U r b a n r o o m s o f S a r a j e v o : Tr a n s f o r m i n g u r b a n p u b l i c s p a c e s u s i n g i n t e r i o r d e s i g n t o o l s
Typology
The function or use of a public space is the fundamental criterion for its classification, and the typology of public spaces is generally determined by the social activities they accommodate and generate. Their traditional role has been to spawn public life and social interaction, and to provide a stage for civic, political, commercial and cultural proliferation. Contemporary global economic, political and technological forces are, however, changing the perception of public spaces as democratic arenas for civic, cultural and political exchange: “The urban field is no longer the domain of a civic openness, as the traditional city was, but the territory of a middle-class culture, characterized by increasing mobility, mass consumption and mass recreation” (Hajer & Reijndorp, 2001). According to Sennett’s thesis on the decline of public life in favour of a society that promotes individualism, self-absorption and alienation, many functions that were traditionally perceived as public now belong to the private, domestic realm (Sennett, 2002). This withdrawal from public to private has been further amplified in spatial and psychological terms by the prevalence of digitalisation and virtual communication. Modern technologies have facilitated almost unrestricted access to information, as well as the performance of a multitude of public activities, such as entertainment, shopping, social interaction and work to take place in the private realm of the home. The average modern person is consequently increasingly individualised and self-oriented, and less inclined to participate in collective activities: “The telephone, television, video, home computers, and so forth have introduced new ways of interacting. Direct meetings in public spaces can now be replaced by indirect electronic 57
