Urban Des Int (2019) 24:16–37
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0069-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Vikas Mehta1
Published online: 20 August 2018
 Springer Nature Limited 2018
Abstract Evident in the urban revival of North American
cities are planning and design strategies focused on
attracting the downtown worker, the tourist, the conven-
tioneer and the newly implanted suburbanite. In this wave
of revival, many groups are marginalized, the reclaimed
public space is often sanitized, gentrified and fortified, and
not inclusive. However, there are urban public spaces that
defy or at least resist these trends. Examining urban
neighbourhood main streets reveals that even though the
contemporary urban street can never be an unregulated
place of unconstrained diversity, there are streets that
counter the prevalent culture of consumption, and one can
find visible signs of spontaneity and diversity of people and
activities, and genuine social life. Using research in urban
sociology, a taxonomy for sociability is developed, and the
existing range of classifications of outdoor social activities
is expanded. Through empirical examination, this paper
explains how these streets perform as social spaces—how
sociability is enacted, and what is the nature of planning,
design and management, which supports social behaviours.
Finally, the research emphasizes the role of the street as an
ordinary public space in creating affordances for everyday
social contacts that are crucial to personal well-being and
social cohesion.
Keywords Sociability
Taxonomy
Main streets
Social
life
Public space
Urban design
& Vikas Mehta
vikas.mehta@uc.edu; mehtavikas@gmail.com
1 unregulated place of unconstrained diversity, there are
College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning,
University of Cincinnati, PO Box 210016, Cincinnati,
OH 45221-0016, USA
Introduction
This is the century of the city. We are now a planet of
cities, and the future of our planet depends on the future of
our cities (Chakrabarti 2013; Ehrenhalt 2013; Glaeser
2011; Owen 2010). As we consider the future of our cities,
we must reflect on the future of public space in the city—
the new emerging public spaces but also the existing, yet
ever-evolving quintessential public spaces such as the
street. We have made significant advances in the awareness
of the value of the public realm and in the planning and
design of urban public spaces including streets. The revi-
talizing downtowns and neighbourhood business districts,
for the purpose of commerce, neighbourhood identity and
social interaction are testimony to this. However, in an
attempt to revitalize public spaces, many cities have
resorted to planning and designing strategies focused on
attracting a certain segment of society, be it the downtown
office worker, the tourist, the conventioneer, or the newly
implanted suburban resident. There are serious concerns
that in this wave of revival, many groups in society are
being marginalized, that the reclaimed public space is not
inclusive, and is often taking shape as a sanitized, gentri-
fied and fortified space (Davis 1990; Sorkin 1992, 2008;
Boyer 1994; Zukin 1995, 2010; Loukaitou-Sideris and
Banerjee 1998; Kohn 2004; Miller 2007). At the same
time, there are public spaces that defy, or at least resist
these trends, and are hospitable to a wide range of groups
and activities, and there are genuine signs of urbanity. This
paper presents observations from urban main streets from
cities in the United States. The observations reveal that
even though the contemporary urban street can never be an
streets that counter the prevalent culture of consumption,
and one can find visible signs of spontaneity and diversity
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
of people and activities, and genuine social life. Through
an empirical examination of these streets, this paper
explains how these streets perform as social spaces—how
sociability is enacted, and what is the nature of planning,
design and management, which supports a taxonomy of
social behaviours on the street. This paper uses research in
sociology (Lofland 1998) to create a pertinent taxonomy
for sociability on neighbourhood retail street (main streets)
and also builds on existing classifications of outdoor
activities (Gehl 1987) by expanding on the range of ‘‘social
activities’’. The emphasis is on the role of the street as an
ordinary public space in creating affordances for everyday
social contacts that are crucial to personal well-being,
social cohesion and civic action.
The sociable street
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sociable
as: inclined by nature to companionship with others of the
same species, inclined to seek or enjoy companionship, and
marked by or conducive to friendliness or pleasant social
relations (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
sociable). Other definitions include: enjoying or requiring
the company of others, fond of companionship; friendly or
agreeable especially in an easy, informal way; and, char-
acterized by pleasant informal conversation. This socia-
bility may be visible on many types of streets, for example,
on streets that are private (gated and open only to residents
of the neighbourhood), on parochial streets (ones that are
not closed or gated but are mostly used by neighbourhood
residents) and also public streets. For the purpose of this
paper, we will focus only on public streets. That is, on
streets that provide unregulated access to all within the
confines of general cultural norms and mores. For this
paper, a sociable street is defined as a street that is open to
the public, where people are present throughout the day
and week, engaged—individually or in groups—in a vari-
ety of active or passive social behaviours that are pre-
dominantly stationary and sustained in nature. To be clear,
we are not interested in streets that may appear sociable
and lively as a result of only a number of people walking
through it: a dynamic activity. We are interested in streets
that are sociable for most of the day and week and not in
ones that are so only on special occasions such as farmers’
markets or occasionally planned events. ‘‘Invented’’ or ‘‘re-
invented’’ streets (Banerjee et al. 1996), those sanitized
spaces used just for shopping, dining and promenading, do
not qualify either.
The discussion of sociable streets, as defined here, is not
new. Urban observers and scholars in the past have often
referred to these types of streets and similar spaces as the
bastions of a free society. Sociable streets are synonymous
17
with the qualities that Jacobs (1961) appreciated on
Greenwich Village streets and sidewalks, and they are what
Walzer (1986) has described as
open-minded space, designed for a variety of uses,
including unforeseen and unforeseeable uses, and
used by citizens who do different things and are
prepared to tolerate, even take interest in, things they
don’t do. When we enter this sort of space, we are
characteristically prepared to loiter.
(Walzer 1986, pp. 470–471)
These are streets that serve the needs of people of the
neighbourhood and the city and where wide-ranging social,
political and economic activities are visible. Sociable
streets are ones where neighbourhood residents, visitors,
workers and people who call the street their home use the
streets for myriad purposes of socializing, every day and
special shopping, dining, lingering, promenading, celebra-
tion, protest, and survival. Such streets are a desired
component of any good mixed-use neighbourhood and
therefore of any good city.
Why sociable streets now?
In a city the street must be supreme. It is the first
institution of the city. The street is a room by
agreement, a community room, the walls of which
belong to the donors, dedicated to the city for com-
mon use. Its ceiling is the sky. From the street must
have come the meeting house, also a place by
agreement.
(Louis Kahn, The Street)
Most urban scholars agree that public space plays an
important role in sustaining the public realm. In the words
of Smith and Low (2006), ‘‘An understanding of public
space is an imperative for understanding the public
sphere’’. They echo the view of several urban observers
and scholars and articulate this further by stating that the
‘‘… spatiality of the public sphere potentially transforms
our understanding of the politics of the public’’ (p. 6). Of
its many functions, sociability is a primary role of public
space and the examination of social behaviour, offers a
fresh look at the understanding of public space. Public
space offers various possibilities for social contact to
experience diversity and creative disorder, which, as Sen-
nett (1971) suggests, enhances personal growth.
For if the multiple points of social contact once
characterizing the city can be reawakened under
terms appropriate to affluence, then some channels
for experiencing diversity and order will again be
open to men. The great promise of city life is a new
18 V. Mehta

kind of confusion possible within its borders, an advantages of urban social life—proximity, access and
anarchy that will not destroy men, but make them encounter. Espousing and endorsing the street remains
richer and more mature. appropriate in the present time even when new forms and
(Sennett 1971, p. 108) models of urbanization and development are being inven-
ted. Across the world, most cities have some major streets
Sociability is a condition for enabling many other cultural,
that anchor significant civic, cultural and commercial
economic and civic roles of public space. In the past few
buildings and spaces and along with it a host of historical
decades, with increasing trends of commodification of
memories of the city. Revitalizing such streets, as many
space, there have been common concern amongst urbanists
cities have done, provides an easy way to restore image and
that in contemporary urban societies, particularly in North
identity. Another common street type is the neighbourhood
America, social life has been eroded by the emphasis on a
commercial street (main street, high street, and the like)
culture of privacy, individual comforts in the private realm
that serves the daily needs of urban neighbourhoods.
and a bipolar lifestyle of work and home. A wide array of
Reviving such neighbourhood commercial streets translates
social ills has been associated with the growing paucity of
into creating walkable urban centres that are easy to reach
social contacts. As a solution, Oldenburg (1989) has made
by many, where opportunities for neighbours to interact
a case for a public social realm—a third place—in order to
may help strengthen social ties and sense of community,
live a balanced life. Oldenburg and Brissett (1980) also
and where neighbourhood residents may cross paths with
advocate such places as a common ground, a leveller in a
strangers as a part of the daily rhythm of life. Main streets
polarizing society. They note,
are also key contributors to the local economy; they can
The hangout is important for what it symbolizes to reduce the dependence on the automobile, and having
us; a kind of pure, freewheeling sociability, uncon- destinations in the neighbourhood that can be reached on
taminated by status, special purposes or goals. foot can provide health benefits. This can be a step towards
(Oldenburg and Brissett 1980, p. 82) creating an equitable and healthy city by providing physi-
cal amenities for people of all economic classes. In a time
Lofland (1998) adds yet another dimension of tolerance
when we are increasingly able to satisfy our needs for
and argues that active and passive social contact in public
leisure and information in the private realm and when
open space such as streets provides the setting for the
public space in cities is shrinking and transforming into a
‘‘learning of cosmopolitanism’’. By engaging the literature
privatized pseudo-public realm as a result of fear (Ellin
from sociology, psychology, psychiatry, political science,
1999), the local main street provides an open neutral ter-
architecture, urban design, and planning, Crowhurst-Len-
ritory that is a key quality of public space (Tiesdell and Oc
nard and Lennard (1987, 1995), develop a list of social
1998). Besides purchasing goods and service, people go
functions served in public spaces. This list includes
shopping to engage in numerous social behaviours
learning, the development of social competence, the
including meeting friends and acquaintances, to people-
exchange of information, the facilitation of social dialogue,
watch and be seen, and to walk around as is well known
the fostering of social awareness, the enhancement of
from retailing research. Social affiliation and interaction,
social integrative functions, and the encouragement of
sensory stimulation and leisure are amongst important and
ethical conduct.
basic motives coupled with shopping (Tauber 1972; Jan-
An urbanizing planet translates into a large number of
sen-Verbeke 1987; Bloch et al. 1989, 1994; Falk 1997,
people that encounter streets as a primary form of public
amongst others) as identified by sociologists and environ-
space. Even with varying uses and meanings, typologically
mental psychologists. Above all, local main streets create
the street is a pan-cultural space. Streets are both literally
opportunities for neighbours and strangers, as a part of the
and metaphorically the most fitting symbol of the public
daily round, to meet and engage, provide opportunities for
realm: in urban areas, streets constitute a significant part of
a range of social interactions that are fundamental to
the public open space—in some cases occupying over 50%
individual well-being, a sense of community as well as
of the urban land (Moudon 1987). ‘‘[T]he ‘street’ is often
civic action (Putnam 2000).
shorthand for the urban world’’ (Jukes 1990, p. xv) and for
many urbanites, streets represent the outdoors (Jacobs
1993). It is no surprise that the street ‘‘has occupied a
Need for research
cherished place in the lexicon of urbanism’’ (Keith 1995,
p. 297). As the most ubiquitous form of public space across
Social life has been used as a measure of urban vitality and
the urbanizing world, the street has a simple structure with
as an indicator of the satisfaction of people with their
the ability to accommodate myriad social, cultural, eco-
physical surroundings. Recent empirical work on streets
nomic and political functions. Streets offer the primary
has focused on street liveliness and detailed recording of
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
social activities (Gehl 2004; Mehta 2007, 2013). Designing
physical environmental form, and creating policies that
support lively streets through the right mix of uses and
management strategies is an important goal in itself.
Nevertheless, this does not directly (and empirically)
address the understanding of the street as a place for a
social life that is diverse and inclusive with regard to actors
and activities. Empirical work to record activity in public
spaces is tedious and time-consuming in itself. Thus,
recording both the specific actors and their behaviours,
over and above the task of recording activities, becomes an
even more arduous and laborious task that few researchers
are able to undertake. As a result, there are only a few
studies that aim for such level of detail using ethnographic
methodologies (see, e.g., Holland et al. 2007; Cattell et al.
2008) and in most cases, we find, at most, either specific
behaviour or specific actors examined but seldom both
recorded simultaneously. At the same time, urban obser-
vers and commentators have revealed the
undoubtable marginalization of so many groups as a result
of the commodification, sanitization, and fortification of
the city. This discourse of public space framed around the
demise of publicness and the call to reverse the decline of
public space has not focused on the role that the modest
spaces play in people’s everyday lives. While the larger
discussion on ‘‘everyday urbanism’’ (Chase et al. 2008) has
brought to fore the value of the ordinary as the everyday
spectacle, few empirical studies assess neighbourhood
public spaces with a lens to examine the everyday social
life. Moreover, the focus on the decline and negative
aspects of changing public space often overshadows the
discussion and role of the mundane but meaningful forms
of social contact and engagement. These informal
momentary social encounters in public spaces, is the
bridging that likely plays a crucial role in ‘‘promoting
cohesion within diversity’’ (Alcock 2003 cited in Cattell
et al. 2008). There is clearly a need for deeper research on
ordinary everyday spaces, such as main streets in neigh-
bourhoods, to examine the casual social contacts and
activities that make the street meaningful and attractive for
people to use.
Methods
Ethnographic methods including empirical observations
and interviews were used to study the streets. First, all
stationary social activities were recorded on the streets
using walk-by observations. This helped with identifying
specific settings where the street was most actively used.
Second, we observed these settings in detail using struc-
tured direct observations. Finally, interviews were con-
ducted with people who used the streets.
19
Study areas
The research for this paper was conducted on six main
streets in the Unites States, three in the Boston
metropolitan area in Massachusetts and three in the city of
Cincinnati in Ohio. All six main streets are historical
streets that include mostly older building stock, with only a
few new buildings constructed in the last half a century.
Most buildings are built to the sidewalk leaving no set-
backs. Aside from a few newer buildings with commercial
space, all buildings range from one to four storeys in
height. Although none of these neighbourhoods is consid-
ered a downtown, the streets studied are amongst the major
commercial streets in their respective neighbourhoods. All
streets have a combination of small, independently owned
local businesses and a few national chain stores. These
include a variety of restaurants, coffee shops, bars, fast
food restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, hard-
ware stores, pharmacies, electronics stores, cleaners,
apparel stores, barbershops, hair and beauty salons, book-
shops, teaching institutes, banks, offices, apartments, and
so on. A mix of uses occurs at the block level such that
most of the blocks have some variety of retail at the street
level to serve daily needs, and some office space usually in
buildings with upper floors. While there is very limited
residential space on the upper floors of the buildings, most
of the adjoining streets are primarily residential. Hence,
most people in the neighbourhood need only walk a few
minutes to reach the neighbourhood’s main street. Transit
stops are located on or adjacent to these main streets. While
these streets are similar in ways mentioned above, there are
subtle differences in form and character, as would be
expected. These streets were selected for their similarities
as well as variability between their physical characteristics
and uses, and to provide an adequate sample size for the
study.
The six neighbourhoods, such as Central Square in
Cambridge, MA and Clifton in Cincinnati, OH, which are
home to these streets, are predominantly residential
neighbourhoods with many of their daily commercial,
cultural, entertainment, and other needs and amenities
catered by the businesses on their main streets (see Figs. 1,
2, 3). While the six streets are similar in ways mentioned
above, there are differences in form and character as would
be expected.
Walk-by observations
Walk-by observations were used to record the location and
number of all stationary and lingering social activities on
the streets. The researcher slowly walked past the complete
length of the main street and recorded the total number of
stationary people encountered, their locations, the activities
20 V. Mehta

Fig. 1 Views of some of the neighbourhood main streets studied

they were engaged in, and their postures. People passing by and or a larger group were noted as a group. Sitting,
or entering a premise without stopping were not recorded. standing, and lying or sleeping were recorded as variable
Each person was represented by a dot on the coding sheet. postures. Observations were conducted on days with tem-
People who were engaged in an activity as a dyad, triad, peratures between 55 and 85 F on weekdays between 7:00
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Fig. 2 The blocks studied on
Massachusetts Avenue, the
main street of Central Square in
Cambridge, MA
A.M. and 10:00 P.M. and on weekends between 8:00 A.M.
and 11:00 P.M during the months of May through October.
Observations were spread out to observe each street during
early and late morning, lunch hours, early and late after-
noon and evenings including after dark. Fifteen walk-by
observations were conducted on weekdays and fifteen on
the weekend.
21
Structured direct observations
The walk-by observation results indicated that there were
certain locations (settings) on each street that had a high
concentration of activities and social behaviours. These
settings were studied in detail using structured direct
observations. By locating at a discreet vantage point for
maximum visibility of the setting, the researcher observed
and recorded activities and behaviours at each setting for
22
Fig. 3 The blocks studied on
Ludlow Avenue, the main street
of Clifton in Cincinnati, OH
15 min. As in the walk-by observations, stationary and
lingering social activities were recorded, and people just
passing by or entering a premise without stopping were not
included. Activities were recorded in detail on observation
sheets containing drawings of each setting and were sup-
plemented with extensive field notes. Apparent age, gen-
der, race, SES, activities and postures were coded for ease
of recording. Persons interacting with each other or
engaged in a common activity were indicated on the
observation sheet. Direct 15-min observations of activities
were conducted seven times each on weekdays and
weekends at each setting.
Interviews
The interview questions were designed to capture the rea-
sons people used the street, what they valued on the street
and their future visions for the street, as well feelings about
the changes of street. A total of sixty-six interviews were
conducted.
The following sections elaborate on how the streets were
used as a setting for social life. Based on observations, and
by examining select settings of social interaction on the
streets, a thematic analysis is presented as a typology of
social contacts and behaviours to understand the street as a
social space.
V. Mehta
Social life on the street
Lively and vibrant streets
Walk-by observations provided a kind of snapshot of the
life of the six streets showing that all were lively and
vibrant spaces. Walk-by observations provided a valuable
spatial recording of people engaged in various activities
and clearly indicated that while all the blocks on the streets
were concourses for pedestrians, there were preferred
locations for social activities on all the six streets (see
Figs. 4, 5). These settings on the streets were better able to
support stationary and lingering social activities as com-
pared to other locations on the same street.
The street as a place of diversity
Each street had at least one setting that was clearly a space
of high density of use with a higher range of activities. The
structured direct observations revealed the variety of pos-
tures, activities, behaviours and social interactions on the
street. These included sitting, standing, lying, eat-
ing/drinking, reading, using a laptop, shopping, window-
shopping, people-watching, playing a game or performing,
talking, panhandling, smoking, walking pets, pushing a
stroller, vending and so on, and were not mutually exclu-
sive (see Table 1).
On these settings on the streets, we find a varied social
life with many diverse groups of people and activities.
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Fig. 4 Behavioural map of people engaged in some stationary social
activities on weekdays and weekends on Massachusetts Avenue in
Central Square, Cambridge, MA. Each black dot represents a person.
Fig. 5 Behavioural map of
people engaged in some
stationary social activities on
weekdays and weekends on
Ludlow Avenue in Clifton,
Cincinnati, OH. Each black dot
represents a person. The
locations of clustered dots
clearly show the settings where
the street was most actively
used
People of several age groups and class coexist here and the
street serves the many roles discussed in the literature on
public space. Often simultaneously, but certainly within the
course of a few hours, the same space on the street that is
home to casual meeting transforms to a space of economic
survival or a political space (see Figs. 6, 7). There are
settings where certain groups repeatedly claim the street
space. In some cases, there are considerable overlaps and a
diverse set of people simultaneously claim and territorial-
ize the same street space maintaining a civil distance. In
other cases, there are spatial distinctions between the
groups who establish their claim on the street. In yet other
settings, diverse groups claim the same spaces on the street
but they do so at different times of the day and week.
Regardless of these mechanisms, a wide range of groups
were able to claim and use the street (see Figs. 8, 9, 10).
These spaces of gathering achieved the quality of place on
the street that Hester (1984) suggests, possess a sense of
‘‘collective-symbolic ownership’’ and are ones that people
in the neighbourhood hold ‘‘sacred’’ (13). Although in
these spaces people are seen engaging in ordinary activities
of daily life, these places provide a comfort and at-easeness
that is invaluable to our well-being. Observations showed
that these settings had a distinct hereness, a sense of being
in it and enclosure, a sense of ease and safety and an
‘‘existential insideness’’, which Relph (1976) suggests, are
at the core of the experience of place.
23
The locations of clustered dots clearly show the settings where the
street was most actively used
A taxonomy: passive, fleeting and enduring
sociability
Urban observers agree that the range of social relationships
in public space are of significance to people engaged in
such relationships, and an important building block of
urban social order (Putnam 2000). This range may be
understood as an ‘‘intensity of contact’’ (Gehl 1987)—from
being left alone to being in the close company of others. To
better understand public life, some scholars of public space
have classified these relationships. One of most simple and
elegant frameworks to understand the use and sociability of
public space is proposed by Gehl (1987) in which he
classifies outdoor activities as necessary, optional and
social. Necessary activities, such as going to work or
school, occur almost regardless of the quality of the envi-
ronment; optional activities, such as taking a leisurely walk
or lingering only occur when the environmental conditions
are optimal; and social activities are a result of a high level
of optional activities requiring a high environmental
quality. Classifying relationships in the public realm,
Lofland (1998) synthesizes the work conducted by Davis
(1959), Stone (1954) and others, and suggests a typology of
social relationships in the public realm—the fleeting, the
routinized, the quasi-primary and the intimate-secondary.
Building on these two taxonomies and recognizing the
possibility of the street as a space of everyday use requires
a taxonomy that addresses the wide range of social beha-
viours. All the behaviours and activities on the street dis-
cussed earlier may be categorized into a tripartite
24 V. Mehta

Table 1 Activities, behaviours and postures observed on the streets Table 1 continued
Postures Playing chasing games—using street furniture and trees, etc.
Walking Driving toys on building walls and in nooks, entrances, alcoves,
Ambling etc.
Standing Playing with newspaper dispensing boxes—opening, shutting,
Sitting hiding things, etc.
Lying Playing with parked cars—leaning, looking in, looking at
reflections, etc.
Sleeping
Jogging/running
Skateboarding
taxonomy—passive sociability, fleeting sociability and
Bicycling
enduring sociability. This taxonomy uses Lofland’s (1998)
Adults’ behaviours and activities
work to make it pertinent to the street and also adds to
Talking
Gehl’s (1987) classification of outdoor activities by further
Eating and drinking
examining the type and nature of social activities.
Working
Reading
Passive sociability
Sunbathing
Sharing time with family or friends (eating, drinking, socializing)
Being alone in public is a social behaviour. There is a
Kissing and other intimate physical contact
certain need for human beings to be in the presence of other
Cleaning and maintaining shop front and sidewalk people without seeking any direct verbal contact—a pas-
Decorating—putting planters out, hanging planters, putting out sive sociability that is a shared human interaction between
advertising boards, changing signs, etc.
strangers and ‘‘familiar strangers’’ (Milgram 1977). Public
Smoking
solitude, spectating and display, relaxation, and play were
Talking on a mobile phone
visible forms of passive sociability on the street.
Playing a musical instrument
People sought out places to be alone in public in the
Playing board games
presence of others even if they did not intend to directly
Preaching
interact or participate in any active social behaviour (see
Panhandling
Fig. 11). People came to read, work, eat and drink alone
Vending and only engaged in minimal and essential conversation,
Greeting others on the street for example, to order food or drink or to ask for a chair.
Walking pets Often, they found this ability to be alone in public a
Observing other people and activities desirable quality of the street as noted by these two users of
Window-shopping the street,
Protesting
Soliciting signatures for a petition I love the coffeehouse. You can sit there for hours. Sit
Distributing flyers there, read, [and] look at people. I do some of my
Children’s behaviours and activities
work here. [It is] an atmosphere not as serious as a
Sharing time with family and other children (eating, drinking,
library.
socializing) I’m surrounded by people but I have my privacy.
Greeting adults and children There is a social agreement. There are zones of social
Assisting grandparents interaction. The other day I was drawing here, set up
Walking pets an easel and nobody said anything. They leave you
Observing adults, older children, pets, objects and activities alone…
Inquiring about people, objects and activities People-watching or spectating is one of the most com-
Climbing on and going under objects (furniture, mon passive behaviours in public space. The sights, sounds
telephone/electrical boxes, bicycle racks, etc.) for play and
and smells of bodies moving through space is an extra
exploration
benefit of being in the outdoors, a side show. The main
Walking in and out of building nooks, entrances, alcoves, etc.
street offered good opportunities to spectate within easy
Looking inside shop windows and entrances
reach of the home, as people were able to see new and
Playing hide and seek—using street furniture, trees, parked cars,
etc. familiar faces and activities here. Several people
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Fig. 6 The plan and photographs showing a sampling of activities on Massachusetts Ave. in Central Square, Cambridge, MA that serves the
many roles of public space
recognized this potential of the main street as mentioned by
this regular user of the street.
I’m here once every day on average. I shop here; buy
books, rent videos, [get a] haircut, buy coffee, meet
people, hang out, people-watch…
For many, the street, as a public space, is a place to be
seen. It is like a stage where they can act out their parts and
display their talents and skills. Although usually associated
with special occasions, infrequently people used the street
as a place for display—of body, possessions, skills—and
even an overt display of affection shown through physical
intimacy. The main street was a good place to hang out and
to be passively sociable. On the one hand, there was plenty
to provide sensory stimulation especially by way of all the
stores, the signage, decorations, street furniture, trees and
so on. On the other, there was space to sit or stand and be
away from it all. Some people lingered on the street just
window-shopping and ambling on the sidewalk, sitting
25
down and making a phone call or just resting and taking a
break.
Relaxation is one of the five primary needs of people in
public space (Carr et al. 1992). Passive sociability provides
the much-needed relaxation that people find in being alone
together with others in public. Relaxation often occurs as a
resultant behaviour along with public solitude or spectating
and is often associated with eating, drinking, reading or
watching people and activities. This lady, a regular on the
main street remarked:
I’m here two-three times a day. Every day I have
coffee at Peet’s. I walk here daily and exercise. It
takes me out of my house. I come here to read. It’s
very relaxing for me. My friends know where to find
me.
Observations found much, which Whyte (1980) did, that
even as people sought relaxation, they did not want a
complete retreat and separation from city life; rather, they
26
Fig. 7 The plan and photographs showing a sampling of activities on Ludlow Ave. in Clifton, Cincinnati, OH that serves the many roles of
public space
looked for some liveliness, activity, and some form of
engagement.
Most streets, where people busily hurry along, do pro-
vide an opportunity for passive sociability. However, see-
ing and experiencing other bodies and activities on the go,
as one passes by, is a very transitory kind of social inter-
action. For streets to support greater and more long-lasting
passive sociability, it is imperative for the space to be
understood as a place to stop, hang out and spend some
time. Observations showed that places to sit—benches,
chairs or ledges and steps built into the buildings and
landscape—were essential, as were sheltered spaces,
alcoves and niches to stand and hang out. Active and
animated edges of buildings with show windows caught the
interest of many and encouraged them to stop. The busi-
nesses—coffee houses, bars, pubs, restaurants, conve-
nience stores, and so on—where people came to hang
around were key to supporting and initiating passive
sociability.
Aside from such individual benefits as relaxation and
sensory stimulation, passive sociability plays an important
role of familiarizing people to ones unlike themselves
whom they may consider ‘‘others’’. Passive sociability
provides the first step in negotiating differences by
V. Mehta
developing empathy for others, but also by learning and
growing from seeing numerous new and unfamiliar people,
customs, behaviours and activities.
Fleeting sociability
A considerable advantage of the main street (over shopping
centres and malls), as a place for shopping within the
neighbourhood, is the opportunity it provides for neigh-
bours to cross paths as a part of the daily round. These
chance encounters may lead to small chitchat and con-
versation or short-term low-intensity contacts amongst
neighbours or strangers—a fleeting sociability. Because the
streets were able to support considerable stationary activ-
ities, several opportunities arose for short-term, low-in-
tensity contacts amongst residents, workers and visitors.
These brief fleeting contacts constitute easy interactions
with other people in a relaxed and relatively undemanding
way. Such fleeting sociability has its transitory benefits of
humanizing the moment for the people engaged in the
interaction. However, it is also suggested that these short-
term, low-intensity contacts or weak ties are possible
beginnings of deeper and more enduring social interactions
and engagements between people (Jacobs 1961;
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Fig. 8 The plan and photographs showing people of diverse age groups and class occupy, territorialize and claim the street space on
Massachusetts Ave. in Central Square, Cambridge, MA
Granovetter 1973; Greenbaum 1982). Jacobs (1961) argues
that through repeated short-term contacts people grow to
trust their fellow city dwellers who may otherwise be total
strangers. She writes
The sum of such casual, public contact at a local
level—most of it fortuitous, most of it associated with
errands, all of it metered by the person concerned and
not thrust upon him by anyone—is a feeling for the
public identity of people, a web of public respect and
trust, and a resource in time of personal or neigh-
bourhood need… Lowly, unpurposeful and random
as they may appear, sidewalk contacts are the small
change from which a city’s wealth of public life may
grow.
(Jacobs 1961, p. 56 and 72)
The act of waiving to a known neighbour, an acquain-
tance or a familiar face, a momentary stop for a chat, a
simple reciprocation through a nod or a smile or the brief
exchange of acts such as asking or telling time are all signs
27
of fleeting sociability (see Fig. 12). Numerous occurrences
and events on the street triggered fleeting sociability.
Children, particularly younger ones, and pets prompted
visual and verbal exchanges and pleasantries amongst
adults. Street performers, interesting displays in the show
windows, a commentary of a game on the radio were
examples of conditions that encouraged people to stop by
and exchange opinions, comments or just banal observa-
tions. Several people mentioned this ability to engage in
fleeting social interactions as a quality they valued as
suggested by these comments:
1369 [Coffeehouse] is very personal. There is great
outdoor seating. The music outdoors attracts people.
It is a great place to sit and enjoy your day and
people-watch. It is interesting to see all kinds of
people. I frequently run into people without planning.
There are more businesses here that interest me. I
return here, often to the café. I like the atmosphere
and the food. The garage doors open to the street. I
28 V. Mehta

Fig. 9 The plan and photographs showing people of diverse age groups and class occupy, territorialize and claim the street space on Ludlow
Ave. in Clifton, Cincinnati, OH

like the music, the food, [and the] pool table. They
have wireless internet. And I meet people there,
really interesting people.
Play is key to fleeting sociability. Most play occurred as
an individual or group activity and as a behaviour where
the player or players and the audience engaged in fleeting
sociability. On the streets, watching a musician play
sometimes triggered a social interaction and playing
together translated into fleeting and sometimes even
enduring social relationships. One of the street performers
mentioned how she met one of her co-performers and
eventually developed a friendship—a good example of
fleeting social encounters transforming to enduring
sociability.
I used to come here [on the street] and play [my
guitar] sometimes and it’s where I met him. Now we
play together a lot. You’ve seen us? We’ve become
good friends.
People who played board games at a table on the street
sometimes attracted their neighbouring sitters or passers-by
to comment and engage in fleeting sociability. Furniture
and objects on the street supported other casual forms of
play. Children who playfully used street furniture and
objects by running around them or jumping over bollards
and benches or climbing on bicycle racks or benches often
had to interact with others engaging them in fleeting
sociability.
The main street, when designed and managed well, can
provide a setting to support fleeting sociability. At several
locations on the streets, design and management played an
important role. The width of sidewalks allowed for walk-
ing, strolling, and walking pets and children in strollers.
Managed traffic speed through various traffic calming
measures allowed people to easily cross the street and
exchange greetings if they wished. The overall width of the
street, enabled people to communicate across the street.
Articulated facades allowed people to stop by and talk in a
semi-enclosed sheltered space away from the flow of
movement. Smokers who found a hospitable shaded alcove
sometimes engaged in small talk. This is where street
performers chose to locate themselves. Watching the per-
formance sometimes resulted in exchanges amongst the
viewers. Opportunities to sit on benches, chairs or other
sitting space on the street provided occasions for people to
exchange pleasantries with others sitting or walking
nearby. Several stores used show windows not only as
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability 29

Fig. 10 The wide-range of ordinary activities and postures showcasing the streets as everyday places of diversity, difference and tolerance

interesting ways to display wares but also to showcase Enduring sociability

local art and other talent. Sometimes this became a catalyst
for people passing by or stopping to take a look and talk to
each other. Opportunities to bring and engage their children
and pets on the street made unfamiliar adults engage in
fleeting sociability.
Enduring sociability includes intimate relationships and
affiliations—both meaningful associations amongst people.
People may not come to the main street for the sole purpose
of seeking long-term relationships but for many the street is
30
Fig. 11 Some examples of passive sociability on the street
a place to actively connect with their companions, friends
and the community. Intimate relationships comprise
meeting of close friends or partners. Affiliations include
regular meeting of a group of friends or acquaintances.
Enduring sociability depends on more frequent and repe-
ated contact amongst the persons. As they do so, people
invest their time and emotional energy in finding or cre-
ating circumstances that foster enduring sociability. One of
these circumstances is the appropriate setting to meet and
commune. The businesses on the street play a big role in
this, as do the individuals and agencies that set policies and
manage the street. This coffee house on Massachusetts
Avenue sets a great example. Here, the attitude of the
business owners and workers encourages enduring social
relationships. Their website reads
… We strive to create a comfortable, inviting atmo-
sphere and to be an integral part of the community.
Many friendships, including several marriages, have
developed at 1369. Several books and many theses
have been written at our tables. We take pride in
V. Mehta
being a good neighbour and local gathering place. We
are dedicated to maintaining this feeling.
Enduring sociability may develop from fleeting or even
passive sociability and is sometimes a continuum over
time. To be able to support this continuum, the street must
be equipped with an ambience of safety and amenity that
makes it suitable for gathering. Whether it is amongst
intimates or acquaintances, conversation is the most com-
mon component of enduring sociability on the street, and
perhaps one of the activities where the pleasures and pas-
sions of the actors become outwardly visible.
On the streets, some examples of enduring sociability
observed included friends gathering for coffee almost
every day at a set time, homeless who gathered near a
convenience store and spent time on the benches nearby or
to watch television in the show window, a group of recent
immigrants who gathered for coffee taking a break from
selling newspapers, a family out to get a meal, close friends
who sat on benches to smoke and chat, lovers meeting to
spend time together on a bench or dining at the outdoor
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Fig. 12 Some examples of fleeting sociability on the street
seating, mothers out with their infants and toddlers meeting
outside the ice cream shop, a group of retired old ladies
gathering on benches, and so on (see Fig. 13). The places
on the street that supported enduring sociability included
the stores themselves and the street space fronting several
coffee shops and bars, two restaurants, a bookshop, a
convenience store, an ice cream shop, and a thrift store. In
addition, street corners and several locations with benches
on the street were common places for people to gather and
engage in enduring sociability.
For the street to provide opportunities to meet and
pursue enduring social relationships was important to
people as suggested by these comments. Along with other
characteristics, respondents emphasized the community
place quality of the business.
Peet’s serves superior coffee over Starbucks. It is a
place to hang out and chat. So many people I know I
have met here. It is a community place.
I feel lucky because I live so close to this block. My
friends come to see me here and say ‘it is so cool’.
31
1369 is my favourite coffeehouse. I love the music
they play. It is a convenient place to meet friends,
planned and incidentally.
The benefits of enduring sociability are many—both
personal and to the community and society. To the indi-
vidual, enduring sociability provides interest and stimula-
tion and sometimes excitement through conversation and
contact with fellow human beings: it offers an antidote to
boredom and isolation. Citing Georg Simmel, Oldenburg
(1989) states three qualities that very well describe
enduring sociability—joy, vivacity and relief (p. 55).
Enduring sociability means sustained human company,
which is a basic psychological need. The exchange, espe-
cially amongst friends or acquaintances, is perhaps a con-
versation about the recent events or gossip and is often
light hearted and filled with laughter. There is much
exchange of information and ideas, and building of social
capital. However, people also talk about more significant
things related to their lives, such as local or national pol-
itics or a change made in their neighbourhood or city. This
32
Fig. 13 Some examples of enduring sociability on the street
is where, by increasing awareness and sharing of thoughts
and information, enduring sociability transforms into civic
participation and becomes meaningful to the local com-
munity and society as a whole.
Enduring sociability reinforces a sense of community
especially when people engaged in it share a similar group,
such as a neighbourhood or workplace. Through the shar-
ing of ideas and even banal information, enduring socia-
bility helps build social capital. Conversation in this case is
mostly civil as involved parties usually participate volun-
tarily. Occasionally discussions can get heated and turn to
arguments with friends and acquaintances and sometimes
even strangers. However, mostly this is healthy as opposing
ideas are shared and perspectives broadened.
Allowing and encouraging places to gather on the street
are critical to supporting enduring sociability. In the best
case, space to gather, at least in small groups, must be
available adjacent to businesses and also on the street space
unassociated with any business. Thus, people may be able
to congregate at the street as they patronize the business,
V. Mehta
perhaps to enjoy a drink or a meal, or be free to meet on the
street without paying for any goods or services. On the
streets, design and management played an important role in
supporting enduring sociability. Several businesses were
well suited to creating a comfortable and relaxed ambience
so needed for enduring sociability. Many had furnished the
adjacent space on the sidewalks to facilitate an atmosphere
for lingering and gathering and the ensuing sociability (see
Fig. 14). At several locations tree-covered wide sidewalks
with benches enabled people to gather for long durations
without purchasing from any business (see Fig. 15).
Articulated facades of buildings with incidental seating
also made opportunities for people to congregate. How-
ever, several locations on the street lacked the space or
furnishings to enable a setting for gathering. There were
places on the street with hardly any space to stop and
gather even as the adjacent businesses were hubs for
meeting and socializing.
The purpose of design and management must be to
create opportunities to support the ability for people to
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Fig. 14 The street furnished, at certain locations, to facilitate an atmosphere for lingering and gathering and to create an inviting, gathering
space
Fig. 15 At several locations, tree-covered wide sidewalks with benches provided to enable people to gather for long durations without
purchasing from any business
engage with others at all levels including meaningful
associations. Enduring sociability requires much more
from the setting compared to passive and fleeting socia-
bility. First, the place must provide physical conditions and
an ambience suitable to meet. And second, the rules and
mores of the place must allow for easy interactions, both
casual and serious.
The social behaviours supported by the streets, dis-
cussed under the three typologies, cover a wide range of
these activities and the resulting intensities of amicable
contact to serve many. Understanding social behaviours as
passive, fleeting and enduring sociability allows us to better
design and manage for a range of uses and outcomes that
people seek on the street. As opposed to thinking in a
generalized way and designing a ‘‘good street’’, the
33
typology provides us specifics and asks us, what behaviours
our designs and policies will support or inhibit.
Street characteristics and sociability
The detailed description and discussion on social beha-
viours—passive, fleeting and enduring sociability—visible
on the streets is a function of the physical characteristics,
the types of businesses and other uses as well as the way in
which the street space was managed. Certainly, even as
these streets are visibly vibrant and lively, not all places on
these streets were equally hospitable to social behaviours.
While in this paper I present a taxonomy of social beha-
viours on the street, a thorough qualitative and quantitative
34
Table 2 Street characteristics that create affordances for sociability
Street characteristics
Physical
Commercial seating
Public (non-commercial) seating
Articulated street front
Other furniture and physical artefacts
Sidewalk width
Shade from trees and canopies
Land use and management
Independent uses
Variety of businesses on block
Personalized store front
Permeability of store front
Social and management
Community places
analysis of these street characteristics reported in other
research (Mehta 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013) suggests the
following. Foremost, the findings reveal that the physical,
land use and the management of the street together work to
create a space conducive of social behaviours. Specifically,
the research on these urban neighbourhood commercial
streets found that eleven characteristics created affordances
for social behaviour (Table 2) and of those eleven, com-
mercial seating, public seating, community gathering pla-
ces, personalization and sidewalk width were particularly
significant in quantitative analyses. The qualitative and
quantitative mixed-methods research found that an
engagement between the physical layout of the environ-
ment, the elements of behavioural environment (uses,
activities and management) and the places that have col-
lective meanings for the community is essential for the
social life on neighbourhood commercial streets. A phys-
ically well-designed street for people, with generous side-
walks, ample seating and other street furniture, tree cover
and other landscape elements, articulated street façades of
buildings built to the sidewalk and so on becomes much
more useful and meaningful for people when there are
community gathering places and a variety of activity-sup-
porting stores and other well managed land uses at the
street, and vice versa.
The detailed examination of individual groups and sub-
groups showed some minor differences in the order of
significance of these eleven characteristics in creating
affordances for social behaviour for that group. For
example, as expected, the use of the street by children was
quite different from adults and in many cases, forms,
spaces and objects held different meanings and uses for
them compared to adults. This was visible in their postures
and activities. The proximity of the neighbourhood
V. Mehta
commercial street to the residential environment made it
easy for adults with children to access and use the street,
and this offered a good way for parents to transition their
children into public space. These streets, as a public space,
offered multiple lessons for children by using the space,
and by observing the environment and watching people and
their activities. Play was the predominant activity and
children actively used furniture and objects on the street for
play. Benches, magazine- or newspaper-dispensing boxes,
advertising signs on the floor, electrical panel boxes,
parked cars and so on were all part of their repertoire of
play objects. All of these features presented children with
opportunities for exploration along with play. Many of
these objects aided younger children in developing motor
and balancing skills. This ability to use public space also
helped build confidence by providing children with a cer-
tain level of autonomy (albeit supervised) in an unfamiliar
place. Since adults accompanying the children were near
activity-supporting uses, children used the street furniture
and objects that were closer to these uses. Aside from
providing a place to play, the street provided children with
skills for collaboration, cooperation and negotiation in
ways of learning to accept and be accepted. The neigh-
bourhood commercial street also provided new situations
for children to learn to care and to take responsibility. For
example, on several occasions, I observed children
accompanying their older relatives and helping them
negotiate the street environment. Children also saw and
sometimes interacted with people of different backgrounds
and groups. We know from children’s studies that such
exposure helps develop compassion and empathy. In sum,
for children using the street in individual or group play or
other interactions, the most important street characteristics
were a wide and well-furnished sidewalk (with commercial
and public seating, and other furniture and physical arte-
facts), articulated street front, permeable and personalized
store fronts, and variety of businesses on the block.
Discussion and implications for policy, planning
and design
Streets have played an important role in the transformation
of cities throughout history. With the increasing urban-
ization, there is growing pressure and demand on urban
open public space and as a result, currently, there is much
interest in the street. This had led to claims on the street
space that now range from making the street an
equitable space for numerous means of transportation to
occupying the street by means of tactical modes of
urbanistic activities. There is, in general, much emphasis
on making the street a place rather than just a path for
movement. This interest and energy in the street is
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
welcome. However, we must not forget that the street is
one of the last truly ubiquitous public spaces that remains
in cities. Unlike the grander public spaces that are
emerging in city centres as most cities reinvest in the urban
core, the street is a ubiquitous and easily accessible public
space for most urban dwellers. This paper calls for moving
our attention from the discussion of public space framed
around its broader social and economic benefits of regen-
erating the urban core of cities to a focus on the value of
mundane public spaces, such as neighbourhood commer-
cial streets, that support everyday social life along with the
diversity of activities and social contacts.
Looking at such streets is appropriate because these are
ordinary streets—the public spaces of everyday life. These
streets exhibit a certain authenticity that is visible in the
heterogeneity manifest in the variety of businesses,
appearance and age of the buildings, the types of activities,
and most importantly, the people who use the street.
Although these streets have transformed over time, they
still maintain an everyday feel and grittiness. Neighbour-
hood residents, visitors, workers and people who call the
street their home use the street for myriad purposes of
socializing, leisure, every day and special shopping, dining,
lingering, promenading, celebration, protest, and survival.
For many residents, the street is the everyday link to the
city and a space that is essential to meeting their day-to-day
shopping needs. For regular visitors and workers, the street
is a destination to customarily stop by for eating, drinking
or shopping. For many groups with limited mobility, these
main streets provide the daily source of outdoor recreation.
However, for some, the street is the place to spend most of
their day. Many such users live in very modest accom-
modations, have meagre jobs and some are unemployed
and homeless. For them, the street, particularly in mild
weather, is as good a place to be as any other. For vendors,
the street is a good place to find a constant stream of cli-
ents, as it is for some others who use the street to pan-
handle. There are persons who regularly visit the street to
look for opportunities, as a place where they can get sup-
port from friends, and even to build social capital. At times,
the street is a place to come out and celebrate or to gather
and protest and let your voice be heard.
The street as public space must be a space of partici-
pation, an arena for the collective voice and shared inter-
ests but also the space where the differences and conflicts
of various groups can play out. The ability to simultane-
ously be a space for diverse groups and activities is an
important role of the street as public space. In discussing
the publicness of public space, Mitchell (2003) suggests
that the appropriation and use of space by a group to fulfil
its needs makes the space public. In many ways, we may
think of the street, as public space, as ‘‘flexible and
ambiguous’’ (Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucth 2009)—
35
ever changing to accommodate the activities and beha-
viours of its users. Studying the streets, it was evident that
some of the settings on these everyday spaces possess a
certain ambiguity and tolerance that allows for more
interpretation and freedom of what is possible on the street,
who can claim it and for which activity. Even within the
limitations imposed by institutional rules and regulations,
these streets are characteristic of much diversity and
difference.
These examples of streets show us the possibilities of
public space and provide us several important lessons
about the potential of creating a social city that is also just
and equitable. These streets show us that various seemingly
incongruent groups have the ability to coexist on the street
when the planning, design and management supports sim-
ple active and passive social activities like people-watch-
ing, walking, talking, eating and play that are of interest to
people of all classes, race, age, gender and viewpoints
(Francis 1987). Yet, we learn that this is only possible
when the design and management of the space and the uses
on the street remains open-ended to represent numerous
groups and constituencies of the neighbourhood and
beyond, and are meaningful to them. Equally important,
these streets, as public spaces, are not excessively moni-
tored or overly regulated to favour selected groups and
activities and are perceived as a neutral territory by many,
if not all.
When the street supports a rich social life, a multitude of
small and large businesses, vendors and other uses, spaces
and objects offer opportunities to attract a varied popula-
tion and people of the neighbourhood are able to cross
paths with others unlike themselves and partake in a range
of passive, fleeting and enduring social contacts. People
use this range of sociability as a mechanism to negotiate
difference, to celebrate, to take delight in sharing com-
monalities and collective achievements, and to seek solace
for a communal loss. Much social and civic benefit results
from this. Whether it is the empathy towards unlike others
that develops by passive sociability of seeing them in the
same space, or the awareness of different and sometimes
opposing viewpoints through discussions and even argu-
ments, or the learning of new etiquettes, behaviours and
sometimes even the courage to deal with unfamiliar cir-
cumstances by watching people handle unusual situations.
Social behaviours also occur simply because it is engaging
and stimulating, sometimes entertaining and fun and even
informative. Lofland (1998) observes that people do not
expect much from many of these interactions and the
simple pleasures they seek are often ‘‘mundane ones;
passing the time with a ‘chat’, sharing an unexpected
experience, getting some information on a topic of interest,
basking in the momentary glow of ‘fellow feeling’, even
commencing a possibly intimate relationship’’ (39).
36
The neighbourhood main street is one of the ubiquitous
transitions between the parochial and the public. This is
where the neighbourhood meets the city and the resident of
the neighbourhood becomes the citizen of the city. It is the
space where the resident encounters urbanity. Such streets
are capable of supporting the many publics of the city. As
diverse people with different perspectives interact and
make exchanges on the street, they bring new needs and
meanings, and thus possibilities, to reshape social space
and social life creating even more diversity. Thus, when
public space supports it, a healthy social life in cities is
self-perpetuating. Historically, the street has been the place
for social life—to congregate, to meet, and to enjoy being a
part of community and also a space for expression.
Although not all are intimate or intense or exceptional,
most are meaningful associations for us as social beings.
The street even offers the opportunity of being on one’s
own in the presence of others to be alone, to relax and to
reflect. This variety of behaviours and activities amongst
diverse social groups and classes generates social
encounters and experiences that are crucial to well-being,
sense of community and civility.
References
1369 Coffee House. 2016. http://www.1369coffeehouse.com/?page_
id=2. Accessed 12 Nov 2016.
Banerjee, T., G. Giuliano, G. Hise, and D. Sloane. 1996. Invented and
reinvented streets: designing the new shopping experience. Lusk
Review 2 (1): 18–30.
Bloch, P., N. Ridgway, and D. Sherrel. 1989. Extending the concept
of shopping: an investigation in browsing activity. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 17: 13–21.
Bloch, P., N. Ridgway, and S. Dawson. 1994. The shopping mall as a
consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing 70 (1): 23–42.
Boyer, M. 1994. The city of collective memory: its historical imagery
and architectural entertainments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cattell, V., N. Dines, W. Gesler, and S. Curtis. 2008. Mingling,
observing, and lingering: everyday public spaces and their
implications for well-being and social relations. Health & Place
14: 544–561.
Carr, S., M. Francis, L. Rivlin, and A. Stone. 1992. Public space. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chakrabarti, V. 2013. A country of cities: a manifesto for an Urban
America. New York: Metropolis Books.
Chase, J., M. Crawford, and J. Kaliski (eds.). 2008. Everyday
urbanism. New York: Monacelli Press.
Crowhurst-Lennard, S., and H. Lennard. 1987. Livable cities—people
and places: social and design principals for the future of the city.
New York: Center for Urban Well-being.
Crowhurst-Lennard, S., and H. Lennard. 1995. Livable cities
observed. IMCL Council. Carmel, CA: Gondolier Press.
Davis, F. 1959. The cabdriver and his fare: facets of a fleeting
relationship. American Journal of Sociology 65 (2): 158–165.
Davis, M. 1990. City of quartz: excavating the future in Los Angeles.
London: Verso.
V. Mehta
Ehrenhalt, A. 2013. The great inversion and the future of the
American city. New York: Vintage.
Ellin, N. 1999. Postmodern urbanism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Falk, P. 1997. The scopic regimes of shopping. In The shopping
experience, ed. P. Falk and C. Campbell, 177–185. London: Sage
Publications.
Francis, M. 1987. The making of democratic streets. In Public streets
for public use, ed. A.V. Moudon. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Gehl, J. 1987. Life between buildings. New York: Van Nostrand-
Reinhold.
Gehl, J. 2004. Public spaces, public life. Copenhagen: The Danish
Architectural Press.
Glaeser, E. 2011. Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention
makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier.
London: Penguin Books.
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology 78: 1360–1380.
Greenbaum, S. 1982. Bridging ties at the neighborhood level. Social
Networks 4: 367–384.
Hester, R. 1984. Planning neighborhood space with people, 2nd ed.
New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.
Holland, C., A. Clark, J. Katz, and S. Peace. 2007. Social interactions
in urban public places. Sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. Bristol: Policy Press.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of Great American Cities. New
York: Vintage Books.
Jacobs, A. 1993. Great streets. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. 1987. Women, shopping, and leisure. Leisure
Studies 6 (1): 71–86.
Jukes, P. 1990. A shout in the street. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Keith, M. 1995. Shouts of the street: identity and the spaces of
authenticity. Social Identities 1 (2): 297–315.
Kohn, M. 2004. Brave New neighborhoods: the privatization of public
space. New York: Routledge.
Lofland, L. 1998. The public realm: exploring the city’s quintessential
social territory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Loukaitou-Sederis, A., and T. Banerjee. 1998. Urban design down-
town: poetics and politics of form. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and R. Ehrenfeucht. 2009. Sidewalks: conflict
and negotiation over public space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mehta, V. 2007. Lively streets: determining environmental charac-
teristics to support social behavior. Journal of Planning Educa-
tion and Research 27 (2): 165–187.
Mehta, V. 2009. Look closely and you will see, listen carefully and
you will hear: urban design and social interaction on streets.
Journal of Urban Design 14 (1): 29–64.
Mehta, V. 2011. Small businesses and the vitality of main street.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 28 (4):
271–291.
Mehta, V. 2013. The street: a quintessential social public space. New
York: Routledge.
Miller, K. 2007. Designs on the public: the private lives of New
York’s public spaces. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Milgram, S. 1977. The Individual in a social world: essays and
experiments. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Mitchell, D. 2003. The right to the city: social justice and the fight for
public space. New York: Guilford Press.
Moudon, A.V. (ed.). 1987. Public streets for public use. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Oldenburg, R. 1989. The great good place. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Oldenburg, R., and D. Brissett. 1980. The essential hangout.
Psychology today 13 (11): 82–84.
Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability
Owen, D. 2010. Green metropolis: why living smaller, living closer,
and driving less are the keys to sustainability. New York:
Riverhead Books.
Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Touchstone.
Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
Sennett, R. 1971. The uses of disorder: personal identity and city life.
New York: Vintage Books.
Smith, N., and S. Low. 2006. Introduction: the imperative of public
space. In The politics of public space, ed. S. Low and N. Smith,
1–16. New York: Routledge.
Sociable. 2016. In Merriam-Webster.com. www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/sociable. Accessed 12 Nov 2016.
Sorkin, M. 1992. Introduction: variations on a theme park. In
Variations on a theme park, ed. M. Sorkin, 11–15. New York:
Noonday.
37
Sorkin, M. 2008. Indefensible space: the architecture of the national
insecurity state. New York: Routledge.
Stone, G. 1954. City shoppers and urban identification: observations
on the social psychology of city life. American Journal of
Sociology 60 (1): 36–45.
Tauber, E. 1972. Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing 36:
6–59.
Tiesdell, S., and T. Oc. 1998. Beyond fortress and panoptic cities:
towards a safer urban public realm. Environmental and Planning
B 25: 639–655.
Walzer, M. 1986. Pleasures and cost of urbanity. Dissent 33:
470–484.
Whyte, W.H. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. Washing-
ton, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Zukin, S. 1995. The culture of cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Zukin, S. 2010. Naked city: the death and life of authentic urban
places. Oxford: Oxford University Press.