision of designated areas for locals to use as they revealed from the analysis of those case studies that serve mostly local people (No 2,3) (table 6.1 factors in blue).

In addition, after the analysis of the case study in Thessaloniki and the results of the CI, more essential elements have been emerged for the design of a SPS in this specific context in order to be better integrated in city’s character and fulfill the needs of its citizens (table 6.1 factors in green).

36

additional factor

Finally, analysis of case studies revealed a similarity in the layout of the SPS. It seems that there is an additional factor that characterises SPS and this is the clear layout lines forming strong and clear shapes. Having added that we can have the final factors that play a major role in the way SPS should be designed in the city center of Thessaloniki aiming to improve city’s image but mostly to contribute to the quality living of the locals (table 6.1). (more to see on how the table finalised to that form in Appendix 11.3).

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

6 first 4 predominant factors OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE

accessibility

connectivity

physical comfort

Factors that should be taken into consideration for the design of a SPS in a city center Factors that should be taken into consideration for the design of a SPS that serves local people

a.vicinity to vital streets

a.number of routes

a. connection with the existing urban fabric b.activities inside or nearby b.proximity to transport (boundaries) the space (distance from nearest stops, number of trans- b. connection with existing open spaces c. focal point, water presence port routes) (distance) c.types of streets (pedesat least two of the above trian priority area)

a. capacity of seatings Factors that should be taken into consideration for the design of a SPS in the city of Thessaloniki

b. seating material Additional factor revealed

additional factors investigated distinctive identity

green space

new factors revealed

sense of security

provision of designated areas

a. adequate lighting

view

clear layout a. simplicity

b. visual surveillance

a. playground

b. geometrical forms

c. variety of users

b. area for seniors or adults

c. visual balance

c. areas for outdoor activities

d. clear boundaries

d.vitality during whole day

the

Table 6.1 Final parameters and dimensions

37

7

design preparation 7.1 Analysis general information

history

Thessaloniki is located at the northern part of the country and is the capital of the Greek geographic region of Macedonia. It is the second biggest commercial, economical and political center of Greece with its port playing a major role for the country and the southeastern Europe.

In addition, Thessaloniki is mainly famous for the organisation of numerous events and festivals and is considered to be the cultural capital of Greece. The city center of Thessaloniki has a population of 53.017 inhab and a residential density of 16.703 inhab/km2..

Thessaloniki’s history counts 2,300 years as it was founded by Cassander of Macedon in 315 BC. The city was the capital of the Roman Empire , then the second most important city of the Byzantine Empire and afterwards the Ottoman Empire’s one of the most important trading hubs. As a result many roman, byzantine, ottoman monuments appear in city’s urban fabric (wikipedia 2014). (more about Greek spacial urban characteristics and people’s daily life in Appendix 11.4).

Figure 7.1 Google map aerial view with study area

38

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7

Figure 7.3 Hébrard’s urban plan for Thessaloniki

7.1.1 Large scale context analysis - Municipality of Thessaloniki

main road

• Road hierarchy map Thessaloniki has three parallel to the seafront main roads which are complemented by secondary vertical or diagonal streets.

The current urban layout is what is kept by the urban plan designed by Ernest Hébrard after the great devastating fire in 1917.

Hébrard’s plan (figure 7.3) , created a city with clear street network and wide diagonal avenues that connect visually the monumental squares and historical sights and made the city a unified ensemble (Wikipedia 2014).

secondary road sites Figure 7.2 Road hierarchy

39

7

mainly residential city center (local, metropolitan) historic city culture, education market monument, monumental building green space green conservation areas mixed use (commercial,industrial, transport) public open space semi public open space semi private open space Figure 7.4 Open spaces

Figure 7.5 Land use distribution map

• Open space map Three major open public spaces: Dikastirion square, Alexandra gardens and a linear green space along the waterfront.

Many churches with courtyards that are usually used as gathering spaces but remain closed during the evening hours.

40

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7 7.1.2 Medium scale - city center and immediate context Multifunctional city center with higher residential densities on the southeastern part.

Average density of sites’ surrounded blocks is 200-400 residents per block.

sites theatre/cinema museum religion hospital University

sites

Car parking Figure 7.6 Points of interest

Figure 7.7 Population per block

41

7 7.1.3 Medium scale - city center

Figure 7.8 Open spaces

Figure 7.9 Road hierarchy

42

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7

Section a - bus line in high street

Section b - cycle lane in waterfront promenade

Section c - cycle lane sidewalk and bus line in high street

Figure 7.10 Bus and cycle lanes Cycle network is a new entry in Thessaloniki transportation system. Cycle lanes are only allocated in pedestrian only streets or in the sidewalk totally seperated from the vehicular movement.

43

7

Figure 7.11 Immediate context base map

44

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7 7.1.4 Site area analysis • Surrounding open spaces and green links Presence of several open spaces and green areas.

Most act as spaces for visual pleasure or pedestrianised areas and not spaces that people can actually go and sit . The only exception is the large open space in the North (Dikastirion square) and the neighborhood serving public spaces (two out of three will be redesigned).

1

4

2

2

4

3

5

1 5 3 Figure 7.12 Green links

Figure 7.13 Tree lines around the sites

ground green corridors (lawn) tree lines

45

Figure 7.14 Ground green corridors

7 1

6

2

5

2

Figure 7.16 Examples of decorative greenery along pedestrian only routes

3

4

1

Figure 7.17 Examples of green islands

5

3 4 Figure 7.15 Classification of open spaces small green islands

neighborhood open spaces

Figure 7.18 Neighborhood serving open space destination point representative space

decorative greenery along pedestrian routes

6

Figure 7.19 Representative space (DIkastirion square)

46

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7 • Transport Great footfall volumes around the SPS due to the proximity to pedestrianised areas (both at the edge of pedestrian only streets).

Well connected with transport.

On street car parking makes pedestrian footfall difficult and worsen the general image of this historically important quarter.

1

1

2 2 3

Figure 7.20 Footfall volumes and bus stops

47

3

7

Figure 7.22 On street car parking

Figure 7.21 Existing vehicular and pedestrian movement pattern

48

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7

Section a

Section b

Section c

Section e Section d Figure 7.23 Sections on different types of streets

49

Section f

7 • Historic heritage Historic monuments and listed buildings built in neoclassical style in the beginning of 20C, add a different identity and character to the area.

3

4

3

4

1 2

Figure 7.24 Historic monuments

Figure 7.25 Listed buildings

1

50

2

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7 7.2 Analysis of the specific spaces

scale 1:1500

1

2

Figure 7.26 Location of the spaces and distance between them

Figure 7.27 Size of spaces in relation with the size of Leicester square, London

51

7 7.2.1 Athonos Square

1

general information

historic information

Situated in a historic pedestrianised area with alternative types of retail open during the day and restaurants lively during throughout the day (figures 7.28-7.31). The area has also a local market to cover everyday needs. From the northwestern side the square is surrounded by low buildings (1-2 floors) which are old traditional buildings remaining from the past. On the other sides there are higher contemporary buildings.

From a bird eye view the area appears as a hole in the urban fabric (figure 7.32).

The area in HÊbrard’s plan was named Bazzar (figure 7.34) and was meant to accommodate antique shops and other small independent businesses. The traditional character of the area remains until now (Thessaloniki in Pictures 2013).

Figure 7.32 Bird eye view

Figure 7.28-7.29 Small independent shops

1,144 m2

Figure 7.33 Athonos square and surrounding public realm Figure 7.30 Restaurant and outdoor seating area

Figure 7.31 Market

52

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7

Α

Β C

Figure 7.36 Ground floor land use

Figure 7.37 Upper floors land use

legend

Figure 7.34 Bazzar area in Hébrard’s plan and Athonos Square

residential

retail

culture

office

food and beverage

public services

office and residential

education

religion

Α

B

Figure 7.35 No of routes leading to the site

53

entrance to the building vacant

C

7 B A

1 3

2

Figure 7.39 Section AA

B A

Figure 7.38 Plan

Figure 7.40 Section BB

1

2

Figure 7.41 Pictures from the site

54

3

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7 Strenghts: • Proximity to major transport stops.

• Traditional area with historic importance.

• Alternative shops that make the area special.

Weaknesses: • Low quality fountain.

• Too many vacant spaces.

• The square is usually empty and people only use it to pass through.

• Motorcycles are usually parked in the square.

• A bit hidden with no remarkable view.

Figure 7.42 Field behavioral mapping (see details in Appendix 11.5)

55

7 7.2.2 Monastery courtyard in Makenzy King Situated at the southeastern side of the Saint Sophie basilica is a green oasis that few people know. The monastery is not currently in use but is an archeological historic site which can be visited by tourists during the daytime. Through the remains of information the old monastery one can visit the catacombs of Saint John where Christians used to pray and do all the religious ceremonies during the Ottoman Empire (Toulias 2009). The monastery was built to make an honour to these catacombs.

2

Saint Sophie on the other side was built in 8C and is one of the most important Byzantinum monuments of the city and a World Heritage Site on the UNESCO list. Both St. Sophie and the monastery are lying in a lower level (3.5m under the current ground level) as this was used to be the level of the old city. At the moment the remains of the monastery are hidden under the ground and only the courtyard is visible from the ground level.

Figure 7.45 Bird eye view

school

Figure 7.43 The interior of the monastery

1,110 m2

Figure 7.44 The entrance to the catacombs

Figure 7.46 The courtyard and surrounding public realm

56

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7 legend residential office office and residential retail food and beverage

Β

education culture public services

Α

religion vacant

Figure 7.47 Ground floor land use

Figure 7.48 Upper floors land use

Α

Β

Figure 7.49 Νο of routes leading to the site

57

7 1

2 B

1 3

4 A

4

2

5

5

B

Figure 7.51 Pictures from the site

3 A Figure 7.50 Plan

58

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

7

Figure 7.52 Section AA

Figure 7.53 Section BB

59

7 Strenghts: • Next to major pedestrian area.

• Next to major tourist attraction.

• Young people usually arrive to the area for entertainment.

• Near to a theatre that attracts visitors.

• Interesting facade: a glass contemporary construction has been added in order to protect the remains but also to keep them visible from the front (figure 7.55) Figure 7.54 View from street level

Figure 7.55 The glass facade

Weaknesses: • Not easily accessible • Lack of connectivity with the surrounding context.

• Passers prefer to look at it from the street rather than make the effort to visit it.

• Lots of green but uncared.

• Due to the tall trees people walking on the street level cannot easily see what is happening down (figure 7.54)

Figure 7.56 Field behavioral mapping (see details in Appendix 11.5)

60

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

Introduction to design 8.1 Vision A route through different open spaces where locals can visit and enjoy a respite from the daily stressful life. Breathing spaces where residents can gather, enjoy social interaction, do various activities and spend quality time with their families away from the crowd of the highly visited and noisy city center. The new network will highlight the history of the area and provide a more pedestrian friendly environment towards a more walkable city with a strong identity.

8

5

8.2 General objectives • Movement through spaces with different character.

• Highlight the historic heritage of the area.

• Create interesting view corridors to guide the movement and offer different views throughout the route.

• Create flexible spaces that can meet the demands of various users.

• Increase green open space that can be visited and enjoyed by the locals.

• Increase legibility.

• Improve accessibility to the small open spaces.

• Improve connectivity between the existing and proposed public spaces.

4. Serve residents and workers, visitors to the shops and the restaurant area and tourists.

8.3 Strategic framework The main strategies refer to the principles that have been investigated in research:

3. Serve local residents and workers, students of the school, visitors come to the pedestrian area and tourists. Part of it remains closed at night - semi public.

1.CONNECTIVITY, ACCESSIBILITY and DISTINCTIVE IDENTITY • The sequence of spaces A route that will connect public spaces of different characters and different levels of privacy will be created. Along the route there will be a degradation of privacy of the open spaces and a difference in the way they will be used. It is proposed that the route will begin from a communal space inside un urban block (potential starting point of residents) and will terminates to the large open public square. However, it is generally assumed that the starting point of the route would be the house of each resident. In this project the communal space will not be redesigned but is used as an indicative starting point or terminal point of the route. The opposite direction (starting from Dikastirion square) refers mostly to the visitors of the city center as there are located the major bus stops and the future underground stop. In addition, during the way from the one space to another visitors can be informed about the remaining distance (in time or even footsteps) and the location of the spaces in a map.

1,2. Serve residents of the blocks

Figure 8.1 Route and degradation of privacy A 7min route

1 - 2 --> communal space connecting two blocks - potential starting point 3 --> Small public space No 1 - space located at a more residential area 4 --> Small public space No 2 - space located at a more mixed use area 5 --> Major public square of Thessaloniki (Dikastirion square) - end point a - b - c --> existing landscape features to be exploited as connective elements

61

8 • The sequence of views Apart from connectivity the strategy aims also to highlight the historic meaning of the area and to bring a distinctive identity to the route. Different view corridors lead to a historic monument or listed building and views can either be short to a point or long from major points).

14 13

1

12

6

11

11

7

2

10

12 9 6

15

8

8

7

3 13

4

5

4

3 2

9

1

14

5 Figure 8.2 Sequence of views map and pictures

62

10

15

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

8 • The unique connective element A recognisable element that would appear along the route to define it and indicate the direction of the pathway.

Figure 8.4 Colour line

Figure 8.3 Linear pavement

Figure 8.5 Lighting line Figure 8.6 Grass lines

• The rearrangement of traffic system To improve accessibility to the site area and highlight its identity.

1. Conversion of vehicular streets to shared surfaces: --> for narrow one way streets --> at the end of pedestrianised areas --> for streets leading to historic monuments or historically important quarters 2. Extension of cycle network: --> Cycle lanes are passing through shared surfaces and meet the existing cycle network.

3. Provision of a new car parking and elimination of most of street parking: --> No car parking along the route to help pedestrian movement and create wider spaces to be used by the visitors.

--> Provision of a two-floor underground car parking (car capacity: 200 cars).

Figure 8.7 Proposed traffic system

Figure 8.8 Car parking

63

8 • Improvement of legibility A route to be followed as it is by visitors should be legible and clearly defined. This will also help in the CONNECTIVITY and the IDENTITY of the area. Change in the floor layout, as it has been already proposed in the rearrangement of the traffic system, will also help in highlighting specific items and enhance connectivity and legibility (fig. 8.13).

Figure 8.9 Legibility study

64

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

8

Figure 8.10 Signposting examples

Figure 8.11 Building lighting

Figure 8.12 Parklet / seating area Figure 8.13 Change in the floor layout

65

8 2. OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND SENSE OF SECURITY • The difference in use The aim is to distinguish new spaces from the existing ones by offering a different activity and/or a different character. This will help in creating an active environment which will offer opportunities to observe (surrounding activities, proximity to vital streets etc).

existing proposed

Figure 8.14 Use of existing spaces and proposed uses

66

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

8 8.4 Configuration of the concept idea As city center is visited by several types of people the SPSs are likely to be visited (more or less) by several types of users. Below are investigated the potential routes that each type of user will follow around the city center to identify how routes are overlapping and which are the destination points of those passing from the new route and going to different directions (figures 8.16 - 8.20).

Figure 8.15 Tourists’ potential routes

67

8

Figure 8.16 Visitors’ potential routes

Figure 8.17 University students’ potential routes

68

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

8

Figure 8.18 Workers’ potential routes

Figure 8.19 Residents’ potential routes

69

8

Figure 8.21 Shanghai metro line map

The result of the combination of routes reminds the metro line maps: different users with different colours represent different metro lines while the intersection points represent the metro stops (busier or less busy) (figure 8.21).

The main concept idea is to handle the new route as a separate metro line with a starting and an end point offering though along the way different stops with different character (figure 8.23).

Figure 8.20 Overlapping routes - metro lines

70

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

8 Characteristics of metro lines maps: --> Abstract and not corresponding with the real distance or position of the stops.

--> Lines are as long as the time needed to cover the real distance between the stops.

People using the metro lines: --> are forced to follow the specific route and they cannot change their way unless they get off in a stop and change line.

--> They perceive spaces between as non existent or without any important meaning as if they are all the same.

--> They meet different types of spaces as they getting off in different stops. Spaces appear to be out of context while being connected with the imaginary line of the metro map.

So, in this case line is simplified and formed in a way that the length of each line connecting two stops will be indicative of the walking distance between them. Currently, actual walking distance between the stops do not differ a lot. However, movement speed is changing because of the land use and the selection of the pavement materials which may indicate how fast or slow one will move or where he may stop. Consequently, allong the route, some of the distances are proposed to be covered faster than others, and in this way connective lines between the stops aquire different lengths.

Figure 8.22 Different spaces are poping up during the route

Figure 8.23 Actual line between stops

71

Figure 8.24 Simplification of the line

8

walk in a quicker rythm along the high street

walk in the sidewalk along the shops

one space as part of the other walk through a shared surface along the shops

communal garden

walk faster passing the local Figure 8.26 Change in lengths according to walking distance

Figure 8.25 Ground floor land use along the route

legend

office

food and beverage

religion

retail

education

vacant

72

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

8

Figure 8.28 Pavement orientation different for movement or stopping points

Figure 8.27 Proposed walking speed and stopping points

73

8 stop 3 - central view point

8.5 Brief configuration

-Enjoy the view to the seafront, to the church, to Aristotelous pedestrianised area.

stop 4 - brief breath -Rest a minute, sit shortly before moving on.

stop 1 - central piaza

1

2

3

4

stop 2 - creative m(eat)ing point - Space for outdoor workshops.

- Provision of bike repair and rental facilities.

- Cycle parking for up to 20 bicycles.

- Space to rest and eat local food.

- Space for major social interaction (the meeting point of the neighborhood).

http://shelliewarren.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/great-ovanes-berberian-workshop-of-2010.html

http://www.nelso.com/nl/place/247101/

http://caicoscyclery.com/bike-shop/

- Tourist information point.

- Possibility of transformable seating area .

- Playground (made by the structure of the furniture).

- Green space and presence of water (to drink or feel cooler during hot months).

http://www.visualphotos.com/image/2x3962834/people_ http://scenariojournal.com/for-thesitting_together_by_a_water_fountain love-of-drinking-fountains/

http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/ Europe/FYR_of_Macedonia/Opstina_Ohrid/Ohrid-452289/General_TipsOhrid-TG-C-1.html

http://comeandcheck.it/design/llstol/

https://www.eurotramp.com/us-en/products/ http://www.play-scapes.com/play-design/ http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/ideas/active-learning-space playground--kindergarten-trampolines/kids- natural-playgrounds/helle-nebelong-natutramp-playground-loop/ ral-playground-designer-denmark/

74

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

8 stop 6,7 - communal garden - Playground.

- Green space.

- Seating area for residents and workers.

5

6

7

stop 5 - culture and history hub - Highlighting the connection with the history. Provide tourist telescopes.

- Public library with outdoor space for children going after school or workers during their break or residents.

- Wi Fi spot.

- Cutlural information point .

http://www.fotosearch.com/print/CSP914/k9142438/ http://www.2binparis.com/travellers/blog/articolo.asp?articolo=16

- Area to accommodate theatre visitors.

- Green space.

- Cycle parking for up to 20 bicycles. http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2010/10/experiencing-information-in-new-york-city/

75

http://cubeme.com/outdoor-library-in-magdeburg-germany-by-karo-architekten/

9

DESIGN PROPOSAL 9.1 Design of the whole route

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

Figure 9.1 Masterplan (scale 1:1500)

76

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9

a change in pavement

b Figure 9.3 Water drainage is covered by granite slabs

spotlights

Figure 9.4 Spotlights to continue the line

Figure 9.2 Water drainage forms a line running along the route - breaks are covered with spotlights or change in pavement material

Figure 9.5 A tree line also reinforces the route direction and creates a pathway to be used potentialy as a cycle lane.

77

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9

Figure 9.6 Space between water drainage and tree line

Figure 9.7 Pattern used along the route: tree - bench - tree

78

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9 9.2 Design proposals for the two spaces

Presented 1st - worked in scale 1:500

Athonos square

Presented 2nd - worked in scale 1:200 and details

Monastery courtyard

Figure 9.8 “Stops� that will be presented

79

9

9.2.1 Monastery courtyard • Design strategies

Figure 9.9 General connection with the surroundings

Figure 9.10 Creation of a path connecting the space with the theatre Visitors are usually standing outside in the sidewalk while waiting for the performance to start and there is a need to accommodate them.

Figure 9.11 Need to highlight the view to the church from the public space The dome is what it stands out and characterise the whole construction of the church.

cycle parking view point access with stairs cafe/restaurant outdoor seating area meeting space/social interaction seating area

Figure 9.13 Uplift of the ground and general access to the monastery by the courtyard of the basilica (see Appendix 11.6 fig. 11.20 for precedent)

reading space cultural info point Figure 9.12 Uses, convertion of vacant spaces and focal point

80

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9

Figure 9.14 Configuration of the shape (see the shape exploration sketches in Appendix 11.7)

Figure 9.15 The dome of St. Sophie

The new wider circle is created inspired by the dome. The center of the dome has been trnasfered creating a circle embracing the basilica.

Lines connect the center of the dome with the windows of the basilica creating an interesting pattern of radius which has been transfered to the public space.

81

9 • Design proposal

B

A

1

1. fountain (an always alive point representing the everlasting glory of the basilica)

6 4

3

5

2

B http://www.cleveland.com/insideout/index.ssf/2009/06/thomas_ondreythe_plain_ dealert.html

7 A

Figure 9.16 Ground floor plan (scale 1:500)

82

2. cultural info point 3. seating area for those waiting for the theatre 4. tourist telescopes (work with money which can be used for the maintainance of the space) 5. glass (opportunity to see the historic remains from the ground level) 6. cycle parking 7. reading space

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9

Figure 9.17 Underground plan (scale 1:500)

Figure 9.18 Different views to basilica

Figure 9.19 Section AA (scale 1:500)

Figure 9.20 Section BB (scale 1:500)

83

9 • Responding to design principles: OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE

Figure 9.21 Activities or things to observe outside the space

1. Outdoor seating area of restaurant or coffee shop 2. Reading area 3. Seating area 4. Space occupied by the workers of the shops who sit outside 5. St Sophie basilica

Figure 9.23 Allocation of seatings facing activities

84

Figure 9.22 Activities or things to observe inside the space

1. Flexible space for events or play area 2. Fountain 3. View to the underground monastery courtyard

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9 PROVISION OF DESIGNATED AREAS

CLEAR LAYOUT

LIGHTING

Figure 9.24 Configuration of different areas inside the space

Figure 9.25 Simple form

Figure 9.26 Lighting of the square

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE Focal point

Water

COMFORT

GREEN SPACE

capacity of seatings 64

SENSE OF SECURITY HIGH MEDIUM LOW

material of seat

Greenery

timber benches

10 trees - 2 types

Adequate night lighting

Visual surveilance

Table 9.1 Additional information table Table 9.2 Responding to security principle

85

Variety of users

Vitality during the whole day

9 9.2.2 Athonos square • Design strategies

Figure 9.27 Creation of a path and provision of a focal point

Figure 9.28 Different types of people arrive from each side

Figure 9.29 Different areas

Figure 9.32 Height difference as boundary

cycle parking cafe/restaurant outdoor seating area meeting space/social interaction seating area playground Figure 9.30 Reinforcing the legibility of the space

Figure 9.31 Uses and convertion of vacant spaces

86

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9 • Design proposal

1

4 2 3

1. fountain 2. playground 3. outdoor restaurant seating area 4. water around the space Figure 9.33 Plan (scale 1:500)

87

9

a

a

b b

Figure 9.34 Surrounding geometry forms the shape of the square - a rectangle inside a rectangle (see the shape exploration sketches in Appendix 11.7)

Figure 9.35 Main movement pattern sketch

88

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9 D1

N

D2

D3

Figure 9.36 Plan (scale 1:200)

89

9

D1

D2

D3

Figure 9.37 Section AA (scale 1:200)

D1

D2

Figure 9.38 Pavement details

90

D3

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9

Figure 9.39 Section BB (scale 1:200)

91

9 • Configuration of boundaries

a

b

Figure 9.40 Water presence around the space (see Appendix 11.6 fig.11.19 for precedent about the use of water)

Figure 9.41 Water changes level is covered or open around the space

Figure 9.42 Circulation of water diagram

92

c

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9 • Responding to design principles: OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE

1. Space used for eating or creative workshops 2. Playground 3. Fountain Figure 9.44 Activities inside the space

1. Space occupied by the bike rental and repair store 2. Information point area 3. Outdoor space of florist store 4. Outdoor seating area of restaurant or coffee shop 5. Space occupied by the workers of the shops who sit outside Figure 9.43 Activities outside the space

93

9

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE Focal point

Water

COMFORT

GREEN SPACE

capacity of seatings 52 + 24 in the tables

material of seat

Greenery

timber benches

11 trees - 2 types

Table 9.3 Additional information table

PROVISION OF DESIGNATED AREAS

CLEAR LAYOUT --> simplicity --> geometry --> balance --> symmetry --> strong lines

Figure 9.45 Allocation of seatings facing activities/ combination of seatings with and without back (see Appendix 11.6 fig.11.22 for precedent about the way seatings are allocated)

Figure 9.47 Configuration of different areas inside the space

Figure 9.46 Seatings used for art display when not in use

94

Figure 9.48 Simple form

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9

SENSE OF SECURITY HIGH MEDIUM LOW Adequate night lighting

Visual surveilance

Variety of users

Vitality during the whole day

Table 9.4 Responding to security principle

1. Spotlights facing above along the linear pavement 2. Floor lamps

3. Light around the fountain

http://www.interior-deluxe.com/aquadisc-g4-outdoor-ground-luminaire-p13237.html

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=455087&page=179

Figure 9.49 Lighting of the square (see Appendix 11.6 fig. 11.23 precedent about the lighting)

95

http://lovesphotoalbum. com/2011/06/25/atlantic-city-streetlights/

9 • 3D views

Figure 9.50 View to the square from the southern entrance

96

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

9

Figure 9.51 View to the square from the North

Figure 9.52 View to the square from the East

97

9

Figure 9.53 View from inside the square

Figure 9.54 Night view

98

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

conclusion

a gentle difference

change in hierarchy

SPS as “room”

outcome

After having finished the design process and while combining the results from the research (back to chapter 6 about the design guidelines for a SPS in the city center of Thessaloniki) it came up that there is a gentle difference between the way in which a SPS and a general public space should be designed. And this is because there are elements that are anyway essential in a public space regardless of the size.

However, there is a difference in the hierarchy of the parameters regarding their importance (see table 11.1). For instance, the opportunity to observe some sort of activity as a principle (Carr 1992 and Olmos 2008) or the distinctive identity of the space (Rutherford 2012)appear to play a more important role while designing a SPS than when creating a larger one. In addition, the provision of designated areas for specific users, the potential view and the clear layout of the space are some of the factors that need to be taken into serious consideration more in the design of a SPS (see case study analysis and form of the new SPSs in Thessaloniki). However, integration finally appears to play a major role for both types of space despite the fact that it had not been revealed by the literature review as an important element of a SPS. Dimensions, proportions and relation with the surroundings that a SPS should have are integration parameters revealed and used during the design project. Nevertheless, all the parameters mentioned can be easily used for the design of every public space.

Moving now beyond the design guidelines, we can identify that size can play a major role in creating to its users a sense of familiarity and a sense of belonging which is more difficult for a large space to do. And this is maybe because a small space is closer to human scale and can be easily discovered, perceived and interpreted in an easier way by its visitors. In addition, SPS in some cases are usually used by the same group of people, therefore the sense of belonging is of a high importance. In my opinion, a SPS in people’s minds is perceived as a “room” and as a result they usually search for enclosure or boundaries (“walls”) in order for them to feel the sense of belonging as they feel in their house. At that point design can also help to establish “in written” rules how to inhabit the space. This sense of inhabitation can be hardly offeres by a large space.

Consequently, the potential outcome of the project is that size can be the element to transform the hierarchy of the design guidelines and not change them at all. Finally, design guidelines will seem to be the same for every type of public space. However, there are some specifications in creating a SPS in order for them to make visitors feel comfortable and not confined.

SPS

PS

opportunity to observe non physical comfort flexibility Integration sociability accessibility delight physical comfort connectivity legibility sense of belonging distinctive identity green space clear layout provision of designated areas principle that plays an important role in the particular type of public space principle that plays less important role in the particular type of public space than it plays to the other the principle plays the same role in both spaces Table 12.1 Comparison between the significance of each principle in the design of Small Public Spaces (SPS) and Public Spaces (PS)

99

10

11 appendixes 11.1 Case studies combination tables

Size

Comparison with block size

Type

Fossar de les 970m2 Moreres

2/4 of the average surrounding block size (1,932m2)

p a s s i v e symbolic space, short rest, space used for gathering on annual national celebration

Placa de las Navas

1,750m2

1.5/4 of the average surrounding block size (4,723m2)

a c t i v e social interaction and commuspace nication / gathering place for children and seniors

Placa de John 1,020m2 Lennon

1.1/4 of the average surrounding block size (3,651m2)

a c t i v e social interaction and commuspace nication / gathering place for children and seniors

Katouni square

1/4 of the average surrounding block size (2,000m2)

passive space

500m2

Function/Use

social interaction and communication / events

Figure 11.1 Basic information combination table

Activities

Fossar de les Moreres

Inside the space

Focal point

Water

Potential to observe pedestrian footfall: HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Around the space visitors entering/exiting the church, taking photos

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Placa de las Navas playground

Placa de John Lennon playground/ people passing through the space or have a walk with their dogs

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

presence of a coffee shop with outdoor seating area

Katouni square

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

outdoor seating area of bars/restaurants Figure 11.2 Opportunity to observe combination table

100

Seatings facing pedestrian activity

No visual barriers

Facing to busy and vital streets

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11 No of routes

Types of routes

Transport

Distance from surrounding open spaces

No of closest open spaces

Boundaries

1-2 min walk

4

Change on pavement material and change of level in one side

Fossar de les Moreres

2

Placa de las Navas

6

Mostly vehicular streets 2min with immediate access by a pedestrian only street

3

3-4 min walk

2

Slight uplift of the pavement,short posts around the space and street lamps

Placa de John Lennon

4

surrounded by vehicular 4min streets - immediate access with shared and pedestrian street

6

3-4 min walk

2

Slight uplift of the pavement,short posts around the space, trees and street lamps

Katouni square

5

Pedestrian priority streets

7

1-5 min walk

3

Slight uplift of the pavement and short posts around the space

Mostly pedestrian priority walking distance 2min AND 4min

2min

No of routes 2 AND 8 respectively

Figure 11.3 Accessibility and connectivity combination table

No of seatings

Fossar de les Moreres

capacity of sitting people

material of seat

Distinctive identity

Sense of security

Greenery

1

50

polished red granit

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

YES / NO

MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

25

41

timber movable benches

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

YES / NO

MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Placa de John Lennon

14

42

timber benches

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

YES / NO

MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Katouni square

2

10-12

marbel

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

YES / NO

MUCH MEDIUM LITTLE

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

Placa de las Navas

Figure 11.4 Physical comfort and addtional factors combination table

101

Adequate night lighting

Visual surveilance

Variety of users

Vitality during the whole day

11 11.2 Questionnaires Questionnaires given to participants last 4min and include 3 different sections:

EXPRESS TOUR OPINION!

10. Do you like being able to visually control the whole space when you sit in a public square or a park?

What do you want from a public space?

Yes

The consultation process is part of my dissertation research and design project for the MA Urban Design course in Cardiff University. The reasearch project explores the way in which Greek people and in particular citizens of Thessaloniki, use the open public spaces , which are the elements that they found really attractive and how important they think it is for Thessaloniki to provide at least some small proportions of green public spaces integrated to its multifunctional historic center.

For the design project three existing Small Public Spaces will be redesigned in order to be converted into vibrant and high quality parts of the city. Your opinion really matters!

No

N/A

11. Do you like being/sitting near other people when you visit a public space?

Yes

No

Sometimes

1st section

Identification of the participants’ relationship with the city center.

2nd section

N/A

Identification of participants’ relationship with the public spaces and their role in their daily life.

Part 3 . You and the 3 Small Public Spaces

General information: Gender: Age:

Female 30-49

Male 15-29

3rd section

>65

50-65

Part 1 . You and the city center of Thessaloniki 1. What is your relationship with the city center of Thessaloniki?

Visitor (please specify reason for visiting the city center).................... ........................................................

Worker

Resident

Other (plese specify) ....................................................

Every day 3-5 times/week 1-2 times/week 1-2 times/month

2. How do you normally come or move in the city center? on foot

by car

by bus

by taxi

SPS No1

by bike

3. If you are not living there how long does it take you to come to city center (according to your mode of transport)?

30min-1h

15min-30min

more than 1h

3-5 times per week

1-2 times per month

1-2 times per week

other (please specify) ..................................

Communal space

6. Do you enjoy visiting open public spaces?

SPS No3

SPS No2: ..................................................................................................................................................................................

SPS No3: ..................................................................................................................................................................................

14. What do you like or dislike in each space? (fill in with ν for whatever you like and Χ for whatever you do not like, leave it blank if you do not have a specific opinion)

5. Do you have access to any of the following?

Balcony

SPS No2

SPS No1: ..................................................................................................................................................................................

Part 2 . You and the public spaces of Thessaloniki Private garden

less than once a month I don’t recognise the place

13. What is the reason of visiting this space? (leave it blank if you never visited this space)

4. How often do you come to city center?

Every day

SPS No2: Moneastery courtyard in SPS No3: Square in Aggelaki st Makenzy King st.

12. How often do you visit this space?

SPS No1: Athonos square

Yes

No1:

none of these

greenery

seatings

surrounding sounds/noise

No

Other

location pollution

surrounding buildings

people visiting the place

artificial lighting

like....................................................................

shadow sunlight dislike..........................................................................

7. Why are you visiting open public spaces?

To communicate with other people

To enjoy the sun or fresh air

To play (me or my children)

To spend my time after work, school,University or during a break

To eat or drink etc

To meet friends

To enjoy the view

other (please specify)..................................

No2:

greenery

seatings

surrounding sounds/noise Other

location pollution

surrounding buildings

people visiting the place

artificial lighting

like....................................................................

shadow sunlight dislike..........................................................................

8. Which of the following do you find really important in a public space?

Large open free area

Seating areas

greenery

trees

Playground

other (please specify)..................................

water

sculpture/historic monument

late morning/afternoon

evening

night

greenery

seatings

surrounding sounds/noise Other

9. Which day or part of the day do you usually spend in a public space? morning

No3:

location pollution

surrounding buildings artificial lighting

like....................................................................

The information gathered will be kept private and used only for studying purposes.

weekdays

Thank you for your time!

weekends

Figure 11.5 Sample of the questionnaire translated in English

102

people visiting the place

shadow sunlight dislike..........................................................................

Identification of participants’ relationship with the 2 existing small public spaces of Thessaloniki and their opinion about them.

Approach Participants were approached in 3 different days: 1) Friday 11am-6pm (asking people in the 2 spaces) 2) Sunday 12pm - 3pm (asking people in the wider area of the city center) 3) Tuesday 9am - 4pm (asking people found both in spaces and the city center in general)

e

e

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11 11.3 Configuration of the final table of design principles

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE a.opportunity to observe pedestrian footfall b.activities inside or nearby the space c. focal point, water presence at least two of the above

accessibility

a.number of routes b.proximity to transport (distance from nearest stops, number of transport routes) c.types of streets (pedestrian only, busy roads, shared surface etc)

connectivity

physical comfort

a. connection with the existing urban fabric (boundaries)

a. number of units

b. connection with existing open spaces

c. seating material

b. capacity of seatings

(distance)

Figure 11.6 The 4 predominant factors and their specific dimensions (in red are the new dimensions to focus on)

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE

accessibility

a.opportunity to observe pe- a.number of routes destrian footfall b.proximity to transport b.activities inside or nearby (distance from nearest the space stops, number of transport routes) c. focal point, water presence c.types of streets (pedestrian priority area) at least two of the above

connectivity

physical comfort

a. connection with the existing urban fabric (boundaries)

a. number of units

b. connection with existing open spaces

c. seating material

distinctive identity

b. capacity of seatings

(distance)

Figure 11.7 The revised 4 factors according to needs of a city center and adddition of a new one

103

11

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE

accessibility

a.opportunity to observe pe- a.number of routes destrian footfall b.proximity to transport b.activities inside or nearby (distance from nearest the space stops, number of transport routes) c. focal point, water presence c.types of streets (pedestrian priority area) at least two of the above

connectivity

physical comfort

distinctive identity

green space

sense of security

provision of designated areas

a. connection with the existing urban fabric (boundaries)

a. number of units

a. adequate lighting

b. capacity of seatings

b. visual surveillance

a. playground

b. connection with existing open spaces

c. seating material

c. variety of users

b. area for seniors or adults

d.vitality during whole day

(distance)

the

Figure 11.8 The revised 4 factors according to needs of locals and adddition of new ones

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE a.vicinity to vital streets

accessibility

connectivity

a.number of routes

a. connection with the existing urban fabric b.activities inside or nearby b.proximity to transport (boundaries) the space (distance from nearest stops, number of trans- b. connection with existing open spaces c. focal point, water presence port routes) (distance) c.types of streets (pedesat least two of the above trian priority area)

physical comfort

distinctive identity

green space

sense of security

provision of designated areas

a. number of units

a. adequate lighting

b. capacity of seatings

b. visual surveillance

a. playground

c. seating material

c. variety of users

b. area for seniors or adults

d.vitality during whole day

Figure 11.9 Additions according to specific need of the city of Thessaloniki and its citizens

104

the c. areas for outdoor activities

view

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11

OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE a.vicinity to vital streets

accessibility

a.number of routes

connectivity

a. connection with the existing urban fabric b.activities inside or nearby b.proximity to transport (boundaries) (distance from nearest the space stops, number of trans- b. connection with existing open spaces c. focal point, water presence port routes) (distance) c.types of streets (pedesat least two of the above trian priority area)

physical comfort

distinctive identity

green space

sense of security

provision of designated areas

view

clear layout

a. number of units

a. adequate lighting

b. capacity of seatings

b. visual surveillance

a. playground

b. geometrical forms

c. seating material

c. variety of users

b. area for seniors or adults

c. visual balance

d.vitality during whole day

Figure 11.10 Additional layout factor

105

a. simplicity

the c. areas for outdoor activities

d. clear boundaries

11 11.4 Special characteristics of the Greek context Urban fabric and people’s daily life in Greece appear to have some special characteristics that one cannot easily find in the UK. However lots of similarities appear with the Spanish context which makes the comparison between Barcelona and Thessaloniki stronger.

11.4.1 Urban fabric characteristics

• Presence of balconies - no backyard, front garden or communal space inside

the block.

• Land use distribution throughout the building - 3 types appear in the city

center (figure 7.2)

• Differences between high streets and secondary more residential streets

where retails still appear (figure 7.3)

11.4.2 Daily life • Differencies in the scheduling of meals: lunch which is the main meal at about 2-3pm and a light dinner at 8-9pm or even later during Summer.

• In the midday there is a break from work from 2-5pm where most businesses (except for big stores) are closed and streets are not so crowded. If it is possible workers try to have a short nap during this break after lunch. street and sidewalk • Workday continues at 5pm and finishes at about 8 or 9pm if it is Summer.

• Students finish the school at about 2pm while University students do not have a specific schedule.

Figure 11.11 Typical section of a perimeter block

11.4.3 Outcomes that supported design • Usually there is an active ground floor interface.

• Open spaces can be seen by those sitting in their balconies.

• Opportunity to use the space inside the blocks.

• Presence of tree lines in high streets - natural element in busy roads of the city center - trees may sometimes control passers route.

1st type (most usual)

2nd type

space inside the perimeter block

street and sidewalk

3rd type

Figure 11.12 Types of land use distribution in a city center building

106

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11 High street with big chain stores and tree lines

26.00m

Secondary more residential streets with dispersed small independent retails

26.00m

one way

Tsimiski street Chrisostomou Smirnis street

23.00m

20.00m

23.00m

one way

two ways

Egnatia street

Figure 11.13 Differences between high streets and secondary streets in the city center of Thessaloniki

107

20.00m

711 winter

summer

University students

weekdays 10pm University

lunch and rest

During a break coffee out in the yard

9pm

5pm

3pm

(hours vary throughout the day and the week)

weekdays and weekends 12am sleep

dinner and go out with friends

studying

12pm

3pm

6pm

2am

9pm

b r e a k f a s t lunch and TV/reading/ exercising/ nap and coffee shopping with friends

dinner and sleep go out with friends

weekend 12pm

1am

9pm

5pm

3pm

b r e a k f a s t lunch and TV/reading/ dinner and exercising/ go out with nap and coffee shopping with friends

sleep

Figure 11.14 Daily routine of a University student (weekdays, weekends, Winter, Summer)

winter

office workers

summer

weekdays

weekdays 7pm

3pm work

5pm

8pm

7pm

12am

dinner and lunch and have a nap coffee and go out with daily chores friends

3pm work

sleep

12pm

2pm

5pm

10pm

12am

lunch and spend time dinner and rest nap out having a coffee or a drink

sleep

weekend

weekend 10pm

6pm

9pm

10pm

12am

breakfast have a walk lunch and TV/reading/ dinner and nap exercising/ go out with and daily or a coffee friends along the shopping chores seafront

2pm

6pm

9pm

12am

breakfast and visit lunch and read a book dinner and or have a meet with nap a public space with friends coffee out children

sleep

Figure 11.15 Daily routine of an office worker (weekdays, weekends, Winter, Summer)

108

sleep

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11 winter

summer

shop workers

weekdays

weekdays 3pm

9pm work

5pm

lunch outside or shopping

8pm work

9pm

12am

dinner and rest

3pm work

sleep

Sunday 10pm

12pm

2pm

5pm

lunch outside or shopping

9pm work

12am

dinner and walk along the seafront

sleep

weekend 5pm

9pm

12am

breakfast have a walk lunch and TV/reading/ dinner and exercising/ go out with nap and daily or a coffee in a park shopping friends chores or public square

10pm sleep

2pm

6pm

9pm

12am

breakfast and visit lunch and read a book dinner and or have a meet with nap a public space with coffee out friends children

Figure 11.16 Daily routine of a worker in a store (weekdays, weekends, Winter, Summer)

109

sleep

11 11.5 Process of field visit and results

Field Visit - Behavioral mapping results Friday 16pm-16.30pm Passers: 22 women 11 men 16-29years old: 10 30-49years old: 20 50-65years old:5 People staying in the space: 3 women 16-29years old: 1 30-49years old: 2 Activities: People usually passing through the space to go from the street to the main area of the shops and the restaurants. Many people are coming from the high street in the North (Egnatia st). Only a few people are sitting in the square for maximum 15 min to rest or have a coffee.

1. Have a coffee or lunch 2. Rest after shopping Figure 11.17 Pedestrian movement in Athonos square

110

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11 Field Visit - Behavioral mapping results Friday 14pm-14.30pm Visitors 2 women 4 men <16years old:1 16-29years old: 0 30-49years old: 2 50-65years old:3 Activities: The space is not really visited a lot. At the time of mapping the space was visited by a family of tourists and some other people who visited the monastery.

1. Sitting in the bench 2. Visiting the monastery 3. Looking at the monument

Figure 11.18 Pedestrian movement in Monastery courtyard

111

11 11.6 Precedents

Figure 11.19 Samir Kassir Public Garden, Beirut Lebanon The 815m2 public square offers a green space, shade and quiteness inside a busy area of the city. It is primarly used by residents and workers but also by the passing tourists and visitors whos stop there to have a rest enjoying the calmness that water, greenery and the selection of gentle materials offer (Mohammad al-Asad 2007). The precedent is used because of the scale and the character of the project and its success to attract different types of people and offer respite from the daily life being integrated to a busy urban environment. In addition, use of materials and water is exemplary.

Figure 11.20 Placa de la vila de Madrid, Barcelona This small public space has been used as a precedent because of its connection with the historic heritage of the city. As the monastery courtyard in Thessaloniki is adjacent to historic monuments or remains, it would be useful to see how in this cas in Barcelona visitors a space has been created next to historical remains.

112

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11

Figure11.21 Carretera antiga dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Horta, Barcelona The small space is a communal graden dividing a residential block diagonally. The design will be used as an example for the creation of the communal space which is the starting point of the route and has two entrances by different sides as well. It is more about creating path inside the block and providing a seating wider area in the middle.

Figure 11.23 Design proposal for the regeneration of Leicester square in London.

This proposal for the design of the Leicester square uses the light in a very strong way. The perimeter light frames the shape of the square providing a strong image and highlighting its boundaries. The exploitation of lightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potentialities is the reason why this proposal was selected as a precedent.

Figure 11.22 Combination of fixed and movable benches in Plaça les jardins d elx in Barcelona.

The way the one is placed opposite the other encourage social interaction and communication which is one of the main aims in the design of the new small public spaces. Local people should have the opportunity to sit one next to another and even if they cannot form the way seats are placed they can still be one close to another and enjoy social interaction.

113

11 11.7 Form exploration sketches â&#x20AC;˘ Athonos square

1

2

Follow the square shape of the space according to the lines of the surroudning buildings. The route will pass from the center of the square.

Adopt the diagonal edge of the adjacent building which is a common characteristic of many buildings in the city center.

Figure 11.24 Shape exploration sketch 1

Figure 11.25 Shape exploration sketch 2

3

Figure 11.26 Shape exploration sketch 3

4

Create a diamond shape square that highlights the entrance to the traditional retail quarter.

Figure 11.27 Shape exploration sketch 4

114

Rotation of the diamond shape to to create a diagonal path in order to directly connect the two streets that form the proposed route. On the left and the right sides angles create areas where residents from the one side and visitors from the other arrive.

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11 â&#x20AC;˘ Monastery courtyard

1

2

Creation of a circle to highlight the dome of the basilica.

Figure 11.28 Shape exploration sketch 1

Figure 11.29 Shape exploration sketch 2

3

Figure 11.30 Shape exploration sketch 3

Creation of a orthogonal shape around the circle.

4

Creation of a triangle like an arrow showing the basilica.

115

Figure 9.31 Shape exploration sketch 4

Creation of an arc at the base of the triangle, parallel to the arc of the dome.

11 11.8 Ethics form

CARDIFF SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND GEOGRAPHY Ethical Approval Form Student Projects (Undergraduate & Taught Masters) This

form

must

be

completed

and

submitted

to

Evelyn

Osborne

email:

OsborneE1@cardiff.ac.uk / Tel Ext: 76131 / Room 2.54 Glamorgan Building).

In the case of dissertations it is the responsibility of the student to submit the form, duly signed by their supervisor, and secure ethical approval prior to any fieldwork commencing.

A copy of the signed form should be included by all students with their final dissertation.

Title of Project: Small public spaces â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Does size matter?

Name of Student(s): Ioanna Psatha

Name of Supervisor/Module Leader: Marga Munar Bauza

Degree Programme and Level:

MA Urban Design

Date: 14/06/2014

Recruitment Procedures: 1 Does your project include children under 16 years of age?

Yes

No x

2 Have you read the Child Protection Procedures below?

3 Does your project include people with learning or communication difficulties?

N/A

x x

116

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

11 If there are any other potential ethical issues that you think the Committee should consider please explain them to your supervisor. It is your obligation to bring to the attention of the Committee any ethical issues not covered on this form.

Health and Safety:

Yes

Does the research meet the requirements of the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health & Safety policies?

x

http://www.cf.ac.uk/osheu/index.html

Any changes to the nature of the project that result in the project being significantly different to that originally approved by the committee must be communicated to the Ethics Committee immediately.

117

11

118

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

references Alison Blake (No date), Pocket Parks Available at: http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/pdf/2_OpenSpaceTypes/Open_Space_Types/pocket_parks.pdf Accessed: 1 Dec. 2013 Arriola & Fiol (No date) Inventing the Site: Fossar de les Moreres, Barcelona [online] Available at: http://arquitectes.coac.net/arriolafiol/practice/pdf/A&F_the_public_realm.pdf Accessed: 28 July 2014 Chase, J. Crawford,M. and Kaliski, J 1999, Everyday Urbanism: featuring John Chase, New York, NY: Monacelli Press City of San Francisco (2013), San Francisco parklet manual, [online] Available at: http://sfpavementtoparks. sfplanning.org/docs/SF_P2P_Parklet_Manual_1.0_FULL.pdf Accessed: 13 Jan. 2014 Classistic (2014) Basilica de Santa Maria del Mar, Barcelona [online] Available at: http://www.classictic.com/ en/barcelona/basilica_de_santa_maria_del_mar/485/ Accessed: 28 Jul 2014 Dac and Cities (2014) Copenhagen - Pocket parks, a drop of urban green [Online] Available at: http://www. dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/all-cases/green-city/copenhagen---pocket-parks-a-drop-of-urbangreen/?bbredirect=true Accessed: 13 Jan. 2014 Erickson, D (2006), MetroGreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities, Island Press El Haddad, M. (2009) El Modelo Barcelona de espacio público y diseño urbano: small-scale public interventions as urban acupuncture, Univercita di Barcelona [Online] Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/26622 Galatista (no date) The life and the work of the national benefactor Dimitrios Katounis {Η ζωή και το έργο του εθνικού ευεργέτη Δημήτριου Κατούνη} [online] Available at: http://www.galatista.gr/η-ζωή-και-το-έργοτου-εθνικού-ευεργέτη-δημήτριου-κατούνη Accessed: 2 Aug 2014 Gehl, J. (1996) Life between buildings: Using public space, Skive, Arkitektens Forlag Karin K. Peschardt, Jasper Schipperijn, Ulrika K. Stigsdotter (2012), Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS), Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 235-244 Kazatzidou, N. (2013) Map of city: Holy Temple of Prodromos {Ο Χάρτης της πόλης: Ναός Τιμίου Προδρόμου} , Parallaxi Magazine [online] Available at: http://www.parallaximag.gr/thessaloniki/o-hartis-tis-polis-naos-timioy-prodromoy Accessed: 14 April 2014 Landry, C., BIanchini, F (1995) The Creative City London, Demos Leflore, A.J., 2012. Increasing urban open space through pocket parks, Tufts University Malmstrom, T. (2008) A model for small public spaces – The city of Sacramento, University of California Mohammad al-Asad (2007) Samir Kassir Public Garden Beirut, Lebanon 2007 On Site Review Report [online] Available at: http://www.akdn.org/architecture/pdf/3409_leb.pdf Accessed: 18 Aug 2014 Muñoz, F. (no date) Barcelona [online] Available at: http://arquitectes.coac.net/arriolafiol/practice/pdf/A&F_the_public_realm.pdf Accessed: 28 July 2014

119

12

Okabe, A. 2011, Reclaiming Public Space for People: The Roots of European Urban Regeneration DBJ Research Center on Global Warming Discussion Paper Series No. 38 [online] Available at: http://www.dbj.jp/ricf/pdf/ research/DBJ_RCGW_DP38.pdf Accessed: 15 April 2014 Olmos, M. (2008) Pocket park development standard [Online] Available at: http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civica/ filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4542 Accessed: 14 April 2014 Roumelioti, G. (2013) Searching for Ladadika {Αναζητώντας τα Λαδάδικα} [Online] Available at: http://www. parousiazw.gr/thessaloniki/1131-anazhtwntas-ta-ladadika-sth-thessaloniki Accessed: 14 April 2014 Rogers, R., et al., Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Re-naissance Final Report of the Urban Task Force Chaired byLord Rogers of Riverside. Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, London.

Shaftoe, H (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces Creating Effective Public Places , Earthscan London Sterling,VA Thessaloniki in Pictures (2013) Athonos Square {Πλατεία Άθωνος} [Online] Available at: http://thessalonikiinpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/blog-post_8171.html Accessed: 30 July 2014 The city of New York (2014) Current Public Plaza Standards New York City Zoning Resolution [Online] Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/plaza_standards.shtml Accessed: 25 Aug 2014 Thompson Catharine Ward (2002), Urban open space in the 21st century, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 59-72 Toulias, G (2009) Underground Thessaloniki - The catacombs of St. John {Υπόγεια Θεσσαλονίκη - Κατακόμβες Αγίου Ιωάννη} [Online] Available at: http://www.cyberotsarka.gr/tsarkes/nomos-thessalonikis/106-aigiannissaloniki.htmlhttp://www.cyberotsarka.gr/tsarkes/nomos-thessalonikis/106-aigiannissaloniki.html Accessed: 15 Aug 2014 Whyte, W. (1980) The social life of small urban spaces, Washington DC, Conservation Foundation Wikipedia (2013) National Day of Catalonia [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ Day_of_Catalonia Accessed: 25 July 2014 Wikipedia (2014) Thessaloniki [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki Accessed: 13 Aug 2014

12 Figure references 1.1: Own illustration 1.2: [online] Available at: http://www.parallaximag.gr/thessaloniki/o-hartis-tis-polis-plateia-athonos Accessed:15 April 2014 1.3: [online] Available at: http://www.parallaximag.gr/thessaloniki/o-hartis-tis-polis-naos-timioy-prodromoy Accessed:15 April 2014 2.1: Sanchez Vidiella, A., & Zamora, F. (2011). Paisajismo urbano, Barcelona = Urban landscape, Barcelona.

[Barcelona], Ajuntament de Barcelona.

2.2: [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paley_Park Accessed:28 July 2014 2.3: [online] Available at: http://www.akdn.org/architecture/project.asp?id=3409 Accessed:28 July 2014 2.4: Own illustration 3.1-3.2 Google street view 3.3 Own illustration 3.4: [online] Available at: http://knowbcn.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/0271.jpg Accessed:15 April 2014 3.5, 3.6 : Google street view 3.7: [online] Available at:http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/max500/181/18139272.jpg Accessed:15 April 2014 4.1: a [online] Available at: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossar_de_les_Moreres#mediaviewer/Archivo:Fossardelesmoreres3.jpg Accessed: 3 Aug 2014

b [online] Available at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fossar_de_les_Moreres_02.JPG Accessed: 20 Aug 2014

c [online] Available at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:031_Monument_al_Fossar_de_les_ Moreres_i_peveter.jpg Accessed: 20 Aug 2014

d [online] Available at: http://photo-lgz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/el-fossar-de-les-moreres.html Accessed: 20 Aug 2014 4.2: El Haddad, M. (2009) El Modelo Barcelona de espacio público y diseño urbano: small-scale public interventions as urban acupuncture, Univercita di Barcelona [Online] Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/26622 4.3-4.6: Own illustrations 4.7: All from Google street view 4.8 - 4.12 :Own illustrations 4.13: a [online] Available at: http://vestigiosdebcn.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/la-placa-john-lennon-unhomenaje-al-famoso-beatle-1993/ Accessed: 3 Aug 2014

b [online] Available at: http://arseniorodriguezquintana.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/preliminares-de-la-fiesta-mayor-de.html Accessed: 25 Aug 2014

c,d Google street view 4.14: El Haddad, M. (2009) El Modelo Barcelona de espacio público y diseño urbano: small-scale public interventions as urban acupuncture, Univercita di Barcelona [Online] Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/26622 4.15 - 4.18: Own illustrations 4.19: all from personal file 4.20 - 4.23: Own illustrations 5.1: Personal file 5.2 Own illustration

120

7.1: Google maps 7.2: Own illustration 7.3: [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki#Cityscape Accessed: 14 Aug. 2014 7.4: Own illustration 7.5: Aquired by city council 7.6: Own illustration 7.7: Aquired by city council 7.8 - 7.10: Own illustration 7.11: Own illustration and Google street view 7.12: Own illustration 7.13: Google street view 7.14: Personal file 7.15: Own illustration 7.16-7.19: Google street view 7.20-7.24: Own illustration 7.25: Own illustration and photos from Google street view 7.26-7.27: Own illustration 7.28-7.31: Personal file 7.32: Bing maps 7.33: Own illustration 7.34: [online] Available at: http://www.buildnet.gr/default.asp?pid=135&la=1&catid=112&artid=378 7.35-7.40: Own illustration 7.41: Personal file 7.42: Own illustration 7.43-7.44: Personal file 7.45: Bing maps 7.46-7.50: Own illustration 7.51: Personal file 7.52-7.53: Own illustration 7.54-7.55: Personal file 7.56: Own illustration 8.1: Own illustration 8.2: Own illustration and Google street view with a combination of own photos 8.3: [online] Available at: www.firth.co.nz/brochures-technical/element-magazine/february-2013/a-modern-look-with-history.aspx 8.4: [online] Available at: http://streetland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/streetland-artist-residency-pavement-artworks-and-mobile 8.5: [online] Available at: http://www.lite-tec.co.uk/led.htm 8.6: [online] Available at: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/506655026802486999/ 8.7-8.9: Own illustration 8.10: a) [online] Available at: http://fullbodytattooing.blogspot.gr/2013/12/tattoo-art-santa-muerte-tattoos-various.html b) [online] Available at: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/legible-london c) [online] Available at: http://www.commarts.com/exhibit/legible-london-walking 8.11: a) [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-21057955 b) [online] Available at: http://www.hoklife.com/2011/04/04/lighting-st-louis-up-blue/ 8.12: a) [online] Available at: http://villageicecream.com/the-village-parklet/ b) [online] Available at: http://weburbanist.com/2012/03/12/city-seats-14-examples-of-unconventional-urban-furniture/

RbDP - Small public spaces - Does size matter? i IOANNA PSATHA I 1367592

12 8.13-8.20 Own illustration 8.21: [online] Available at: http://www.echinaexpat.com/ChinaTravel/ShanghaiCity/tabid/59/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/46/Shanghai-Metro-Map.aspx 8.22-8.28: Own illustration 9.1-9.2: Own illustration 9.3: a. [online] Available at: http://www.stonecontact.com/products-271849/red-granite-water-grate-g363granite-water-drainage b. [online] Available at: http://www.marshalls.co.uk/commercial/water-management/products/max-echannel-heavy-duty-linear-drainage-system-webfa037600 9.4: [online] Available at: http://www.interior-deluxe.com/aquadisc-g4-outdoor-ground-luminaire-p13237. html 9.5-9.14: Own illustration 9.15: Personal file 9.16-9.45: Own illustration 9.46: [online] Available at: http://www.creativeguerrillamarketing.com/guerrilla-marketing/minimalist-billboard-bench-effective-marketing/ 9.47-9.54: Own illustration 11.1 - 11.11: Own illustration 11.12 - 11.13: Own illustration ang google street view 11.14 - 11.18: Own illustration 11.19: Mohammad al-Asad (2007) Samir Kassir Public Garden Beirut, Lebanon 2007 On Site Review Report [online] Available at: http://www.akdn.org/architecture/pdf/3409_leb.pdf Accessed: 18 Aug 2014 11.20 a http://www.mimoa.eu/projects/Spain/Barcelona/Pla%E7a%20Vila%20de%20Madrid b [online] Available at: http://barcelonaarchitecturecenter.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/d-p/8_roman-necropolis-in-plaza-de-lavila-de-madrid/ c [online] Available at: http://fjalonso.blogspot.gr/2011/04/barcelona-gothic-barcino-roman-city.html 11.21- 11.22: Sanchez Vidiella, A., & Zamora, F. (2011). Paisajismo urbano, Barcelona = Urban landscape, Barcelona. [Barcelona], Ajuntament de Barcelona.

11.23: [online] Available at: http://www.gillespies.co.uk/#/showcase/public%E2%80%90realm%E2%80%90design/leicester%E2%80%90square%E2%80%90%E2%80%90london 11.24 - 11.31: Own illustration All tables and charts are own illustrations.

121