Master Thesis: Assessing Public Spaces

Assessing Public Spaces

A continuation of ‘Alterations in Scale’ and ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’ Muhammad Izzat Bin Zunaidi Muhammad Shamim Bin Mohd Padzil

Declaration of Originality

“We hereby declare that this research submission is our own work and has been composed by ourselves. It contains no unacknowledged text and has not been submitted in any previous context. All quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and all sources of information, text, illustration, tables, images etc. have been specifically acknowledged.

We accept that if having this signed this Declaration our work should be found at Examination to show evidence of academic dishonesty the work will fail and we will be liable to face the University Senate Discipline Committee.�

NAME: Muhammad Izzat Bin Zunaidi, Muhammad Shamim Bin Mohd Padzil SIGNATURE: DATE:

Assessing Public Spaces

A continuation of ‘Alterations in Scale’ and ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’

MUHAMMAD IZZAT BIN ZUNAIDI 201353001 MUHAMMAD SHAMIM BIN MOHD PADZIL 201392239

Content Acknowledgements

i

Abstract

iii

Introduction

1

Chapter 1: Public Spaces

3

Chapter 2: History of Public Spaces

15

Chpater 3: Continuing Volume 1, Volume 2 and Introduction to Volume 3

21

Chapter 4: Case Studies

29

Historic Cities

31

Garden Cities

57

Radiant Cities

69

New Urbanism

85

Chapter 5: Summary or research

89

Chapter 6: Discussion & Conclusions

101

Bibliography

105

Work Distribution

108

Acknowledgement

First of all, we would like to thank our lecturer and supervisor, Dr. Ombretta Romice and also Professor Sergio Porta for their guidance for making this possible from the start towards the completion of the research.

Their supervision certainly helped us to finish our PgDip in Advanced Architectural Design and had given us the opportunity advancing to the Masters programme.

We also want to express our earnest gratitude and many thanks to our parents, friends and the department for their positive critics, inspiration and support throughout the research period during this summer.

i

ii

Abstract This research objective is to cultivate collection data of relative quantity public spaces in selected cities around the world based on the 400 meter radius theory. A careful particular methodology will be derived with the aim to find out pattern of public spaces across different cities and its relation with the history of urban development.

Basically, this research was done by continuing researches by Porta et al, ‘Alterations in Scale’ (2014) and ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’ (2015). In the book ‘Alterations in Scale’, the ‘400 meter’ radius rule had been studied in conventional urban areas as a constant morphological pattern in measuring the area’s effectiveness. Both of the books was done based on 100 case studies which are grouped into four different types of cities, which are Historical, Garden, Radiant, New Urbanism and Informal Settlement.

The first book, ‘Alterations in Scale’, studied the length of the main street and the conjunctions between the streets. Results showed that the 400 meter radius rules are not implemented by most of the early cities’ main street from the Historical to Radiant cities however; the distance between main streets in New Urbanism cities was mostly doubled.

On the other hand, the degree of walkability is studied by using the same 400 meter measurement in almost the same case studies (except for Informal settlement) in the second book; ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’. Finding from the book showed similar result with the first book and concluded that there are clear relationship between the decreased level of walkability and the newer period of the urban development.

Our research, Assessing Public Spaces, relates strongly with the two book explained above. This research identifies the percentage covered by the public space and its ideal ratio based on the now-established 400 meter radius principle set from the first book, Alterations in Scale. This research also discussed some theories and other aspects relating to public spaces such as the importance and factor that influence the usage of public spaces.

Result from this book, Assessing Public Spaces is hope to help planners and architects to improvise and improve the current decision making in modern urban design and practice especially in term of public spaces.

iii

iv

Introduction PUBLIC SPACE has been use as an indicator by academics, professionals and researchers for architectural, urban landscape as well as social science cases yet there is lack of compilation about the definition, usage and importance of public space in urban plans (Xiang, 2010). Jenkins (2008) in his book, To Scale explained there are no urban plans being highlighted involving public space in urban planning or architectural journals. Public space is very crucial in the urbanization as it represents the appearance of a city while enhancing the urban environment character of that place (Xiang, 2010).

This research framework is based on the development of the selected cities from different eras that show different criteria of unique historic, economic, social and geographical aspects. This research is also a continuation work from the book ‘Alterations in Scale’ that studied the length of the case studies’ main streets and the second book; ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’, which analyzed the walkability, based on the main streets studied from the first book.

This research objectives is to identify the ideal ratio of percentage covered by the public space to the selected city based on the now-established 400 meter radius principle set from the first book; ‘Alterations in Scale’. Then, analysis will be made regarding the percentage of the public spaces from the selected case studies in relation with the period of the urban development. Apart of this, the theories involving public spaces will also be discussed.

Hence, this research is outlined as follows. Chapter one and chapter two are basically the literature review for this research. In chapter one, all subjects regarding public spaces such as the definitions, the importance and its role in urban planning and factors that influenced the usage of public spaces will be reviewed.

Other than that, history of public spaces throughout the development of urbanization era will be discussed in the chapter two. The third chapter consists of discussion from reviewing the first book, ‘Alterations in Scale’ (volume one) and the second book, ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’ (volume two). It is then being related to this latest research (volume three) by examines the similar case studies as the previous volumes using the same rule that has been confirmed. The third chapter also comprises of comprehensive methodology for this research that leads to the outcomes and findings that will be documented later.

Chapter four analyze case studies of public spaces ranging from Historic cities, Garden cities, Radiant cities and New Urbanism. Summary from the case studies will be discussed in chapter five. This research will be summed up at the final discussions and conclusions at the end of the research, which is the chapter six.

1

2

Chapter 1

Public spaces

3

4

Chapter 1 Introduction Elsheshtawy (2014) point out that cities be likely consist of major public space that is located in the centre which is important to the residents as well as a place of gathering without restrictions. Besides being strategically located, historical and political events could also influenced the emergence of public spaces in the city (Elsheshtawy, 2014). As described by Oldenburg (1999), public spaces are the city’s living room which he also added that they could become a ‘third place’ besides home and work. Lynch (1960) stated that public spaces are considered as nodes in which they are crucial part of a city’s image. Lynch (1960) categorised imageability of the city into five types of elements that basically give identity to a city: path, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks as stated in his book called “The Image of the City”. The elements can be further discussed as below:

• Paths: Channel along which can be used by the observer to move through it such as streets, walkways, transit lines, canals or railroads (Lynch, 1960).

• Edges: Linear elements which may be penetrable or non-penetrable barriers that are not used or considered as paths by the observer (Lynch, 1960).

• Districts: Medium to large sections of the city with common character (Lynch, 1960).

• Nodes: Points where people enter as the strategic spots in a city such as junctions and transit (Lynch, 1960).

• Landmarks: External point defined by observer which are defined physical object such as buildings, sign, store or even mountain (Lynch, 1960).

The structure of these elements are the contribution to the vividness, clarity, or legibility of a city’s image in which, when properly arranged can improve the imageability of a city (Nasar, 1998). In relation to the image of a city, paths and nodes are the main elements that made up open spaces (Lamit, 2004).

Various research studies stated that public space can be seen as a reflection of different cultural and social values (Arefi & Meyers, 2003). Study by Lynch (1960), found that different social group do not see the city the same way. Through cognitive mapping, different ethnics and gender showed various perceptions of public spaces in terms of size and memorability of its features (Lynch, 1960).

Streets, parks, squares and other shared spaces have been seen by urban theorists as the expressions of achievement and aspirations as well as symbols of collective well-being and possibility of a city (Amin, 2008). On the other hand, Krier, (2009) defined public space as void which, made up of structured and structuring void. Public spaces consist of distinct dimensions, forms and characteristics which is built in the 5

form of streets (linear spaces) and squares (nodal spaces).

Declined of public space Many urban theorists have considered that public spaces play such an important role in the making of a city’s publics and public culture (Amin, 2008). However, the quality and quantity of public spaces started to decline and lost their significance value especially in the rapid developed cities (Pasaogullari & Doratli, 2004). In city planning, public spaces are very important as a generator for community socialising, yet, growth of cities has lead to lacking of vibrancy in the public spaces and declined usage of these social activity spaces (Madanipour, 1992).

Calthorpe (1993) stated that public elements are the symbol of showing quality of shared world and community value of a place. In spite of that, public world have declined where parks, schools, libraries, post offices, town halls, and civic centres are dispersed, under-utilised and under-funded (Calthorpe, 1993).

Gehl, (2011) emphasise the need of social activities rather than the building or the space itself, where he stated that social activities and their potential to form communal fabric have basically received less attention (Gehl, 2011).

Different time or era has also influenced the usage of the public spaces. Generally, there is a trend toward privatisation, making people getting disengaged with the public spaces and public facilities (Carmona, 2003). Social, political and economic factors that lead to the privatisation of people’s lives are documented in a book called ‘The Fall of Public Man’ which basically showing the end of public culture (Sennett, 1977).

New range of medium for leisure activities or entertainments such as television and internet are making public space became less important as such activities can already be undertaken at home (Ellin, 1996). Ellin (1996) also added that the privatisation of mobility which initially by car then to the wide usage of internet has making the usage of public spaces become a challenge. On the other hand, in comparison with the medieval city, the design and dimensions of public spaces or streets encouraged pedestrian traffic and outdoor stays, whereas, the functionalist suburban areas and building projects basically do the opposite (Gehl, 2011).

However, too much public space only lead to false wealth (Krier, 2009). In a study by William (1980, 1988) which he study a range of open spaces in New York, shows many open spaces with little usage apparently. This is due to the factor of failing to justify the extra floorspace given to developers as part of the city’s incentive zoning regulations (Whyte, 1980, 1988). In addition, disintegration of living public spaces and the gradual transformation of the street areas that is of no interest to anyone, only lead to negative outcome such as vandalism and crime in the streets (Gehl, 2011).

6

Krier, (2009), questioned about the effect of market economy in relation to the production of a true public realm. He argued that, although commerce is vital as being part of public space, true public space should not just a by product of commerce in which the private developers main interest are merely pure commercial aspect of public spaces. He then concluded that the true public spaces should be a matter of general interest, communal life and citizenship development (Krier, 2009).

However, Carr et al (1992), insisted that the usage of public spaces are dynamic in relation with the public life, which they suggested that new activities require new type of spaces (Carr et al, 1992). Nevertheless, when there are lesser people using public spaces, the need to maintain and provide new public spaces become less important which in time, will create a situation where there is a decline of public spaces (Carmona, 2003).

Importance and role of public space In the book of ‘Life Between Building’ by Gehl, (2011), which studies about public space in Scandinavia, he introduce the need of outdoors activities that can be divided into three categories which are necessary activities, optional activities and social activities:

• Necessary activities: Everyday necessary activities that does not depends on the exterior environment

which in other word the citizen have no choice such as running errands, going to work or school, shopping, waiting for bus or person (Gehl, 2011).

• Optional activities: Activities that happens only if the citizen intend to do with given time and place in which they are very dependent on exterior physical conditions. These activities take place only when exterior conditions are favourable, when weather and place invite them such as taking a walk, standing around, sitting or sunbathing (Gehl, 2011).

• Social activities: Activities that dependent on the existence of others in public spaces which include children at play, greetings and conversations and communal activities (Gehl, 2011).

People will not be able to perform optional activities and people will hurry home if the outdoor areas are of poor quality (Gehl,2011). Hence, leading no option or flexibility and only allowed people to carry out necessary activities which eventually create limitation of activities to take place (Gehl, 2011). Gehl (2011) also added, with quality outdoor areas, they can improve and increase optional activities which eventually lead to rise in social activities (Gehl 2011).

Porta, (1999) emphasise on the idea of social contact which happen spontaneously from different degree of

7

intensity involved which, for example it could be be just a simple human contact up to being a close friendship. Sharing public space with other people could create this social contact by exchanging information on the outside world as well as being a source of new and diverse inspiration. He also pointed out that in order to achieve this social contacts, various kind activities need to be happen in the same space (Porta, 1999).

When a city provide recreation, natural beauty, and signature open spaces for its people, it turned the city into great city where it contributed to the building of civic pride, increasing tourism and economic investment, and contributing to health and quality of life (Rogers, 2003). In addition, Roger (2003) also added that public spaces also plays important role as symbols of civic pride and sense of space which give character to the community.

Furthermore, citizens can increase their confidence or unity by providing public spaces for recreation and integrating green infrastructure which can resulted in quantifiable environmental benefits (Braza, 2003). Amin agreed that public space will always be an important site of civic becoming where it needs to be placed in context when thinking about the possibilities for urban well-being and collective recognition (Amin, 2008).

Krier identified an ideal masterplan principle that is divided into five parts which included the need of code for public spaces. The public code consists of defining the materials, configurations, techniques and designs for paving, street furniture, signage, lighting and planting for the public space (Krier, 2009).

Public space plays important role for social interaction and the daily experience of urban everyday life where the availability of public space also make the possibility of large number of people to form social interaction (Madanipour, 1992). Such of it can be seen from the existence of public parks which are important for liveable and enjoyable higher density communities (Calthorpe, 1993). Public parks functioned as a place for “public activity� such as neighbourhood meeting places, recreational activity centres, childcare facilities, and lunchtime picnic spots (Calthorpe, 1993).

Gehl, (2011) stated that by seeing, hearing and meeting other people is more beneficial and more in demand than the attractions of the public spaces of cities and residential area which he then agreed that the life in buildings and between buildings is much essential and more relevant than the spaces and the buildings themselves. Although, more than architecture is needed in order for the social interactions to develop, it is however essential that the design of public spaces will encourage it taking into account the variety of interest and needs of different kind of residents or users within the areas (Gehl, 2011).

8

Factor affecting usage of public space Talen (2000) , considered dispersed spaces are more preferable than concentrated spaces. In relation to this, it is important that public spaces should be well integrated within the residential fabrics by maximising the access and minimising the walking distance to the public spaces (Pasaogullari & Doratli, 2004). This can be done by planning a compact city which can promotes high accessibility which eventually lead to reduction of walking distances to public spaces (Helling, 1998). This lead to the idea of accessibility to public spaces are very much rely on travel time and proximity (Erkip, 1997).

A study of public space in Famagusta, Cyprus by Pasaogullari & Doratli, (2004) which assessed the public spaces in term of accessibility and utilisation found that physical or functional characteristics of the public spaces have higher affect on the accessibility and utilisation of the publics spaces compared to the user characteristics of the people. Result from the study shows that variable such as proximity, dispersed location, travel time and characteristics of the transport environment will directly affect the the accessibility to the public spaces. Whereas, factors that affect public spaces in term of utilisation of public spaces are variables like comfort, safety, maintenance, cleanliness and variety of activities as well as availability of facilities (Pasaogullari & Doratli, 2004).

Erkip (1997), identified factors affecting the use and satisfaction of the users of public spaces comprise of accessibility, congestion levels, comfort level and variation of activities.

Whyte (1980, 1988) believe by considering the off-peak use of public spaces, give the best clues to people’s preferences. For example, when a place was crowded, people tend to sit where they could rather than where they most wanted. Then, some of the parts of the place will be emptied with some other continued to be used. This lead to the understanding of how people actually use public spaces. Through observation, Whyte then stated a few features that make a public space more sociable which can be understand as following:

• A good location where preferably located on a busy route with the ability to be physically and visually accessible.

• Streets should be part of the social space and not being fenced in order to prevent isolated and unused streets.

• Level or almost level with the pavement - too much above or below the level of the pavement create unused space.

• Adequate amount of sitting facility such as benches including steps or low walls.

• Moveable seats will provide choice for the users and create communication of character and personality.

9

Sun penetration, the aesthetics value of the space and dimensions (shape and size) of the space are much less important factors compared to how people actually used it (Whyte, 1980, 1988).

In order to cope with time change, Carr et al. (1992) suggested that public spaces should be responsive, that it should be functioning well and shows the comfort of the space. They eventually identified five primary needs for people to feel satisfy in public space: Comfort: Length of time people stay in a public space is showing that the space is functioning well and act as an indicator of its comfort. Carr et al. (1992) also added that the degree of the comfort include environmental factors such as relief from sun or wind, physical comfort (e.g. comfortable and sufficient seating) and lastly social and psychological comfort (Carr et al. 1992).

Relaxation: Natural elements such as trees, greenery, water features and separation from vehicular help to create a much more relaxed ambience in urban settings (Carr et al. 1992).

Passive Engagement: Passive engagement such as people-watching is what make people feel satisfy in public space as people is interested in the life and activity of other people (Whyte ,1980). Other than that, passive engagement can be achieved by providing fountains, views, public art, performances and so forth (Carr et al. 1992).

Active Engagement: Some people desire direct approach such as meeting people and social activity with friends, family or strangers apart from passive engagement (Carr et al. 1992).

Discovery: Desire for new experience or to find things or even activities that break from the routines make what people attracted to public spaces. Such of the experience include concerts, art exhibitions, street theatre, festivals, parades, markets or society event.

Planning recommendation for public space It does not matter whether the planning is for big cities or smaller urban areas, a good quality with familiar character and proportion in term of dimensions should be thought of for the planning of public spaces (Krier, 2009). Creating sense of space is basically done by proper design and placement of public space in city (Duany and Platter-Zyberck, 1991). Planning and development should always considered the effective uses of public spaces where it should be consistent with the character and density of the local area (Goodmann, 1968). Calthorpe, (1993) suggested that regardless the uses, neighbourhood parks should be designed for both active and passive uses in which character of the place should be well reflected with the anticipated of uses.

According to Krier (2009), Public spaces should be organised into regular or irregular patterns which con-

10

sists of avenues, boulevards, streets, squares, alleyways, courtyards and mews, parks and gardens. In term of shape, usually regular geometric and parallel public spaces represent highly formal public space which require high degree of architectural order whereas modest architecture usually have non-parallel configurations that is much more freer, less imposing composition as stated by Krier (2009). However, in the planning for architecture and urbanism a good urban spaces can be created only if plan, skyline and organisation form an evident bond in which uses all variations of geometric and topographic devices (Krier, 2009).

In term of dimensions, Gehl noted that there is an important relationship between architectural dimensions and the perception of intensity, closeness and warmth. Cities with modest dimensions, narrow streets and small spaces are usually perceived as intimate, warm, and personal because of the close range experience when moving about whereas cities with large spaces, wide streets and tall buildings usually are perceived as cold and impersonal (Gehl, 2011). As suggested by Porta (1999), the sizes urban public spaces should be considered to be well proportion with the surroundings for example, both of the horizontal distance and vertical distance relationship of the buildings must be allowed for one to see to be seen clearly.

As discussed by Gehl (2011) in Chapter 2 of his book ‘Life Between Building’, life takes place on foot, where only on foot a person is able to perceive the information and have better opportunity in term of contact in which the person is at ease and in the end, being able to take time to experience, pause, or become involved. He also emphasise that only during standing, sitting, lying down, or walking, people will experience having meaningful social activities, intense experiences, conversations, and caresses will take place compared to having only a little quick look from car or from a train window.

This shows the idea of having difference dimensions between automobile city and the pedestrian city where automobile city will be bigger and bold with large buildings and poor detailing in order to be seen and perceived by the quick movement. This eventually lead to the need of slow traffic in order to make a city more lively which can be seen in pedestrian cities like Dubrovnik and Venice. He also added that number of people to be appeared in the city can be greatly improved if the speed movement is reduced from 60 to 6 kilometres per hour (35 to 3.5 mph) (Gehl, 2011).

According to Gehl, (2011), basically, lengthy stays means lively cities. Therefore, by ensuring that more people used the public spaces and by the ability to encourage longer individual stays can lead to high level of activity in a certain area. This is due to the reason that in order for the life between buildings to happen, it all depend on the condition that allowed for a longer duration to stays outdoors. Thus, improving conditions for outdoor stays can definitely tempted people to remain in the public spaces.

To summarise in term of senses, Gehl (2011) suggested five possibilities and limitations that can help archi-

11

tects of planners whether to promote or prevent isolation and contact. For isolation purposes, Gehl (2011) suggested with the principles of using walls, long distances, high speeds, multiple levels and orientation away from others. On the other hand, for contact purposes, the principles would be the usage of no wall, short distances, low speeds, one level and orientation should facing toward others. By combining, or using these five principles individually, architects and planners can decide how to establish the basic rudiment for isolation and contact respectively (Gehl, 2011).

Pasaogullari & Doratli, (2004) has concluded that planning of cities should make the public spaces reached in a maximum of 10 minutes travel time with organised spaces, variety in term of activities, clean environment, comfort and guaranteed security in order to attract people coming to the public spaces. On the other hand, increase of public transport would also provide more opportunities and options for the people which will increase the accessibility of the public space (Pasaogullari & Doratli, 2004).

There should also be a clear continuos sequence of public spaces which started with open public spaces to the semi-public, to semi private and lastly to the private inner space, which can be done by using transitional architectural space such as by using levels of attractiveness of the building facades.(Porta, 1999).

On the other hand, certain proportion of public spaces need to be achieved in order for the city to be efficient. Too much public spaces would only lead to false luxury whereas too little public spaces equal to false economy. In addition, as suggested by Krier, the good proportion of public spaces should occupy not more than 35 percent or less than 25 percent the total area of a quarter. The basic relative quantity for public spaces are as following as described by Krier, (2009): 1850 - 1920: 15 - 20% (Too little public space) 1945 - 1968: 70 - 80% (Too much public space) 1970 - 1980: 50 - 60% (Too much semi-public) Optimum : 25 - 35% (The good proportion) (See Figure 1)

12

Figure 1: Releative quantity of public space Krier (2009)

13

14

Chapter 2

History of public spaces

15

Chapter 2 History of Public Space The latest written literature by Carmona et al. (2008) stated that public spaces can be defined to all parts of natural and built environment that has free access to the public. Free access is comprises of several examples such as squares, streets or other rights of way in residential or commercial uses. Other than that, public space also consists of parks and open spaces or the public/private space where public access is unrestricted especially during the day. It also involves the interfaces with private spaces that accessible to public internally and externally. (p.5) Public Space in Ancient Greek Agora Public space always being related as a democratic space, or the place/space citizens could vote for their government and justice such as the agora in ancient Greek era (Carmona et al, 2008) although there are people like low class citizens and slaves who are not allowed to take part into their politics (Mumford, 1961). Other than being the democracy place in the Greek polis, the agoras are functioned as an open marketplace for the people. Mumford (1961) described the agora as a rectangular square and act like the dynamic center for the city.

The agora in the ancient Greek polis known as the most tenacious and oldest place of assembly and a festival place where people conduct their conversations and meeting with others (Xing et al, 2010). The agora was the vibrant element in the city because all the city’s functions such as government, laws, commerce, religion and industry happened there, making it as a landmark for the place. Xing et al. (2010) also stated that public buildings such as campo, plaza, piazza, the sanitarium and the gymnasium were derived from the same function like the agora.

Ancient Greek’s public spaces can be classified as the origin of identity for today’s public space based on Carmona et al. (2008) where public space nowadays can be a place for a democratic space, commercial purpose, community space and informal meeting place for people.

Roman Forum Equivalent with the ancient Greek’s the agora and the acropolis, Rome is known with its ideal place of public space called “forum”, found especially at the Roman town that influenced by the Etruscan and the Hellenic culture (Mumford, 1961). Based on Boardman, Griffin & Murray (2001), forum had become “the public open space of the new city” and a main square used for political centre, meeting place and also commercial place (Adkins & Adkins, 2004).

The Roman forum functions as a place to a higher degree of formal order activities as the Romans had more 16

diverse urban structures compared to the Greek. The forum was not only acted like a square, but it was established as a comprehensive and complex community area filled with nodes consist of council houses, temples, shrines and the hall of justice (Xiang et al, 2010). The advancement of public spaces which includes political assembly, informal gathering as well as business transaction resulted by the major role of the forum especially as a medium involving public event and political affair, shopping and worshipping.

Other than the forum, Roman Empire found several more forms of public space for its citizen’s daily life such as the amphitheater, the bath and the arena. One can say that the Roman Empire was the pioneer of merging all important city landmarks and nodes such as administration and religious place together in one public space and being followed as an example for today’s public space qualities.

Public Spaces in Ancient China Golany (2001) in his book described that the Chinese assumed the city as a governmental centre as well as a marketing spot and stated that the market place in ancient China’s city existed as early as during Han dynasty. Based on Baidu (2009), in Chinese ancient cities, market place always referred as Shi Jing. Shi Jing, according to Guan Zi, the well-known Chinese encyclopedia, is the commercial district during that era that comprised with theater hall, restaurants and hotels (Xiang et al, 2010). The role of Shi Jing as a market place was very important to improve the people’s life with daily and routine activities, making it as the vibrant and dynamic public space during ancient China.

Landmark such as temples became the public space as the temple’s exterior had become the place for people to do their religious ceremony (Siu, 2001). Normally the temple designed to have a square base where most of the religious ceremonies will take place on it and until this day, the Chinese people still go to their variations of temples to pray and attend for events related to the religion.

In summary, ancient Chinese public space became the place where all daily activities such as religious ceremonies, festivals and business and trade activities were held, making it convenience to the people to experience their daily life close to each other.

The Medieval Market Square During the Roman Empire downfall, the obscure “prototype” of the new city was established by the Christians of Rome where they were replacing the old temples and basilicas which were the important nodes for the city into shelters for their people (Xiang et al, 2010). Hence, many business and commercial activities happened in public places resulting market squares to be opened especially during the festivals related to religion.

17

The market square usually happened in front of the landmarks such as cathedrals because the cathedrals were the central institution for the Middle Ages cities. Furthermore, based on Mumford (1961), the market place acted similar to the agora or the forum as the market place was big enough for huge ceremonies and gatherings. The location of the market place that situated in front of the cathedrals and churches that were the focus of daily community activities for festivals and religious activities transformed it into bigger role for the city which is squares.

Other than that, streets or paths were functioned as public spaces during Middle Ages era. According to Siu (2001), streets are defined as lines of communication for pedestrians. Streets and paths in the Middle Ages were designed to be more narrow compared to modern roads so that the people managed to do their routine outdoor activities without difficulty.

In conclusion, the public space in Middle Ages became more vibrant as the many of the daily activities or ceremonies happened at the marketplace hence it formed as a squares for the place while streets and paths were where more communal and active but less controlled places for public took place.

Italy’s Piazza, Paris and London’s Square Mumford (1961) stated that after the breakdown of medieval era, politics, religion and business were separated and a new life and culture occurred between 15th and 18th centuries in Europe. This is when the public space changed its role where the squares in London and Paris as well as the Piazzas in Italy became the most substantial types of the public spaces at that time. These piazzas and squares demonstrated the public space’s characteristics of Baroque and Renaissance periods.

According to Carmona et al (2008), the Renaissance’s great piazzas were designed naturally to arise in Italian cities. Giouard (1985) described the piazzas in port city of Livorno, Tuscany, that “the town was planned as a working commercial one, not on an especially grand scale. It had 2 paizzas; a great open piazza on the harbor front, which was the site of the slave market, and the cathedral piazza in the centre of the town”. One can say that the Italian piazzas were designed and planned to be attractive and amusing for the people.

Giouard (1985) also stated that “the square in Paris was a place for spectacle as well as habitation”. Other than that, he explained that French squares were usually occupied with blaring activities resulting by the communication between the people. Unfortunately, not many of the square in Paris open and available to public where it was restricted only to the upper class citizens like the Palace Royale (Mumford, 1961).

Carmona et al (2008) described Paris squares were the symbol of wealth and power of the Paris ruler as they owned the public spaces for their knightly games although the spaces/places were supposed to be intended for public.

18

Covent Garden in London was the first square emerged in England and it was recognized as residential squares in London (Giouard, 1985). Most of the lands of the squares stated by Mumford (1961) were owned by the landlords where the square intentionally designed to fulfill the needs of upper class citizens.

Urban Public Space Public space is not just about its historical contextual, size or its form. The history of public spaces from previous eras shown that the public spaces have such a varied functions and forms in relation to religion, social, cultural and also political factors (Xiang et al, 2010). There is no doubt that there are some public spaces are very close to the people for various reasons, thus become well-known such as New York Plazas and Parks and London Marketplace.

London Marketplace Carmona et al (2008) explained that the markets became a very important way of living for English urban people, comparable with the agora for the ancient Greek people. Like the agora, marketplaces gave the chance for the English people to involve in public life related to politics, religion and business. Marketplace was known as a medium for people to meet, chat, spreading the news as well as selling and purchasing.

As discussed before, Covent Garden in London was the first square emerged in England and became as an upper class residential area where the market stretched from just one part of the place to its whole area.

Giouard (1990) stated that the transformation of Convent Garden displayed a recreation of a public space from just an obvious open space to commercial urban life.

Other than that, another crucial example for public space transformation in London was the opening of the Royal parks to the public. Siu (2001) described the pressure from the public was among the reasons the Royal parks and squares opened to all people in London apart from the need for the fresh air that good for the health was another reason behind the opening of the Royal parks to public (Giouard, 1990).

The opening of the Royal parks and other private squares in London obviously transformed the importance as well as enhancing the characteristic of the public space. The place that only can be accessed by the upper class citizen and urban decoration for others had become a democratic place with open access to the public and people are unrestricted to involve for meeting, chatting and trading business (Siu, 2001).

New York Plazas and Parks Most of the cities in the United States were influenced by the medieval form of the European cities only to realized the form could not managed to meet the demanding needs of the modern era’s public space. The need of open and public space introduced the “City Park� that consists of parks and playgrounds in 19th

19

century.

Designed by Frederick Law Olmstead, Central Park in New York was among the successful city park in the United States (Goldfield, 2007). The city parks especially Central Park New York generated the valuable asset of public space in urban design. The parks are open for social, recreational and commercial interactions that produce an active and pleasant public life to all people in the city.

The plaza movement in New York occurred during late 1960’s when the city council started to give incentive to developers that managed to provide plazas into their development as New York was filled with a big number of skyscrapers (Whyte, 2007). In 1972, New York became a city with the most expensive open space as each new building came with a new open space or plaza. Whyte (2007) described that the main users for the plaza were usually office workers that worked at nearby buildings where they used the plaza as a place to sit during lunch, catching some sunlight or taking a short break from their work environment.

Moreover, some of the plazas can function as different nodes depending on the seasons where it can be transformed into large outdoor cafĂŠ in the summer or ice rink during the winter. It can be said that the plaza changed its role to be a well-known public spaces in New York as well as to the whole wide world although it was only policy implementation years ago.

20

Chapter 3

Continuation V1 V2 and Introduction to V3

21

Chapter 3 Alterations in Scale (Volume 1) The first volume Alterations in Scale backs Mehaffy et al (2010) to build a case for the ‘emergent neighborhood model’ in urban planning development. Based on Porta et al (2014), the research established a theoretical foundation based on ‘400 meter scale’ rule inside the physical urban built form.

Alterations in Scale also discovered the specific and consistent balance between vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the world cities with different characteristic culturally and geographically. The main outcome for the research was the balance changed concurrently with the development changes of monarchies and histories in Professional Urban Design Theory where Baird et al (2010) explained and referred as “the models and conceptual formations that structured the gradual codification of architectural and urban design as professional disciplines between the end of 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century”.

The analysis of the research of 400 meter radius principle was first initiated by Mehaffy et al (2010) to measure a potential alteration in the contemporary street networks’ scale. According to Appleyard (1981), a patchwork of neighborhoods that hold by main streets that interconnected at the range of 400 meter is the main indicator to define urban form specifically at the early of 20th century. This matter caused the decreasing movement of the pedestrian (Port et al, 2014) resulting by the huge usage of vehicles in new urban design pattern (Mehaffy et al, 2010).

Based on 100 case studies and grouped in four different types of cities which are Historical, Garden, Radiant, New Urbanism and Informal Settlement, Alterations in Scale studied the length of the main street and the conjunctions between the streets. Baird et al (2010) gathered all the case studies into certain theoretical categories that comprise of different historic, economic, social and geographical aspects and the categories are listed as below; 1.

Case studies originating in a pre-professional theory of urban design era, 2.

Case studies originating in the professional theory of urban design era and 3.

Case studies originating in the professional theory of urban design era with no relation to profes-

sional design theory The research discovered ‘the emergence and evolution of an urban scale over the course of human history’ (Baird et al, 2010), where the urban development of a city is relying on its flexibility, permeability and mobility.

Due to the 400 meter radius area and condensed urban structure, historic urban built form has the most permeability level for pedestrians and vehicles with lower speed. Case studies or cities in historic urban built form are proven to have higher adaptability and at the same time enhance the settlement’s sustainability 22

(Baird et al, 2010). Historic cities that emerged 100 years before the industrial revolution and still existed nowadays can be mentioned as a sustainable city.

Continuing Alterations in Scale (Volume 2) The second volume Continuing Alterations in Scale tried to profound examine the related physical characteristics within 400 meter radius scale assigned in the first volume book. The research of the walkability from the first research focused on the relationship between urban developments with the surrounding that considered pedestrian friendly (Abdullah et al, 2013).

Research showed that the 400 meter radius rules were not being implemented by most of the early cities’ main street from Historical to Radiant cities but the distance between main streets in New Urbanism cities was mostly doubled. The degree of walkability is studied by using the same 400 meter measurement in almost the same case studies except for informal settlement in the research. Findings showed the similar result to the first book that each city without 400 meter rule mostly experienced a low walkability level.

Similar to the first volume, the research showed a consistent result upon each category of case studies.

Historic Cities held the highest compliance to most of the research analysis which covered number of proportion of built front, number of blocks per study area, street connectivity and amount of coverage area.

Thus, this result made Historic Cities as absolutely pedestrian friendly and high permeability (Abdullah et al, 2013).

Two categories of case studies which were Radiant Cities and Garden Cities recorded the lowest score for those analyses. According to Abdullah et al (2013) this happened following the changes and the advancement of modernism in urban design as designer and urban planner tried to design the new urban fabric based on their own vision and idea that focused more to the automobile rather than pedestrians.

The research also found out that case studies in New Urbanism Cities recorded a low walkability level compared to Historic Cities but scored a higher result from Garden Cities and Radiant Cities. The result explained New Urbanism Cities’ goal to imitate Historic Cities to produce a permeable, well connect settlement by creating a high density city that can be more reachable between places by walking and to stop the urban sprawl (Abdullah et al, 2013).

23

Assessing Public Spaces (Volume 3) This research attempted to answer Porta et al (2014) call to provide more precise evidence and analysis based on the same study approach and methodology of the selected built environment. Our research, Assessing Public Spaces, relates strongly with two book explained above. This research tries to identify the percentage covered by the public space, its ideal ratio and its usage to its surrounding around the city based on the now-established 400 meter radius principle set from the first book, Alterations in Scale.

This research also attempts to continue the discussion about the streets and walkability from the second volume book and how it crucially relates to public space. Research found out that the street, is not just about a medium to transport but importantly about civic and social communication for the people. Benfield (2013) in his journal, Streets Can Be Public Too, stated that a much greater quality of the urban commons such as greenery, public facilities, plazas, squares and streets have to be provided for people nowadays to enhance the city living as well as to achieve the urban walkable culture.

Benfield (2013) also added that streets are the most visible for urban commons but the main usage of streets for vehicle mobility effectiveness should not defining the main function for all streets especially in urban or suburban settlement. Dover (2013) in his essay for Charter of the New Urbanism, 2nd Edition said pedestrians have to be able to feel comfortable, safe and find that public space, streets and squares are interesting to them. Well-designed streets and squares can be a place for entertainment, social and commercial activities and also boosting walkability and making neighborhood alive.

Assessing Public Spaces investigates the pattern of relationship between the relative quantity of public spaces and the history of the urban development. This research aimed to find out the how public spaces changes trough history. In addition to that, using the Krier’s (2009) theory on determining the relative quantity of public spaces of selected case studies, we can basically determine how different cities have different optimum level of public spaces.

Research Goals This research objective is to document collections of relative quantity of public space based on the 400 meter radius from a selection of case studies. By calculating the percentage of each public space from the case studies, we will sort which category they fall into using the Krier’s (2009) theory on public spaces. Our hypothesis is that there will be a clear relationship between the relative quantity of public spaces of each cities and the history of the urban development.

With the outcome, our aimed is to understand the pattern or public spaces throughout the urban develop-

24

ment and eventually find out the trend in relation with both of the research books which are the ‘Alterations in Scale’ (Volume 1) and “Continuing Alterations in Scale’ (Volume 2).

Methodology This research was done by two authors, which are the students of Urban Design Studio and conducted during 3 months Masters programme in 2015. The methodology for this research is being outlined to avoid any haziness in preparing, collecting and documenting the research outcomes.

The methodology for this research is basically straightforward. This research is a morphological assessment of urban built contexts – in which we make a compilation of relative quantity of public spaces in percentage, from a selection of case studies. This research, as being explained at the abstract is a continuation and highlighting the great relation to the two previous research and being conducted especially using the 400 meter radius rule set in the first book, ‘Alterations in Scale’ so that methodological aspects in terms of ideological and theoretical is firm and consistent.

There are certain factors on why each case study is being selected. In the first volume book, urban developments that are being well researched and documented from any architectural or urban planning resources are carefully chosen to be analyzed (Baird et al, 2010). Other than that, based on Porta et al (2014), another factor that is important for the selection of the case studies is that every case study must also universally well-known for each urban built form that it represented. Being said that, this process of selecting case studies has been done at the first volume book, Alterations in Scale (Baird et al, 2010). Thus, based on case studies structured below, this research, ‘Assessing Public Spaces’ is using the same case studies based on the ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’ book.

Similar to Porta et al (2014), this research is conducted by using Google Earth, nowadays technological innovation that maps the whole part of the world especially a set of case studies selected for this research by combining all images gained from above ground images, satellite photos and GIS (geographic information system). The case studies are identified based on areas that consist of structure and idea of built form that exemplify each development of urban planning, happened and placed concurrently with the development of the era like previous volume of book, Continuing Alterations in Scale (Porta et al, 2015). Hence, the case studies are categorized in four different cities which are; 1. Historic Cities, Based on Alterations in Scale, Historic Cities referred to the cities that being developed without the automobile factor and put pedestrians as the main priority. Cities categorized as historic are obviously different to each other throughout the history development in terms of political, economic, social and environmental

25

aspects. Nevertheless, according to Jacobs (1961), the cities shared characteristic that endorsed the same self-organization to exemplify the cities’ ‘organized complexity’.

Research from the public space history found out that many of daily activities or ceremonies happened at the public space hence it formed as a square for the place. Urban development during historical era also made public space a place for a democratic space, commercial purpose, community space and informal meeting place for people while streets and paths were where more communal and active but less controlled places for public took place.

2. Garden Cities, Case studies in Garden Cities developed and designed based on ‘Garden City Movement’ where the idea behind this approach was to introduce a country-side living in an urban area. Porta et al (2014) stated that Ebenezer Howard is the person that introduced new design principles to solve overcrowding and pollution problems occurred at the city during industrialization era.

Garden City Movement emphasized the land use zoning for population redistribution, introduced more number of open spaces and parks and better connectivity by implementation of modern transport systems.

According to Goodall (1987), the movement imagined to assemble urban areas around a bigger and main city. However, Hall (2002) explained that Howard’s design principles were implemented with different mechanisms at different places and circumstances, causing a low density development area with a lot of vacant and isolated lands.

3. Radiant Cities and, Radiant Cities referred to the cities shaped by the design principles of Le Corbusier, a famous architect and planner. Although there are not many cities implemented the full vision of Le Corbusier’s design principles of urban form, this research compiled some case studies that used particular principle into the cities’ development.

Le Corbusier’s principle was to rearrange the neighborhood vertically by using the new techniques and technologies of building construction so that a sustainable vertical city with lots of open space for public around it can be developed. Each neighborhood is linked by huge elevated highways, replacing the conventional main streets to enhance the efficiency form a place to another, abandoning the balance between built form and the advancement technology of transportation (Porta et al, 2014). This separation left many waste lands to the most cities that implement the idea.

26

4. New Urbanism.

New Urbanism comprises of cities designed by a collective of fresh, creative designers and urban planners that set up new principles for advance urban development with the aim create a well functional city and to prevent further urban built failure and urban sprawling like previous movements.

Baird et al (2010) stated that the main practice of this movement is to maintain high density urban development in the city while implementing a strict control to and prioritize the pedestrians into its design. Cities should be highly designed, greater walkability level, have lots of mixed use development as well as have livable street frontages when implementing these principles. Nonetheless, this movement exposed to a main disadvantage, same like Garden City Movement where often this new urbanism being assumed to be successfully implemented anywhere if the principles altered by designers and planners.

First of all, the area of each of the case studies was calculated in the 400m radius rule. Then, the relative quantity public spaces area will be calculated and turn into percentage. By using Krier’s (2009) theory on the relative quantity of public spaces, each case study will be sort into four categories which are too little (15%-20%), optimum (25%-35%), too much semipublic (50%-60%) and lastly, too much public space (70%-80%).

The public space measurement exercise in this research was done by identifying the area on Google Earth, followed by calculating the area in AutoCAD as well as Vectorworks software. The method used in ‘Alterations in Scale’ was used where the distance of 400 meter radius area and the surrounding catchments determined by Google Earth. The image of 400 meter area then captured from the virtual globe to be an out of the scale, aerial diagram to highlight the layout area of the place as well as being a method to provide a comparison of the work structure (Porta et al, 2014).

The comparison of the work structure then prepared based on Jenkins (2008), where the research used the figure ground plans or Nolli plans as drawing type, at the same time being another diagram so that the urban aspects such as private, semi private and public spaces can be defined clearly.

Finally the results of the data will be analyzed and used for our conclusion.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Methodology This research regrettably was done by only two people in such a short period of time for the Masters programme thus the researcher had to cut the amount of each category of the cities that should be analyzed.

27

The limited access and information from the Google Earth also among the factors that contributed to the amended amount of the case studies where some particular urban aspects related to the public space such as new landmarks and nodes are not being able to be justified accurately.

Similar to Abdullah et al (2013) in the second volume book, Continuing Alterations in Scale, the limitation of the Google Earth usage was the reason informal settlement which was one of the cities documented at the first book, Alterations in Scale, excluded again in this research. Based on Baird et al (2010), most of the informal settlement were the area that consist of limited automobiles access to reach the neighborhood, thus making the areas pedestrian friendly. However, there is no further investigation and analysis about this matter which also means there is no indicator to define the public space in such area resulting from the limitation of the resources.

Apart from that, this research’s methodology followed quite the same, simple and straightforward as to the previous two volume of the research. The method to measure the public space for the case studies can be done with the accessible analyzing and documenting application mentioned above. This research also is the continuation work that used the same sample or case studies, making the whole research more accurate and precise. Plus, the data collected in this research explained the specific percentage that should be covered by public space within the 400 meter radius area so that the quality of the urban development of the area can be improved.

There are certain things that can be improved to get a better documented analysis for the overall research in the future. Using the same methodology, this research certainly will be continued where public space in all the case studies form the previous research volume is documented. The advancement of the Google Streetview hopefully can be expanded to more rural areas especially in the informal settlement as well as other part of the world so that information about urban design and planning can be compiled and accessible for public usage.

28

Chapter 4 Case studies

29

List of case studies HISTORIC CITIES

GARDEN CITIES

RADIANT CITIES

Verona, Italy Piacenza, Italy Pavia, Italy Lucca, Italy Bologna, Italy Bremen, Germany Nuremberg, Germany Lubeck, Germany Verdun, France Vienna, Austria Palmanova, Italy Freudenstadt, Germany Ragusa, Italy Neuf Birsach, France Merchant City, Glasgow, Scotland Karlsruhe, Germany Calcutta, India Manchester, Uk Paris, France Barcelona, Spain Milan, Italy Chicago, Usa Boston, Usa Stockholm, Sweden

East Kilbride, Uk Letchworth, Uk Riverside, Usa Greenbelt, Usa Glenrothes, Uk Hilversum, Holland Vallingby, Sweden Farsta, Stockholm Tapiola, Finland Tama, Tokyo, Japan Navi Mumbai, India

Regent Park, Toronto, Canada Cabrini Green, Chicago Stuyvesant Town, New York, Usa Akademgorodok, Russia Pendrecht, Rotterdam, Holland Brasilia, F.d. Brasil The Grand Ensemble Of Sarcelles, Paris, France Tsukuba Science City, Japan Le Mirail, Toulouse, France Barbican Estate, London, Uk Co-Op City, New York, Usa Drumul Tarebel, Bucharest, Romania Marzahn, Berlin, Germany La Grande Borne, Grigny, France

NEW URBANISM Kentlands, Gathiersburg, Usa Poundbury, Uk Orenco Station, Portland, Usa

30

Historic Cities

31

Verona, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 154,072.67 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 30.65% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

32

x 100%

Piacenza, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 78,931.58 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 15.70% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

33

x 100%

Pavia, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 183,900.39 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 36.59% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

34

x 100%

Lucca, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 235,381.90 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 46.83% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

35

x 100%

Bologna, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 104,594.36 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 20.81% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

36

x 100%

Bremen, Germany 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 230,722.92 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 45.90% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

37

x 100%

Nuremberg, Germany 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 295,990.04 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 58.89% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

38

x 100%

Lubeck, Germany 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 72,397.41 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 14.40% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

39

x 100%

Verdun, France 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 72,397.41 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 14.40% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

40

x 100%

Vienna, Austria 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 131,567.08 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 26.17% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

41

x 100%

Palmanova, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 273,648.99 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 54.44% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

42

x 100%

Freudenstadt, Germany 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 216,185.21 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 43.01% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

43

x 100%

Ragusa, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 118,291.30 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 23.53% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

44

x 100%

Neuf Birsach, Germany 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 394,413.07 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 78.47% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

45

x 100%

Merchant City, Glasgow, Scotland 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 231,655.05 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 46.09% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

46

x 100%

Karlsruhe, Germany 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 187,865.06 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 37.37% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

47

x 100%

Calcutta, India 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 139,948.67 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 27.84% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

48

x 100%

Manchester, UK 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 98,236.58 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 19.54% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

49

x 100%

Paris, France 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 217,357.92 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 43.24% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

50

x 100%

Barcelona, Spain 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 156,005.21 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 31.04% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

51

x 100%

Milan, Italy 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 213,407.59 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 42.46% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

52

x 100%

Chicago, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 154,381.46 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 30.71% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

53

x 100%

Boston, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 223,364.27 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 44.44% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

54

x 100%

Stockholm, Sweden 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 229,173.70 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 45.59% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

55

x 100%

56

Garden Cities

57

East Kilbride, UK 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 400,275.37 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 79.63% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

58

x 100%

Letchworth, UK 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 435,949.13 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 86.73% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

59

x 100%

Riverside, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 291,056.85 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 57.90% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

60

x 100%

Greenbelt , USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 453,286.06 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 90.17% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

61

x 100%

Glenrothes, UK 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 400,434.99 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 79.66% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

62

x 100%

Hilversum, Holland 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 382,285.32 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 76.05% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

63

x 100%

Vallingby, Sweden 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 377,384.97 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 75.08% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

64

x 100%

Farsta, Stockholm 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 424,645.67 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 84.48% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

65

x 100%

Tapiola, Finland 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 422,372.25 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 84.03% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

66

x 100%

Tama, Tokyo, Japan 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 82,064.09 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 16.33% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

67

x 100%

Navi Mumbai, India 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 436,578.76 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 86.85% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

68

x 100%

Radiant Cities

69

Regent Park, Toronto 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 240,487.01 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 47.84% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

70

x 100%

Cabrini Green, Chicago, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 392,497.96 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 78.08% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

71

x 100%

Stuyvesant Town, New York City, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 346,621.64 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 68.96% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

72

x 100%

Akademgorodok, Novosibirsk, Russia 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 423,007.16 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 84.15% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

73

x 100%

Pendrecht, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 373,448.28 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 74.30% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

74

x 100%

Brasilia, F. D, Brazil 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 390,548.34 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 77.70% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

75

x 100%

The Grand Ensemble of Sarcelles, Paris, France 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 422,961.32 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 84.15% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

76

x 100%

Tsukuba Science CIty, Japan 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 417,271.51 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 83.01% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

77

x 100%

Le Miral, Toulouse, France 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 429,451.99 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 85.44% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

78

x 100%

Barbican Estate, London, UK 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 148,999.60 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 29.64% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

79

x 100%

Co-op City, New York, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 350,947.61 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 69.82% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

80

x 100%

Drumul Taberel, Bucharest, Romania 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 396,483.27 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 78.88% 0

0

200m

100 200m

400m

81

x 100%

Marzahn, Berlin, Germany 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 407,547.90 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 81.08% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

82

x 100%

La Grande Borne, Grigny, France 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 356,146.46 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 70.85% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

83

x 100%

84

New Urbanism

85

Ketlands, Gathiersburg, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 391,687.18 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 77.92% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

86

x 100%

Poundbury, UK 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 234,600.34 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 46.67% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

87

x 100%

Orenco Station, Portland, USA 400 m radius study area: 502,654.82 m2 Public space area: 389,557.45 m2 Percentage:

Public space area 400 m radius study area

= 77.50% 0

0

200m

100

200m

400m

88

x 100%

Chapter 5

Summary of research

89

Too little public space

15% - 20%

90

LUBECK, GERMANY – 14.40 PIACENZA, ITALY – 15.70 TAMA, TOKYO, JAPAN – 16.33 MANCHESTER, UK – 19.54

BOLOGNA, ITALY – 20.81 RAGUSA, ITALY – 23.53

91

Optimum public space

25% - 35%

92

VIENNA, AUSTRIA – 26.17 CALCUTTA, INDIA – 27.84 BARBICAN ESTATE, LONDON, UK – 29.64

VERONA, ITALY – 30.65 CHICAGO, USA – 30.71 BARCELONA, SPAIN – 31.04 VERDUN, FRANCE – 32.45 PAVIA, ITALY – 36.59 KARLSRUHE, GERMANY – 37.37

MILAN, ITALY – 42.46 FREUDENSTADT, GERMANY – 43.01 PARIS, FRANCE – 43.24

93

Too much semi public space

50% - 60%

94

BOSTON, USA – 44.44 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN – 45.59 BREMEN, GERMANY – 45.90 MERCHANT CITY, GLASGOW – 46.09 POUNDBURY, UK – 46.67 LUCCA, ITALY – 46.83 REGENT PARK, TORONTO, CANADA – 47.84

PALMANOVA, ITALY – 54.44 RIVERSIDE, USA – 57.90 NUREMBERG, GERMANY – 58.89

STUYVESANT TOWN, USA – 68.96 CO-OP CITY, USA – 69.82

95

Too much public space

70% - 80%

96

LA GRANDE BOME, GRIGNY, FRANCE – 70.85 PENDRECHT, ROTTERDAM, HOLLAND – 74.30 HILVERSUM, HOLLAND – 75.05 VALLINGBY, SWEDEN – 75.08 ORENCO STATION, USA – 77.50 BRASILIA, F.D. BRASIL – 77.70 KENTLANDS, GATHIERSBURG, USA – 77.92 CABRINI GREEN, CHICAGO – 78.08 NEUF BIRSACH, FRANCE – 78.47 DRUMUL TAREBEL, BUCHAREST, ROMANIA – 78.88 97

EAST KILBRIDE, UK – 79.63 GLENROTHES, UK – 79.66

MARZAHN, BERLIN – 81.08 TSUKUBA CITY, JAPAN – 83.01 TAPIOLA, FINLAND – 84.03 AKADEMGORODOK, RUSSIA – 84.15 THE GRAND SARCELLES, PARIS, FRANCE – 84.15 FARSTA, STOCKHOLM – 84.48 LE MIRAIL, TOULOUSE – 85.44 LETCHWORTH, UK – 86.73 NAVI MUMBAI, INDIA – 86.85

GREENBELT, USA – 90.17 98

Overall summary of public spaces

99

HILVERSUM, HOLLAND

LA GRANDE BOME, GRIGNY, VALLINGBY, SWEDEN

PENDRECHT, ROTTERDAM,

REGENT PARK, CANADA

BRASILIA, F.D. BRASIL

ORENCO STATION, USA

MERCHANT CITY, GLASGOW

CABRINI GREEN, CHICAGO

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN

NEUF BIRSACH, FRANCE

BREMEN, GERMANY

GLENROTHES, UK

VIENNA, AUSTRIA KARLSRUHE, GERMANY

LETCHWORTH, UK BOSTON, USA

POUNDBURY, UK

CALCUTTA, INDIA

LUCCA, ITALY

BARBICAN ESTATE, UK PAVIA, ITALY

CHICAGO, USA

BOLOGNA, ITALY PIACENZA, ITALY TAMA, JAPAN MANCHESTER, UK LUBECK, GERMANY RAGUSA, ITALY

VERONA, ITALY

MILAN, ITALY

BARCELONA, SPAIN VERDUN, FRANCE

EAST KILBRIDE, UK MARZAHN, BERLIN

FREUDENSTADT, GERMANY

CO-OP CITY, USA

PARIS, FRANCE

TSUKUBA CITY, JAPAN

LE MIRAIL, TOULOUSE

RIVERSIDE, USA

GREENBELT, USA

PALMANOVA, ITALY

AKADEMGORODOK, RUSSIA

STUYVESANT TOWN, USA

NAVI MUMBAI, INDIA

TAPIOLA, FINLAND

FARSTA, STOCKHOLM

NUREMBERG, GERMANY

KENTLANDS, GATHIERSBURG, USA

DRUMUL TAREBEL, BUCHAREST, ROMANIA

THE GRAND SARCELLES, FRANCE 100

Chapter 6

Discussion and Conclusion

101

Discussion and Conclusion Basically what this book; Assessing Public Spaces has done is compilation of, relative quantity of public spaces in different kind of cities based on the 400 metre principle. By determining the percentage of the relative quantity of public spaces of each city within the 400 metre principle, this study has showed different cities have different ideologies in forming public spaces.

Our research goal was to find out the relative quantity of public spaces of each cities and determine which categories of group they fall into using Krier’s (2009) theory of public space. Our hypothesis, in conjunction with the previous research ‘Alterations in Scales’ and ‘Continuing Alterations in Scales’, is whether or not there is a strong relationship between the quantity of public spaces of each cities and the history of the urban development.

The analysis basically has revealed that there is a clear pattern in term of quantity of public spaces through different era of cities. From the analysis, it is revealed that Historical Cities shows the highest score in the optimum group which have 25% to 35% of public spaces compared to other type of cities. Historical cities also shows the highest score in the too little public space group which basically consist of only 15% to 20% of public space. On the other hand, Historic Cities shows the highest score followed by Radiant Cities in the too much semipublic space group which consists of 50% to 60%. Lastly, in the too much public space group which consists of 70% to 80% of public space, Garden Cities are revealed to have the highest score followed by Radiant Cities, then followed by New Urbanism and lastly, Historical Cities.

Although, there are cities from Garden Cities, Radiant Cities and New Urbanism that falls into the optimum group, it is generally, in term of history, the analysis showed that there is an increasing quantity of public spaces further to the newer urban development. However in this case, increasing in public spaces will only lead to false wealth according to Krier, (2009) which basically means ineffective quantity of public spaces.

In term of weaknesses, clearly this research is not really based on exact qualitative measurement of public spaces, which obviously would require much time and resources. However, in term of strength, we do believe that this research can help in term of common sense for the planners or architects to be aware relatively on how our urban development through out history has actually shaped the public spaces. Therefore, we believe there is a potential to improve this research by using the same structure by increasing the amount of cities and possibly also by using newer cities.

102

Conclusion in relation with Alterations in Scale (Volume 1) and Continuing Alterations in Scale (Volume 2) Clearly ‘Alterations in Scale’ and ‘Continuing Alterations in Scale’ has revealed that there are a relative relation between the history of the urban development and the levels of human-scaled framework as well as the level of walkability. Both of the books have revealed that there were clear break of the human-scaled framework, which decreased towards a newer urban development.

However this research is trying to find out which cities used a better quantity of public spaces rather than which has decreased or increased.w Yet of all case studies, more Historical Cities shows the most optimum quantity of public space compared to Garden Cities, Radiant Cities and New Urbanism.

Similar with the Assessment of Public Space, there seems to be a clear decrease in term of effectiveness of public spaces in the newer urban development. Newer urban development or the modernist cities seems to have at least doubled in term of urban framework compared to from the Historical period (Porta et al, 2014). Since the levels of walkability also decreased in the modernist cities, it is easy to understand that the the large scale of the cities has shows ineffective usage of public spaces because of the poor accessibility for the pedestrians.

Therefore by understanding all of the three volume, it can be concluded that much of the historical cities has an optimum level of public spaces, which relate with good walkability as well as with better proportion of urban framework in term of human scale compared to the newer urban development.

Lastly, we wish that this research can encouraged people to be guided in planning cities especially when planning for public space. By understanding the concept of human scale, this study try to illustrate an ideal practical approach in relation with urban planning.

Public spaces are importance as concluded by Porta (1999), regardless of the race, age or status the human being, human being naturally like to have the ability to socialise in public space. He also added that when the urban setting is friendly, it will eventually lead to crowded streets, sidewalks and city-squares because human enjoy being together (Porta, 1999).

If organised well, public space will offers social meeting for the citizen in which it can help the people feel delightful from daily harsh days which results in better social relationship between the citizen (Amin, 2008).

The ideology of putting places in their local dimension is important in order for the human to be developed together with the wealth and without clashing with the local dimension which eventually will resulted in in-

103

finite possibilities within the local context (Porta, 1999).

Our opinion believe that supposed, design of the cities should not overwhelm the people, rather it should help the people and as well as the environment. As stated by Krier’s (2009), Historical cities and architecture, are basically designed based on the people, and simply because it was designed for the ideas of practicality.

104

Bibliography Abdullah, S., Chen, S., Osman, O., & Stephen, S. (2013). Continuing ‘Alterations in Scale’: An exploration of walkability in physical urban frameworks from antiquity to the era of professional urban design theory. Masters dissertation: University of Strathclyde.

Adkins, L., & Adkins, R. (1994). Handbook to life in ancient Rome. New York, NY: Facts on File.

Amin, A. (2008). Collective culture and urban public space. City, 12(1), 5-24. doi:10.1080/13604810801933495 Appleyard, D. (1981). Liveable streets.

Arefi, M., & Meyers, W. (2003). What is public about public space: The case of Visakhapatnam, India. Cities, 20(5), 331-339. doi:10.1016/s0264-2751(03)00050-7 Baidu,. (2009). Shijing. Baike.baidu.com. Retrieved from http://baike.baidu.com/view/849797.htm Baird, D., Feeley, M., Russell, P., & Wong, K. (2010). Alterations in Scale: A Cartography of Urban Structure.

Masters dissertation: University of Strathclyde.

Benfield, K. (2013). Streets Can Be Public Spaces Too. Citylab. Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/design/2013/07/streets-can-be-public-spaces-too/6235/ Boardman, J., Griffin, J., & Murray, O. (2001). The Oxford history of the Roman world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braza, M. (2003). Parks, Community Gardens and Open Space in Urban Neighbourhoods.

Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Carmona, M. (2003). Public places, urban spaces. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Carmona, M., Magalhães, C., & Hammond, L. (2008). Public space. London: Routledge.

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., & Stone, A. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dover, V. (2013). Charter of the new urbanism (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Duany, A., & Platter-Zyberck, E. (1991). Towns and Town-making Principles. New York: Rizolli Pub. Ellin, N. (1996). Postmodern urbanism. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

Elsheshtawy, Y. (2014). Searching for Nasser Square: An urban center in the heart of Dubai. City, 18(6), 746-759. do i:10.1080/13604813.2014.962890 Erkip, F. (1997). The distribution of urban public services: the case of parks and recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14(6), 353-361.

Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings. Washington, DC: Island Press.

105

Girouard, M. (1985). Cities & people. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Girouard, M. (1990). The English town. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Golany, G. (2001). Urban design ethics in ancient China. Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press.

Goldfield, D. (2007). Encyclopedia of American urban history. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Goodall, B. (1987). The Penguin dictionary of human geography. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Goodmann, W. (1968). Principles and Practice of Urban Planning. Washington: International City Manager Association.

Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Helling, A. (1998). Changing intra-metropolitan accessibility in the U.S.: Evidence from Atlanta. Progress In Planning, 49(2), iii-107. doi:10.1016/s0305-9006(97)00032-9 Jacobs, J. (1993). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Modern Library.

Jenkins, E. (2008). To scale. Abingdon, Oxon, England: Routledge.

Krier, L. (2009). The architecture of community. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lamit, H. (2004). Redefining landmarks. Jurnal Alam Bina, 6(1), 66-76.

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Madanipour, A. (1992). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a Socio-Spatial Process.. West Sussex: Wiley.

Mehaffy, M., Porta, S., Rofè, Y., & Salingaros, N. (2010). Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets: The ‘emergent neighborhoods’ model. Urban Design International, 15(1), 22-46. doi:10.1057/udi.2009.26 Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformatic and its prospects. London: Secker & Warburg.

Nasar, J. (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Oldenburg, R. (1999). Celebrating the third place. New York: Marlowe & Co. Pasaogullari, N., & Doratli, N. (2004). Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities, 21(3), 225-232. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2004.03.003 Pasaogullari, N., & Doratli, N. (2004). Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities, 21(3), 225-232. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2004.03.003 Porta, S. (1999). The community and public spaces: ecological thinking, mobility and social life in the open spaces of the city of the future. Futures, 31(5), 437-456. doi:10.1016/s0016-3287(99)00004-x Porta, S., Romice, O., Abdullah, S., Chen, S., Osman, O., & Stephen, S. (2015). Continuing ‘Alterations in Scale’ : 106

An exploration of walkability in physical urban frameworks from antiquity to the era of professional urban design theory.

Urban Studies, 1-15.

Porta, S., Romice, O., Maxwell, J., Russell, P., & Baird, D. (2014). Alterations in scale: Patterns of change in main street networks across time and space. Urban Studies, 51(16), 3383-3400. doi:10.1177/0042098013519833 Rogers, W. (2003). Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-Spatial Process. West Sussex: Wiley.

Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man. New York: Knopf.

Talen, E. (2003). Measuring the public realm: a preliminary assessment of the link between public space and sense of community. Journal Of Architectural And Planning Research, 17(4), 344-359.

Whyte, W. (2000). How to Turn a Place Around: Projects for Public Space Inc. Whyte, W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

Whyte, W. (1988). City. New York: Doubleday.

Xing, N., & Siu, K. (2010). Historic definitions of public space: Inspiration for high quality public spac. International Journal Of The Humanities, 7(11), 39-56.

List of figures Figure 1: Relative quantity of public space, Krier (2009) https://placeshakers.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/krier-public-to-private-ratios.jpg All Images of maps sourced from: Google Map (2015) https://www.google.co.uk/maps (Accessed on August 2015) Google Earth (2015) https://earth.google.co.uk/ (Accessed on August 2015)

107

Work Distribution Muhammad Izzat Bin Zunaidi - Introduction - Chapter 2: History of public spaces - Chapter 3: Continuation V1 V2 and Introduction to V3

Muhammad Shamim Bin Mohd Padzil - Chapter 1: Public spaces - Chapter 5: Summary of research - Chapter 6: Discussion and conclusion

Together - Acknowledgement - Abstract - Chapter 4: Case studies - Bibliography

108