What Makes a Public Space Lively?

A Literature Review

by Gaoli Xiao

Summary: Rapid urbanization changes not only the physical presence of public spaces but also the way people live their lives. Lively public spaces bring cultural, economic, and social benefits to cities. This article aims to summarize influential factors that contribute to the liveliness of public space and provide suggestions for urban designers and planners through a literature review. 7 factors including accessibility, permeability, physical infrastructure, variety of goods and services, social interaction, Information and Communication Technologies, and inclusiveness were selected and analyzed.

Keywords: Place-making; Public space; Urban planning; Street liveliness; Urban design; Urban revitalization

1. Introduction

The image of public space in the context of modern cities is a place of consumption activities, a place where people pass by. More importantly, it’s a place where people are willing to spend some time at. Stationary, sustained, and lingering pedestrian activities which are defined as activities of standing, sitting, or moving around in one place over a certain time period, are important references in evaluating the environmental quality of public space (Mehta, 2006). A successful public space nurtures the growth of public life. People from different cultural groups come together in the streets, parks, plazas, markets, waterfronts, and natural areas in a context of mutual enjoyment. These experiences enable public space to carry positive communal meanings (Carret al., 1993).

“City liveliness” is a concept originated in the 1960s when visionaries like Jane Jacobs and William H. Whyte raised up the idea that it is important to create and maintain lively neighborhoods and inviting public spaces (Clark, 2008). Palicki (2015) argues that a lively public space should not only be attractive in the aesthetic sense but also provide social satisfaction (a meeting place, well-equipped with physical infrastructure, attractive enough) and cultural values (a wide range of sophisticated cultural services), accompanied by economic values (an offer of products and commercial services in the framework of a so-called “urban product”).

Since the 1960s, a variety of researches have carried out many studies on urban open spaces, with foci on user experience, urban policies, politics, and most frequently, the physical characteristics of public spaces. There are growing interests in revitalization of center areas and in other areas within the urban core of fast developing cities (Mehta and Bossen, 2018).

This article aims to summarize influential factors that make public spaces lively through a literature review. Specifically, it looks at the characteristics that are important in making the experience comfortable, interesting, and meaningful for people who are engaged in stationary, sustained, and lingering activities. It examines places with similar patterns of organization, usage, and inclusion in the center or core areas of medium-big scale cities, with focus on but not limited to streets.

2. Influential factors that contribute to the liveliness of public space

2.1 Accessibility

Accessibility is essential for a place’s liveliness. It is defined as the most important element of the public realm because it enables people to come, stay and leave a public place freely, comfortably and safely (Shahimi et al., 2019). The connection of public streets, according to Davies (2000), should be a) safe, attractive and well cared, b) well-designed and bring ease to people, c) efficient and d) provided with facilities that serve the user needs.

Accessibility is also one of the most researched characters that represents how well-connected a specific place can be with other places in cities (Beirão and Koltsova, 2015), as it can be assessed quantitatively through methodologies like the space syntax analysis (Hillier and Hanson, 1984) — a method using linear and nodal maps to understand the space configuration. However, even though a well-connected place enables continuous traffic flow, it doesn’t express people’s activities. In the context of streets, Beirão and Koltsova (2015) observed that the rise in traffic intensity which cut a street in two has affected and changed life on both sides of the street.

2.2 Permeability

The degree of permeability is determined by how well the indoor activities are visible or could be sensed by sound or smell from a public space (Mehta and Bossen, 2018). It improves place liveliness by correlating the outside public to the indoor activities. Whyte (1980) in his book The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces points out that internal space with shops can dilute the attractions of outside streets. In his opinion, a successful indoor space should be inviting to the outside public, which requires enough open entrances and transparent walls. The relationship between the intensity of life in a public place and the density and exposure of private entrances are further discussed by Beirão and Koltsov (2015). Their research result shows that streets with more well-exposed private entrances received higher values of permeability while residential streets received the lower.

Different configuration of entrances in architecture can also play a role in determining the degree of permeability of public space. Devices which increase the territorial depth between street (public) and private space(front gardens, tall fences, stoops, raised balconies, barbed wires, etc.) can be seen as positive because they preserve a level of privacy and security (Habraken, 2000; Beirão and Koltsov, 2015). However, too much territorial depth can negatively affect the street space by segregating the indoor spaces from the public. As stressed by Jane Jacobs (1961), the natural street surveillance will be undermined when the possibility of commercial activities facing the streets (shops) is removed and the street are hidden from the inhabitant’s sight.

2.3 Physical infrastructures

Physical infrastructures can cause direct effects on user’s impressions and behaviors, and therefore contribute the most to public space vibrancy. According to the survey conducted by Neto et al. (2018) in 12 public spaces in the center of Tokyo, the participants’ perception of intangible components showed almost insignificant (ambiance, light contrast, smell, sense of scale, sound) in compare with that of physical elements (greenery, sidewalk, street furniture, and building). In this section, physical infrastructures including street furniture, tangible cultural heritage, buildings, consumptive amenities, and green infrastructures are discussed and analyzed.

Multiple researches prove that street furniture to be one of the most important reasons for people to stay in a public space (Mehta and Bossen, 2018; Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987; Neto et al. 2018). The presence of seatings, for example, is recognized as an important correlate of stationary behavior. According to Whyte (1980), “people tend to sit most where there are places to sit.” Other street furniture and artifacts such as tables, tree trunks, poles, parking meters, bicycle racks, newspaper-dispensing boxes, and railings have combined to create a support system for people to sit or lean on (Mehta and Bossen, 2018). Shade and shelter devices such as tree canopies, awnings, overhangs, and canopies are encouraged as they improve the degree of enjoyment for users (Mehta and Bossen, 2018).

Tangible Cultural heritage, such as monuments and historic buildings, nurture senses of identity and belonging of particular individuals or groups. The cultural value of heritage can affect the pedestrians’ behaviors on the streets (Shamsuddin, 2011). Meanwhile, they contribute to the image of the city and create considerable economic values. Whyte (1980) notes that cultural heritage preservation and reuse are proved to be successful place-making methods that increase the attraction of city centers.

Oliveira (2013) proposes specific characters of buildings, for example, age of buildings, alignment of buildings, the ratio of building height to street width and building use play an important role in determining how ‘successful’ or how ‘lively’ a street can be. The personalized interfaces of the buildings (building façade, entrances, shop windows) with the streets also influence the user’s experience, as they are embellished with personal touches such as displays, decorations, signs, banners, plants, and other wares (Mehta and Bossen, 2018).

Consumptive amenities provision in urban public space has emerged as an important way of revitalizing cities. Wu et al. (2019) measured the city liveliness in Beijing by aggregated space-time human activity intensities using mobile phone positioning data. Their findings show that spatial configurations of consumptive amenities have significant impacts on human activity intensities over time and space. In New York City, certain businesses where people would come to meet neighbors, friends, and even strangers are frequently visited and stayed. These include coffee shops, bookshops, bars, restaurants, and convenience stores. According to the behavior mapping result of a commercial neighborhood, parts of the streets that are able to support stationary activities were better able to afford social activities (Mehta and Bossen, 2018).

Green infrastructures, especially trees, provide physical (shadings, air-filtration, etc.) and aesthetic value which increases people’s desire to stay and rest in a public space. Tree coverage density ranked the first among other physical elements (street furniture, the building, the sidewalk and space itself) in predicting stay and rest activities, according to the survey conducted in the center area of Tokyo (Neto et al., 2016). This result also agrees with Tanaka & Kikata (2008) who find the relationship between the tree ratio and stay activities.

2.4 The variety of goods and services

The variety of goods and services is seen to be a determined characteristic of lively streets. According to Mehta and Bossen (2018), a block that has two banks, a restaurant, a coffee shop, a fast-food restaurant, a hair salon, and a video store offers more opportunities for human activities than a block of furniture stores.

2.5 Social interactions

One of the most interesting findings of Whyte (1980) is that “what attracts people most are the other people”. He found that the most used plazas in New York City are where people are engaged with social activities. Observations show people tend to sit and stand in the main traffic stream, and even when they stop to have a conversation, they tend not to move away from the pedestrian flow, on the contrary, they stayed in or moved into it. Similar phenomenon is observed in other cities. Jan Gehl’s pedestrian mapping in Copenhagen (1987) and Matthew Ciolek’s study of an Australian shopping center (1978) both show the tendency of self-congestion. This unexpected phenomenon is helpful for urban planners and designers to understand the pattern of pedestrians in public spaces, and apply it to place-making.

According to Gehl (1987), outdoor social interactions result from both necessary activities (e.g.: commuting) and optional activities (e.g.: relaxing or chatting with friends). While necessary activities happen regardless of the quality of place, optional activities depend on how enjoyable the place is. Therefore he recommends designers to help create lively outdoor spaces that will encourage optional activities. However, according to the self-congestion theory mentioned above, people engaged in necessary activities can, to some extent, encourage optional activities. In the extreme case, when a place becomes too congested, it rebels people to come as it creates sense of uncomfortable and unsafe (Rahman, 2014).

2.6 Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)

One must admit that we are now living in an era of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).Social media has enabled and strengthened the cyberspace that transcends the physical public space (Mehta and Bossen, 2018). The extensive usage of mobile phones in our daily life has the possibility of diluting the good old-fashioned social interactions. Instead of meeting in person in public space, people become more socially connected through virtual spaces (Abdel-Aziz et al., 2016). However, can ICTs still add values to public space?

Abdel-Aziz et al. (2016) argue that the future public space can benefit from ICTs by following design principles that meet the needs of the digital era’s users. According to them, Wi-Fi networks, media façades, interactive public displays, and smart mobile phones’ applications can be combined and implemented in different ways in public space, and thus increase the attractiveness of the space and interaction among citizens.

2.7 Inclusiveness

Ramlee et al. (2015) define public space as a space with features that allows people to spend time and enjoy their life as a public regardless of their differences. To realize an inclusionary public space requires understanding of the needs and values of people using the space and assets present in a place, it is a process of “actively engaging and cultivating trust among participants, ultimately allowing all members of the community to shape, achieve, and sustain a common vision (Gehl Institute, 2018).” Inclusiveness helps practitioners and communities reduce health inequities and other barriers, and therefore foster the liveliness of public space.

3. Discussion

To understand influential factors, it is necessary to note that they contribute positive values to public space when the preconditions are met and that they are inter-connected. For example, indoor activities increase the degree of street liveliness if the street is permeable enough. Social media causes loose physical personnel interactions, but it provides opportunities for creating new urban agendas that fit the digital era. Accessibility enables traffic flow yet it doesn’t fully represent liveliness of a place, as the liveliness depends more on “optional activities” rather than “necessary activities”.

There are numerous elements that bring public space to life. In addition to the above-mentioned items, other factors such as surveillance (e.g.: CCTVs on the streets) and human activities (protests, cultural practice, entertainment events, etc.) and their relationships with the vibrancy of public space are worth to explore. Besides, the invisible influential features (smell, sound, and scale of space, etc.) that form the sense of place should not be underestimated.

Visible and invisible factors combine to build up lively public spaces and thus add significant values to city life. However, analyzing and measuring the effects of those factors and applying them to urban design planning process has never been an easy task, for human behavior is complicated and subjective. Researchers have made enormous effort to find out how public spaces attract or resist people to come. Research methods vary from qualitative methods such as observation to quantitative methods like mathematical modeling. Most of the researches applied mixed-method approach where the analysis was done on both quantitative and qualitative data. This approach successfully translated immeasurable human behavior into explicit statistics, which increased the objectivity and applicability of the results.

Of course, one model doesn’t fit all cities. The factors that made the Time Square in New York City lively in 1982 might not be the same as those revitalized the city center of Bangkok in 2020. It is important for urbanists to be sensitive about the location, time and space scale differences as they may change the nature of public life and people’s preferences. For example, the case study in Kuala Lumpur shows that the main attraction that makes people use the street, especially for occasional users, was the shopping and commercial street (Rahman et al., 2014). This may be related to the general trend of consuming-oriented lifestyles in Asian cities. In addition, different cultures entail different rates of tolerance and acceptance of social interaction and perceptual stimuli, especially among people of different gender, race, and class, and it is likely to alter the patterns of using public spaces (Rapoport, 1990).

4. Conclusion

Revitalizing urban public space is critical for urban designers and planners to achieve cultural, social, and economical benefits. Through a literature review, 7 influential factors were selected and analyzed, namely accessibility, permeability, physical infrastructure, variety of goods and services, social interaction, Information and Communication Technologies, and inclusiveness. The public related factors such as accessibility, green infrastructures and variety of services and goods are closely related to overall urban planning and public policies. Business-related factors such as the personalization of buildings, street permeability, and private-owned street furniture are largely depended on the business owner’s initiatives, but may also be regulated through public policies. Therefore, this article suggests that policymakers, planners, and designers should be aware of the fact that people tend to choose environments that are comfortable, meaningful and enjoyable to them, and that public space can be revitalized through policies and designs that are shaped by both visible and invisible features.

About the author:

Gaoli Xiao is an urban planner and urban development specialist from China. Before joining Mundus Urbano, she has worked on various projects such as air quality management and large-scale urban infrastructure project management in China, Brazil, and South Korea. At the moment, she is pursuing her specialisation in International Cooperation in Urban Planning (ICUP) from Université Grenoble Alpes in France. She is passionate to explore topics related to sustainable urban transformation, socio-spatial injustice, and collaborative governance.

5. References

Abdel-Aziz, A. A., Abdel-Salam, H., & El-Sayad, Z. (2016). The role of ICTs in creating the new social public place of the digital era. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55(1), 487–493. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2015.12.019

Beirão, J. N., & Koltsova, A. (2015). The Effects of Territorial Depth on the Liveliness of Streets. Nexus Network Journal, 17(1), 73–102. doi: 10.1007/s00004–014–0233–5

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. and Stone, A. (1993) Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ciolek, M. (1978). Spatial behavior in pedestrian areas. Ekistics, 45(268), 120–122. Retrieved January 18, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43618987

Clark, C., Kent, E., Kent, F., Lester, R., Madden, K., Meynell, I., Pan, S., Raphael C. (2008). A Guide to Neighborhood Placemaking in Chicago. Retrieved January 17, 2020, from http://www.placemakingchicago.com/cmsfiles/placemaking_guide.pdf

Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gehl Institute. (2018, June). A Guide to Inclusion & Health in Public Space: Learning Globally to Transform Locally. Retrieved January 19, 2020, from https://gehlinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Inclusive-Healthy-Places_Gehl-Institute.pdf

Hillier, Bill, & Julienne Hanson. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HabrakenJ. (2000). The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built Environment. ed. Jonathan Teicher, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jacobs, Jane. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Llewelyn-Davies, in association with Baxter, A. & Associates (2000). The Urban Design Compendium.English Partnerships.

Mehta, V. (2007). Lively Streets. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 165–187. doi: 10.1177/0739456x07307947

Mehta, V., & Bosson, J. K. (2018). Revisiting Lively Streets: Social Interactions in Public Space. Journal of Planning Education and Research. doi: 10.1177/0739456x18781453

Neto, O. A., Jeong, S., Munakata, J., Yoshida, Y., Ogawa, T., & Yamamura, S. (2016). Physical Element Effects in Public Space Attendance. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 15(3), 479–485. doi: 10.3130/jaabe.15.479

Oldenburg, R. (2005). The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press.

Palicki, S. (2015). Multi-Criteria Assessment Of Public Space From The Social Perspective. Real Estate Management and Valuation, 23(4), 24–34. doi: 10.1515/remav-2015–0033

Ramlee, M., Omar, D., Yunus, R. M., & Samadi, Z. (2015). Revitalization of Urban Public Spaces: An Overview. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 201, 360–367. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.187

Rahman, N. A., Shamsuddin, S., & Ghani, I. (2015). What Makes People Use the Street?: Towards a Liveable Urban Environment in Kuala Lumpur City Centre. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 624–632. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.064

Rapoport, A. (1990). History and precedent in environmental design. New York: Plenum.

Shahimi, S. S., Tukiman, I., & Hussain, M. R. M. (2019). People’s Experiences in Relation to the City Liveliness of Urban Heritage Trail. doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0322.v1

Shamsuddin, S. (2011). Townscape Revisited: Unravelling the character of the historic townscape in Malaysia. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Tanaka, F. & Kikata, J. (2008) Research on Urban Landscape and Public Space by the Caption Evaluation Method — Case Study on Kagoshima City. Architectural Institute of Japan Research Paper, 47 (3), pp.221–224.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.