Abstract
The focus on accessibility is a primary concern in the field of public space, as a right to be guaranteed by and for all the actors involved, both public and private. The objective of providing a good standard of accessibility can only be achieved through an accurate understanding of the physical and social conditions of public space: on the one hand, studying the socio-spatial dynamics; on the other hand through a desirable renovation of the design know-how, making accessible to administrations and designers the necessary knowledge needed to positively improve the success of urban transformation actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accessibility accessed 04.02.2020.
- 2.
“[…] social systems whose elements are commonwealth, a community of commoners and the ongoing interactions, phase of decision making and communal labour process that together are called commoning”. De Angelis 2017: 11.
- 3.
Cities have been transformed by way of highways and automobiles in order to let people spread and circulate all over a territory, superimposing a traffic infrastructure over a socio-spatial one, regardless of what they spread across or at what cost is kind of approach has determined a fragmentation of public space as a whole, seriously affecting pedestrian mobility, accessibility and interfering with the many social, cultural and recreational activities of everyday life (Errante 2019).
- 4.
Commons is defined as “an unstable and malleable social relation between a particular self-defined social group and those aspect of its actually existing or yet-to-be-created social and/or physical, environment deemed crucial for its life and livelihood” (Harvey 2012: 73).
- 5.
Public goods are “open access”, non-rival resources, as highways, transportation systems, public schools, etc., which access is guaranteed by their very public nature; the “limited access” commons can be considered as private spaces accessible for those who have the right (property right or membership) in order to protect a specific resource (cf. Foster and Iaione 2016: 293).
- 6.
The case of ‘neighbourhood commons’ are the closest to initial assumptions that public space is the physical and social extension (in this case, the neighbourhood) in which commons may be activated, and require a ‘contextual definition’ of the concept.
- 7.
The method is so well-known all over the world, that it was adopt for the Time Square transformation in New York City as well as for other urban renovation in the United States as San Francisco, Denver, Pittsburgh and Lexington. For Latino America and Caribbean Islands, it was also released a guidebook to instruct administrations on how to encourage the use of bicycle and evaluate the whole process of implementation.
- 8.
The main references consulted for this section of the paragraph are: Lerner (2014). Urban Acupuncture. Washington DC| Covelo| London: Island Press; Adler (2016, Maggio 6). Story of cities#37: how radical ideas turned Curitiba into Brazil’s ‘green capital. From The Guardian—Cities: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/06/story-of-cities-37-mayor-jaime-lerner-curitiba-brazil-green—capital-global-icon; Hernandez and Casanova (2014). Public Space Acupuncture. Actar.
- 9.
Management and design issues are crucial because “a lack of collective efficacy is highly correlated with the existence of social disorder in public spaces, enforced by violence or threats of violence. Violence in particular (or the fear of it) can prevent or impede the development of productive social norms and the collective efficacy necessary for neighbours to maintain effective social controls in their community” (Foster 2011: 86).
- 10.
The Doctoral research to which this paper refers to is: Errante (2019), Qualità dell’abitare urbano—Un modello interpretativo per lo spazio pubblico, ‘Mediterranea’ University of Reggio Calabria, Department of Architecture and Territory, Doctoral Research in Architecture and Territory—XXXI Cycle. Tutor: Prof. Alberto De Capua.
- 11.
The ‘critical theory of urbanism’ consists in expose, propose and politicise. Expose means to evaluate the existing system in its potential and its weakness, understanding the nature of the phenomena and the dynamics of previous fractures or crisis, in other words, “analysing the roots of the problem and making clear and communicating that analysis to those that need it and can use it”. Propose means set strategies, targets and desired results, planning the work, make proposals, programs, demonstrating “the need for a politicized response”. Eventually, politicize is conceived as “the political action implications of what was exposed and proposed” supporting the arrangements of the work by an informing action. This implies on one hand a “day-to-day politics” and on the other involving media and academic institutions (Marcuse 2009).
- 12.
The main reference used to define the evaluation phase, in its methodological structure; in the weights and measures of the indicators; in the method of representing the results; is the following research work: Mehta (2014) Evaluating Public Space, Journal of Urban Design, 19: 1, 53–88; Mehta (2007) A Toolkit for Performance Measures of Public Space, 43rd ISOCARP Congress.
- 13.
«The concept of “makerhoods”—urban planning and economic development strategy that seeks to unleash micro-entrepreneurs to strengthen communities through natural and affordable live/work accommodations—embodies this mix of inclusive, affordable, and shared space in which people can earn a living and still sustain themselves while establishing small businesses» (Foster and Iaione 2016: 341).
- 14.
The design principles can be summarised as: removable and reversable project; activation of underused spaces; self-managed proposals; recycle and reuse waste materials.
References
Adler, D. (2016, May 6). Story of cities #37: how radical ideas turned Curitiba into Brazil's 'green capital. From The Guardian – Cities: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/06/story-of-cities-37-mayor-jaime-lerner-curitiba-brazil-green-capital-global-icon.
Alves dos Santos, O., Jr. (2014). Urban common space, heterotopia and the right to the city: Reflections on the ideas of Henry Lefebvre and David Harvey. Brazilian Journal of Urban Management, 6(2), 146–157.
Bazzu, P., & Talu, V. (2017). Tactical urbanism 5—italia. Sassari: TaMaLaCà Srl.
Bollier, D. (2014). In think like a commoner: A short introduction to the life of the commons. New Society Publishers.
Bordieu, P. (2018). Social space and the genesis of appropriated physical space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 106–114.
Bradley, K. (2015). Open source urbanism: Creating, multiplying and managing urban commons. Footprint, 91–108.
Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Design International, 24, 47–59.
Carmona, M., Hanssen, G. S., Lamm, B., Nylund, K., Saglie, I.-L., & Tietjen, A. (2019). Public space in an age of austerity. Urban Design International, 241–259.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public places—urban spaces. The dimensions of Urban Design: Architectural Press.
Carr, S. (1992). Public space. New York, US: Cambridge University Press.
Cerasi, M. (1976). Lo spazio collettivo della città – Costruzione e dissoluzione del sistema pubblico nell’architettura della città moderna. Milano: Gabriele Mazzotta.
De Angelis, M. (2017). In omnia sunt communia—On the commons and the transformation to postcapitalis. M. Zed Books.
De Capua, A., & Errante, L. (2019). Interpreting public space as a medium for urban liveability. Agathón—International Journal of Architecture Art and Design, 06, 59–72.
De Carlo, G. (2013). L’architettura della partecipazione. In S. Marini (Ed.), Macerata: Quodlibet.
Errante, L. (2019). Public space and its challanges: a palimpsest for urban commons. In C. Benincasa, G. Neri, & M. Trimarchi (Ed.), Art and economics in the city. new cultural maps (pp. 191–198). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Foster, S. R. (2011). Collective action and the urban commons. Notre Dame Law Review, 87(1), 57–134.
Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2016). The city as a commons. Yale Law and Policy Review, 281–349.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democrac. Social Text(25/26), 56–80.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). In How to study public life. (K. A. Steenhard, Trans.) Washington, USA: Island Press.
Gregotti, V. (1993). In Casabella il disegno degli spazi aperti. (597/598), Editoriale.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso.
Hernandez, J., & Casanova, H. (2014). Public space acupuncture. Actar.
Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the new commons. Retrieved February 2020, from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1356835.
Huron, A. (2015). Working with strangers in saturated space: reclaiming and maintaining the urban commons. Antipode, 1–17.
Jacobs, J. (1992). In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Edizione Originale: 1961, New York: Random House Inc. ed.). New York, USA: Vintage Books Edition.
Katz, C. (2001). Vagabond capitalism and the necessity for social reproduction. Antipode, 33(4), 709–728.
Koch, R., & Latham, A. (2017). In Key thinkers on cities. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Latour, B., & Yaneva, A. (2008). Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: an ANT’s view of architecture. Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research, 80–89.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). In The production of space (Original Ed.: La production de l’espace, 1974, Éditions Anthropos ed.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Lefebvre, H. (2014). In Il diritto alla città (Original Ed.: Le droit a la ville, 1968, Paris: Ed. du Seuil ed.), (A. Casaglia, & G. Morosato, (Eds.), Trans.) Perugia, IT: Ombre Corte.
Lerner, J. (2014). In Urban acupuncture. Washington DC| Covelo| London: Island Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: The Technology Press and Harvard University Press.
Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private space of the city. London, UK: Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (2005). Public space of european cities. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 18(1), 7–16.
Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City, 13(2–3), 185–196.
Mazzette, A. (Ed.). (2013). In Pratiche sociali di città pubblica. Editori Laterza.
Mehta, V. (2007). A toolkit for performance measures of public space. Antwerp: Urban Trialogues.
Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city and the fight for public space. New York, US: The Guilford Press.
Nèmeth, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 5–23.
Norberg-Schultz, C. (1980). In Genius Loci: toward a phenomenology of architecture. London: Academy Ed.
Ostrom, E. (1990). In Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Pasaogullari, N., & Doratli, N. (2004). Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities, 21(3), 225–232.
Project for Public Spaces. (2000). How to turn a place around: A handbook for creating successful public spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
Rinehart, N. (2009). Public spaces in bogotá: An introduction. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 197–211.
Sebastiani, C. (2010). Politica: governo collettivo dei beni comuni. In F. Bottini (Ed.), Spazio pubblico—declino difesa, riconquista (pp. 235–243). Roma: Eddiesse.
Sitte, C. (1953). In L’arte di costruire le città (Ed. or. Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsatzen. (1889) ed.). (L. Dodi, Ed.), Milano: Officine Grafiche dell’Editore Antonio Vallardi.
STIPO. (2016). In J. L. Hans Karssenberg, (Ed.), The city at eye level—Lessons for street plints (II Ed. ed.). (Rotterdam: Eburon.
STIPO. (2017). In S. v. Jeroen Laven, (Ed.), The city at eye level in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Blauwdruk.
Super, D. A. (2013). A new property. Columbia Law Review, 113(1772), 1773–1896.
Susser, I., & Tonnelat, S. (2013). Transformative cities: The three urban commons. Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology, 66, 105–132.
UN-Habitat, United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2017). Global public space programme: Annual report 2016. Nairobi: UNON, Publishing Services Section.
United Nation. (2014). In world urbanization prospects. United Nations.
United Nations—Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2015). In Global public space toolkit: From global principles to local policies and practice.
Venturini, G., & Graziano, P. (2016). Misurare la coesione sociale: una comparazione tra le regioni italiane. Impresa Sociale, 12(8), 27–36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Errante, L. (2020). Public Space: Mapping the Physical, Social and Cultural Accessibility for the Creation of Urban Commons. In: Macrì, E., Morea, V., Trimarchi, M. (eds) Cultural Commons and Urban Dynamics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54418-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54418-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54417-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54418-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)