Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
-
Upload
vratislav-slavik -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
1/21
1
Title: Rethinking Urban Design for a changing Public Life.
Patricia Simes Aelbrecht, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL.
Name of author: Patricia Simes Aelbrecht.
Affiliation: Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London.
Contact details: Bartlett School, Wates House, 22 Gordon Street, room 5.13,
London WC1H 0QB England.
E-mail address:[email protected]
Biographical information: Patricia is an independent architect and urban designer and since 2007 a PhD
researcher at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London. Her PhD research is focused on
the role of Urban Design in framing Public Social Life in the contemporary European city. Previously,
Patricia had the opportunity to work as an architect and urban designer at a European scale in cities like:
Rotterdam (2000-03), Barcelona (2003), Lisbon (2004), Ghent and Brussels (2004-2007). As background
education, Patricia holds a diploma in Architecture from the Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade
Tcnica de Lisboa (FAUTL) in Portugal and a Master in International/ Comparative Planning from the
Bartlett School, (UCL) in London. Her work has been presented in several conferences and published in
important Journals of Urban Design.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
2/21
2
Abstract:
The nature and conceptualizations of public space and public life have been always associated with
collective participation and socialization, in other words, with the capacity to live together among strangers.
Today these associations seem to have become challenged and problematic, and often end in questioningwhether public space still matters for our public life? This uncertainty has become somehow evident in the
rising scholarly interest in the last two decades debates on the future of our cities public life and public
spaces. However, most of the research produced has been extremely limited and narrow in its scope and
often taken disparate positions especially between academics and practitioners, above all it has been
dominated by narratives of profound loss and lament. Thus, it has failed to provide an understanding of the
new context of social change we are in at the moment.
It is precisely this search for a new understanding of public life and public space that provides the impetus
for this paper. There is an urge to go beyond these narratives of loss and to support more optimistic views on
the purpose of public space and public life. To achieve that, I argue we need to provide more
microsociological research to study in detail the how and where of our socialization in public. Just then, we
can begin to understand in which conditions public spaces can work well for our public life.
Thus, through a review of literature and supported by fieldwork, I will first develop a research design forreading and mapping our contemporary public life in new designed public spaces, and then discuss its
implications on the urban design practice.
Hence, with this paper I expect not only to bring into a new light the understanding and reading of our
public life and public spaces but also to contribute for the rethinking of the role of Urban Design today
within this context of changing public life.
Keywords: Public life, Public space, Public Space Sociology, Microsociology, Social encounters,
Urban Design.
1. Introduction: In search for an understanding of Public Life and Public Space.
The nature and conceptualizations of public life and public space have been always associated with
collective participation and socialization, in other words, with the capacity to live together among
strangers. Today these associations seem to have become challenged and problematic, and often end
in questioning whether public space still matters for our public life? This uncertainty has become
somehow evident in the rising scholarly interest in the last two decades of debates on the future of
our cities public life and public spaces. While at the same time, it has been followed by an
increasing investment in the architecture and urban design of public spaces. Both seem to be part of
a current belief that making new clean, safe and stylish public spaces will cure our public life.
However, most of the research produced has been extremely limited and narrow in its scope and
often taken disparate positions. As a result, it fails to provide an understanding of the new context
of social change we are in at the moment.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
3/21
3
The existing researches have been limited in two ways. First, it has been mainly macro in its scope,
not giving us more than facts and figures about the uses or the socio-economic conditions of public
spaces (The Urban Age Project, 2007). Secondly, it has often studied the public life or the public
spaces as independent and dissociated realities and thus it has not offered any understanding
whether there is a direct relation between the two debates, or more in particular how far the problem
of public life might be interrelated with a problem of place (Low, 2005).
In addition, it has taken completely disparate positions especially between academics and
practitioners. On one hand, the academic literature takes a markedly negativist point of view
dominated by narratives of profound loss and lament. Two common arguments are regularly
brought to the fore. The first is about the decline of the existing public spaces, as the public spaces
no longer provide the basis for a significant public life (Sorkin, 1992, Flusty, 1997).1
The second is
about the emptying of our public life. Accordingly, public life matters less and takes new forms,
more individual and privatized as we are facing alternative new ways, non-material, electronic, to
socialize and communicate with one another (Sennett, 1977, Graham, 1996, Castells, 2001).
One the other hand, the architectural and urban design practices adopt a more positivist approach,
considering change in contemporary public life not as lamentable but as inevitable, and above all as
offering new challenges and meanings to be work with (Crawford, 1995, Avermaete & Teerds,
2007). It is precisely this positivist approach and search for a new understanding of public life and
public space that provides the impetus of this paper. There is an urge to go beyond these narratives
of loss and to support more optimistic views on the purposes of public life and public space.
Therefore, I propose three research directions.
The first is to study in detail the how and where of our socialization in public. This requires to
provide more micro-sociological research. The second is to connect the public life and public space
debates, in other words, to interrelate the social and spatial conditions of the city. And the third, and
most important of all, is to acknowledge the role of urban design within these debates and to
understand whether urban design can contribute and challenge these changes and problematics. Just
then, we can understand the conditions in which public spaces can work well for our public life.
Thus, through a review of literature and supported by fieldwork, I will first develop a research
design for reading and mapping our contemporary public life. As a case study, new designed public
spaces are selected. The method for researching is based on the observation of peoples social
1 Several authors argue about the increasing tendency of contemporary design trends to make public spaces only for movement, notto be in, and just for observation and passive participation, spaces for consumption in which the right to use means the ability to pay,
and spaces of fear in which prevails a massive surveillance, hard and military architecture.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
4/21
4
encounters in public spaces. Secondly, in order to understand which are the favourable social and
spatial conditions in public spaces that can support our public life, I will discuss the findings of my
research and their possible implications on the urban design practice.
Hence, with this paper I expect not only to bring into a new light the understanding and reading of
our public life and public spaces but also to contribute for the rethinking of the role of Urban
Design today within our changing public life.
2. A research design for reading and mapping our contemporary Public Life in Public Spaces.
In the introduction, I proposed three possible research directions for the present paper. The first
was to study in detail the how and where of our socialization in public. Methodologically, this
requires a more micro-sociological approach, i.e., empirical and behavioral centered, in other
words, to use direct participant-observation to observe public behavior in public spaces. Of course,
this raises immediately one difficulty, which public behavior could be a suitable object of study?
As a starting point, it seems appropriate to focus on the dominant public behavior in the city, the
social encounters among strangers. According to Sennett (1977) and Madanipour (2003), they
constitute the key layer of the public ream to understand social life of the city. Yet, the study of
social encounters poses special problems. First, social encounters are by definition social
interactions among strangers, characterized for being unexpected, unplanned and casual meetings,
for that reason strangers have little or no information about one another except that information
readily accessible as face information. As a result, they involve a great risk, and this is what makes
people very critical in their social encounters, in what to do and in where to go and how to meet.
Second, social encounters are in essence very subjective experiences, so in order to make it
operative to be analysed and observed, they must be considered as a class or type of spatial action,
i.e. as a physical form of behaviour, which can be read through its body language.
Notwithstanding the complexity of this type of behavior, it seems that with the observation of social
encounters in public spaces, we can gain new insights on the behavioral potential of public spaces
and provide a critical understanding and evaluation on how those public spaces work.
The second point is to interrelate the public life and public space debates. This implies to do a study
that can interrelate simultaneously the social and spatial conditions of the city. The question that
emerges is how to bridge these two distinct realities, one that is an abstraction and the other a
concrete physical reality?
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
5/21
5
Here, I propose to interrelate the social and spatial conditions of the city by introducing a third
perspective for analysis: the experiential condition of the user. This provides a three-part structure
social-experiential-spatial to read and map public life and it will require a literature review on the
three theoretical sources to formulate more clear hypothesis on the favourable social, experiential
and spatial conditions for public social life to be observed.
The third point is to acknowledge the role of urban design within the public life and public space
debates. Here we are prompted to ask: which kind of public spaces could we study? New or old
designed public spaces? And from those, what settings or locations are today sociologically more
interesting to be analysed?
Here, I propose to study new designed public spaces, because only the new can enable to isolate
the factors of time and history and to focus solely on their design. At the same time, the new public
spaces are often the most criticized for being too designed, bland, safe, clean, and for not leaving
space for unplanned situations.
In terms of settings or locations to be analysed, it has often been argued that the ones that are
sociologically more interesting are at the scale of public-private interface, because it is at the
transition between public and private that public life is being made (Bobic, 2004). These locations
and their conditions are worthy to be further explored during fieldwork.
In sum, with the three given conditions, it is possible to reformulate more clearly the focus of this
study on the relation between urban design of new public spaces at the scale of public-private
interface and unplanned social encounters among strangers, more in particular on the spatial
mechanics between interpersonal relations or bodies and public spaces.
2.1. The state of research of Public Space Sociology today.
The first question that emerges when making a research design for this study is how to read and
map public life in the city, which is by nature often made of spontaneous and unplanned behaviors
and activities? What sort of activities, behaviors and places better characterize or describe public
social life, and in particular social encounters? And from those, which ones could constitute the
focus of this research?
In this section, I will provide a brief account of the state of research today. This implies to review
the most relevant empirical studies which have studied public life and behavior in public spaces
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
6/21
6
along the three theoretical perspectives - social, experiential and spatial and which share a
common ground on the microsociology, as they look to small effects: actions, interactions and
emphasize empirical knowledge over theoretical conventional determinisms, by using observation
as the primary tool. This is an important task because it will help to formulate more clear hypothesis
on the favourable social, experiential and spatial conditions for reading and mapping public social
life. But first, it is important to give a short historical overview and introduction on the research
area. The public realm behaviour is a research area that still remains today rather unknown and
unexplored. Until recently, most social sciences conventional wisdom was that the public realm was
inhabited and asocial. (Simmel, 1903, Wirth, 1938).2
In addition, there was a tendency of some
scholars to grant the social character of public realm but to think of it as irrelevant and
uninteresting. It was just in the late 1950s that a group of authors came to challenge this social
sciences conventional wisdom. They were Gregory Stone, Jane Jacobs, Ervin Goffman and
William Whyte. Although they were not all concerned with the public realm per se, they were
crucial to recognize the public realm as a social theory and to demonstrate its significance as well.
Among these authors, Goffman and Whyte were the first to immerse into its study although their
focus differed substantially. Goffman was the first to study it in a social-centred perspective with
the focus on the organization of observable, everyday behavior, more in particular with the study of
interaction order, the everyday social interaction among the unacquainted in urban settings. He
demonstrated that what occurs between strangers passing on the street is as social as what occurs in
a conversation between two lovers.3
Later, it was Whyte to make a study but in a spatial-centred
perspective with a focus on the use of public spaces of cities, confirming not only the existence of a
significant public realm social life but also how indispensable are public spaces for the vitality of
the city.4
Since then, there have been very few but significant contributions which have came to reassert once
again the importance of the field of public-space sociology and to broaden its theoretical and
analytical scope. As such, I will discuss the findings of some of these studies while trying to
organize them along the three conditions, although, as we shall see, the borders between the three
conditions are relatively blurry, and often difficult to be separated.
I will start this literature discussion by describing how these authors analysed and described the
social conditions of the public settings, namely the structuring elements of public social
2 Their essential argument was always that public spaces of the city were densely filled with visual and sounds stimulus overload and
as a result our public realm was populated by an asocial human behaviour.3 See books: Behavior in public places (1963) and Relations in Public (1971).4 See books: The social life of small urban spaces (1980) and City: rediscovering the center (1988).
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
7/21
7
interactions, the behavioral potential of public places and the favorable social conditions that can
ease social encounters.5
Goffman was the first to provide a very robust conceptual map to uncover interaction among
strangers in public space, with the classification of the different elements of each and every
occasion of interaction in the most varied public places. His main argument was that to study social
encounters we have to focus on the expressions given off, i.e., the body language, because
strangers have little information about one another, therefore when dealing with each other they rely
more on them than on the expression given or the verbal communication. More in particular, he
added, relations with strangers depend heavily on facial information and expression, dress,
demeanour, which are readily accessible, hence we have to give particular attention to the focused
encounters, the ones that involve facework. Most importantly, however, was the concept of tie-
signs he introduced to mean that social relationships are signalled by various types of ties between
people, therefore they provide the necessary information to know how to conduct while in each
others presence, and hence they are the key to analyse the degree of involvement of social
relations.
Later, Sherry Cavan (1966) provided a more empirical study based on the interaction order to
understand the behavioral potential of a public place, by focusing in one particular type of public
setting, the public drinking establishments, typically expected to be unserious settings or associated
with informal behaviors and set apart from the consequentialities of everyday life. She identified the
variations of use such as the happening of extraordinary events, the expectancy of informality,
non-instrumentality and time-out, to be the key qualities that can change the character of a place
and the definition of behaviours, and thus can ease the contact between strangers.6
In the 1990s, Lofland carried more in-depth research to identify the key favorable conditions that
can produce active public interaction. She identified three conditions to be the most significant: the
presence in the public realm of open persons, more available for an encounter than others, such as
children and elderly people; the existence of open regions or locales as for e.g. thirdplaces,
drinking establishments, in which all the inhabitants are mutually accessible to one another; and the
existence of possibilities for triangulation', which defines a process by which some external
stimulus create opportunities for strangers to talk to each other as though they were not strangers
5To avoid to extend too much the scope of this paper, it was not included a discussion on the forms of social interactions, namely the
users involvement, conducts, and postures which can be read through body language. To know more, see paper: Aelbrecht, P. How
can urban design bring strangers together?, Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp.191-206,2009.6 See book: Cavan, S.,Liquor License: An ethnography of Bar Behavior, Chicago: Aldine, 1966.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
8/21
8
(fore.g.publicart, furniture).7More recently, other authors identified other favourable conditions less obvious but of increasing
importance today that can be created or enacted in special situations of social and spatial
negotiation. Theses are for example: the situations, referred by Bobic (2004), created by the types
of spatial and social interface typologies between private and public domains, such as the boundary
relations between the city block and public space, or the situations, referred by Whyte (1980),
created by the type of management (informal or formal) existing in those settings. Both of these
situations are of great importance to divide as well to connect, keep and regulate the building
domain.
Now, I will turn to the studies that have described the experiential conditions of the public settings.
Because this stream of work is made mainly of pure experiential data i.e., the real users experience,
following the phenomenological tradition, it has often resulted in very subjective and disparate
interpretations. For that reason, here, I will discuss only the studies that tried to relate more directly
environment with experience, and that reflected upon it conceptually in order to provide an
underlying structure for its analysis. One is the geographers perspective, in particular of Tuan
(1977) and Seamon (1979), whose concern was to have a theoretical grasp of the essential
experiences or behaviours that better describe our involvement with the everyday life, which they
resumed into the following three: movement, encounter and rest.
The other is the architects perspective, whose interest was more directed on the spatial elements
that structure this urban experience. One of the most well-known model of the structure of urban
experience was developed by Lynch (1960). Although limited in experiential terms since it dealt
solely with the visual properties, based on peoples perception, it brought valuable findings that
peoples urban perception is composed of five spatial elements: paths, nodes, edges, landmarks and
districts. More recently, Stevens (2001, 2006) came to revaluate and to challenge Lynchs model,
revealing that urban perception is a more encompassing sensorial experience and often involving
non-instrumental behaviors. As a result, he totally reframed those five spatial elements within
different kinds of spatial contexts and elements, for e.g. including new elements such as thresholds
and props.
7 A term introduced by Ray Oldenburg in: TheGreatGoodPlace:Cafes,Coffeeshops,Communitycentres,BeautyParlors,General
stores,Bars,Hangoutsandhowtheygetyouthroughtheday, New York: Paragon House, 1989.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
9/21
9
Finally, to complete this third-part literature review, I will discuss the spatial conditions. For that, I
selected three authors work stands as the basis for the understanding of the favourable spatial
conditions and locations that support public social life.
Christopher Alexander book pattern language (1977) is perhaps the most encompassing
investigation, up to now, of spatial patterns and good design practices of gathering places that can
support the social life in cities. This study resulted in a useful list of social places and hypothesis to
be further explored namely: individually owned shops, street caf, corner grocery, beer hall,
travelers inn, bus stop, food stands, and sleeping in public.
In addition, Gehl (1971) and Whyte (1980) seminal works provided as well a comprehensive study
but of design principles that can enhance outdoor activities namely, they considered the most
important to be: the existence of optional activities (for e.g. more leisure), stationary areas (for e.g.
the maximization of opportunities for sitting), and soft edges, i.e., the fluidity or relationship of
outdoor activities.8
To summarize, it was possible to see that all the studies taken together, in one way or another,
provided valuable insights and hypothesis into the different opportunities offered by the urban
environment for perception, action or interaction. Yet, they presented several limitations. Not only
often they did so by using one singular approach: spatial, social or experiential, but they also just
looked to simple categories of behaviour and general features of design. After all, public
socialization is a much more complex and encompassing behavior. It is a multi-relational and
embodied urban experience, and thus jointly determined by all the three conditions. Hence, to study
it we have to provide a more robust research design, which can interrelate the three conditions,
while at the same time, to offer more detailed empirical descriptions of these conditions. To do that,
this paper will move on to observe, explore and test some of the hypothesis outlined above and
focus on the fieldwork of a detailed case study. Because it is through the study of a concrete case
that we can engage more productively in the debates on public life and public space and that we can
emerge in this complex urban relational web and explore in a particular context all the kinds of
public spaces, locations and conditions that are meaningful to our changing public life.
8
See books: Gehl, J., Life between buildings: using public space, Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 1971 and Whyte, W. H.,Thesociallifeofsmallurbanspaces, Washington D.C: Conservation Foundation, 1980.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
10/21
10
2.2 Introducing the Case Study: The New neighbourhood of Parque das Naes in Lisbon.
Figure 1. Urban situation of Parque das Naes in Lisbon (source: Google Earth, 2009).
For the present study, it was selected as a case study a recently built and already considered
successful new neighbourhood, the Parque das Naes, more known as Parque Expo, in Lisbon,
Portugal. This case study is seen appropriate because it follows not only the previous
considerations, of being a new design urban space with no past, history or time, but also and most
importantly for being praised for many of its achievements, for the quality of design of its public
spaces and buildings and the making of a modern thriving, stylish and safe life style. Hence,
understanding its success can give us new insights about our changing public life and the public
spaces that can make it work.
This neighbourhood has a particular story, it was built out of several challenges which are perhaps
the reasons for its success. First, it was meant to be the site for the event of the World Exposition in
Portugal, the Expo 98, to commemorate the 500 years of Portuguese discoveries. As result, it not
only had to be a self-sustained event so that every building or vacant parcel lot was sold for office
or living space to offset the Expos costs. But also, all its buildings and public spaces had to be
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
11/21
11
designed with an idea of duality between two moments during and after the Expo, this was a lesson
from the failures of previous expos.9
Secondly, it was to be fully built from scratch in a post-
industrial site in the harbour of Lisbon. And third, it was to become permanent residency for up to
25,000 people and one of Lisbons premier business centres, with many multinational corporations
basing their headquarters in its main avenues.
In sum, with the Parque das Naes we have not only witnessed the making of a new centrality in
Lisbon, but also to the biggest urban regeneration and re-invention of Lisbon at the turn of the
twentieth century.10
2.3 The fieldwork: the method and the locations selected for observation.
As the present research only deals with public socialization, the fieldwork observations had to be
limited to the area that confines its public realm territory, which corresponds to the city centre and
where the main public and semi-public spaces, buildings, commerce and services are located (see
fig.2).11
Figure 2. Definition of the area of study (source: map from Parque Expo, SA and scheme from the author).
In terms of urban fabric, this site is structured along four main axis. One is the central axis running
from west to east that connects the most important buildings of Gare do Oriente transportation
hub, which includes the train and metro stations and the bus interface, the Vasco da Gama
9 Its main rationale was to ensure that after the Expo closed, the site would not be left semi-abandoned as had happened with previous
expos, in particular with the Seville Expo 92.10 Today because of its success, its developer, the Parque Expo, SA, is selling its advertising and consultancy services to other cities
around the world.
11 According to Lofland (1998), a precise definition of the public realm is to contrast it to the private realm (private households)and with the parochial realm (neighbourhoods). Yet unlike small towns and villages, cities contain in its public realms also private
and parochial realms.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
12/21
12
shopping centre, the urban park Parque das Naes and the riverfront. Then the other three axis
are all north-south. One axis is the main avenue Av. D. Joao II, a car and business street, another is
the main boulevard with trees Alameda dos Oceanos, a pedestrian street that connects important
cultural buildings such as the multi-uses pavilion Pavilhao Atlantico, the Portuguese pavilion, the
Casino, the Science Pavilion, the acquarium oceanario, and the last is the riverfront cais (see
fig.3). However, the selection of the locations for observation was not made according to the
function or meaning of these places but according to the existing main spatial elements that
structure our experience, as proposed by Lynch and Stevens. This resulted in a total of 24 potential
sites to start the observations while at the same time, it was seen a good strategy to relate more
directly the spaces and spatial properties with social use and to cover a wide range of different types
of spaces (see figs. 3, 4).12
Figure 3. Spatial elements and locations selected for observation (source: map from Parque Expo, SA and scheme from
the author).
12 The list of locations for observation consists of: Edges 1 (of boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), Edges 2 (of riverfront), Edges 3
(of Portuguese pavilion), Node 1 (station atrium), Node 2 (station waiting rooms), Node 3 (bus stops), Path 1 (promenade Rossio dos
olivais), Path 2 (Avenue D. Joao II), Path 3 (boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), Path 4 (riverfront), Prop 1 (public art homen sol),
Prop 2 (pavement calada in promenada Rossio dos Olivais), Prop 3 (Portuguese pavilion), Prop 4 (public art Rizoma), Prop 5
(acquarium (Oceanario), Prop 6 (garden jardim das ondas), Prop 7 (garden jardim Garcia da Orta, Prop 8 (fountains along the
boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), Threshold 1 (metro entrance), Threshold 2 (Vasco da Gama shopping front entrance),Threshold 3 (Vasco da Gama shopping back entrance), Threshold 4 (Pavilion Atlantico), Intersection 1 (Avenue D. Joao II),
Intersection 2 (boulevard Alamedas dos Oceanos).
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
13/21
13
In terms of observation methods, it was used participant-observation, both direct and indirect,
respectively, I as an observer to take notes and map the relevant events and the video camera to
register the evidences of those same events.13
In addition, it was adopted a time-frame that would
not to impose a pre-established pattern of uses consisting of observations of only the hours of more
frequence of people like early mornings when people go to work or evenings when people go home.
Instead, it was spent one day per location, during working days and weekends from 8 am to 8pm
and during a six-month period with the best time-out conditions for observation, namely during
seasons of good weather and holidays. This strategy was meant to allow a good cross comparison of
uses and behaviours and to have a real picture of the making of public life of this neighbourhood.14
13 For an efficient way of recording, the camera was not on constantly, but every 5 min to record 30s, to allow to record per day 72
min, a short version of reality.14 The fieldwork was conducted over a six-month period during the two main conditions of time-out namely when the weather was
good, i.e. warm and sunny, and during national holidays because in these moments there is a bigger number and diversity of people
present in outdoor public spaces and people have more time to linger in public spaces. Hence, it started in December of 2008 with theChristmas holidays and New Years Eve and then followed in 2009 in Easter and in spring, from April, May, and then during the
summer in June, July and August.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
14/21
14
Figure 4. Some of the locations selected for observation from top to lower rows: Paths, Nodes, Edges, Thresholds and
Props (source: from the author).15
2.4. Discussion of the findings: The locations and conditions that facilitate Informal Public
Socialization.
During the six-month fieldwork, a number of important findings were observed. In the present
section, however, I focus only on the findings that are more significant to our reading of public life
and public spaces today, such as the favourable locations and the conditions that attract and enact
social encounters.
The first finding on the favourable locations, offers a rather different perspective on what we
generally think that makes a public space work. It defies the conventional wisdom that peoples
selection of the areas of the built environment for social use is only determined by the spatial
characteristics of the environment and the social structure associated with the place and of those
using it.16
Instead, what was observed was that people often chose places and locations that are not
purposefully designed, or are not socially conventional, and that have as a main feature being
spaces of high social, spatial and experiential negotiation, such as: the thresholds of public
buildings, the props at the entrances, the edges of busy paths, among others. This finding raises
important questions. Why do people choose these locations and not others more purposefullydesigned? What are the special spatial characteristics of these locations? In addition, it also helps to
reformulate what the problem with the new designed public spaces might be. New public spaces
seem to be deliberated designed to avoid people to appropriate, change and congregate. The
evidences are the lack of facilities, amenities and social comfort.
The second finding on the conditions that attract and enact social encounters, questions our
understanding on what constitutes an active informal public social life. It shows that, although the
social conditions seem to be the main attractors that stimulate people to come to public spaces, such
as for example informality or time-out behaviours; in reality, it is the combination of the three
conditions - social, experiential and spatial - that together can exert greater influence on people to
stay during a longer time and can enact more active and unplanned social interactions. For a clear
understanding of what I now discussed, I resumed these findings in the list below of Favourable
15 The images from top to down and from left to right from represent: the Paths (riverfront, promenade Rossio dos olivais,
boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), the Nodes (the station atrium, the main street intersection inAv. D. Joao II, the bus stops); the
boundaries or Edges (the edges of the promenade, the edges of the boulevard , the edges of the portuguese pavilion); the thresholds
(the metro entrance, the shopping centre back entrance and front entrance); the Props (main sculpture homem sol, Portuguese
pavilion, sculpture rizoma).16In other words, people select spaces according to their desired level of involvement or if these places have the right social
conditions in place.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
15/21
15
Conditions that attract and enact Public Socialization, and in the next sections, I will explain some
of them with more detail.
Figure 5. The Favourable Conditions that attract and enact Informal Public Socialization.
Thresholds + Steps + Transition
Figure 6. Threshold of pavilion Atlantico (source: from the author).
In this first case, it was observed that the steps leading to the thresholds of the main public and
semi-public buildings were often chosen for optional and social activities during the breaks or time-
out of the workers and visitors in the area (fig.6).
This spatial arrangement of threshold and steps deserves attention. On the one hand, it has special
social qualities, it provides not only a physical but also a strong experiential transition from private
to public domains, and thus, from tight to loose behaviour. On the other, it has favourable spatial
properties, it offers people enough space and freedom for a variation of uses, to improvise sitting
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
16/21
16
spaces, to rest, to chat with friends or to have lunch. In sum, these spaces are spatial triggers for
mixing up people and for chance encounters.
Thresholds + Props + Triangulation
Figure 7. Thresholds of metro station (left) and Vasco da Gama shopping centre lower entrance (right) (source: from
the author).
In this second case, it was observed the triangulation of several social encounters among strangers,
in particular of smokers, around the ashtrays located at the thresholds of public or semi-public
buildings (fig.7). In all cases, it was noted that two factors were the enactors of these interactions:
first the ashtrays condition as props because of their round or square configuration and second theirlocation at the thresholds right at the middle or adjacent to these busy entrances.
17
Thresholds + Congestion
Figure 8. Thresholds of Vasco da Gama shopping centre lower entrance (source: from the author).
17 The amount of cigarettes left in the ashtrays serve as proves of the highly frequency of longer stays.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
17/21
17
Here it is illustrated another favourable condition at the threshold, a situation of congestion, which
if done in a positive way, can be a facilitator of public socialization. In this case, the workers of the
shopping centre wait for the opening hour (9 am) and are brought together into close contact with
one another (fig.8). The spatial condition that propitiates this situation is the existence of a tight and
narrow entrance.
Nodes: Bus Stops + Time-out
Figure 9. Bus stops in Gare do Oriente station (source: from the author).
Bus stops are important urban nodes and places where people spend great part of their day for their
necessary activities namely to go to work (fig.9). Yet, this condition of urban node is not sufficient
to facilitate interaction, there must be also in place other conditions such as: the availability of time-
out, especially after work, and the maximization of opportunities for optional and stationary
activities (sitting and standing).
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
18/21
18
Nodes: Street Intersections + Negotiation + pauses
Figure 10. Main avenue intersection Av. D. Joao II (source: from the author).
Street crossings constitute also important urban nodes of connection and of high negotiation and
decision. This one has two particular spatial properties (fig.10). One is to give access to the main
entrance of the shopping centre, the second is having several pauses that enable people to have
more moments for standing and therefore for meeting, chatting and mixing while crossing.
As a
result, it is a strong point for chance encounters.
Boundaries or Edges + Busy paths + Triangulation
Figure 11. From left to right, riverfront and arcades of Pavilion of Portugal (source: from the author).
The boundaries or edges of busy paths are often chosen by people to watch the urban scenery or to
watch other people passing by (fig.11). These are spaces of high spatial-social-experiential
triangulation in which the experience of movement triggers other experiences of rest and encounter.
As a result, they become places of high confluence and mixing of strangers.
In sum, all these findings taken together bring strong evidences that informal public socialization
today is no longer dependent on or limited to the provision of the social places or thirdplaces, as
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
19/21
19
cafes, drinking places or theatres. Instead, it is taking place in spaces, locations or conditions that
are the result of less control and order in physical terms and more publicness and less familiarity in
social terms, and thus of the suspension of public order norms.18
In addition, these conditions often
are enacted in special situations of transition, negotiation, contestation, congestion, triangulation,
and preferably, when people are doing stationary and optional activities rather than when in motion
or doing necessary activities (fig.12).
Figure 12. Active and Passive Informal Public Socialization in public spaces (source: from the author).
3. Implications and challenges for the Urban design practice and theory.
To conclude, as I have pointed out in the beginning, the aim of this paper is to emphasize to rethink
the nature and purposes of public life and public space today, and most importantly, to acknowledge
the role of urban design within a different social context. What I do not want to advocate is a new
18With the concept of third places, Oldenburg (1989) was able to identify a set of essential characteristics that make a sociable
place: departure of daily routine, neutrality and levelling, conversation as primary activity, physical low profile, accessibility in time
and location, character defined by regular clientele and playful mood and finally a homely psychological comfort. See book:Oldenburg, R., TheGreatGoodPlace:Cafes,Coffeeshops,Communitycentres,BeautyParlors,Generalstores,Bars,Hangouts
andhowtheygetyouthroughtheday, New York: Paragon House, 1989.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
20/21
20
type of sociable architecture or urban design. Hence, during the development of this research
design, a number of possible outcomes and implications for reading public life in public spaces
were discussed. From these outcomes, we can advent new challenges for the practice and theory of
urban design. The need to rethink and adapt urban design practices to an increasing changing public
life is probably the most important. That is to say, urban design needs to be much more sensitive to
all locations and favourable spatial, experiential and social conditions people make use of and can
provoke positive interactions. It is in those locations and with those elements, that public life is
being made, negotiated and contested.
References:
-Aelbrecht, P., (2009,) How can urban design bring strangers together? , Design Principles and
Practices: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.191-206.
-Alexander C, & al, (1977), A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford
University Press: New York.
-Avermaete, T., Teerds, H., (2007), Architecture positions on the public sphere , The 2007 Delft
lecture series [Dispatch], Places: Vol. 19: No. 2, Article, available at:
http://repositories.cdlib.org/ced/places/vol19/iss2/Avermaete_Teerds_pg36/ (accessed 15
November 15 2008).
-Bobic M., (2004),Betweentheedges,T hoth publishers: The Netherlands.
-Burdett, R., Sudjic, D., (2007), The endless city: the Urban Age project by the London School of
Economics and Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen Society, Phaidon: London.
-Flusty, S., (1997), Building paranoia, Ellin, N. (Ed.) Architecture of Fear, Princeton
Architectural Press: New York, pp. 47-59.
-Graham, S., Marvin S., (1996), Telecommunications and the city: electronic spaces, urban places,
Routledge: New York, London.
-Cavan, S., (1966),Liquor License: An ethnography of Bar Behavior, Aldine: Chicago.
-Crawford, M., (1995), Contesting the Public Realm: Struggles over Public Space in Los Angeles,
Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 49, No.1, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the
Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc, pp. 4-9.
- Castells, M., (2001), the space of flows, Susser, I (Ed.), The Castells reader on cities and social
theory, Blackwell: Oxford.
-
8/2/2019 Patricia_Simoes_Aelbrecht
21/21
-Gehl, J., (1971), Life between buildings: using public space, Danish Architectural Press:
Copenhagen.
-Goffman, E., (1963), Behaviour inpublicplaces:noteson thesocialorganizationofgatherings,
Free Press New: York.
-Latham, A., (2003), Urbanity, Lifestyle and Making Sense of the New Urban Cultural Economy:
Notes from Auckland, New Zealand, Urban Studies, vol. 40, No. 9, pp.1699-1724.
-Lofland, L. H., (1998) The PublicRealm:Exploring the Citys Quintessential Social Territory,
Aldine de Gruyter: New York.
-Low, S. & Smith, N., (2005), Introduction: the imperative of public spaces, Low, Smith (Ed.),
The politics of public space, New York: Routledge, pp: 1-16.
-Lynch K., (1960), TheImageoftheCity, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
-Madanipour, A., (2003), Public and private spaces of the city, Routledge: London.
-Oldenburg, R., (1989), TheGreatGoodPlace:Cafes,Coffeeshops,Communitycentres,Beauty
Parlors,General stores,Bars,Hangoutsandhow theygetyou through theday, Paragon House:
New York.
-Seamon D., (1979), A geography of the lifeworld: movement, rest and encounter, Croom Helm:
London.
-Sennett, R., (1977), TheFallofthePublicMan, Penguin books: London.
-Somer, R., (1974), Tight spaces: hard architecture and how to humanize it, Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
-Sorkin, M., (1992), Variations on a theme park: the new American city and the end of public
space, Hill and Wang: New York.
-Stevens, Q., (2006), The shape of urban experience: a reevaluation of Lynchs five elements,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 33, pp. 803-823.
-Tuan, Y., (1977), Spaceandplace:theperspectiveofexperience, University of Minnesota Press:
Minneapolis.
-Trancik R., (1986), Finding lost space: theoriesof urban design, Van Nostrand Reinhold: New
York.
-Whyte, W. H., (1980), The social life of small urban spaces, Conservation Foundation:
Washington D.C.