See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226509332

Public and Private Space in Urban Areas: House, Neighborhood, and City

Chapter · July 2010

DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-32933-8_8

CITATIONS READS

9 12,555

1 author:

Eugenie L Birch
University of Pennsylvania
95 PUBLICATIONS   1,093 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Working on applying the Global Human Settlements Layer to practical problems View project

Penn IUR/PennDesign Lab on Urban Informality and Sustainable Development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eugenie L Birch on 27 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER 7

Public and Private Space in Urban

Areas: House, Neighborhood,
and City
EUGENIE L. BIRCH

INTRODUCTION

From time immemorial, societies have fashioned informal and formal public and private spaces
in their settlements. Public space is "a place accessible to all citizens, for their use and enjoy-
ment" (Jackson, 1974). In contrast, a private place is open to those permitted by law or custom.
As it becomes more clear in the following essay, the meaning of the words "accessible," "use,"
and "enjoyment" is very broad (Francis, 1989). The demarcation of public and private areas,
although seemingly sharp is sometimes vague. In addition, different societies at various times
in history have placed more or less attention on the creation and maintenance of public space.
Public space is important to urban sociologists who recognize that it serves as a setting for
community activities or public life, for example, parades, meetings, and informal gatherings.
They also observe how it can be a magnet for community organization; for example, groups
unite in designing, developing, maintaining, and protecting public spaces. And finally, they
see that it can provide a unique identifiable reference that reinforces a sense of belonging to a
community; for example, New Yorkers identify with Times Square, Rockefeller Center, Fifth
Avenue, and Central Park or Philadelphians resonate to Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Love
Park, Fairmount Park, and the steps of the Museum of Art.
The inhabitants of the earliest urban civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, and
Middle America incorporated public and semi-public space in their houses, neighborhoods, and
cities. They set it aside in homes built around patios, in streets connecting their neighborhoods,
and in ceremonial and commercial spaces in their cities. Through law, custom, and sometimes
design, they developed means to ensure the safety and security of these places (Mumford, 1961).
Although public space is present in many forms in cities and towns throughout history-from
the classical to medieval, renaissance, and industrial periods to the present (Zucker, 1959)-its
use has changed over time (Sennett, 1976).

EUGENIE L. BIRCH • University of Pennsylvania

118
Public and Private Space in Urban Areas 119

Today's observers of public space focus on it as an urban phenomenon emerging in con-

junction with the modern industrial city. They view its primary function as relieving congestion
and crowding in cities [defined as compact permanent settlements having a large, socially het-
erogeneous population living and working in close proximity; Marshall (2001); Wirth (1938)].
And they also appreciate its ability to provide a locale and source of community organization.
They include streets, squares, and parks in their definition of public space, labeling the totality
the "public realm" (Garvin, 2002). They view public space as arenas that reflect contemporary
community values and attitudes and as places that contribute to urban social life (Jacobs, 1961;
Low, 2000; Whyte, 1980).
In the past fifty years, understanding public space has commanded the attention of a virtual
army of scholars from many disciplines: social scientists including sociologists, anthropolo-
gists, and environmental psychologists (Anderson, 2004; Castells, 2000; Lewis, 1961; Low,
2003,2000; Nasar, 1998; Putnam, 2000; Whyte, 1988,1956); designers including architects,
landscape architects, and city planners (Bacon, 1974; Garvin, 2002; Gehl and Gemzee, 1996;
Jacobs, 1993; Lynch, 1960,1981; Marcus, 1998; Olmsted in Beveridge and Hoffman, 1997);
and popular observers, including journalists and photographers (Hiss, 1990; Jacobs, 1961;
Vergara, 1995). They have traced the functions and uses of public space and documented its
changing functions and character.
In general, their questions revolve around the relationship between community organiza-
tion and the form and use of public space in modern society. They focus on the definition of
"public," issues of free speech, safety, ownership, crowding, design processes, and program-
ming. These concerns stem from late nineteenth century sociological inquiry, rooted in the
work of German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies (1957) that distinguished behaviors labeled
as gemeinschaft (community), rooted in family and governed by folkways and customs, and
gesellschaft (society), based on more complex industrial organization and governed by law
and policy. They owe a great deal to the explorations of Louis Wirth (1938) and his colleagues
in the Chicago School of Sociology, who in applying Tonnies' concepts to the city, attributed a
mode of life to urban features (large, socially heterogeneous, and dense populations) arguing
that they weakened gemeinshaft ties and strengthened gesellschaft tendencies.
In practical terms, Wirth and his followers argued that city dwellers' experiences differed
widely from those of rural inhabitants. Although urban residents experience more personal in-
dependence and freedom, they have segmented transitory relationships that can lead to "anomia
or social void." City people tend to specialize and compete for scarce space in cities. They
lose the simple, predictable social order of country life but enjoy multiple complex relation-
ships based on memberships in widely divergent groups. In coming to these conclusions,
Wirth considered three interrelated aspects of a city: its "physical structure," its "system of
social organization," and its "attitudes and ideas." Although later scholars challenged aspects
of Wirth's theories, they have maintained the basic outlines of his argument to frame con-
temporary thinking about public space (Gans, 1962; Jacobs, 1961; Milgram, 1972). The most
enduring refinement is Jacobs' (1961) assertion that in certain circumstances high density in
cities supports the gemeinschaft paradigm.
As this chapter reviews current thinking about public space, it focuses on its charac-
ter at different scales: the house, the neighborhood, and the city/suburb. In each instance, it
identifies public space and issues related to its physical manifestations, associated social or-
ganization, and reflected values and attitudes. Most important it demonstrates examples of
where public space affects community life, a sense of community affiliation, and community
organization.
120 Eugenie L. Birch

THE HOUSE: A MAN'S ·HOME IS HIS CASTLE

In the United States, seventy-eight percent of all housing units are in metropolitan areas and
seventy-six percent of all households live in single-family dwellings, sixty-one percent on lots
of a half acre or less (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2004). For the
most part, these houses are private places, sanctuaries for the basic societal unit, the family.
However, houses do have public space aspects, expressed in their design and site layout.
Although under U.S. property law, the public has no access (the right to walk or move in)
to privately owned residential land, it does govern certain elements (legally considered a
form of public space) including signage, the placement of the dwelling unit on its lot (side,
back, and front yards), and its height. It usually regulates this public space through zoning,
a local law. Recently, municipalities have extended the public space concept under zoning
to limit dwelling size ("anti-mansionization" laws) (Wood, 2005). Proposed zoning changes,
especially those that affect the type of public space described above can stimulate negative
forms of community organization, often labeled NIMBY (not in my backyard) reactions.
Although many motivations stimulate exclusionary behavior including racism and fear of loss
of home equity, citizens often see zoning modifications especially those that affect the height
and bulk of a building as imposing on the public space associated with their houses and unite
in opposition.
Some communities have inserted design guidelines in their building regulations, pur-
posefully promoting community life. The use of design guidelines has grown in popularity
with the rise of a school of thought labeled "New Urbanism," articulated by the Congress
of New Urbanism and its leading proponents, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk.'
New Urbanists employ guidelines that shape residential public and semi-public space to fos-
ter stronger community ties, counteract anomia, and prevent crime (Congress for the New
Urbanism, 1993; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck, 2000). They prescribe four devices: com-
pact development on gridded streets, the backyard alley, the sidewalk, and the porch. Compact
development results from outlining very small house lots and narrow side yards.? Backyard
alleys (for garage access) push houses close to the street. Sidewalks encourage walking and
front porches accommodate inhabitants who congregate there. These features increase density
(four to twenty dwelling units per acre), heighten human activity, promote visual scrutiny, and
provide opportunities for chance meetings and conversations with passersby in public spaces.
They posit that these interchanges break down urban anonymity and enhance community life.
Houses in Celebration, Florida, Kentlands, Maryland, and Seaside, Florida are representative
of this approach as are the house designs in such u.s. Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment public housing reconstruction projects (HOPE VI projects) as Martin Luther King
Plaza (Philadelphia) and Centennial Place (Atlanta).
The New Urbanists were not the first group to design public space elements in housing
for social purposes. Architect Oscar Newman (1972) pioneered an effort to design crime
prevention for high-density settlements, coining the name "defensible space." After extensive
field work in crime-ridden high-rise public housing projects, he identified three territorial-based
concepts: surveillance (increasing visual links between dwelling units and public space), access
control (limiting entrances to apartments), and ownership/stewardship (creating public spaces
whose size and shape encourages residents to take responsibility for them) and translated them
into three specific design features for multifamily housing. They are: constructing low-scale
buildings with a limited number of apartment entrances/exits, making apartment lobbies and
their mail/delivery rooms visible to the outside, and keeping public areas small so that strangers
Public and Private Space in Urban Areas 121

or intruders would be easily identifiable. The purpose was to reinforce informal social controls
in public space.
In many U.S. regions, especially in high-growth suburbs in the south, southwest, and
west, the idea of limiting access to single-family homes and their surrounding public space has
gained currency through the emergence of the gated community (see Chapter 16 by Blakely
in this Handbook). A recent report estimated that only about four percent of U.S. households
lived in such places (EI Nasser, 2002), however, observers argue that the trend is accelerating
(Blakely and Snyder, 1997; Low, 2003). Households move to gated communities in the belief
that they are safe and populated by others having common values. Often associated with the
gated community is the common interest development (CID), a group of homes whose public
spaces are privately owned and maintained by the residents (McKenzie, 1994). Although aCID
mayor may not be gated, it always has a structured community organization in the form of the
residents' association that provides governance. In both cases the owners or the association
limit the accessibility and use of public space.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD: BUILDING BLOCK

OF THE CITY

Thinking about the neighborhood and its public spaces follows a dynamic trajectory responding
to America's rapid nineteenth century urbanization and industrialization when developers
seeking to accommodate the nation's numerous factory workers in burgeoning cities, especially
in the northeast and midwest, built seemingly endless blocks of tenements with little regard for
public space. They exhibited no appreciation of the social, economic, or sanitary ramifications
of their developments and the cities in which they operated mandated few controls other than
basic public hygiene and fire prevention rules.
By the late nineteenth century, housing reformers, often women who likened themselves as
"municipal housekeepers," looked to improve these wretched living conditions, first advocating
housing regulations focused on improving minimum standards in individual dwellings (e.g.,
requiring toilets and running water) and, later, focusing on neighborhood development that
would provide public open space through dedication of parks, school playgrounds, and the
rearrangement of blocks and streets to free up space for recreation (Birch, 1978). Although
primarily concerned with public health, the reformers viewed these changes as supportive of
family and community life.
The reformers often adapted European precedents to American conditions. Among the
most important models was the "garden city" devised by an English clerk, Ebenezer Howard, re-
fined by his British followers, and brought to the United States by a group known as the Regional
Plan Association ofAmerica (Birch, 2002; Stein, 1951). As translated in the United States in the
1920s in Radburn, New Jersey and in the 1960s in Reston, Virginia and Columbia, Maryland,
the American formulation called for the use of the "neighborhood unit," a concept developed
by Russell Sage Foundation analyst Clarence Perry (1929). Focused around a grade school
serving as a community center and placed a walkable quarter mile from the borders, the neigh-
borhood unit incorporated a hierarchical street system that funneled traffic away from housing
and a minimum of ten percent of the land in public open space for use as recreation and parks.
As employed at Radburn and in later developments, the neighborhood unit would incor-
porate housing on small plots clustered around large public spaces interlaced with pedestrian
paths leading to the school and other community facilities. Through street and site planning, it
122 Eugenie L. Birch

controlled the automobile that transported workers to downtown jobs from their decentralized
residences, limited private space, apportioned maximum public space, and promoted safe walk-
ing environments. These features purported to expand opportunities for social interaction in
the strategically placed public space. Ultimately, the developers turned the public space over
to the residents who formed a Radburn Association to maintain the space. This association
soon expanded its mission to sponsor community activities and became a full-fledged com-
munity organization that exists to this day. Labeled the "Radburn Idea," community builders
later incorporated it in government-sponsored public housing projects in the United States and
abroad but the model never became universal (Birch, 1980).3
At about the same time, contrasting visions of public space emerged in the work of no-
table architects, Le Corbusier (La Ville Radieuse) and Frank Lloyd Wright (Broadacre City)
(Fishman, 1982). The former developed the superblock and tower-in-the-park concepts that
used public space as a setting for sculptured buildings in residential and commercial neigh-
borhoods whereas the latter emphasized private open space in low-density residential districts
(every home on one acre) at the expense of public space. These visions would prove to be ex-
tremely influential in the mid- to late-twentieth century as city planners, urban designers, and
architects incorporated them into their work, leaving a legacy of stark, skyscraper-dominated
downtowns and sprawling suburbs, all having inferior public space from the point of view of
accessibility, usage, and enjoyment.
By mid-century, journalist Jane Jacobs blasted these three types of neighborhoods in her
influential bestseller, The Death and Life ofGreat American Cities (1961). Focusing on civic
life and public space, she celebrated the features of her own Greenwich Village, New York
neighborhood as the ideal. She analyzed how the public space found in its dense mixed use
(residential, commercial, and institutional) and walkable (short blocks arranged in a gridiron
pattern) design assured the presence of people round the clock. "The resulting crowded side-
walks and well-populated parks," she argued, nourished community life, social interchange,
and public safety. Furthermore, she asserted, as these conditions created informal not for-
mal social controls, they yielded strong vibrant communities and sustained the neighborhood
networks to provide "the city's irreplaceable social capital" (Jacobs, p. 138). Jacobs' work
transformed thinking about the value of these arrangements.
While Jacobs was praising urban life, Americans deserted their cities, building their homes
and businesses in the outlying suburban areas. This migration had two major consequences
pertaining to public space: the rise of abandoned property in urban neighborhoods resulting
in a number of responses and the creation of suburban neighborhoods with poor-grade public
space.
In 2000, with approximately fifteen percent of U.S. central city land vacant (Pagano and
Bowman, 2000), community activists responded with the development of communally culti-
vated and maintained gardens (American Community Gardening Association, 1998). Emerging
in low-income neighborhoods with high levels of vacant property, especially in the northeast
and midwest, community gardens perform many public space functions. They provide actual
products (vegetables, fruit, flowers), act as a means to build social capital as neighbors collab-
orate in these projects, and serve as "defensible space," populating lots that might otherwise
become trash-laden or harbor criminal activities (Schukoske, 2000). Across the United States
community organizations such as New York's Green Guerrillas have arisen to support them
and, in some instances, venerable civic groups, such as the Philadelphia Horticultural Society,
have reshaped their missions to allocate funds, provide training, and offer technical assistance
to neighborhood groups for their gardens. The Green Guerillas, for example, founded in 1973
by a young artist who reclaimed a rubble-strewn lot in the slum-ridden Lower East Side,
Public and Private Space in Urban Areas 123

grew from a small, volunteer-run neighborhood association focused on a single garden to a

citywide professionally run group providing horticultural assistance to more than 200 grass-
roots community garden organizations, running two youth leadership programs related to the
environment and art, and sponsoring community organizers working on political empowerment
with local groups (Green Guerrillas, 2006).
In another type of response to the vacant property issue is the emergence of random
voluntary groups, often nonmainstream ones, users and guardians of derelict public spaces.
A recent study of this phenomenon in a Brooklyn, New York neighborhood revealed a tuba
band, roller blade club, sculptor and followers, flame-eaters, and a band of homeless sharing a
multiacre abandoned shipping yard (Campo, 2004). The land in question, once privately owned
but transferred to the municipality for lack of tax payment, functioned as a "guerrilla" public
space with the groups listed above accessing, using, and modifying it without the knowledge
of a responsible public agency. However, when the city reclaimed the space, major conflict
arose.
Finally, the study of the ongoing theme of crime prevention in public space, especially in
areas of high land vacancy, has led to the so-called "Broken Windows" theory, a philosophy
that calls for immediate attention to visibly neglected property and petty crime (Wilson and
Kelling, 1982). Its advocates demand repair of broken windows (a "plug" name for any sign
of neglect such as widespread graffiti, abundance of trash, or abandoned vehicles, and the
tolerance of small violations of law) whose presence signals an absence of stewardship that
can lead to avoidance of an area, subsequent popular withdrawal (and loss of "eyes on the
street"), and abandonment of a public space.
Moving to the issue of public space in suburbs draws attention to the fact that in these pe-
ripheral settlements the social heterogeneity and density that characterize the city environment
are largely missing. Furthermore, in private-space-dominated, auto-served suburban neighbor-
hoods sidewalks and local parks are more absent than present. Consequently, what suburban
public space exists (streets, park systems, and semi-public facilities such as school playgrounds
and shopping malls with their associated parking lots) not only differs in purpose and use from
the city types but also receives far less design attention than their urban counterparts. In many
cases suburban public space is dysfunctional (Kunstler, 1993). Although serving, as places
where behavior is observable by all, fewer people are watching. Although offering space for
social interaction, other places or organizations often substitute. Although being open, the relief
from the surroundings is less useful because of the spread-out nature of suburban develop-
ment (Gans, 1967; Jackson, 1985). Recently, designers have sought ways to incorporate more
functional public space in the suburbs, often focusing on shaping "downtowns" and pedestrian
ways (Barnett, 2003,1995; Kelbaugh, 2002; Vernez-Moudon, 1991).

THE CITY: PUBLIC SPACE

Public space at the city level pertains to downtown activities and city/regional open space
systems, and incorporates streets, plazas, and parks. In many modern cities shopping malls,
public atria, and citywide facilities such as public libraries, schools, convention centers, and
stadiums have public space components.
How people access, use, and modify public space often provides an environment in which
to study community organization. Contemporary demographic shifts, including immigration,
greater recognition of the disabled, evolving land uses and regulatory functions, and issues
of mobility and technology are factors that define public space functions. Instances of civil
124 Eugenie L. Birch

disorder and threats of terrorism as well as changing views of participatory democracy in the
design process affect public space in many ways. The former has decreased accessibility and
usage whereas the latter has enhanced individuals' sense of ownership and belonging.
In cities, especially those experiencing immigration, public spaces have new meanings as
residents redefine them to suit their habits. For example, streets take on an identifiable ethnic
character when, as is customary in the countries from which they come, vendors spill out of
stores or set up independent stands on sidewalks; parks support such new sports as soccer and
cricket, tae kwon do exercises, or barbecues enlivened by Latino music. Not only are these
activities emblematic of community organization in the broadest sense but also can become
the basis of action in the political arena as groups advocate for their public space needs at the
municipal, and sometimes state or federal, levels.
The U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) mandates wheelchair accessibility for
public space resulting in modifications to its appearance and more opportunities for its use.
Some examples are curb-free crosswalks, ramps to bypass stairs, modified public rest rooms,
lowered public telephone stands, and other amenities. The existence of this legislation is
testimony to the organizational efforts of the handicapped community.
In the late twentieth century cities experienced radical changes in land use as their
economies shifted from manufacturing to service activities and the retail and office activi-
ties in their downtowns diminished. These resulting socioeconomic transformations yielded
land and buildings available for adaptive reuse and redevelopment. Formerly industrial wa-
terfronts, for example, were suddenly attractive as public space (Garvin, N.D). Municipalities
rushed to develop these areas in order to accommodate new populations, sometimes labeled the
"creative class" (Florida, 2002). Composed of young urban professionals, students, and empty-
nesters, this group who began to populate downtowns or inner-city neighborhoods formed loss
communities, clamoring for more amenities in their cities including attractive public space
(Birch,2005b).
Some municipalities, seeking to shift the burden for the provision and maintenance of
public space or simply wishing to provide incentives to real estate developers, have traded
additional floor space allowed under zoning for the provision of public space (Barnett, 1974;
Kayden, 2000; Whyte, 1980). Under these arrangements, the law mandates the public use of
the space but allows the developer to negotiate limits, typically similar to those the municipality
itself might employ [e.g., hours of operation, types of uses; Birch (1996)]. Monitoring indi-
vidual landowners' adherence to these public space rules has proved to be difficult (Kayden,
2000). In addition, some public space agreements have become increasingly complex, going
beyond the simple provision of a plaza to include public facilities such as a public library
or transit station. These kinds of arrangements have been controversial with some observers
decrying dominance of the corporate over civic character in these public spaces (Nader, 2003).
Technology has had a vast effect on the nature of public space. For example, the advent
of the automobile with its demand for accessibility transformed urban public spaces and led
to the widening of boulevards or streets, often absorbing sidewalks, diminishing the public
spaces, making them treacherous to walkers (Jacobs, 1993; Jacobs, 1961). Pedestrian activity
by choice or necessity declined. One effect of lower foot traffic was the weakening of retail
thus contributing to the downward spiral of the urban street experience and even the functional
redefinition of downtowns (Isenberg, 2004). (Of course, other trends such as suburban retail
migration, the evolution of the shopping mall, and the outward movement of office jobs were
also factors.) The widespread adoption of the modern or International Style office and res-
idential building exacerbated these conditions yielding severely dysfunctional 'public space,
inaccessible and user-unfriendly (Barnett, 2003). Today's technological changes include the
Public and Private Space in Urban Areas 125

rise of Internet and networked communications. Some observers posit virtual space replacing
physical public spaces with a loss of community organization and social interaction that cur-
rently occurs in public space (Castells, 2000).
The types of social interaction and broad community organization that public space sup-
ports range from the formal to the informal. Urban streets and parks, for example, become
venues for the exercise of free speech, voluntary association actions, and/or group pride. From
the historic 1960s "March on Washington" to the annual ethnic or voluntary group parades in
many cities, these public spaces allow for mass congregation. The ability of groups to assemble
and proclaim their allegiance or identity strengthens their ties to their communities. Global
communications, especially worldwide television, enhances the impact of the events and, in
turn, reinforces the sense of community. In the event that a group is seeking publicity for a
cause, it endeavors to attract media attention.
Public spaces also serve as places for celebration, commemoration, and display, high-
lighting community values. For example, centrally located plazas become the locales for war
memorials, holiday exhibits, and public art, and often have associated assemblages for special
occasions. These kinds of activities heighten the importance of specific public spaces, giving
them high symbolic significance. Anthropologists caution that this very symbolism comes with
layers of meaning that affect diverse groups differently. Thus, signage, design, and facilities can
playa role in peoples' use and enjoyment of public space (Low and Lawrence-Zuniga, 2(03).
Public spaces can spawn negative social activities. They can become the focus of com-
munity tension related to territoriality or occupation of an area, especially under competitive
conditions. The typical example is confrontation between the elderly or mothers with children
and teenagers who all enjoy using the same section of a park but may come in conflict when
the juveniles' boisterous enjoyment disturbs the others. A more difficult scenario involves the
homeless. Municipalities have varying approaches to this issue, some, like New York City,
being very restrictive and others, like San Francisco, being more tolerant of the homeless' use
of public space. In some downtowns, the presence of a relatively new type of organization,
the business improvement district leaders, has resulted in higher levels of control blending
limitations and social service/shelter programs (Houstoun, 2003, Hoyt, 2001).
Although informal controls can ameliorate benign community disputes, more intractable
situations arise when anti-social groups such as drug dealers, gangs, or others engaged in
criminal activities take over public spaces whether they are streets, parks, or plazas (Anderson,
1999). Civil disorders or street riots are extreme cases of this phenomenon. Crime and disorder
prevent vulnerable individuals' use of public space even under the most severe conditions. For
example, in 1995 in a week-long heatwave in Chicago, hundreds of low-income people died
in their unairconditioned apartments, unable or unwilling to escape to cooler public spaces
(Klinenberg, 2002).
Two recent phenomena, terrorism threats and increased citizen participation in design,
have had opposite effects on the perception and use of public space. At one extreme, highly
symbolic or heavily used public spaces are now potential terrorist targets. In response, govern-
ing bodies have erected barriers to entry, hired guards, or otherwise inserted heavier controls on
their uses and users than formerly. These precautions have limited use, contribute to disaffec-
tion among users, and tend to cancel the benefits of public space. Public space has traditionally
accommodated a wide range of behaviors, but now, under more scrutiny, it is less capable
of doing so. At the other extreme, public space designers are increasingly involving users
in their plans either through observation (Zeisel, 1981) or direct citizen participation (Faga,
2006; Project for Public Places, 1984). Public meetings, charrettes (drawing exercises), and
negotiated agreements are part of the process.
126 Eugenie L. Birch

One extreme example was a lengthy process that led to the 4000-person public meeting,
"Listening to New York," held in 2002 to scrutinize and modify the proposals (each of which had
an enormous public space component) for the reconstruction of the World Trade Center (Birch,
2005a). Although the New York example is exceptional for its scale, it is representative of the
trend to include citizens in all phases of design (Faga, 2006). Notably, citizen participation
in these instances takes many forms including individual and group input. In recent years,
civic groups have emerged to take an active role in articulating the so-called public interest
in these efforts. Examples from just one city are the Project for Public Places that has an
international reach, the Regional Plan Association that monitors metropolitan public space
issues in a metropolitan area, encompassing three states, and the Municipal Art Society that
has a city scope. One result of high levels of participation is an increase in usage and a stronger
sense of ownership in the area (Faga, 2006).

CONCLUSION

Modern urban public space serves as a locale for social interaction and a stage or subject
for community activities and organization. Public space exists at many scales-in the home,
neighborhood, and city-and serves differing functions related to its size, location, and design.
At its best, it serves as a means to counteract the negative aspects of city life by providing
an environment for formal and informal group activities. Good public space is malleable and
allows its users to take or give it meaning and definition. At its worst, public space acts as a
magnet for conflict where disagreeing individuals or groups display harmful social behavior.
Over time, designers have endeavored to create public spaces to support positive and
minimize negative aspects of urban life, inventing and testing devices to make public spaces
safe, accessible, and sociable. These experiments are ongoing with current efforts focusing on
issues of finance and maintenance, privatization and public/private partnerships, and promotion
of safety in a world threatened by terrorism. These challenges may limit its access, use, and
enjoyment. At the opposite end of the scale are more positive public space trends, ones that
strengthen their role in supporting community organizations including emerging use of vacant
land as community gardens, increased citizen participation in planning and design, and a rising
consciousness of the importance of all public space elements, the public realm, in urban life.

NOTES

1. Other labels are: neotraditional town planning,and traditionalneighborhood development (TND).

2. They also endeavorto includea nearbyshoppingcenter,school,and other amenitiessuch as open space that can
be reachedon foot.
3. The Radburnidea wouldhavetransatlantic applications in the British New Town Programdeveloped after World
WarTwo.

REFERENCES

AmericanCommunity GardeningAssociation. (1998).Nationalcommunitygardensurvey 1996. Retrieved December

2, 2005 from http://www.communitygarden.orglCgsurvey96part.l pdf.
Anderson,E. (1999). Codeofthe Street, Decency, Violence and MoralLife in the Inner City. New York: Norton.
Public and Private Space in Urban Areas 127

Anderson, E. (2004).Cosmopolitan canopy. Annals ofthe American Academy ofPolitical Science, 595(September): 14-
31.
Bacon,E. (1974). Design of Cities. New York: Viking.
Barnett,J. (1974). Urban Design as Public Policy. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Barnett,1. (1995). The Fractured Metropolis. New York: HarperCollins.
Barnett,J. (2003). Redesigning Cities, Principles, Practice, Implementation. Chicago: Planners.
Beveridge, C. andHoffman, C. (1997). Frederick Law Olmsted, Writings on Public Parks, Parkways and Park Systems.
Baltimore: Johns HopkinsPress.
Birch, E. (1978).Woman-made America: The case of early public housing policy. Journal of the American Institute
of Planners Association, 43(2):130-144.
Birch, E. (1980). Radburn and the American planning movement. Journal of the American Planning Association,
46:424-431.
Birch,E. (1996).Planningin a worldcity,NewYork anditscommunities. Journal ofthe American Planning Association
62:442-459.
Birch,E. (2002).Five generations of garden city planning. In: From the Garden City to Green Cities, ed. K. Parsons
and D. Schuyler, Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsPress, pp. 171-200.
Birch, E. (2005a). US planningculture under pressure. In: Comparative Planning Cultures, ed. B. Sanyal,London:
Routledge, pp. 331-358.
Birch,E. (2005b). Who Lives Downtown? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Blakely, E. and Snyder,M. (1997). Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Washington, DC: The
BrookingsInstitution Press.
Campo, D. (2004). On the waterfront, vernacular recreation at Brooklyn eastern terminal. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Castells,M. (2000). The Rise of the Networked Society (2d edn.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
CongressforNewUrbanism. (1993).Charter ofNew Urbanism. Retrieved December2,2005fromhttp://www.cnu.org/
aboutcnu/index.cfm?formaction=charter&CFID=12786481&CFTOKEN=47147268.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., and Speck, J. (2000). Suburban Nation, the Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the
American Dream. New York: North Point.
EI Nasser,H. (2002). Gated communities more popularand not just for the rich. USA Today. Retrieved December2,
2005 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-15-gated-usa_x.htm.
Faga, B. (2006). Designing Public Consensus. New York: John Wiley.
Fishman,R. (1982). Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Florida,R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class and How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community & Everyday
Life. New York: Basic.
Francis, M. (1989). Control as a dimensionof public-space quality. In: Public Places and Spaces, ed. I. Altmanand
E. Zube, New York: Plenum,pp. 147-172.
Gans, H. (1962). The Urban Villagers Race and Class in the Life ofItalian-Americans. New York: Free Press.
Gans, H. (1967). The Levitowners, Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community. New York: Pantheon.
Garvin,A. (N.D.) Parks, Recreation and Open Space; A Twenty-First Century Agenda. Chicago: AmericanPlanning
Association.
Garvin,A. (2002). The American City What Works What Doesn't. New York: John Wiley.
Gehl, J. (1996). Public Space and Public Life. Copenhagen: DanishArchitectural Press.
Gehl, 1. and Gernzee, L. (1996) Public Spaces-Public Life. Copenhagen: DanishArchitectural Press.
Green Guerillas. (2006). Who We Are. Retrieved December2, 2005 from: http://www.greenguerillas.org/whoweare.
asp.
Hiss, T. (1990). The Experience ofPlace. a New Way ofLooking at and Dealing with Our Radically Changing Cities
and Countryside. New York: Knopf.
Houstoun, L. (2004). BIDS Business Improvement Districts. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Hoyt,L. (2001). Business improvement districts, untold stories and unsubstantiated impacts. Unpublished PhD dis-
sertation,University of Pennsylvania.
Isenberg, A. (2004). Downtown America. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Jackson, 1. (1974). Americanpublic space. The Public Interest, 74(Winter):52-65.
Jackson,K. (1985). The Crabgrass Frontier. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Jacobs, A. (1993). Great Streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobs,J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: RandomHouse.
Kayden, J. (2000). Privately-Owned Public Space. New York: John Wiley.
 128 Eugenie L. Birch

Kelbaugh, D. (2002). Repairing theAmericanMetropolis Common PlaceRevisited. Seattle:University of Washington

Press.
Klinenberg, E. (2002). Heatwave, a SocialAutopsyof Disaster. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
Kunstler,1. (1993). TheGeography of Nowhere, theRiseand Declineof America'sMan-Made Landscape. NewYork:
Simon & Schuster.
Lewis,O. (1961). The Children of Sanchez. New York: RandomHouse.
Low,S. (2000). On the Plaza the Politics of PublicSpaceand Culture. Austin:University of TexasPress.
Low, S. (2003a). Behind the Gates, Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. New York:
Routledge.
Low, S. and Lawrence-Zuniga, D. (2003). The Anthology of Space and Place: Locating Culture. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Lynch,K. (1960). Imageof the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynch,K. (1981). Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marcus,C. (1998). People Places: DesignGuidelines for Urban OpenSpace. New York: John Wiley.
Marshall,A. (2001). How Cities Work. Austin:University of TexasPress.
Milgram,S. (1972). Cityand the Self. New York: Time-Life Films.
McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia, Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New
Haven,CT: YaleUniversity Press.
Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History. New York: HarcourtBrace.
Nader R. (2003). SellingOut, Our PublicSpace, Universal ServicesUnderAssault. Retrieved December2, 2005.
CommonDreams.org. Retrieved from http://www.commondreams.org;views/03/0810-07.htm.
Nasar,1. (1998). The Evaluative Imageof the City. ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: McMillan.
Pagano, M. and Bowman, A. (2000). Vacant Land in Cities, an Urban Resource. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Perry,C. (1929). Housing for the Machine Age. New York: RussellSage Foundation.
Project for Public Places(1984). Managing Downtown Spaces. Chicago: PlannersPress.
Putnam,R. (2000). BowlingAlone,the Collapse and RevivalofAmerican Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Schukoske, J. (2000).Community development throughgardening, state and local policiestransforming urbanopen
space. Journalof Legislation and PublicPolicy, 3:351-392.
Sennett,R. (1976). The FallofPublicMan. New York: Knopf.
Stein, C. (1951). Towards New Towns for America. Liverpool, UK: University of Liverpool Press.
Tonnies, F. (1957). Community and Society. (C. Loomis,Tran.)East Lansing:MichiganState University Press.
U.S.Department of HousingandUrbanDevelopment. (2004).Arnericanhousingsurveyfor theUnitedStates.Retrieved
Decmber2,2005 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html.
Vergara, C. (1995). TheNew AmericanGhetto. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.
Vernez-Moudon, A. (1991). PublicStreetsfor Public Use. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Whyte,W.(1956). The Organization Man. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Whyte,W.H. (1980). TheSocialLife of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Projectfor Public Spaces.
Whyte,W.H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the Center. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wilson,1. and Kelling, G. (1982).Brokenwindows, the policeand neighborhood safety. AtlanticMonthly, 249(3):29-
38.
Wirth,L. (1938). Urbanismas a way of life. AmericanJournalof Sociology, 44:1-24.
Wood, D. (2005). When big is too big, even in LA. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December2, 2005 from
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0830/003s01-uspo.htm.
Zeisel, 1. (1980). Inquiryby Design. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Zucker,P.(1959). Town and Square from the Agorato the Village Green. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

View publication stats