This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]

On: 13 February 2015, At: 20:00

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Two perspectives on public spaces

a

Jan Gehl & Anne Matan

Gehl ArchitectsUrban Quality Consultants , 2009 Jan Gehl, Copenhagen, Denmark Email:
b

Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute , 2009 Anne Matan, Perth,
Australia E-mail:
Published online: 09 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Jan Gehl & Anne Matan (2009) Two perspectives on public spaces, Building Research & Information, 37:1,
106-109, DOI: 10.1080/09613210802519293
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210802519293

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2009) 37(1), 106 109

Two perspectives on public spaces

Jan Gehl and Anne Matan

Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New Yorks Public Spaces
Kristine F. Miller
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 20:00 13 February 2015

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, US, 2007; ISBN 978 0816649105

Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places

Henry Shaftoe
Earthscan, London, UK, 2008; ISBN 978 1844073887

There has been much debate about definitions of public

space whether it is public or private, inside or
outside, restrictive or free, democratic and inclusive,
or otherwise. The everyday use of public space
has been changing from necessary uses to optional,
recreational uses. This changing role increases the
need for appropriate, well-designed places in which
people choose to spend time, and that provide a
place for people to relax, socialize and be part of
urban life.
This challenge and debate about present-day public
space and public life is clearly illustrated through two

books concerned with public space. Designs on the

Public (2007) by Kristine Miller is concerned with definitions of public spaces and spheres, and expanding the
scope of the discourse on these spaces. Designs on the
Public discusses, through six case studies, pivotal
moments in New York Citys public spaces, three of
which are interior privately owned public spaces.
Miller approaches the discussion with a unique
perspective, combining landscape architecture and
sociology, seeking to show how the politics and
the design of spaces are intertwined. Convivial
Urban Spaces (2008) by Henry Shaftoe is concerned
with providing appropriate urban public spaces and

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ISSN 1466-4321 online
http: www.tandf.co.uk journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210802519293

Review

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 20:00 13 February 2015

emphasizes the design and use of current public spaces.

Shaftoes discussion of convivial space characteristics
and considerations is complemented by carefully illustrated examples, from Europe and elsewhere, showing
not only the design, but also the psychology of the
spaces.
The definitions used by the authors have considerable
differences and cause one to question whether what
one author considers public space would be considered
so by the other author. This difference could be caused
by the authors approach, academic traditions or could
be a question of where you draw the line is it inside,
outside, public, private, the legal definition, or the
feeling or perception of the space? The approaches
taken by the authors differ considerably with Shaftoe,
through Convivial Urban Spaces, providing practical
place-making insight about different facets of public
spaces which would impact on their use, and with
Miller, through Designs on the Public, approaching
the subject not only from an aesthetic perspective,
but also from a social justice perspective. While the
authors works are firmly embedded in their different
academic traditions Miller within Landscape Architecture and Humanities and Shaftoe within Urban
Planning, Architecture and Urban Design the works
are united through their multidisciplinary approach to
examining the perceptions of places. Both authors
reference environmental psychology and sociology. In
addition, the authors are united through their advocacy
for the creation of democratic, inclusive public spaces.
Millers Designs on the Public is concerned with how
the current definition and perception of public space
within the design fields is as publicly owned, open,
democratic and accessible spaces, and how this definition does not necessarily have a basis in reality. She
defines public space as a kind of hybrid of physical
spaces and public spheres and bases her definition on
the assumption that physical space is important to
democratic public life (p. xvi). Her primary goal is to
widen the public space discourse to include the history
and politics of spaces. The author follows feminist
political thinker Nancy Frasers idea that there is no
public, rather there are multiple publics and therefore
multiple public spheres, referencing Fraser (1992).
The public spaces examined in Designs on the Public
include three exterior places (the steps of City Hall,
Times Square, and Federal Plaza) and three interior privately owned public spaces (the Atrium at Trump
Tower, the former IBM Atrium, and Sony Plaza). Each
chapter is devoted to one of these spaces and discusses
a pivotal and controversial moment in the places
history, creation or design. Miller states that the:
Stories [of the places] show that public space is
not a concrete reality but rather a tenuous condition. What we believe are its essential and

enduring qualities openness and accessibility,

public ownership, and ties to democratic life
are at best temporary conditions, and more
often are completely absent.
(p. x)
Miller does not concentrate primarily on the everyday
use of the spaces; rather, she is concerned with how the
perception of the space might impact their use, and
highlights that designers and planners often ignore
the social, political and historic natures of the places
for which they are designing.
Millers primary concern in her discussion is emphasizing the importance of consideration of the historical,
political and social context of places as she states that
the realities of spaces are much more complicated
than a seemingly straightforward term such as public
space would suggest (p. x). Miller questions why
urban designers, urban planners and architects commonsense definitions and ideas about public spaces
are so far from reality (p. xi) concluding that a key
reason is probably a preoccupation with the enduring
physical qualities of public spaces and that:
By focusing on the physical and the concrete, we
often ignore the nonphysical qualities legal,
economic, political, aesthetic all of which
affect a public space. Public spaces do not exist
as static physical entities but are constellations
of ideas, actions, and environments.
(p. xi)
Miller is asking urban designers, urban planners and
architects to broaden their professional biases and
scope of thought on how they think about spaces to
include not just what we can see, but those invisible
processes which impact the space:
Public space, if it is going to play a role in democratic life, must be a hybrid of actual physical
places and active public spheres. To tie public
spaces to public spheres we must investigate the
constantly changing intersections of physical
places, the laws and regulations that govern
them, the people who claim them through their
use or demands, and the government officials to
answer these demands.
(p. xi)
Designs on the Public raises questions about the
ownership of public spaces, and how design and aesthetics shape the use of a space. The author states that:
even if we do acknowledge a role for public space
beyond relaxation and recreation, it is difficult to
trace the ways in which public spaces relate to
immaterial concepts like democracy.
(p. xiv)
107

Review

Miller does not provide her own definition of

democracy, or what would constitute a democratic
space, rather encourages and inspires the questioning
of spaces beyond design.

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 20:00 13 February 2015

In contrast, Shaftoes Convivial Urban Spaces is

primary concerned with the use of spaces. This
books concentration is on small-scale open spaces in
towns (p. 11) and his definition and approach is
based on the desire to enable designers, planners and
politicians to create appropriate and convivial public
places. His chief concern is the use of the spaces, and
what makes a used and appropriate place, and his
work is structured around themes of good places.
Shaftoe asserts that the debate from the 1960s and
1970s, authored by Jane Jacobs, has been:
superseded by narrower technical discussions
about physical sustainability, security, management and aesthetics.
(p. 2)
Therefore, he sets out to determine and explain what
gives places personality and what places ordinary
citizens consider good (p. 4), basing his research
not only on the design of these places but also use
and user behaviour.
Convivial Urban Spaces defines convivial spaces as
open, public locations . . . where citizens can gather,
linger or wander through (p. 4) and states that:
Places where people can be social and festive
are the essence of urbanity. Without such convivial spaces, cities, towns and villages would
be mere accretions of buildings with no deliberate opportunities for casual encounters and positive interactions between friends and strangers.
. . . Without good urban spaces, we are likely to
drift into increasingly privatized and polarized
society, with all its concomitant problems.
(p. 5)
Shaftoe asserts that good urban places are the heart
of democratic living (p. 5) referencing Carr et al.
(1992). His discussion is based on a multidisciplinary
approach to studying the perception and function of
successful urban places, stating that the litmus test of
conviviality successful spaces have people lingering
in them (p. 9) and that for a space to be a real public
space it must be used.
Convivial Urban Spaces affirms that design and architecture alone cannot create vibrant places; rather, it
has a softer influence as design interacts with location,
management, animation and culture. The author
stresses the importance of places growing organically
and advocates a bottom-up, democratic approach
(p. 84). This book endeavours to address urban
108

plannings professional obsession with order (p. 82),

as Shaftoe states that places need to have some unpredictability, be quite small, but also breathe out to the
surrounding areas (p. 73). He pays particular attention
to the non-visual elements of a place as these are often
the elements ignored by designers and include sounds,
feelings, smells, textual qualities, movement (both the
feeling of movement and the actual movement
through a space), and taste. In this regard his work
goes beyond Urban Design and Architectures visual
preoccupation, expanding the knowledge base of
both fields.
The inclusiveness of public spaces is at the heart of both
of the authors discussions; however, Shaftoes concern
centres on providing inclusiveness through appropriate
and safe design, and has a pragmatic approach to the
issue. His emphasis that public spaces must be inclusive, including grey or slack areas where activities
sometimes deemed as undesirable can take place, particularly spaces that are inclusive of teenagers, homeless, street people, etc. These groups, as stressed by
Shaftoe, are all citizens, even if they are not always
treated as such. His text is particularly adamant
about creating appropriate places for teenagers to
hang out and states that:
We should be enabling th[e] healthy socialization
process by ensuring that there are places and
spaces where youngsters can gather and hang
out. . . . Young people gather in what are seen
by adults as inappropriate places because we do
not provide appropriate places. Where are they
meant to gather?
(p. 40)
Rather appropriate spaces that address the vulnerability of this, and other groups, need to be created
including places that provide for different types of
use and that are adaptable for different users.
Miller is also concerned with inclusiveness through
design, however she approaches the issue by including
inclusiveness provided through laws, ownership and
rights to a place. This provides a uniquely American,
or perhaps Western, perspective to the issue, as
would public places such as the interior, multilevel
places provided by Trump Tower or the nested, commercial places of Sony Plaza be considered public
space in another context. Yes, the public has a right
to these places, but as they are not used as such, are
they real public spaces? These types of internal spaces
would more likely be defined as private and closed in
a European context as they are not open to the
public as such. Miller discloses and adds to the end
of public space and social justice debates and legal
battles, both of which are more common in the US
than elsewhere (Davis, 1990; Harvey, 1996, 2000).
Miller provides these examples to show that aesthetics,

Review

which she defines as the sensory experiences of a place,

as well as laws and barriers, can limit the public use of
a place by limiting who feels they can use it. Additionally, these case studies emphasize that used public
spaces are not necessarily democratic, inclusive or
even public.

Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 20:00 13 February 2015

The idea of public spaces as democratic is both

applauded and questioned by both authors and it is
here that the different approaches of the two books
are brought into focus. While Shaftoe uses Carr
et al.s (1992) definition of democratic spaces,
Miller questions their representation of these spaces,
stating that their idea was an abstract concept as
they do not:
attend to the complexity of those relationships
[the relationship of design shaping use, aesthetics
shaping use, democracy, ownership, public participation etc.] in specific places.
(p. xv)
Despite this variance, the authors are united in their
encouragement of democratic public spaces.
Ideas of public space and public realm are often used
interchangeably within public space debates. Millers
book reignites the discussion about the difference
between public space and public realm1 (or sphere),
and how they are not necessarily the same. In
Millers discussion, her case studies are technically
public places, but they do not all represent public
realms. This is the focus of her attention. Shaftoes
examples, by his own definition that a public space
must be used to be a public space, constitute public
realms regardless of their ownership, however due to
the pragmatic nature of his discussion, this is not the
primary issue or even his point, rather he is concerned
with the creation of appropriate public places.
Miller and Shaftoe discuss their points through carefully illustrated case studies. Millers studies are of
six spaces in New York, whereas Shaftoe provides
examples primarily from Europe (although some are
from the US and other places) and his adopted home
town of Bristol, UK. The case studies are central to
Millers discussion, whereas Shaftoes study is organized around themes of convivial spaces (geographical,
physical, psychological, etc.), with the case studies providing illustration of either good or bad examples.

The books are easy to digest, with both authors refreshingly and unapologetically personal, backing up their
concepts with well-researched and documented
studies. Both books offer unique contributions to the
public life conversation, delivering practical, wellexplored and documented observations about public
life and the arenas that support them. The authors
strengthen the voices advocating for public spaces
designed for people, that are healthy, lively, sustainable, safe and democratic public spaces, that provide
a people friendly social realm, able to complement
modern, consumer private-orientated lifestyles.
Jan Gehl
Gehl Architects Urban Quality Consultants
Copenhagen, Denmark
jan@gehl.dk
Anne Matan
Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute
Perth, Australia
anne.matan@postgrad.curtin.edu.au
# 2009 Jan Gehl and Anne Matan

References
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. and Stone, A. (1992) Public
Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future on Los
Angeles, Verso, London.
Fraser, N. (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to
the critique of actually existing democracy, in C. Calhoun
(ed.): Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 109 142.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces of Hope, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Lofland, L. (1998) The Public Realm: Exploring the Citys
Quintessential Social Territory, Aldine De Gruyter,
New York, NY.

Endnote
1
Using Loflands (1998) definition of public realms as not geographically or physically rooted pieces of space. They are social,
not physical territories. Whether any actual physical space contains a realm at all and, if it does, whether that realm is private,
or parochial, or is public is not the consequence of some immutable culturally or legally given designation. . . . It is, rather, the consequence of the proportions and densities of relationship types
present and these proportions and densities are themselves fluid
(p. 11; original emphases).

109