Jan Gehl Editors’ Introduction hagen, Denmark, seems an unikely setting for vibrant i d residents, Cope ‘Copenhagen created one of Europe's fist pedestian free zones ~ Sega ‘But now the Stroget care zone iting hating, With its long winters and reser uses of outdoor urban spaces. Wh periment would f (Literal, “the sweep”) in 1982, skeptics precited tate longest pedestrian shopping area in the world, swarming wih people shopping, walking ing, and simply being with other people playing, drawing, eating, making and listening to music, people-wat vers have boon at the forefront of innovative designs to promote te Danish architect Jan Gehl and his fo! ife between buildings" that Straget exemplifies. As Stroget and other innov 1d, Geh's ideas have been embraced by architects, urban desi + for pedestrian-onlystrets. Some the ive Danish designs for space ban between buildings succe planners throughout the world. Tore is no one-size-its-all prescrip canoe Tanoe Square othe area around the Acropolis in Greece, have been extremely successful OMe Sected pedestian flow and failed shborhoods that determine the qualty of te for most itis the milions of day-to-day interactions in ordinary wip net door toa sick neighbor, washing the car, putengina ‘of humanity: walking the dog, taking chicken just going outside for the oy of it. Gehl argues that front yard garden, leaning over a fence to gossip witha frien interacting wth other people outdoors exp designs that encourage people to spend time outdoors and mak an make abig ¢ ‘Cent notes that some outdoor activitios ~ ike delivering the mail and going to work or Sout being outside. Good design il xt how enjoyable they ment or how people foe place regardless of the quality ofthe buit env ities take place, though they wil time poople choose to spend doing them. But, Gehl not vor bdinge - taking a walk, chatting with a neighbor, sunbathing ~ are opi ‘ot they won'. Gehl feels igible impact on whether or not these ac that take place in the epace be nt, people will engage in them; iit does and noncommital contact th Ifthe physical environment makes them ple vans that encourage contact among people at any level, from very simple that 2s seeing, hearing, and being among other people's lv tional activites. Since the extent to which people from both n on how enjoyable they find them, designers can help creat ia side ‘engage in optional activities depend: designing good outdoor space, particularly ones tha will encourage optional ime spent The heart of G invite or repet, and Gehl ikes des ‘example. Shoppir many diferent st brillant connoctio foot of street fron will pass more of same size, but b assemble poopl Gehl favors ‘gender, age, inc Denmark campu sterile campus University of Der Students atthe ‘cafeteria, and rer disorder can bo Gehl likes do passersby who ¢ if they do not Contrast Gi Louis Wieth’s vie Goh! blames streets and a th ventilation into distances betw dispersal of pe At the core spaces. Is that bbe alone) may n ‘space for huma that “third place contact and Jan G Architecture Bui most recently the most recen The vert he hopes to. Gehl has dos Wellington, a Belgrade in Se Buildings: Us pook by Jan ( ‘ArchitecturalLIFE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: USING PUBLIC SPACE The heart of Geh's theory involves four dualies: designs that assemble or disperse, integrate or segregate vie 0c repel, and open up or close in. Gohl advocates designs that assemble, integrate, init, and open up. GGeilikes designs that assemble. The dea of how design can assemble people is welilustrated by an everyday ‘uample. Shopping mall designers usualy design mall stores to be narrow and deep so that people will pass ows as they walk through the mall ~ a design that assembles people. Gehl made a fillant connection. Narrower residential lots (and the houses on them) will result in more housing units per linear ‘hot of sroot frontage and more people walking along the streets. People walking along streets with narrow lots Wwilpass more of their neighbors on the way tothe store, school, or bus stop than they would i house were the fame siz, but built on wider, shallower lots. Accordingly Gehl advocates narrow residential lots in order to ‘ssemble people and incre ial contact. {Gehl favors designs that integrate. Good design can bring people in contact with one another regardless of rawlng University of ender, age, income, sexual orientation, occupation, and ethnic group. Gehl kes the the Denmark campus that developed piecemeal and is mised into Copenhagen's downtown area. He deplor serio campus of the newer Technical University of Denmark, buit on the outskits of the city. Students atthe University of Denmark mix with other cty residents, patronize public cafés, and can enjoy Copenhagen's amenities. SSudonts at the Technical University of Denmark mix only with faculty and other students, eatin the university tafeteria, and remain separate from the life ofthe city. Like Jane Jacobs (p. 108), Gehl thnks alittle bit of urban fésorder can be a good thing Goh! likes designs that open up. A library with windows directly on the stret, for example, wil be open to gassersby who can participate vicariously inthe library experience by watching the librarians and browsers eve #they do not go in, Contrast Geh!s view that even fleeting, anonymous contact with other human beings is innately satistyn Louis Wint’s view in “Urbanism as a Way of Life” (p. 96) that the transitory, impersonal contacts between peo characteristic of madern cities ilustrates just how disconnected people become when they move from small rural ‘communities to large, anonymous cites Gohl blames the welhintentioned ideas of modernists like Le Corbusier (p. 396) for de streets and a thinning of cities that make human contact difficult. Madernists sought to bring light, air, sun, and Yentiation into residential and commercial areas. But big modernist mutistory residential urban areas with long and eliminate intimate squares. Similarly the wid distances between different land uses destroy street lite dispersal of people and events in low, open, single-family areas in suburbs has reduced outdoor communal ‘At the core of Gehi's philosophy is the belie that people need and want human contact in outdoor public spaces. [s that necessarily 80? Some people illegal immigrants, runaway teenagers, people who simply want to be alone) may not want to come in contact with other people. Is the space between buildings the most important space for human contact? What about the home? The workplace? Other public spaces? Ray Oldenburg argues, that third places" lke cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, and hair salons are more important venues for human contact and socializing than outdoor space between buildings Jan Gehl (b. 1986) is @ Danish architect and urban designer based in Copenhagen. He received a Masters of Architecture degree from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine As in 1960. The fst (Danish) edition of Life Between 1d editions have been published regularly sinco that time, was published in 1987 and Buildings was published in 1971 and subsequent revs most recently in 2008, The fist English language edition of the most recent English language edition was published in 2008. The verb *Gopenhagenize" is not yet in common parlance, but Gehl uses it to describe the design principles he hopes to export from his native city In adition to many projects in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries {Gohl has designed projects in London, Stoke-on-Trent, and Brighton in England; Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Wallington, and Sydney in Australia; Cork and Dublin in reland; New York and Pittsburgh in the United States Belgrade in Serbia; Prague in the Czech Republic; and Rabat in Morocco. The solection here is from Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space translated by Jo Koch (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987). A coauthored book by Jan Gehl and Lars Gemzoe is New City Spaces, Strategies and Projects (Copenhagen: Danish ‘Architectural Press, 2008).University of California, jks ab 1 of architecture emeritus Clare Cooper Marcus has waiten a de way in which people use both public and private spaces. Her b for architects and planners. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urb ace, edited with Carolyn Francis (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1997) is an anthology th Jerfirst book, Easter Hil Vilage: Some Social $ of Desi 1975) documents what residents themselves liked and disliked abot ple Mattered: Site Desi ely complements Lie New York: Free Pres fesign ofa low-rent housing pojectin Medium Densiy Farily Housing, nia Press, 1988) is filed with examples erkeley, CA: University ind principles for designing moderate income housing, particularly for single parents with children Dther books about the Publi 1ce (London: Routledge, 2010}, Wiliam Whyte, City: Re ter (Philadepha, PA: Unversity 1 Pennsylvania Press, 2008), Sharon Zukin, Naked City (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), Roger Ye Public Spaces (New York: Visual Reference Publications, 2009), Sarah Gaventa -s (London Mitchell Beazley, 2006), Raymond Gastil and Zo¥ Ryan, Oper Princeton Architectural Press, 2006), Matthew Carmona, Tim Heath, Taner Oc, and S 1 Architectural Press, 2003), Doug Kelbaugh, Common Place: T. atle, WA: University of Washington Pre iphen Carr, Mark Francis, Leanne G Rivlin, and Andew M. Stone Public Space (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199), and Michael Sorin 4 of Public Space (New York: Hil V and Placelessness. (London: Pi sign of pubic spaces include Lorna M New Yor Places, ‘A classic early critique of placenessness is Edward Relph, Ray Oldenburg, The Great Good Place: Cafés, C Bookstores, Bars, sand Oth Hangouts atthe Heart of a Community (New York: Marl Marcus, House as a Mirror of Sel: Exploring the Deepe }298) analyzes interior public spaces, Cire Coope Home (Lake Worth, FL: Nicholas Hays, 206)‘Quatty of the physical environment Poor Good Optional activities (Gocia actives)e c otedin front nb nd e of shop " 10 nearly all situation r people ql n build r OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES AND THE 7 hown QUALITY OF OUTDOOR SPACE for ity appear i use t : < tent door activi 7 F ace om ast ugh choice of mater ors to cr in tain pi 7 n ne - T lit ,e human i extremes. One exten nm x the area bail 7 4 par at tomb Tong distr 1 eet paint 1 1 pe be fou a i pout i rman an mn loudspeal cd any, becau i i 1 dno react noment i a En P eh Dutdoor re lr P e d i ' in other comparabl Throughout this period more people st Pn ity wi akin : ki 1 r il n ni 8 : < 4 ‘ f 1 mn rth, Here itis p ne building site i in m ng. and r breaks ar i 1 rf : i ble oute d hows that peo are a a e h n mentioned th " ingn i particularly dependent on > h : Dor spaces are the of ppand than t i ivities, a z par