Technical Papers
Jul 28, 2020

Publicness of Contemporary Urban Spaces: Comparative Study Between Porto and Newcastle

Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 146, Issue 4

Abstract

Public spaces, one of the key elements of the urban structure, have always accompanied major urban changes, with different levels of success. Recently, new forms of space provision and management have emerged, disrupting spatial structures; redefining social values, needs, and routines; and changing the way traditional public spaces are perceived. Although the last decades brought an extensive study and debate regarding the particularities of public spaces, different disciplines and points of view are rarely combined, justifying the need for a new tool. This paper describes the application of the publicness evaluation model (PEM) to eight case studies in Oporto, Portugal, and Newcastle upon Tyne, England. With the use of four interconnected areas of analysis, this framework attempts to include the particularities of the involvement of different stakeholders in the production of contemporary public space, as well as their concerns and expectations regarding each space, through the creation of a composite publicness score.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the published article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) for their financial support.

References

Banerjee, T. 2001. “The future of public space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 67 (1): 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976352.
Benn, S., and G. Gaus. 1983. “The liberal conception of the public and private.” In Public and private in social life, edited by S. Benn, and G. Gaus, 31–65. London: Croom Helm.
Bentley, I., S. McGlynn, and G. Smith. 1985. Responsive environments: A manual for designers. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Briffault, R. 1999. “A government for our time? Business improvement districts and urban governance.” Columbia Law Rev. 99 (2): 365–467. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123583.
Carmona, M. 2010. “Contemporary public space: Critique and classification, part one: Critique.” J. Urban Des. 15 (1): 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800903435651.
Carmona, M. 2015. “Re-theorising contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new normative.” J. Urbanism 8 (4): 373–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.909518.
Carmona, M., and C. De Magalhães. 2006. “Public space management: Present and potential.” J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 49 (1): 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500373162.
Carmona, M., T. Heath, T. Oc, and S. Tiesdell. 2003. Public places urban spaces – The dimensions of urban design. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Carmona, M., and F. Wunderlich. 2013. Capital spaces. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Carr, S., M. Francis, L. Rivlin, and A. Stone. 1992. Public space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, M. 1992. “The world in a shopping mall.” In Variation on a theme park: The New American city and the end of public space, edited by M. Sorkin, 3–30. New York: Hill & Wang.
Davis, M. 1992. “Fortress Los Angles: The militarization of urban space.” In Variations on a theme park: The New American city and the end of public space, edited by M. Sorkin, 221–264. New York: Noonday Press.
de Magalhães, C. 2010. “Public space and the contracting-out of publicness: A framework for analysis.” J. Urban Des. 15 (4): 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502347.
de Magalhães, C., and M. Carmona. 2009. “Dimensions and models of contemporary public space management in England.” J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 52 (1): 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560802504704.
de Magalhaes, C., and S. F. Trigo. 2017a. “‘Clubification’ of urban public spaces? The withdrawal of the re-definition of the role of local government in the management of public spaces.” J. Urban Des. 22 (6): 738–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1336059.
de Magalhaes, C., and S. F. Trigo. 2017b. “Contracting out publicness: The private management of the urban public realm and its implications.” Prog. Plann. 115: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2016.01.001.
Francis, M. 1987. “Urban open spaces.” In Advances in environment, behaviour, and design. Vol. I, edited by E. Zube, and I. Altman, 71–106. New York: Plenum Press.
Francis, M. 1989. “Control as a dimension of public space quality.” In Public places and spaces, edited by I. Altman, and E. Zube, 147–169. New York: Plenum Press.
Gehl, J. 2010. Cities for people. London: Island Press.
Kohn, M. 2004. Brave new neighbourhoods: The privatization of public spaces. London: Routledge.
Langstraat, F., and L. Van Melik. 2013. “Challenging the ‘end of public space’: A comparative analysis of publicness in British and Dutch urban spaces.” J. Urban Des. 18 (3): 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.800451.
Lopes, M., S. Santos Cruz, and P. Pinho. 2019. “Revisiting publicness in assessment of contemporary urban spaces.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 145 (4): 04019013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000521.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 1996. “Cracks in the city: Addressing the constraints and potentials of urban design.” J. Urban Des. 1 (1): 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809608724372.
Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. 1996. Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Madanipour, A. 2003. Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
Madanipour, A. 2004. “Marginal public spaces in European cities.” J. Urban Des. 9 (3): 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480042000283869.
Marcuse, P. 2005. “The ‘threat of terrorism’ and the right to the city.” Fordham Law J. 25: 767–785.
Mehta, V. 2014. “Evaluating public space.” J. Urban Des. 19 (1): 53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698.
Mitchell, D., and L. Staeheli. 2006. “Clean and safe? Property redevelopment, public space and homelessness in Downtown San Diego.” In The politics of public space, edited by S. Low, and N. Smith, 143–175. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, J. 2001. “Business improvement districts and the “new” revitalization of downtown.” Econ. Dev. Q. 15 (2): 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240101500201.
Montgomery, J. 1995. “Urban vitality and the culture of cities.” Plann. Pract. Res. 10 (2): 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459550036649.
Montgomery, J. 1998. “Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design.” J. Urban Des. 3 (1): 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418.
Németh, J. 2009. “Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space.” Urban Stud. 46 (11): 2463–2490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342903.
Németh, J., and S. Schmidt. 2007. “Toward a methodology for measuring the security of publicly accessible spaces.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 73 (3): 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360708977978.
Németh, J., and S. Schmidt. 2011. “The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness.” Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 38 (1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057.
Sennett, R. 1992. The fall of public man. London: Penguim Books.
Sorkin, M. 1992. “See you in disneyland.” In Variations on a theme park: The New American city and the end of public space, edited by M. Sorkin, 205–232. New York: Hill and Wang.
Van Mélik, R., I. Van Aalst, and J. Van Weesp. 2007. “Fear and fantasy in the public domain: The development of secured and themed urban space.” J. Urban Des. 12 (1): 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800601071170.
van Melik, R., and E. van der Krabben. 2016. “Co-production of public space: Policy translations from New York City to the Netherlands.” TPR 87 (2): 139–158.
Varna, G., and S. Tiesdell. 2010. “Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness.” J. Urban Des. 15 (4): 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502350.
Wang, Y., and J. Chen. 2018. “Does the rise of pseudo-public spaces lead to the ‘end of public space’ in large Chinese cities? Evidence from Shanghai and Chongqing.” Urban Des. Int. 23 (3): 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0064-1.
Watson, S. 2006. City publics: The (dis)enchantments of urban encounters. questioning cities. London: Routledge.
Whyte, W. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 146Issue 4December 2020

History

Received: Oct 16, 2019
Accepted: May 11, 2020
Published online: Jul 28, 2020
Published in print: Dec 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Dec 28, 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

CITTA - Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0790-3344. Email: [email protected]
Sara Santos Cruz [email protected]
CITTA - Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal. Email: [email protected]
Paulo Pinho [email protected]
CITTA - Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share