Shaurya Patel UP4012 Thesis

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/315045351
Public Spaces for All: How “Public” are Public Spaces? Case of Ahmedabad
city’s Riverfront Parks
Thesis · May 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28917.99047
CITATIONS READS
2 7,215
1 author:
Shaurya Patel
Ahmedabad University
7 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Shaurya Patel on 15 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

11
Public Spaces for All: How

“Public” are Public Spaces?
Case of Ahmedabad city’s Riverfront Parks
Shaurya Patel | UP4012

Guide: Dr. Rutul Joshi
Dissertation Year: 2016
Faculty of Planning
Public Spaces for All: How “Public” are Public Spaces?

PUBLIC SPACES FOR ALL: HOW “PUBLIC” ARE
PUBLIC SPACES?
Case of Ahmedabad city’s Riverfront Parks
Shaurya Patel Dr. Rutul Joshi

UP4012 Guide
02 - 05 - 2016 Ahmedabad
“To all the intellectually ardent people”
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis titled “Public Spaces for All: How “Public” are Public
Spaces? Case of Ahmedabad city’s Riverfront Parks”, has been submitted by Mr
Shaurya Patel towards partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelors
Degree in Planning, Faculty of Planning, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. This is a bonafide
work of the student and has not been submitted to any other institution for the award of any
Degree/Diploma.
Prof. Neeru Bansal Dr. Rutul Joshi

Chair Person Guide
Dissertation Committe
Date: 02 - 05 - 2016
i
UNDERTAKING
I, Shaurya Patel, the author of the thesis titled “Public Spaces for All: How “Public” are
Public Spaces? Case of Ahmedabad city’s Riverfront Parks”. hereby declare that this
is an independent work of mine, carried out towards partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the award of Bachelors Degree in Planning, Faculty of Planning, CEPT University,
Ahmedabad. This work has not been submitted to any other institution for the award of any
Degree/Diploma.
Date: 02 - 05 - 2016 Shaurya Patel

Place: Ahmedabad UP4012
Signature:
ii
DISCLAIMER
This document describes work undertaken as part of a program of study at the Faculty of
Planning, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. All views and opinions expressed therein remain
the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the Institute/
University.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The idea of this thesis topic has been growing gradually in the 4 years of the Bachelors in
Planning Programme at CEPT University. A sincere thanks to all the faculty members and
friends who helped me in this voyage.
I would like to thank my guide Dr. Rutul Joshi. I am grateful for the guidance, liberty, motivation
and practical way forward he gave me during the entire duration of the study.
I am thankful to the people of HCP Design, Planning and Management Ltd. Ahmedabad and
Oasis Design Inc., Delhi. Who extended their full support for data of the research.
I am overwhelmed with my friend’s inputs and support. For bringing and balancing the
philosophical and logical aspect of the thesis as well as four years of valuable inputs in all the
research I carried out during my entire voyage Thank you Saswata Kolay & Himadri Panchal
Last but not the least a sincere thanks to my family especially my sister, Shailja Patel for her
creative and mind provoking inputs for my thesis topic, My mother and father Dhrupali Patel
and Dhiren Patel for keeping me healthy, happy and keeping me ardent for the work I love.
iv
Table of Contents
UNDERTAKING i
DISCLAIMER ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Executive Summary 01
Background 02
The Research 05
Findings 07
Conclusion 09
Part 1 11
Background Literature Review 12
Why public space as a subject of interest? And who are they for? 14
Public Space and the Right to the City 18
Meaning & Etymology of “Public” 23
Aim 24
Methodology 25
Selection of the Site 25
Data Collection Method 25
Part 2 29
Context 30
Public Space Scenario 30
Sabarmati Riverfront 35
The narrative of two parks 38
Usmanpura Park 40
Finding Accessibility & Publicness: Usmanpura Park 41
Subhash Bridge Park 58
Finding Accessibility & Publicness: Subhash Bridge Park 59
People’s Park? 69
Part 3 73
Findings 74
Conclusion 78
References 83
v
List of Tables
Table 1 the definitions of ‘public space’ regarding the criteria of access, actor and interest
by Benn and Gaus (1983) 13
Table 2 Zone wise details of Open Spaces 30
Table 3 Categories of parks with standards 33
Table 4 Provision of Parks and Open Spaces in AMC & AUDA 33
Table 5 Usmanpura Park: Notion of people regarding entry fee 48
Table 6 Usmanpura Park: Notion of people when entry fee is increased 50
Table 7 Usmanpura Park: Kind of people you would like or dislike to see 53
Table 8 Usmanpura Park: Activities people like or dislike to see 55
Table 9 Subhash Bridge Park: Perspective about entry fee 64
Table 10 Subhash Bridge Park: What people like and dislike about the space? 66
Table 11 Subhash Bridge Park: Kind of people like and dislike to see in a public space 68
Table 12 Subhash Bridge Park: Activities that people like and dislike to see 69
Table 13 A methodology created by PPS for evaluating public space 70
Table 14 Evaluation of both the parks through methodology created by PPS, New York 71
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Etymology of word “public” 23
Figure 2 Process of making of questionnaire for the research 26
Figure 3 Primary Questionnaire for the Survey 27
Figure 4 Location of existing parks and gardens. Source: AUDA DP 2021 31
Figure 5 Satellite imagery showing example of parks from each category. Source: AUDA
DP 2021 33
Figure 6 Pedestrian access of parks overlaid with residential land use. Source: AUDA DP
2021 34
Figure 7 Percentage of Parks and Open Space area within AMC Zones. Source: AUDA DP
2021 34
Figure 8 Landuse of Sabarmati Riverfront. Source: SRFDCL 36
Figure 9 Recreational Spaces. Source: SRFDCL 37
Figure 10 Early Construction face of Usmanpura Park. Source: SRFDCL 38
Figure 11 Location of the site 39
Figure 12 Map showing buffers of 500m, 1000m, 1500m and 2000m respectively 39
Figure 13 Usmanpura Park: Zoomed in view 40
Figure 14 Usmanpura Park - Gender Distribution 40
Figure 15 Usmanpura Park - Religion Distribution 41
Figure 16 Usmanpura Park - Gender Distribution 42
Figure 17 Usmanpura Park: Which are visitors comes from 42
Figure 18 Usmanpura Park: Spatial location of the places 42
Figure 19 Usmanpura Park: % distribution of family income 43
Figure 20 Usmanpura Park - Age Group Distribution 43
Figure 21 Usmanpura Park: Income Disparity 43
Figure 22 Usmanpura Park: Why do you come here? 44
Figure 23 Usmanpura Park: Students Studying 45
Figure 24 Usmanpura Park: Alternative public spaces people visits 46
Figure 25 Usmanpura Park: Children’s Play Section 51
Figure 26 Usmanpura Park: Parking near the park 52
Figure 27 Usmanpura Park: In Afternoon 56
Figure 28 Usmanpura Park: Public Spaces for all? 57
Figure 29 Subhash Bridge Park: Zoomed in view 58
Figure 30 Subhash Bridge Park: Rules & Regulation 58
Figure 31 Subhash Bridge Park: Gender Distribution 58
Figure 32 Subhash Bridge Park: Religion Distribution 59
Figure 33 Subhash Bridge Park: Mode of Travel 59
Figure 34 Subhash Bridge Park: Map showing the location of areas from where people
come 60
vii
Figure 35 Subhash Bridge Park: % of people coming from which area 60
Figure 36 Subhash Bridge Park: Age Group Distribution 60
Figure 37 Subhash Bridge Park: Why people come here? 62
Figure 38 Subhash Bridge Park: A Muslim family having peaceful dinner at the Park 63
Figure 39 Subhash Bridge Park: Spending time with loved ones 68
Figure 40 Subhash Bridge Park: Public Space for All? 69
Figure 41 Connection to the city is totally cut off because of high walls and creating a
monotonous look and activities along lower promenade 71
Figure 42 Usmanpura Park : In Morning 80
Figure 43 Usmanpura Park : In Evening 81

Executive Summary
2
Executive Summary
Background
Cities have always been elusive but the main
goal of city is to give people, the places where
they can find tranquillity and help them engage
with one another yet at the same time providing
them with freedom of thoughts and individuality.
Public sphere is the domain in which all this can
easily be found and exercised. Public spaces
forms a vital place where people can come
together, exchange ideas, romanticise with
one another, protest for a cause, form a new
friendship, learn skills, and share knowledge,
emotions and music. It’s a dimension of space
where various activities takes place at different
time because it is the only space in the city
where all the emotions, feelings, the subjectivity
of human being is expressed in numerous
variations. People from different climate and
culture come together and form public sphere
and thus create places that reflects their
collective needs.
In 1961, Jane Jacob in her book ‘The Life and

Death of Great American Cities’ mentioned that
“Cities have the capabilities of providing something
for everybody, only because, and only when, they
are created by everybody.” This was based on the
fact that cities are for the people. Many of the early/
classical urban thinkers used simple observation and
common sense. Jane Jacob for example, suggested
that cities needs to have public spaces, mixed uses,
dense concentration, buildings with different age and
dimensions and short walkable blocks. Two decades
later in 1980, William H. Whyte in his book “The social
life of small urban spaces” which was a pre book to
the project: The Street Life Project, tried to understand
the lifestyle of people in different urban spaces and
why some spaces are successful over other spaces
in New York. He suggested how those spaces can

3
be improvised with policies, design and planning.

Both famously accepted urbanist, Jacob and Whyte
approach towards urban planning and design was
a revolutionary step for city’s development and
growth in the post- world war era. Both believed that
cities are actually for the people and the city spaces
belongs to people. The commonality among both the
urbanist is that, they understood the importance of
public space in a city. Since the earliest publication
of Camillo Sitte’s book in 1889 on the art of building
cities written from an intuitive and aesthetic view
point to Jan Gehl’s book on Cities for People in 2010,
public spaces and people have been the vortex of
cities.
Indeed the fundamental aim of the public pace

is to ensconce community and to arbitrate social
conflict (Kostof, 1992). The public space is where we
exercise our dealership, our sense of belongings and
our sense of existence. Public spaces should allow
people to come and go as and when they please,
without the consent of any authorities, and without
any declaration of a justifying purpose. The activities
that are formed within the sphere of public space
are understood at some level to be collective, and at
some level to be individual but participation in both
cases is random and institutionalized. From Greek
agora to Central Park of New York, the public spaces
have always been a canvas for political and social
change. Demonstration of this change in design and
uses of the public realm is important as it is a part of
ever changing landscape. The tenacity of open space
is one of the factor. A large public monument of one
period with an open usable space may become a
public square in another period, regardless of the
shifts in the urban fabric during the interim. (Kostof,
1992) Coliseum in Rome was once a battlefield,
now it is part of the Seven Wonders of the World
with having one of the highest tourist attraction.
The changing landscape of public space shows the

4
dynamic nature and potential of public space to a

great extent. The lesson of urban history was that
public spaces must be viewed in three dimensions,
as volumes carved out of the solid of the built fabric
(Kostof, 1992). The central issue of public places is,
in fact, versatility. And here the interrelation with form,
in the broad sense of physical structure, becomes
inescapable. Less the specific the form of the square,
the more possible it is to have a public place of mixed
uses (Kostof, 1992).
The story of public place is far from over. The old

squares and plazas of cities are continuously being
used. The public places are formulated within the city
boundaries wit help of urban planning. Whether the
space is used for playing football or for protesting the
public space is a need for all individuals for better living.
The presence and survival of public space since time
of Harappa civilization gives us a proof of togetherness
and collectiveness embodied in the communities. In
21st century we have largely abandoned the sense
of togetherness and collectiveness, which can be
highlighted in today’s public spaces. We still want to
be with other people, if not engaging them directly
at least watching them stroll by. (Kostof, 1992) Are
today’s public spaces losing the true sense of being
public? Are today’s public space having a shift it
its originality? India being a democratic country, is
today’s public space democratic in nature? All these
question are linking towards one question how public
are today’s public spaces?
Philosophers, Planners, Architects, Designers, Artist,

Painters and others who tried to understand cities
have a notion that public space are at the heart or the
core of any city and people are integral part of those
public spaces and also are the fuels that keep the
heart and core running. Humans are after all highly
sociable species, company of others seems to be a
fundamental belief to our existence and belonging.

5
Public spaces have been primary part of cities, for

people to come together for a common sociable
purpose. Hence, people and place are regarded as
the DNA of cities.
In today’s contemporary cities, public space is the

element of the city where most of the convivial as
well as reclusive activities takes place (Shaftoe 2008).
Since then public spaces have long been on the
platter of planners, sociologist, urbanist, architects
and designer. All of them have been curiously
discussing and debating about public spaces; the life
in a public space; the right to public spaces; the use
of public spaces; the dead spaces; equality & equity
in public space; the accessible spaces and so forth.
“Within the dense press of the built fabric the

greatest luxury of all is empty space.”
– Spiro Kostof.
The Research
Part 1
Begins with review of existing literature which covers
aspects like to right to city, right to the public spaces,
public spaces in today’s era and meaning of public.
With help and understanding of literature review
aim and objectives have been formulated for further
research.
Aim: -
To comprehend how public are public space of
Ahmedabad’s riverfront park.
Objective:-
1) To understand whether Ahmedabad’s riverfront
parks are accessible to all.
2) To understand publicness of these parks.
3) To find whether these public spaces are made for

all.

6
Methodology
For further course of study, the methodology used
for research is a mixture of quantitative, qualitative
and observations
Primary survey was conducted with random sampling
method, with total sample size of 120 for both the
Parks Usmanpura Park and Subhash Bridge Park.
Site Selection
Why these sites?
1) They are at the city centre and characteristics
of both these sites are different. As they are newly
created public space for city of Ahmedabad, they
have never been studied before.
2) Both these parks are made at different scale and
have different importance at city level. Thus impact of
both the park on city of Ahmedabad will widely vary
and this will produce a captivating outcome for the
research.
In order to fulfil the objectives of the study, two sites

in Ahmedabad city of Gujarat are chosen for study:
1) Usmanpura Park
Usmanpura Park - Located on West side of Riverfront

7
2) Subhash Bridge Park
Subhash Bridge Park - Located on East side of Riverfront
Part 2
Discusses the field observation, analysis and
inferences related to how public are public spaces
a cases of Ahmedabad’s Riverfront Park. Various
parameters and attributes are looked into for
understanding the ‘publicness and accessibility of a
space’ or in other words ‘how public is the public
space’ and whether they are made for all?
Part 3
The final chapter summarise the research with
findings & conclusion. Followed by references used
for the research.
Findings
Public space which adapts urban poor, builds
social cohesion, establish gender equality, enhance
safety, support economic development, improves
public health, improves environment, and are easily
accessible can are considered as public space made
for all. Looking at the study of Usmanpura Park and
Subhash Bridge Park, many of these elements are
missing such as adapting urban poor, both the
parks are restricting the access of urban poor one
by directly not allowing them to come in and second
having a paid access thus urban poor are totally
discarded. Social Cohesion is missing in both the
parks i.e. Subhash Bridge Park, the park has a paid
access and the ideology behind the paid access
is to have a control over one particular community

8
or religion in that area. And in Usmanpura Park the

lack of adapting the accessibility of urban poor is
disturbing social cohesion of the space. Hence the
very nature of social cohesion is missing. Cultural
exchange is limited to only one park. As Usmanpura
Park have limited resources to host public events
the cultural exchange is difficult to achieve. On the
other hand Subhash Birdge Park have facilities
that helps to facilitate cultural exchange. Gender
equality is all together a new subject for study but
both the parks having shown satisfying results of
gender distribution, though gender equality haven’t
been looked upon in the research. Safety can be
considered appropriate in both the case as there are
security personnel who are there for 24 x 7 for safety
and security. The height of the wall can be issue for
people, one if someone falls from it the person can
injure or in worst case can die. And secondly even
the wall gives a psychological fear, because people
are not able to see what is happening in lower
promenade and what is happening in the parks. The
break of vision can be harmful for many visitors. Thus
safety can be considered poor as of now. Economic
development is as such seen on the whole 11 km
stretch of riverfront there are two CBDs proposed
along the banks and the proximity of both the park to
CBD is within 3 km. Public health is one of the major
boost that both park provides to the visitors because
of proper design and landscape of the park, health of
individuals is improved. Environment is considerably
taken care off by the parks, though Subhash Bridge
Park have more potential for improving environmental
conditions compared to Usmanpura Park. As a whole
many elements are still missing in both the parks yet
it cannot be said it is made for all. Proper strategy
and usage can make this park more inclusive in
nature the parks have got the ability to become a
public space for all. All it need is a proper policy and
strategy to improve.

9
Conclusion
Public spaces, even in their most public form, tends
to find particular flavours, a different character
associated with particular combination of groups and
interests, under pressure to find a fixed identity within
a particular fragment of society. (Mandanipour, 2010).
If a public spaces is equally accessible to everyone,
irrespective of physical abilities, age, gender, religion,
income level, and social status it can be considered
as a public space. When a public space forms a
balance of ingredients of Social Cohesion, Urban
Poor, Gender Equality, Public Health, Environment,
Economic Development, and Safety it act as a
true public space for all. Both the park Usmanpura
Park and Subhash Bridge Park lacks in few of the
ingredients mentioned above there by making it
inaccessible for all, the publicness of the space is not
fully achieved and it is not made for all.
In words of A. Mandanipour who suggests that
“public spaces should be designed and developed,
as a places that embody the principles of equality, by
being accessible places, made through inclusive and
democratic processes. Democratic and inclusive
processes that create public space as a common
good appear to be the best way of ensuring a better
physical environment with social and psychological
significance of the citizens. Where every day needs
for public spaces are met through participative
processes, the result is both physical improvement
and social development, laying the foundations
for further enhancement of democratic practices.”
The true form of becoming a publicly public space
is achieved when a public space acts as a clay,
where each individuals are a potter in itself, who are
continuously re-modifying the structure of public
space as and when they like it.

Part 1
The Search
Background Literature Review
Aim & Objectives
Methodology
12
Background Literature Review

Historically in urban planning, public spaces have
often been described as ‘open spaces’ which
includes streets, parks, squares, plazas and other
publicly owned spaces which are accessible to
everyone at any given point of time. (Tonnelat 2010).
The concept of ‘public’ is robust in meaning and used
in a varied spectrum. ‘Public’, as an adjective, intends
‘of or concerning the people as a whole’, ‘open to
all’, ‘accessible to or shared by all members of the
community’, ‘performed or made openly and well-
known’ (Gove 1976; Makins 1998). Moreover ‘public’
means ‘a group of people who share a particular
interest or who have something in common’, such
as the audience at a play or film. (Crowther 1995;
Makins 1998). Benn and Gaus (1983), who describe
the concepts of ‘public’ and private’ on substratum
of three criteria of ‘access’, ‘agency’ and ‘interest’,
composed this empirical tool to define ‘public space’
and its ‘publicness’.
Firstly, public space can be defined as possessing

four mutually supportive qualities of ‘access’; (1)
physical access; (2) social access; (3) access to
activities and discussions, or intercommunications;
and (4) access to information (See Table 1). Secondly,
public space can be defined according to the nature
of agencies in control whether it is private or public.
‘Public actors’ means agents or agencies that
represents and acts on behalf of society, community,
city or state. While ‘Private actors refers to agent or
agencies that act on their own. As per Boyer (1993),
for instance, states that any contemporary reference
to the “public” is by nature a universalizing construct
that assumes a collective whole, while in reality the
public is fragmented into marginalized groups, many
of whom have no voice, position or representation
in the public sphere. Therefore, public space can
be defined as a space that is controlled by public
actors, and used by the public, which is made up

13
of overlapping spheres of groups of private actors.

And finally, public space can be defined in terms of
‘interest’. Public interest means the ‘common well-
being’, general welfare’ or ‘benefits that is controlled
and received by all members of society’, on the other
hand private interest refers to the benefits controlled
and received by individuals’. Hence, public space
refers to a space that serves the public interest. The
‘publicness’ of a new public space can be assessed
by examination of its development and use processes
through these three criteria. (Madanipour 1995).
Table 1 the definitions of ‘public space’ regarding the criteria of

access, actor and interest by Benn and Gaus (1983) Even the leading international institutes have join the
sphere of public space, As per UNESCO “A public
space refers to an area or place that is open and
accessible to all people, regardless of gender, race,
ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. These are
public gathering spaces such as plazas, squares and
parks. Connecting spaces, such as sidewalks and
streets, are also public spaces. In the 21st century,
some even consider the virtual spaces available
through the internet as a new type of public space that
develops interaction and social mixing.” However,
in the information age and new economy of 21st
century the rise in semi-public spaces have been
much of a concern for cities. Somehow today, public
spaces needs to be understood with a new approach
in public domain, which is accessible to the public.
The general point that can be drawn from various
authors and agency is that in the contemporary cities
of today public spaces may show different shades of
‘publicness’ in which the degree of ‘access’, ‘actor’

14
and ‘ interest’ can vary widely. The trend for post-

industrial cities and their public spaces, and the
threat to their ‘publicness’ is blurring of the distinction
between private and public spaces. The challenge
for planners, designers, architects, developers is
to deal with the rising ambiguity between the two
realms in the new cityscape of post-industrial cities.
(Madanipour 2010).
Why public space as a subject of interest? And who are

they for?
Public spaces are reflection of complexities of urban
world and they have been an integral part of cities
throughout history. So much that without it, human
settlements would be unimaginable. How could
people step out of their front doors if there were no
public space to mediate between private territories?
Like any other part of cities, such as houses,
neighbourhoods, political, economic and cultural
institutions, public spaces is a part of ever-present
vocabulary of urbanism. (Madanipour 2010). Over
the period of time, cities have grown and changed
dynamically so are its public spaces. The organic
growth of medieval cities comprehend a tradition
based on generations of experience in how to create
cities with well-functioning synergy between life and
space. But this knowledge was lost somewhere in
the process of industrialization and modernization,
which lead to dysfunctional city environments and
spaces. (Gehl and Svarre 2013). If public spaces in
one way or the other have been at the core of urban
system everywhere and at all times, why do we see a
current splash of interest in public spaces as a matter
of social concern, political & economic action and
academic research?
Recent attention to public spaces is rooted in the

structural changes that societies around the world
have experienced in the past thirty years whereby the
provision of public goods, such as public space, has

15
been under pressure through the dominance of the

market predicated paradigm. (Madanipour 2010).
The introduction of privatization, globalisation and
liberalization in the world economy brought a new
structural directions for the state and the society,
which lasted for three decades with ups and downs
in global financial crisis. This shift in the paradigm had
major entailments for urban design, planning and
development. (Madanipour 2010). Public spaces play
a varied and significant role in urban societies and
can be defined in numerous ways. The key feature
of public spaces however is its accessibility. Without
being accessible, a place cannot become public.
If public open spaces are conceived as enclosed
particular places with fine-tuned identities, their
flexibility and inclusiveness will be undermined, and
so will their accessibility. In the processes of urban
change, the conditions of accessibility are subject to
change, hence changing the nature of public space
(Madanipour 2010). In the controversies about the
privatization of public space, it is the access to public
spaces that has been circumscribed, narrowing the
range of social groups who can utilize these spaces,
and making these spaces accessible only to a more
minuscule group of people, often predicated on their
ability to pay.
The word public originates from the Latin and refers

to people, denoting a relationship to both society
and the state. A public space may henceforth be
interpreted as open to people as a whole, and/or
being controlled by the state on their behalf. Public
space has been defined as diametrical to private,
which is the realm of individuals and their intimate
relationships; and so public space is often defined
in terms of its distinction from the private realm of
the household. Public has also been seen as the
opposite of the personal, hence equated with
impersonal. (Silver 1997), the realm of the non-
intimate others. What dwells beyond personal,

16
however, can additionally be inter-personal, where

the boundaries between personal and impersonal,
private and public, can be blurred.
The distinction between the public and the private

is the key theme in era of liberalization, promoting
the disseverment of private and public interests and
roles in order to prevent private interests encroaching
on and undermining public interests. (Wacks 1993;
Nolan 1995). The tension has been challenged by
the critics of private property, who see this distinction
as consolidating the power of the elite at the expense
of the poor. (Madanipour 2010). It has also been
challenged by women, who see it as consolidating
the role of men in public affairs and associating the
private sphere with women, hence keeping them
locked in an inferior position in society. (Fraser 1989).
The subdivision of the gregarious world into public
and private spheres, and the establishment and
maintenance of the boundaries between them, has
therefore been challenged and upbraided from a
number of divergent perspective.
Yet another challenge to the notion of public sphere

and public space comes from social diversity.
Public policy has often been justified as directed
towards public interest. The idea of public interest
has been used to explain and defend the actions of
public authorities. Their critics, argues that the way
the public interest has been defined is too narrow,
and often privileges the elite (Madanipour 2010).
Women, the elderly, children, ethnic minorities and
the poor are often are the target group that comes
in vicious cycle of public spaces, and public interest
introduced them is not really public in an inclusive
sense. Thus, this poses a challenge to the notion of
public as well as accessible public spaces for all. In
spatial sense, public spaces are by definition public
and as such expected to be accessible to all. The
tension between the public and private can be seen

17
in European medieval city, as well as in many cities

around the world to this day, where streets and open
spaces of the city are gradually being threatened by
the expanding houses and private spaces, to the
extent that a minimum amount of space is left for
passing through or conducting any trade activities
and others (Saalman 1968).
With increase in privatization, liberalization and

globalization in the world, there is a change in the
dynamics of cities and everyday life globally. Marxist
Philosopher Henri Lefebvre proposed the term
“Right to the city” in his 1968 book Le Droit à la
ville. The Right to the city has long been an umbrella
concept since the time of the origin. Right to the city
in way also supports and cover’s the concept right
to the public spaces. Which in other sense means
accessibility to a public space physically, socially and
all other forms of access that Benn and Gaus (1983)
described in their criteria of ‘access’, ‘interest’, and
‘agency’. One way or the other Benn and Gaus tool
help the researchers to figure out the publicness of a
public space, and in times, where urbanization and
privatization is increasing and running parallel.
It is important to understand the significance of ‘Right

to the public space’ in 21st century where cities
built- environment is having humongous changes.
The nature and character of a public space depends
on how it is distinguished from the private sphere.
In other words, the way in which its boundaries are
constructed determines the type of public space and
its quality. If the boundary is rigidly guarded by walls,
gates and guards, it is no longer a public space.
In contrast, the more accessible and permeable
a place becomes, the more public it will become
(Madanipour 2010). According to sociologist Gregory
Smithsimon, many of the commonly defended
human rights (freedom of expression, of assembly,
of information, of movement etc.) depend on the

18
availability of physical public space. Their absence

routinely hinders the rights of citizens. When the
rights of citizens are disturbed the notion of right to
the city is also disturbed. Thus driving the question of
why develop the right to public space? Public space
are the lynchpin of communities and the foundation
of egalitarian city (Tadum Blog 2013). Right to public
space is convivial to human rights. For a space to
be truly public it must be accessible to all citizens,
regardless of race, age, gender, income, or religion.
It is fundamental for a public space to be comfortable
and useable, safe and clean for women and men,
children and elderly. And the most important is to
make a space which bring people back again and
again to spend time with their loved ones or with
themselves.
Public Space and the Right to the City
Countries like Columbia was the first in the world to
introduce the right to public space in their constitution
in year 1991. “It is the duty of the state to protect
the integrity of public space and its assignment to
common use, which has priority over the individual
interest.” This was drafted when Bogota, Colombia’s
capital was one of the most dangerous places on
the earth because of political instability and guerrilla
groups and drug dealers. By guarantying the right to
the public spaces, state has made commitment to
protect the social fabric of the nation. Country like
Ecuador goes a step further, in 2008 by emphasising
why public spaces is so important for quality of life?
It says that “Persons have the right to gain access
to and participate in public spaces as a sphere for
deliberation, cultural exchange, social cohesiveness
and the promotion of equality in diversity. The right
to disseminate in public spaces one’s own cultural
manifestations shall be exercised without any
constraint other than those provided for by the law,
subject to the principles of the Constitution.”
The rights in in the United Nations “Universal

19
Declaration of Human Rights” practically depends

on having a public space to exercise those rights.
Including the right to work (whether traveling to work,
setting up shop on the sidewalk, lining up as a day
labourer, or advertising one’s services), the right to
form and join trade unions, freedom of conscience
and religion (whether men praying on the sidewalk
outside an overflowing mosque, the faithful street
preaching and evangelizing, or observers publicly
displaying their affiliation through what they wear)
and the right to rest and leisure. Today, international
organizations explicitly recognize this dependence
of basic rights on public space. Thus UN Women
(United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the
Empowerment of Women) advocates improving
women’s safety by “creating safe public spaces.”
UNESCO promotes the social integration of migrants
with “inclusion through access to public space.”
The UN Human Settlements Programme drafted
a resolution on “sustainable urban development
through access to quality urban public spaces.” In
each case, these UN entities see public space as
necessary for achieving core aspects of their human-
rights development agenda.
Whereas in India the fight for public spaces rages on,

some group of women in Bangalore came together
for an event “Meet to Sleep” to avow the activity
of sleeping in park need not be the sole rights of
men. Interestingly there are other projects initiated
at various scale for right to public space one of the
unique project in India is the Blank Noise, where
women from different cities are told come out on
streets and public spaces. Cities such as Bangalore,
Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai etc. are part of the project.
They encourage women to come out on streets and
stand around idly, things that man do in almost every
city in India. The main motto behind this initiative is to
create awareness of street harassment in India and
elucidating rights of women in public spaces. Where

20
as in city of Ahmedabad, public demonstration was

held by certain section of community in public space,
seeking other backward class status majorly in field
of education and employment. Protest gathered
around almost quarter million people, the protest
went violent and public properties were vandalized
and curfew was declared in many part of the city.
Comprehending the fact that most of the activities
whether good or bad happens in a public space and
all these activities are connected to human rights
directly or indirectly. Other efforts go farther towards
public space as a right in itself, and not just a means
to other rights. In the World Charter on the Right to
the City, UNESCO and UN Habitat lay out the right to
the city, which to a significant degree coincides with
the right to public space. According to Article – 1
of World Charter on the Right to the City. Following
general provisions have been described briefly in six
points.
1) All persons have the Right to the City free of

discrimination based on gender, age, health status,
income, nationality, ethnicity, migratory condition,
or political, religious or sexual orientation, and to
preserve cultural memory and identity in conformity
with the principles and norms established in this
Charter.
2) The Right to the City is defined as the
equitable usufruct of cities within the principles of
sustainability, democracy, equity, and social justice.
It is the collective right of the inhabitants of cities, in
particular of the vulnerable and marginalized groups,
that confers upon them legitimacy of action and
organization, based on their uses and customs, with
the objective to achieve full exercise of the right to
free self-determination and an adequate standard of
living. The Right to the City is interdependent of all
internationally recognized and integrally conceived
human rights, and therefore includes all the civil,
political, economic, social, cultural and environmental

21
rights which are already regulated in the international

human rights treaties.
This assumes the inclusion of the rights to work in
equitable and satisfactory conditions; to establish and
affiliate with unions; to social security, public health,
clean drinking water, energy, public transportation,
and other social services; to food, clothing, and
adequate shelter; to quality public education and to
culture; to information, political participation, peaceful
coexistence, and access to justice; and the right to
organize, gather, and manifest one’s opinion. It also
includes respect for minorities; ethnic, racial, sexual
and cultural plurality; and respect for migrants.
Urban territories and their rural surroundings are also
spaces and locations of the exercise and fulfilment
of collective rights as a way of assuring equitable,
universal, just, democratic, and sustainable
distribution and enjoyment of the resources, wealth,
services, goods, and opportunities that cities offer.
The Right to the City therefore also includes the
right to development, to a healthy environment, to
the enjoyment and preservation of natural resources,
to participation in urban planning and management,
and to historical and cultural heritage.
3) The city is a culturally rich and diversified
collective space that pertains to all of its inhabitants.
4) For the effects of this Charter, the meaning
of the concept of city is two-fold. For its physical
character, the city is every metropolis, village, or town
that is institutionally organized as local governmental
unit with municipal or metropolitan character. It
includes the urban space as well as the rural or
semi-rural surroundings that form part of its territory.
As public space, the city is the whole of institutions
and actors who intervene in its management, such
as governmental authorities, legislative and judicial
bodies, institutionalized social participation entities,
social movements and organizations, and the
community in general.
5) For the effects of this Charter, all the

22
persons who inhabit a city, whether permanently or

transitionally, are considered its citizens.
6) Cities, in co-responsibility with national
authorities, should adopt all necessary measures –
to the maximum allowed by the resources available
to them – to progressively achieve, by all appropriate
means and with the adoption of legislative and
regulatory measures, the full realization of economic,
social, cultural, and environmental rights. Furthermore,
cities in accordance with their legal framework and
the international treaties, should dictate legislative or
other appropriate provisions so they fully reflect the
civil and political rights gathered in this Charter.
While the right to public spaces has not been

formally recognized, it can be already identified as
a “penumbra”, an implied right, such as right to
privacy, that is not specifically articulated, but play’s
an implicit and necessary role in exercising the other
rights (Smithsimon, 2015). People who studies
cities, are possibly dealing with one of the most
complex systems in the universe. And the idea of
right to city which coincides to right to public spaces
was formulated about 50 years ago. In the era of
information age, cities are considered to be central
hub for live, play, and work. The current notion of
right to public space is broadly a representation
of other basic and fundamental human rights of a
citizen which they can exercise. In 21st century,
planners, architects, designers, sociologist and
others are trying to comprehend the right to public
space or in other words assessing the ‘publicness’
of a public space understanding the accessibility of
public spaces for all.
Provision and free access to public spaces, is

essential for any society. But we should not naively
believe in physical determinism, cerebrating that
spatial solutions are sufficient to address societal
quandaries. As public space is a component of the

23
public sphere, we can apply the logic of the public

sphere in democratic societies to analysing public
space. In other words, public sphere was an integral
part of an open society, a space that everyone is
able to enter and participate in some collective
experience. This may not amount to solving the
social and economic problems, but it does provide a
stage for socialization and a force to keep strong the
social fabric of the city.
Meaning & Etymology of “Public”
Figure 1 Etymology of word “public”

The earliest use was in late 14th century ., “open to
general observation,” from Old French public (c. 1300)
and directly from Latin publicus “of the people; of the
state; done for the state,” also “common, general,
public; ordinary,” and as a noun, “a commonwealth;
public property,” altered (probably by influence of
Latin pubes “adult population, adult”) from Old Latin
poplicus “pertaining to the people,” from populus
“people” (see people (n.)). (Webster, 2015)
From late 15th century. As “pertaining to public
affairs;” meaning “open to all in the community” is
from 1540s in English. An Old English adjective in this
sense was folclic. Public relations first recorded 1913
(after an isolated use by Thomas Jefferson in 1807).
Public office “position held by a public official” is from
1821; public service is from 1570s; public interest
24
from 1670s. Public-spirited is from 1670s. Public

enemy is attested from 1756. Public sector attested
from 1949. Public funds (1713) are the funded debts
of a government. (Webster, 2015)
Public school is from 1570s, originally, in Britain, a
grammar school endowed for the benefit of the
public, but most have evolved into boarding-schools
for the well-to-do. The main modern meaning in U.S.,
“school (usually free) provided at public expense and
run by local authorities,” is attested from 1640s.
(Webster, 2015)
In simple word “Public” means of, or relating to people
as a whole of a country, state, etc. The word public
has changed it course over the years but the real
intention behind the word has always been collective
in nature. From public to public land to public space,
the one common ingredient of all is people as a whole
or people together. From very origin of the word public
it has always been about collectiveness of people
as a whole. Even though public spaces are physical
representation of the meaning of word public. Public
spaces are collective in nature. Thus public spaces
as a whole is a representation of people in physical
reality.
Aim:
Hence, the aim of the study is too comprehend how
public are public space of Ahmedabad’s riverfront
park.
The Primary Objectives of the Study are:
1) To understand whether Ahmedabad’s riverfront

parks are accessible to all.
2) To understand publicness of these parks.
3) To find whether these public spaces are made for

all.

25
Methodology:
This section presents the data collection methods
used in the study and the criteria of site.
Selection of the Site

In order to fulfil the objectives of the study, two sites
in Ahmedabad city of Gujarat are chosen for study:
1) Usmanpura Riverfront Park
2) Subash Bridge Riverfront Park
Why these sites?

• They are at the city centre and characteristics
of both these sites are different. As they are newly
created public space for city of Ahmedabad, they
have never been studied before.
• Both these parks are made at different scale

and have different importance at city level. Thus
impact of both the park on city of Ahmedabad
will widely vary and this will produce a captivating
outcome for the research.
Data Collection Method

After identifying the public spaces, conducting a
primary survey in those identified public spaces with
help of qualitative, quantitative and observational
tools. (Such as Mapping, Questionnaire, on site
observations, Recording and Documenting those
observation with help of audio/video/photographs
and other various tools).
1) To investigate accessibility of all, publicness of

a space and are these spaces made for all. Various
attributes and parameter were identified within the
questionnaire and those parameters and attributes
were included in the primary survey. Comparative
understanding was established with UN Habitats
idea of public space for all in order to achieve the
research aim.
26
2) Secondary data/resources from varied

sources such as library, Archives, Internet, Books,
and Journals etc. is utilized in order to achieve the
aim of the research.
Process of questionnaire Making
Figure 2 Process of making of questionnaire for the research

27
Figure 3 Data Collection Method
Figure 3 Primary Questionnaire for the Survey

Part 2
Finding Publicness & Accessibility
Context
The narrative of two parks
People ‘s Park ?
30
Context
Public Space Scenario
Ahmedabad is the 7th largest metropolis in India
and largest in state of Gujarat, with 5.8 million
population in municipal area and 6.3 million in urban
agglomeration. The municipal area is under jurisdiction
of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), who
has a jurisdiction of 466 sq.km. Ahmedabad, like
many other cities in India, is going through rapid
urbanization. This unprecedented growth is putting
enormous pressure on public spaces. As the rapid
urbanization is creating a concrete jungle which is
taking over the open spaces of the city. Over the
period of time, Ahmedabad has been inflicted with
many wounds to its public spaces thus playground,
parks, gardens, open space are becoming stories
of past. The open spaces in Ahmedabad are of five
different varieties: Open, Garden, Playground, Green
Belts and Recreational Area, which is a total of 129
ha for the entire city. (Ahmedabad CDP). Thus when
translated to per person open space it is almost
0.37 sq.m. As against the standard of 8 – 10 sq.m.
Per person. (WHO & UDRPFI Guidelines). This rapid
growth rate is likely to perpetuate further damage to
city’s public spaces and its public life.
Table 2 Zone wise details of Open Spaces.
West Zone comprise over 40 percent of the open Source: Ahmedabad CDP (2006)
spaces. There is no evidence of any recreational
areas and green belts in South and Central Zones.
The open spaces is dominated in form of Garden.
In all the five zones the per capita open space
works out to be less than 0.7 sq.m. There seems
to be major shortfall in terms of open green areas.

31
There are about 100 parks in the city of Ahmedabad.

Private agencies like Mother Dairy, Amul, Dairy Den
and others work on leasehold basis with AMC for
the development and maintenance of these parks
(Ahmedabad CDP).
As per AUDA DP 2021, Parks and open spaces are

linked to form a “green network” that will provide wide
range of social and environmental benefits to the
society. The wide range of parks and open spaces
gives a valuable input for improving quality of life for
citizens with regards to work, live and visit. AUDA DP
2021 identifies four different components as parts of
green network i.e.
1) Parks and Gardens

2) Open Spaces
3) Green Streets and
4) Urban Groves
Figure 4 Location of existing parks and gardens.

As per AUDA DP 2021 “Parks are green landscaped
Source: AUDA DP 2021

32
areas that act as lungs of the city. Parks provide

pollution free and pedestrian friendly areas for a varied
range of social activities. The activities can include
leisure, relaxation, formal and informal gatherings
such as senior citizens’ laughing club, and recreation
such as jogging and so on. “Parks can accommodate
different recreational and leisure depending on
their size and location. Distributed such that their
catchment areas cover most residential households
within a comfortable walking distance.”
AUDA has identified and categorized four different

scales of parks and gardens for Ahmedabad on
basis of size; location; and use.
1) Neighbourhood Park - This category includes

parks that are small but more evenly distributed
throughout the residential areas. These parks usually
serve the adjoining residential neighbourhoods which
are within a comfortable walking distance.
2) Community Park - This category includes

parks that can support more active recreational
activities, landscape features and other supporting
public toilets etc.
3) City Park - This category includes parks

that are important at the city level. City parks are
large landscaped areas that offer a wider range of
recreational facilities and features. These parks are
usually easily accessible by public transport.
4) Regional Park - There is another category of

parks which functions at the regional level. Regional
parks are large areas, corridors or networks of open
space which are publicly accessible and provide a
range of facilities and features offering recreational,
ecological, landscape, cultural or green infrastructure
benefits.
Ahmedabad has parks that falls under the first three

33
categories of park. However Ahmedabad doesn’t

have any regional level park as of now.
Figure 5 Satellite imagery showing example of parks from each

category. The following two table shows size, pedestrian
Source: AUDA DP 2021 access and catchment area by category of park. And
the distribution of parks in AMC and AUDA region.
Table 3 Categories of parks with standards.
Table 4 Provision of Parks and Open Spaces in AMC & AUDA.

The following map highlights residential areas with
walkable pedestrian access to parks. (Figure 6)
Currently, 7.43 Sq.km. area is under parks, gardens and

open spaces. Out of total area of 466 Sq.km. of AMC area.
This shows that just 1.54% area is covered with parks,
gardens and open spaces. The lack of open spaces had

34
Figure 6 Pedestrian access of parks overlaid with residential

put an immense pressure on upgrading the infrastructure land use.
related to public spaces. The major issue that public Source: AUDA DP 2021
spaces of Ahmedabad is facing is the insufficient city level

and community parks. As well as poor distribution of
neighbourhood level parks. But the most important of
them is how and what is happening in the already existing
park? Are those parks and gardens publicly accessible
for all?
Even though Ahmedabad lack’s in parks, the

most fundamental question that arise is here is to
understand what is the scenario of existing parks?
Are those parks democratic in nature? Are those
parks people’s park?
Especially in case of Ahmedabad the parks and Figure 7 Percentage of Parks and Open Space area within AMC
Zones.
gardens plays the most prominent role in order
to understand how public these public spaces
are.

35
Sabarmati Riverfront
Sabarmati River flows north south direction and is
a monsoon fed river. Sabarmati bisects Ahmedabad
in eastern and western halves. It always have been
an integral part of the city since Ahmedabad’s
foundation. Earlier, the river was the primary source for
water. Today, water is supplied from varied sources.
Nonetheless, the river will always be important for the
city. It has provided space for cultural and recreational
activities. Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi
established his ashram along the river bank during
the freedom movement. Riverbanks were used for
multipurpose activities such as to launder clothes,
to dye textiles, in summers it was used for farming.
It even became the informal economic hub and it
established ‘Ravivari Bazaar – Sunday flea market
which is almost a 600 year old market. Over the
period of time many poor and migrants started to live
along the bank of river as an informal settlements.
The river edge became characterized by unplanned

and uninventive development. People who can afford
to protect their properties and themselves from
flood erosion, started to build walls along the river
edge. The poor citizens who lived along the banks
were the most vulnerable from flood erosion as they
lacked all kinds of infrastructure facilities. Sewage
waste and industrial waste were dumped in the river
creating a unhealthy and harmful environment for
all living beings. Because of all these conditions the
river became inaccessible for all the citizens. By the
1970’s, citizens were only able to access and enjoy
the heart of the city through bridges.
Efforts to improve and develop the river leads way

back in the 1960s, Bernard Kohn a French Architect,
who was the first to propose a part development of
a Sabarmati Riverfront from Gandhi Bridge to Sardar
Bridge. The proposal include a mix of commercial,
recreational and residential development along both

36
the banks. There has been multiple occasions where

number of people and group came together and
proposed development along the banks.
Events Chronology (Source: SRFDCL)
1964 Bernard Kohn, French architect residing

in Ahmedabad creates a proposal for Integrated
Planning & Development of Sabarmati Riverfront,
calling for reclamation of 30 hectares of land.
1966 Kohn’s proposal is claimed technically feasible
by Government of Gujarat after technical studies are
completed.
1976 Riverfront Development Group proposes an

incremental approach to reduce the need for initial
capital investment.
1992 National River Conservation Plan proposes

construction of sewers and pumping stations at the
periphery of the city as well as upgrading of existing
sewage treatment plants.
1997 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) sets

up a Special Purpose Vehicle - Sabarmati Riverfront
Development Corporation Limited (SRFDCL) to
manage the construction and development of the
final riverfront project.
Figure 8 Landuse of Sabarmati Riverfront
Source: SRFDCL

37
The main aim of the project was to improve

environmental aspects, social upliftment and urban
rejuvenation for whole of Ahmedabad. The core
vision or the ideology behind the development was to
reclaim the river edge as a public asset, improve its
spatial structure and habitat conditions and restore
the city’s relationship with the river. (SRFDCL)
Land Use Component: Public/Recreational Spaces

The project devotes around seventy hectares, more
than a quarter (26%), of the reclaimed land towards
creating public spaces in the heart of the city. These
open spaces range from public parks and gardens
to shaded plazas and urban forests. The parks
shall enhance liveability in the neighbourhoods and
provide the city with much needed green spaces and
respite from the dense built environment. The plazas
on the other hand will offer public places for social
gatherings, and informal activities to take place.
Figure 9 Recreational Spaces.
Source: SRFDCL Riverfront Park: Subhash Bridge Park

The park is envisaged as an extension of Gandhiji’s
Sabarmati Ashram, across the river, providing a
serene and contemplative backdrop to the Ashram
and maximising this vista. Simultaneously, it will serve
as a much needed park for Shahibaug-Dudheshwar
neighbourhoods. The park has been designed to
meet the needs of a diverse range of people. It has
been recently completed and is open to the public
since October 2013. (SRFDCL)
Area - 6.19 Ha

38
Riverfront Park: Usmanpura Park

The park is one of the many public gardens created
along the riverfront in this project. It will serve as a
neighbourhood park and strengthen the green space
network on the western part of the city. The park
has been open to the public since October 2013.
(SRFDCL)
Area - 1.8 Ha
Both these parks comes as a rescue to existing

public spaces of Ahmedabad. As such the city has
insufficient city level public spaces. A 26% boost
to public spaces gave an immense opportunity to
better quality of life for the people. Interestingly the
most recent development of green public spaces in
city of Ahmedabad are the parks and gardens along
riverfront. Even after the needed push to the public
spaces the question is still warm in the air. Are these
public spaces made for all? How public are both
these parks? Are these parks accessible by all?
The narrative of two parks

Cities change. Ahmedabad’s public spaces attunes
the dynamic of the city. They consume themselves
and are a reborn. From Manek Chowk to Municipal
Market all of them are remade, repurposed and are
reborn. Fabric of public space is created out of the
material provided by the past and are now the part
of future.
This includes its cultural, social and economic fabric Figure 10 Early Construction face of Usmanpura Park
– Public spaces are formed, inhabited, acquire Source: SRFDCL

39
value, are appropriated, decline and are recreated.

Ahmedabad’s public space have ability to change in
this way.
Subhash Bridge Park
Usmanpura Park
Figure 11 Location of the site
Subhash Bridge Park
Usmanpura Park
Figure 12 Map showing buffers of 500m, 1000m, 1500m and

2000m respectively
Usmanpura Riverfront Park and Subhash Bridge

Park are newly built, in hope to have the ability to
be dynamic in nature. (See Figure 8 for location.)
Usmanpura Park is around 1.8 Ha and is located
on the western bank of the river. Whereas Subhash
Bridge Park which is about 6.19 Ha is located on the

40
eastern bank of the river. Both these parks as per the

location, size and use have adopted to all the three
category of parks. From smallest neighbourhood
park to city level Park, they act for all category except
for regional level category. The Subhash Bridge Park
gave an enormous push for the public spaces for
citizens of eastern Ahmedabad. As east zone of
Ahmedabad has just around 17 ha of open spaces
which includes all types of spaces. The (figure 9)
gives us an idea about the pedestrian access and
catchment coverage of both the parks.
Usmanpura Park
Usmanpura Park is about 600m long and width
ranging from 10 to 60m with an area of 1.8 Ha. The
park has free access and is open from morning 6:00
am till noon 12:00 pm. And from 2:00 pm till 10:00
pm. At sharp 10:00 pm all the visitors are evacuated
from the park. Even both the sides of riverfront are
closed sharp at 10 pm every day. 11 km stretch on
both the sides of the bank is closed and is guarded
by more than 700 private security personnel. Isn’t
our right to the public space under threat?
Figure 13 Usmanpura Park: Zoomed in view

Usmanpura Park on the other hand has 5 security
personnel who are there for 24 hours. Guarding
and manning the public parks which has a gender
distribution of 58% male and 42% female.
1) Visitors timing are from morning 6:00 am to

noon 12:00 pm. And from noon 2:00 pm to night
10:00 pm.
2) Visitors are strictly prohibited for using any
kind alcohol, drugs and intoxicating products in the
park.
3) Visitors are strictly prohibited from throwing
garbage/rubbish in the park, pluck flowers or plant
and damage any property within the premises.
4) Disorderly conduct, misbehaving and
dangerous activities are prohibited.
Figure 14 Usmanpura Park - Gender Distribution

41
5) Bringing personal pet into the park is strictly

prohibited.
6) Vendors are not allowed in the premises.
7) The authority has all the rights to stop entry
and exit of the visitor.
8) Visitors are requested to park their vehicles in
dedicated parking areas.
9) All visitor must comply with the rules/
regulations mentioned above and they should not
break any rule/regulation. If they do so, a strict action
against them would be taken and they would be
fined.
The rules and regulation signage is created in one

language i.e. Gujarati, thereby making it exclusive for
only just one linguistic user. Hence inclusiveness is
breached for other language users.
Finding Accessibility & Publicness: Usmanpura

Park
Diversity of people is something which is important
in all sense whether it has to do with urban planning
or policy making. All requires and must keep in mind
what kind of people are coming to a particular location
as it is really important to understand the functionality
of that spaces. And also it helps to understand how
public those public spaces are. In Usmanpura Park,
the dominant religion which is identified is Hinduism
more than 60% of population coming to Usmanpura
Park is Hindu. 20% of population coming to the park
represent Islam. Rest others are Jainism which is at
12% and Christianity & Sikhism is at 3% each. In terms
of religious distribution of people in Ahmedabad.
Since long there has been a generic observation that

Ahmedabad is split in two half, the western half is
highly dominated by Hinduism following people and
the eastern side of Ahmedabad is dominated by
Islam following people. Which is also seen in case
of Usmanpura Park (See Figure 12). As mentioned
Figure 15 Usmanpura Park - Religion Distribution

42
in chapter 1 the word public originated from Latin

which is concerned with people as a whole. Religion
distribution in a public spaces acts as a parameter to
understand the accessibility of kind of people coming
in a public space.
One of the most important parameter to understand

the accessibility is to learn the pattern of mode of
travel of people. How people travel to Usmanpura
Figure 16 Usmanpura Park - Gender Distribution
Park? What mode of travel they prefer to reach the
destination? To reach Usmanpura park 45% people
prefer 2 wheeler, followed by 20% people who take
a bus to reach the destination. Interestingly the walk
and 4 wheeler user percentage is similar i.e. 17%
each. But when analysed people who commute
through walking are living in proximity of 1000m. 4
wheeler users are basically the long distance traveller.
In order to understand from which location people
are coming from we asked people there origins of
travel. It spread across whole of Ahmedabad from
Chandkheda in north to Maninagar in south, Thaltej
in west to Nikol in east, people travel to Usmanpura
Figure 17 Usmanpura Park: Which are visitors comes from.
Park from many different locations across whole of
Ahmedabad. (See Figure 16)
When we question the publicness of the spaces it is
Figure 18 Usmanpura Park: Spatial location of the places

43
important to understand the income level of a person.

Family income is one of the parameters which help
us to achieve the aim of the study. During the survey
the most fascinating outcome was that, 82% people
had family income of 60000 & above, this shows
that the people who comes to the parks are from
wealthy family. They basically fall into category of
upper lower income group, middle income group,
and high income group. The park culture is highly
influenced and dominated by these people as they
have better quality of life than other 18% people
Figure 19 Usmanpura Park: % distribution of family income
who fall in range of 50000 to 10000 per annum
income. Income background gives us a glimpse of
the accessibility for people. It determines what kind
of people can afford to come to a public space.
There were many cases where people are not able
to afford to come to the place. If the park starts to
charge or public transportation cost increase. Such
determinants influences the accessibility of different
income groups. As EWS and LIG cannot afford to
come to public spaces like Usmanpura Park even
though the entry is free, they are restricted because
Figure 20 Usmanpura Park - Age Group Distribution
affordability is threaten
Usmanpura Park is rich in bio-diversity but not rich

in people diversity. When quantified on average there
are about 500 – 700 visitors who visit Usmanpura
Park daily. There are many socio – economic
excluded groups in context of religion distribution,
physical accessibility with regards to mode of travel
and income distribution. As usual the most vulnerable
groups in public spaces are the poor and homeless
as they can’t afford to come to public spaces as
there luxury of life is to have a good food and healthy
living at end of the day. 18% of people coming to
Usmanpura Park are having annual income lower
than 50000 rupees. On the other hand the mode of
travel also plays an important role 20% people are
dependent on public transportation to access the
park. If in case the price of the public transportation
Figure 21 Usmanpura Park: Income Disparity

44
increases there are chances that people will lose Figure 22 Usmanpura Park: Why do you come here?
the access to public spaces. Public spaces are our

shared living spaces. The importance of public space

45
is inherently connected to the importance of coming

to that space.
One has to form a purpose for visiting a space.

Whether it has to do with a private space or public
space, purpose needs to be formed in order to visit
that space. Meanwhile it is important to understand
why people come to place. In case of Usmanpura
Park, most of the visitors who visits the park, visit
it for purpose of walking & jogging (Basically taking
Figure 23 Usmanpura Park: Students Studying care of their personal health). While others loved to
spend their time with children’s, family members,
friends and loved ones. The important thing here
is to understand what kind of themes evolved for
visiting a space. There are elements such as peace,
relaxation, enjoyment, timepass, fun etc. Which are
directly related to the physical, mental and emotional
wellbeing of human being. Such kind of themes are
directly affecting the quality of life of a person in a
space. The trending theme that emerged in age group
of 18 – 25 years of age is related to studying. Looking
at the surrounding land use along Usmanpura Park
46
there are various schools and colleges nearby thus

the space has emerged as hot spot for students to
study because it provides them with atmosphere
of studying. Many who come with their children to
spend time in park finds enjoyment and relaxation
from their daily life. There are many overlaps in themes
on why people come this place? Such as spending
time with loved ones seems to be a relaxation for
many, when people come with their family to this
space they seems to have fun and same time they
find peace. Overlaps of different themes are bound
to happen in a public space because public space
is collectively formed by individual people and their
notion. The very idea of public space and democracy
is to have the flexibility to express the freedom and
practice various ideologies. Figure 24 Usmanpura Park: Alternative public spaces people
visits
Space is a representation of characteristics of human

thoughts and value of human aspirations. Themes
such as peace, enjoyment, fun, relaxation, spending
time, resting and others are the aspirations that a
person wants to find in a space. Steven Johnson
rightly said that our thoughts shapes our spaces and
in return the space shape us. It’s an infinite feedback
loop we design the space and the space design
47
us in back. The most prominent thing that a public

space needs to satisfy is the individual aspirations
and thoughts in a space. It is difficult to calculate
or evaluate whether the subjectivity of a space is
achieved by each individuals in a public space.
People tend to use varied spaces throughout the

day for different purpose. It is really important to
understand why people visit any other alternate space
and whether those spaces help themselves feel the
same way? Why was it important to study the alternate
public spaces, because it helps to identify the nature
of publicness and accessibility of Usmanpura Park?
Do people choose Usmanpura Park over other public
spaces? During the survey, I asked question to the
visitors whether they go to alternate public space. In
case of Usmanpura Park, 59% of people don’t go to
any place except for Usmanpura Park. Law Garden
and Parimal Garden are the alternative spaces that
people tend to visit. The priority for the visitors who
are coming to Usmanpura Park is static in nature.
The visit to other alternate spaces is skewed across
western side of Ahmedabad. This shows the unequal
distribution of public spaces in Ahmedabad. As well
as lack of public spaces distribution in all zones of
Ahmedabad. And also the accessibility of these
public spaces.
To further understand the publicness and accessibility

of a public space, questions regarding what visitors
think about entry fee where asked. Three main themes
emerged out from this question 1) Agreed Themes
(People who think Yes they are willing to pay for the
entry fee and why) 2) Disagreed Themes (People
who think No they are not willing to pay for the entry
fee and why) and 3) Undecided Themes (People who
still have no idea or they haven’t responded to the
question)

48
Most of the yes themes a.k.a. Agreed themes revolves Table 5 Usmanpura Park: Notion of people regarding entry fee
in Usmanpura Park
around the idea of Cleanliness & Maintenance,
Improved Services, Reducing Nuisance & Anti-
Social elements from the park. People who are ready
to pay are the ones who wants better cleanliness
& maintenance of park with improved services and
facilities such as public toilet, drinking water facility,
lifts for people who disabled or elder who cannot
walk and go to lower promenade of riverfront. These
same people tend to have a notion that paying will
reduce the nuisance in a public space, they don’t
want anti- social elements (Those who doesn’t follow
the societal norms such as public kissing is not
allowed, holding hands in public is not allowed etc.)
They believe that paying for something will in return
give better people and better people means better
public space. This questions the fundamental of
inclusiveness of a public space. Public spaces needs
to cater all the wants and desire of every individual
who are present there. For a public space to create
genuine publicness and accessibility for all, there
must be rules that channelize the interactions among
individuals.
On the other hand there are people who just don’t

want to pay to enter a space, irrespective of any

49
particular reason why they don’t want to pay. The

belief that we already pay tax to the city includes
access to public space for free. People think that
when they pay tax that means they have free access
to public space or any part of the city. There are even
more curious notions that public is free, basically it is
a public space so it is free. Economic affordability is
one of the themes that emerged out from the survey,
when people are unable to afford a particular goods or
services they restrict themselves to that commodity.
This applies to even public spaces, when a space
is charged for access it becomes inaccessible
for many users. Even the physical accessibility
(transportation) to a public space is determined by
economic affordability. One must have an affordable
mode of transport to connect to a public space.
Connectivity and accessibility to a public space is
highly dependent on transportation system and that
too on whether those system are affordable for all the
citizens of the city. There are even many who thinks
that because they come for particular purpose or
activity especially walking, jogging etc. don’t want to
pay because they are there for just an hour or two.
Even the idea of quota based access that means
people who are of certain age or belong to certain
part of the society have free access to public space
like Usmanpura Park. Students had this notion that
being students they have a right to free access to
Usmanpura Park so do the elderly who thinks being
elder they have special access to a public space.
There were others who even thought that having free
entry will encourage more people to come. And many
where there who had no idea and did not comment
or provide any information regarding the entry fee in
Usmanpura Park.
Situational base question like if entry fee is increased

to rupees 20, 30, 40 or more will you come? Why?
Such question was asked in order to further analyse
the spaces publicness and accessibility. As similar

50
three themes were framed out from the analysis.
Table 6 Usmanpura Park: Notion of people when entry fee is

The ideology of people did not change even though increased
when they were asked situational based question

most of the people had similar thoughts as previously
mentioned regarding the entry fee. Couple of new
notion emerged such as free access to other gardens
people suggested that if the price is charged and if
it increases they will counter argue with the fact that
other parks and gardens have free access and as
those parks and gardens are free the will visit them
more frequently than Usmanpura Park. Transport
affordability was new notion that broke out because
people where concern that as such parks and gardens
are increasing the cost of entry fee, the transportation
system might have to compensate with the increase
in cost of public space entry fee. This might lead to
lesser accessibility for the public. Situational based
questions shows that people who agreed to visit the
park even after the entry fee increases belongs to
family income group of more than 60000 per annum.
The income disparity and thoughts regarding the visit
to public space widely defers. Income inequality in one
way or other is hampering into the built environment
and quality of life of the city whether it is a private
open space or public open space. Income inequality
determines the accessibility of many users of a public
space in today’s contemporary cities.

51
The most crucial part of public space understanding

is to know the liking and disliking of public space.
What people like or dislike about this space? Why
is it important to understand the likeliness factor is
because people are tend to visit a space based on
cognitive understanding and introspection of that
space. What is found in Usmanpura Park can be
seen in the below table. (Table 7)
Figure 25 Usmanpura Park: Children’s Play Section

The important thing what people like about
Usmanpura Park is its Atmosphere and Environment
(Includes Views, Greenery & Nature) Peacefulness is
one of the attributes that boomed out in the survey
many people like the peacefulness of this place.
Garden Design with clean & fresh air is something
that emerged as trend for morning visitors. On one
hand where security personnel are kept for moral
policing there are people who prefer and want them
to be there for their own safety and security. There
are many who did not like the way the garden was
design and maintained, they complain about lack of
trees and plants in Usmanpura Park. With poor state

52
of drinking and public toilet amenities. Interestingly

there is a group of section who likes everything
about this park from that small little drinking facility to
children parks they like everything.
As earlier mentioned transportation system plays Figure 26 Usmanpura Park: Parking near the park
a huge role for physical accessibility of people to a

public space. So does parking space, parking space
provides people with opportunity to be welcomed
to a space. With advancement in technology and
automobile the car and other modes of transport are
playing a crucial role in mobilizing people from one
place to another, but it is important to understand
the nodes of these mobility. Parking spaces acts
as nodes for such mobility. And nodes near public
spaces improves the accessibility for all. When asked
about parking fee? People had varied answers and
justification for whether they want to pay for the
parking fees or not. People who are willing to pay
for parking fees have different notions regarding why
they want to pay. Notions such as it will improve
parking management when it is paid and this will
reduce theft & damage of the vehicles

53
On the other hand people who are not ready to

pay justify the idea of parking fee by using public
transportation and Non-Motorized Transportation.
This will save people’s time of finding parking outside
a public space. Use of public transportation and
NMTs at large scale will also contribute to social
benefits and environment benefits for all. Interestingly
people tend to have a belief that there is hug space
along riverfront freely available for parking. It is
important here to know that riverfront project is still
in developmental stage so there are piece of land
which are still not under construction and are utilized
for parking. People who pay tax feels that they free
right to park near Usmanpura Park. The very idea of
taxation has been utilized and interpreted in multiple
instances. As of now there is no paid parking along
west side of riverfront then why suddenly charge for
parking near Usmanpura Park? Parking acts a node
for people to come and enjoy a public space. Paid
parking or unpaid parking will have an implication on
the accessibility of a public space.
People, place and activity together forges the idea of

publicness of a place. In Usmanpura Park, during the
survey, there was deliberate attempt to understand
what kind of people and what kind of activity does a
visitor like or dislike to see in the space.
What kind of people would you like or dislike to see

here?
Table 7 Usmanpura Park: Kind of people you would like or

dislike to see Many people would love to see children, elderly,
young people as a part of public space. But on the
other hand there are these spheres of social character

54
of a person, that people prefer to see it in a public

spaces these are Good and well-mannered people,
Mature & Cultured people, Sincere people. These
characteristics shows the social accessibility of a
public space. People want other people whose social
character is acceptable in a public space. On other
hand there are many dislikes people don’t like college
students as most of the couples who visit Usmanpura
Park falls in the category of college students. College
students and people associated with Public Display
of Affection (PDA) are having overlaps with couples
who visit the parks. There are individuals who perform
certain types of activities (Kissing, Hugging, and
other intimate and allied activities) in a public space
which sounds gross to other people who are having
social biasedness towards these kinds of activities.
There are instances where elderly and family oriented
people who visits the park complain directly to the
urban local body to remove such kind of people who
do Public display of affection. The ULB has given
authority to private security personnel in public space
to prevent the happening of such kind of activities.
One way or other the core idea of being a public
space is being redefined by moral policing, which
has taken over public spaces and the behavioural
aspect of public spaces totally changes because of
this. There are many instances in many cities across
India where police have beaten up couples who are
part of activities associated with public display of
affection.
People don’t want other people who are considered to

be nuisance, vulgar & loud in Usmanpura Park. Over
and above that they don’t want beggars roaming in a
public space nor do they want misbehaving and anti-
social elements in Usmanpura Park. Judgemental
ideology has risen on this occasion. Public spaces
are place where people silently judge others for their
doings. Whether it is a superstar walking down the
street or homeless in search of home. Human beings

55
are political and judgemental creature and these

characteristics are well established in public space.
Beggars is socially excluded from public spaces,
when the vision of the park itself suggest that it is
made for all then when seen in reality the beggars
are prevented from entering the park. Such kind
of exclusion forms an anti-inclusive spaces in the
society. Activities are one of the components that is
important to understand in a public space. Questions
regarding what kind of activities they would like to or
dislike to see here were asked. The following themes
emerged out from the surveys.
Use & activities reincarnate the public spaces,

Table 8 Usmanpura Park: Activities people like or dislike to see
without multiple activities taking place in a public
space the public space’s publicness is under poor
performance. The major theme that was found
while taking survey was that people want to have
fun & enjoyment when they are with their friends or
children. Activities which creates fun & enjoyment for
all is highly likeable. Followed by daily base activities
to cyclical activities that takes places. At the same
time people don’t want anti-social activities (banned
& criminal activities) taking place in Usmanpura
Park. Even public display of affection is not suitable
for people as a form of activities. Activities creates
a process of active participation and inclusiveness
of social groups. It is important that flexible and
beneficial activities takes place in public spaces.
Finally asking people whether they think Usmanpura

Park is a public space for all. 82% agreed that yes
56
it is a space for all. Even though people have their

personal thoughts towards particular elements
connected to public space one needs to understand
a public spaces as thing of all. Keeping in mind the
ground reality what is happening and what is the truth.
People feel it is a space for all but there are situations
and elements they haven’t yet analysed on day to
day basis that hawkers, street vendors, beggars and
others are being excluded from Usmanpura Park.
Intellectuality among visitors whether they understand
the meaning of public space for all is also missing to
a great extent in Usmanpura Park.
Figure 27 Usmanpura Park: In Afternoon

Usmanpura Park plays a significant role in bringing
importance of public space at a neighbourhood
level as well as city level open space. The nature
of Usmanpura Park being totally public is still
controversial as there are elements that have been
excluded from the space in context of policy, design,
as well as human intervention. Usmanpura Park’s
timing and access is itself is restricting users, as
Monday it is close. And rest other days the park gets

57
close at night 10:00 pm. limiting the time frame can

discard many users from using the park to full extent.
In policy context, vendors and animals (dogs, cats,
etc.) are not allowed to enter the whole stretch of
riverfront this gives us an idea why these kinds of
parks are comparatively less in number of people
and have less activity and liveliness. Look at Law
Garden or Parimal Garden there are street vendors
from morning till evening making the place livelier
by bringing in food and culture of Ahmedabad i.e.
Figure 28 Usmanpura Park: Public Spaces for all? Street food. Looking at the land use plan of riverfront,
and being a 11 km long public stretch, one way
or another it is being commercialized and this will
change the very nature of publicness in a space.
London is one such fine example where privatization
and commercialization have changed the course of
publicness and accessibility of public space.In order
to become a true public space, ontology of each
human being needs to be satisfied irrespective of
any discrimination. Public space will always be re-
established once people take over it. It is in itself an
organism by its own. Like water it is adaptable to
any shape and form, in same way public spaces is
dynamic, and it needs to keep reshaping itself like
water.

58
Subhash Bridge Park

Subhash Bridge Park is twice in length it is almost
1200m with a width that ranges from 30-60m.
Subhash Bridge Park covers an area of 6.19 Ha,
which and is one of the largest park of Ahmedabad.
The park attracted many users from Prime Minister of
India Narendra Modi to President of China Xi Jingping.
Many powerful and influencing person have visited
the park since its opening in October 2013.
The park has a paid access which is guarded and

Figure 29 Subhash Bridge Park: Zoomed in view
manned by 32 security personnel. Where each
person above 12 years of age have to pay rupees
ten, children and senior citizens pay rupees five. And
students who can bring a letter from their school,
institution, colleges and university can have access
by paying rupees one. Physically challenged and
children below five years of age have free entry. It
is astonishing that mentally challenged people have
been excluded here so are the people who cannot
afford to pay five to ten rupees as entry fee. On basis
of gender distribution 55% are male and 45% are
female. Both the parks have almost equal distribution
in context of gender parity.
The park gives free access for people who come in

morning from 6:00 to 8:00 am. From 8:00 to 9:00
Figure 30 Subhash Bridge Park: Rules & Regulation
am the park is closed for cleaning and maintenance.
Overall timing for the entry of the park starts from
morning 6:00 am to night 10:00 pm. On Monday
both, Usmanpura Park and Subhash Bridge Park are
closed. The rules and regulation in Subhash Bridge
Park is similar to that of Usmanpura Park. Subhash
Bridge Park have been given special importance
from global too local levels. Has the park been made
for all? How public is this park? How accessible this
park is for the people? Evaluating publicness and
accessibility for Subhash Bridge Park. These are
some of the questions that needs to be answered.
Figure 31 Subhash Bridge Park: Gender Distribution

59
Finding Accessibility & Publicness: Subhash Bridge

Park
Diversity in case of Subhash Bridge Park, is really

skewed. The most dominant religion group coming to
park is Islam. Islam consist of 63% of total population
in context of this park. Followed by Hinduism at
30%. Jainism (3%) and Christianity (4%) are similar
Figure 32 Subhash Bridge Park: Religion Distribution
to Usmanpura Park. The main purpose behind the
development of Subhash Bridge Park was to give a
serene and contemplative back drop to the Gandhi
ashram. As previously mentioned Ahmedabad
population in generic is split in two halves where
Islamic population is living on the eastern edge and
Hindu followers are pre dominantly living on the
western edge of the city. Even both these park shows
the same divide where almost 60% of population
is dominated by Hinduism followers in Usmanpura
Park which is on the western bank of the river and on
the other side Subhash Bridge Park occupies 63%
of Islam followers. This shows disparity of religion
among both parks.
When we look into mode of travel, for Subhash

Bridge Park we see 45% of the trip takes place
through 2 wheeler, followed by 4 wheeler at 27%
and walk and bus combined forms a total of 28%.
Two wheeler have been the core to access public in
both the cases. Especially city of Ahmedabad has a
special love for two wheelers. Out of total of 34 lakh
registered vehicles 22 lakh vehicles are registered
as two wheeler in Ahmedabad. Usmanpura and
Subhash Bridge parks are fascinated by two
wheelers. Thus what we see here is that both the
parks are accessible with almost every mode of
transport including NMTs. Even though when the
park is accessible by all means, it is important to see
from which areas people prefer to come to Subhash
Figure 33 Subhash Bridge Park: Mode of Travel Bridge Park.

60
Figure 34 Subhash Bridge Park: Map showing the location of

Dudheshwar area, which is a future proposed CBD areas from where people come
by AMC has the highest number of footfall who are
coming to Subhash Bridge Park. What we see is
that most of the people who are coming to Subhash
Bridge Park are coming from the eastern side of
Ahmedabad. Eastern side of Ahmedabad lacks
public spaces thus the influx of population is high
from the eastern Ahmedabad.
Family income also plays a crucial role in order to

understand the accesibility of people in a public
space. What we see in Subhash Bridge park it is Figure 35 Subhash Bridge Park: % of people coming from
which area
astonishing as 92% people who are coming to the
park have a strong economic background (60000
& above). Remaining 8% of people have income
less than 50000 rupees per annum. Thus when any
cost of transportation or even the entry charge gets
increased people will drop out. Because of paid
access of park many users are excluded as they can’t
afford to buy a ticket for the park entry. Someway
the line of being public is deminishing in case of
Subhash Bridge Park as there are kinds of rules and
regulation and over and above that there is an entry
Figure 36 Subhash Bridge Park: Age Group Distribution
charge which heavily acts as constrain for publicness
of the park. This matters for those whoes thoughts
are aligned towards communityness because it
represents the sense of commanlity, of “we” that is
61
important for functioning of public spaces. It also

matters to the groups that are excluded or isolated
in sense of geography as well as accessibility (which
means economic affordability) of transportation
system.
Public spaces are public in nature. But when the

government or even the private agency starts to
take entry charges for the facilities there are certain
sections of group in the society who will not be able
enjoy and afford the essence of public spaces. Private
ownership and management of public space is an
illusion in itself. People’s park are those who have
been recognized as a refuge for homeless people,
togetherness, sense of community, essences of
sharing is established from its very origin. Quality of
life of those people gets affected as they are unable to
access any open public spaces. The true meaning of
being public is marginalized especially in the case of
Subhash Bridge Park. Thus public spaces occupies
an important – but contested – ideological position in
democratic societies. (Mitchell, 2014).
Purpose of coming to a place is well established.

During survey in Subhash Bridge Park, we asked
visitors why they come here. Astonishingly the
reasons are almost similar compared to Usamanpura
Park. People have pre-determined purpose to visit
Subhash Bridge Park, they have already set up a
mind-set to visit this place. Ranging from walking to
finding peace people, create reasons to come to this
place. Rarely there are visitors who are wandering
around the park without any purpose. Important thing
for a public space is to accept a single wanderer to
bunch of people. All must be able to cater to place,
with having their own personal privacy maintained
at the same time. Subhash Bridge Park is designed
beautifully with at a national level influential scale.
But question is whether it caters to the need of each
visitors who come to the park?

62
Figure 37 Subhash Bridge Park: Why people come here?

Similarity among themes is found out between both
Usmanpura Park and Subhash Bridge Park. Many
themes are similar such as walking, jogging, spending

63
time with other, etc. Themes are similar but there

is vast cultural usage difference between both the
parks. In Subhash Bridge Park as 63% visitors are
Muslim, the space usage within the park changes. As
observed many Muslim people come with their family
together to eat and spend time with others on daily
basis or weekends. It was provoking that the family
size between religions was varied and changing. On
average a family size of Muslim family was around 6
-7 people together. Whereas Hindu and other religion
had a family size 4 – 5 people.
Figure 38 Subhash Bridge Park: A Muslim family having

peaceful dinner at the Park For Subhash Bridge Park, the most important thing
is to understand the importance of entry fee for
the park. As the park have paid access, Rs. 10 for
Adults, Rs. 5 for children & senior citizens and Rs.
1 for school/institution students. There is a minimal
amount of entry fee charged to access one of the
most beautiful garden of Ahmedabad. As per the
supervisor who are in charge of the park, suggest that
they are charging fee in order to earn basic revenue
to maintain and clean the park. Constructed at cost
of Rs. 6 corer, the garden has gotten national level
64
importance, because of many VIP people visiting the

park for political as well as business purpose.
The park is more of a kind of destination Park, where

people come with pre-established reasons. The entry
fee makes it more restricted for people who have
economic as well as transport affordability in serious
situations. Themes that emerged out after the survey
for understanding there perspective about the entry
fee are as follows. (See Table 9)
Table 9 Subhash Bridge Park: Perspective about entry fee

Similarity of thoughts among visitors is definitely
seen. Most of them agreed to pay when the park will
have better cleanliness and maintenance as well as
improved services. There are group of people who
would rather pay just to find peace and natural beauty
in park. Again the same thought paying will reduce
the nuisances & anti- social element from entering
the park there by having a controlled access. During
the interview with the manager of the Subhash Bridge
Park, he precisely said that the main reason why they
have established a paid access is because of kind
of people living in the surrounding neighbourhood.
(Suggesting it in religious point of view, especially
his thoughts inclined towards one particular religion:
Islam).
Furthermore he said that controlled access was a

necessary thing in this area, as there are particular
community (again suggesting Muslim people) living
in nearby neighbourhood which can be dangerous,
violent and sometimes nuisance for other visitors
who come to park. In order to have a hold in that
area Riverfront Park like Subhash Bridge Park have
65
a paid access. The reason can be associated with

politics and political landscape of Ahmedabad city.
Having biased thoughts towards one community
questions the very vision of the Riverfront Park as
well as riverfront project as a whole. Inclusiveness is
one of the fundamental focus of the riverfront project.
Is Subhash Birdge Park missing the very core vision
of the project?
At city scale and looking at the political landscape

of Ahmedabad the major two public spaces of
Ahmedabad that is Subhash Bridge Park and
Kankaria Lake which are located on eastern side of
Ahmedabad city have paid access And with high
population of particular community. Whereas all other
spaces on the western side of Ahmedabad have free
access. Where is the inclusiveness? Why is one side
of the whole city have a paid access and other side
of the city have free access? Are our public spaces
strategically politicalized for particular purpose? This
is all together a whole different subject of study but
one must understand that, inclusiveness of any space
whether it is a house garden or a public garden, the
element of togetherness and pure intentions of being
together must be created/established in that space.
Couple of situational based questions were put

forward to the visitors such as If the entry price
increase to Rs. 20, 30 or 40 and more will you come
to park? Most of the answers inclined towards not
coming to the park. Visitors suggested that as they
pay tax free access is mandatory. Again the point
of economic and transporat affordability was raised
to a great extent. They also suggested that they will
visit alternative space if the entry fee is higher than
nominal charges. On the other side of the coin they
will come if there are more new activities and facilities.
And the existing facilities are improved till it becomes
the state of art facilities.

66
Themes that emerged, when asked about what

visitors like and dislike about the space are as follows.
(See Table 10)
Critical thing to learn here is about the enclosed gates Table 10 Subhash Bridge Park: What people like and dislike
about the space?
within the park restricts people’s movements to other
spaces as well as lower promenade. Many visitors
are irritated by the fact that as it is a paid access
there is just 2 entry point and there are about 4 exit
points including gate number 1 which is just made
for VIP people. This shows that high priority and
importance is given to VIP visitor but not a common
visitor. A common visitor have to struggle to find
gates to enter the park. Gates near lower promenade
are closed there are just two gates which has entry
and exit points one has to show ticket to enter and
exit the place. There are several users who are not
obeying the security check thus having a verbal spat
between the security personnel and the visitor. Some
visitor tend to have various reasons for not brining
or entering the park without ticket from having my
phone forgotten to my son is inside. Many ideas are
thrown out to the security personnel just to enter
the park without ticket. Whether the access is paid
or not it is a moral responsibility of visitor to have
his or her own discipline while caring any activities
within the premises. Again the same issue of public
display of affection is very much on rise in parks like
Subhash Bridge Park and Usmanpura Park. The
crucial thing for both the park whether you like the
space or not is that there is a moment when you
enter your psych towards both the spaces changes
dramatically because these two spaces are formed
in formal manner and there is self-conscious thought
67
that when we enter these spaces we need to become

someone or something.
With paid access to the park. There is also a paid

parking in Subhash Bridge Park with Rs.5 for two
wheeler and Rs.10 for Four Wheeler. Paid parking
has been introduced here since October 2013, the
revenue they created is direct money no official
records are kept on what that money is utilized for
or are those money used to improve any of the
services. Parking has been a core subject of study
for urban planning and public spaces as it forms a
linkage between accessibility and mobility of a space.
During the survey, the acceptability of paid parking
was higher in morning because people who come
for morning walk, jogging, and to exercise have
free parking this make them happier. But during the
entire day when park reopens at 9:00am till evening
10:00pm paid parking takes place. People have
this notion of paid parking being safer and secured
and will prevent theft of their vehicles. Furthermore,
paid parking has enabled to manage the parking
space more efficiently and even for long run creating
a sense on psychological improvement for parking
users to park their vehicles properly. There are many
users who encourage the use of public transport
as well as non-motorized mode of transport i.e.
walking and cycling to come to a public space. Like
junctions are connected through multiple linkages
of roads, in same way a public space needs to be
connected with various modes of transport for now
the accessibility from public transport especially bus
is poor. And there by encouraging more people to
come to the place by taking there on private vehicles
and increasing the demand of parking availability.
The whole stretch outside of park of 1.2km long is
used as parking space just for Subhash Bridge Park.
Parking strategy is required for this park as it is a
large scale city level park with higher importance then
Usmanpura Park.

68
People are the subject and core of studying public

spaces, their behaviour towards a space determines
the activity they are looking forward to join into. It
is important for the research to understand kind of
people, people like and dislike to see here. And kind
of activities they like and dislike to see in Subhash
Bridge Park. The survey formed themes that helps
in comprehending the further research. The themes
that emerged during the question ask for what kind
of people visitors like or dislike to see here are as
follows. (See Table 11)
Table 11 Subhash Bridge Park: Kind of people like and dislike to

People and activity goes hand in hand. The social see in a public space
character of person determines what kind of activity
he or she wants to pursue in a public space. There
is a negative vibe for people who display affection
publicly in both the parks. One has an awkward
moment when public display of affection takes place
making it a moral question and further enhancing
the problem of moral policing in both Usmanpura
Park and Subhash Bridge Park. Social biasness
and prejudice has taken over the public sphere and
changed the dynamics of public space to a great
extent, where one has to become judgemental about
one another in public domain. And determining what
is right and what is wrong to do in a public space. Yes
there are moral conducts and ethos that one must
need to keep in mind while being a part of public
sphere. But one cannot emboss those conducts and
ethos on someone else. Public space evolves into
a people’s place when all and each individuals can
exercise their own freedom. Figure 39 Subhash Bridge Park: Spending time with loved ones
Activities that takes place determines what kind of

freedom people expect in a public spaces. For a
69
public space to increase its publicness needs to

identify the types of activities that space wants to
cater too. The survey was conducted to understand
the kind of activities people are expecting in Subhash
Bridge Park.
Table 12 Subhash Bridge Park: Activities that people like and

dislike to see
People are the one who determines whether the
space will be considered as a total public space or
not. Public space has been a long subject of debate
and study since the time of Greek agora. Definitions
of public has been changing from its very core but
one thing that always have stayed in common is the
commonality and togetherness of people found in
a public space. In world of academics definition of
public space will keep on changing based on the
needs of people. In case of Subhash Bridge 83%
people agreed it is a public space for all. There are
many perspective which they haven’t analysed or
used while coming to this conclusion of determining
Figure 40 Subhash Bridge Park: Public Space for All? it a public space for all.
People’s Park?
If public space arise out of a dialectic between
representation of space and representational
spaces, between the ordered and the appropriated,
then they are also, and very importantly spaces for
representation (Mitchell, 2014). The fundamental
70
argument that has been running through The Right

to the city is the privatization of public spaces –
enclosure in malls, overregulated for stakeholders
who can get profits at expense of marginalized
population of the society like homeless and poor,
guarded and manned by security personnel for
behavioural attitudes.Public spaces have become
the centre stage for the drama in the city. Each cities
have been blessed with beautiful public spaces.
Ahmedabad’s riverfront public space i.e. Usmanpura
Park & Subhash Bridge Park are facing the challenge
of becoming better. Both these parks have shown
a tremendous potential of being a public space but
the parks haven’t reached the ultimate potential
because there are multiple issues that are being
identified in these spaces. In order to understand
the performance and potential of the riverfront
parks. Methodology from Project of Public Space,
New York has been adopted to evaluate riverfront
parks. Evaluation of public space take place with
four parameters (i.e. 1) Comfort & Image 2) Access
& Linkages 3) Uses & Activities and 4) Sociability)
and these four parameters have four attributes for
evaluation. (See Table 13)
All these parameters have four other measurable Table 12 : A methodology created by PPS for evaluating public
space
attributes combine together they form an average
score for the parameter. The lower the score the
better is the place.
Over here during the evaluation process we asked the
visitors to evaluate the place based on their perception
towards the park. Looking at the score card what we
see is that Subhash Bridge Park is leading in three
parameters out of four i.e. Comfort & Image, Access
71
Table 13 : Evaluation of both the parks through methodology

created by PPS, New York.
& Linkage and Sociability.Whereas uses & activities in
both the parks have got similar scores this gives us an
idea that riverfront project has whole have distributed
similar kind of activity along both the stretch of the
parks. Activities such as Segway, Golf Cart, Boating,
etc. are easily available in both the place. Diversity of
different activities established by riverfront authority
is similar but when seen with perspective of people’s
use the activities have diversity of activities from
walking to finding peace. (As mentioned earlier) The
activity and use have been monotonous as off now
in both the parks may be because the riverfront as a
whole is yet to develop and grow into its full potential.
Monotonousness is one of the character seen at the
lower promenade because of the presences of long
walls which are tactically built to adopt flooding.
Genuineness of inclusive approach for both the parks

is clearly in a limbo. There is a religious divide within
the park itself. The age group distribution is totally
skewed, creating activities which are socially not
acceptable especially public display of affection. Both
the parks are limiting freedom of expression to a great
extent because of the moral policing i.e. is the private
Figure 41 Connection to the city is totally cut off because of
security personnel controlling the way people behave
high walls and creating a monotonous look and activities along
lower promenade
in a public space. The question here is whether these
spaces are considered to be public space? Well as
per visitors who regularly use it consider both the park
as public space. But fact that they haven’t looked
upon the inequality, economics, politics, religion and
many other elements that determines the public
space. Legitimacy of true public space will also be
changing over the course of time, but elements such
as people, activities and design will always determine
the true essence of public space.

Part 3
Seeked
Findings
Conclusions
74
Findings
Meaning of any space is linked to the actual
elements and changes in the physical space defined
by order and form of the built environment. The
social interaction in both the parks are limited in
nature, there by restricting the freedom of space.
Many visitors view the public space as a place
of freedom, where anything can be done. Others
believe that space must be controlled and regulated
and people should follow certain social rules the way
they behave. Diverse users claim different territories
through different activities and attitudes of usage and
appropriation. The space of conflict is shaped by
different behaviours influenced by gender, age, group
and culture. The conflict is usually between ordinary
users and people who manage and participate in
maintenance of both the park.
This situation gives rise to a series of frequently

competing social interactions, which have a negative
effect on physical and social life of a public space.
For example the spots that are used for public
display of affection in both the parks. These kinds
of conditions creates an unpleasant environment for
many visitors thus chance of anti – social behaviour is
on rise because of it. People are worried about their
public environment as many elements are changing
and shifting in course of time. Many conflicts arise
between those under the banner of protection and
right use of the space and those not willing to follow
rules of communality. The misuse of Children Park’s
equipment is very common in both the parks, as
adults are happily in notion of becoming a child and
there by using the children’s space for their own
enjoyment. Though there has been very few complain
regarding illegal activity taking place in both the parks,
which is good sign for visitors as well as for the public
space to be safer for all. The other argument that the
promoters of public space push forward, is that there
is a lack of education about how to use and how

75
to behave properly in public, and lack of respect for

others. Certain situation arise where the visitor starts
to vandalize and destroy the property of park. In this
case control of the use of public space is necessary
for betterment of all Authorities have set up various
signs instructing people about how to behave in the
park, thereby inviting them to take care of plants, tree
and equipment of the park.
Conflicts about the way public spaces are controlled

have also taken place in many patch of riverfront.
Excessive control by those taking care of the
spaces is on rise. So education is necessary for
those managing and controlling public space and
its uses, too much of protection intensify the idea
of privatization of space. Both Usmanpura Park and
Subhash Birdge Park is having an intensified control
over the space there by the idea of privatization of
space is very much meaningful for both the parks.
This is true that people who are taking care of the
park sometimes forgets that this space is public
and it should be manoeuvred with regards to its
publicness. The character of publicness of these
parks is challenged by those who over control the
space based on the elements they can manipulate.
Freedom is one of the inherent characteristic of public
space. An urban space that is freely used and that
provides the opportunity of interesting encounters
is an invaluable asset for all, thereby making better
communities for further development.
Freedom must be negotiated, and visitors and

managers should find a common ground to practice,
both freedom of use and also respect for other
people’s right. This means responsible management
and responsible use of public space. However both
the management and the visitors need to keep their
personal motive aside over public motives. As this will
allow higher publicness, permanence and liveability
for a public space.

76
Looking at the objective of the study publicness here

is the ability or state of being public. The publicness
of space is modifying for both the parks because
of the controlled access. Moreover, lack of public
spaces deprives the community of the opportunity
for acquiring collective education, learning and social
values because of this the very nature of publicness
keeps on shuffling. Both the parks of riverfront have
been stigmatized in name of religion, income inequality,
age and most important is the activities within the
controlled space. Psyche of an individual changes
whether that person is visiting Usmanpura Park or
Subhash Bridge Park at any time of the day because
of controlled access. Control spaces are more like a
brain washing tool where people have to establish
a pre-determined thoughts in order to access the
space of controlled freedom. Liquidity is far more
important for any space to achieve its publicness.
Publicness just not in strength of numbers but also in
strength of freedom, accessibility, and psyche.
Publicness of space is determined by the accessibility

of the space. Accessibility not just in sense of physical
aspect but also social and information aspect.
Accessibility have all together got different definitions
but in context of public spaces it refers to as the
quality of being at hand when needed. Mode of travel
is one of the attributes that will determine the physical
accessibility of the space. Looking at mode of travel
in both the parks 2 wheeler are preferable choice
of coming to both the park. Social accessibility of a
space keeps on changing, depending on the kinds
of people visiting the place. If the place provides
opportunity for the visitors to have a social interaction
with one anther then the space is socially accessible.
The riverfront parks i.e. Usmanpura Park & Subhash
Bridge Park social access is contested spatially and
symbolically.
One of the objective was to comprehend whether

77
both the parks are made for all? Looking at the recent
publication of UN Habitat on Public spaces (2014),
UN Habitat have identified theoretical approach for
making an inclusive public space which is made for
all. Public space can be seen as a multi-purpose
functionality of various elements such as economy,
social exchange, and cultural exchange. Public space
which are made for all are the ones who reprogram
themselves with the changes Public space which
adapts urban poor, builds social cohesion, establish
gender equality, enhance safety, support economic
development, improves public health, improves
environment, and are easily accessible can are
considered as public space made for all. Looking at
the study of Usmanpura Park and Subhash Bridge
Park, many of these elements are missing such as
adapting urban poor, both the parks are restricting
the access of urban poor one by directly not allowing
them to come in and second having a paid access
thus urban poor are totally discarded. Social Cohesion
is missing in both the parks i.e. Subhash Bridge
Park, the park has a paid access and the ideology
behind the paid access is to have a control over one
particular community or religion in that area. And in
Usmanpura Park the lack of adapting the accessibility
of urban poor is disturbing social cohesion of the
space. Hence the very nature of social cohesion
is missing. Cultural exchange is limited to only one
park. As Usmanpura Park have limited resources to
host public events the cultural exchange is difficult
to achieve. On the other hand Subhash Birdge Park
have facilities that helps to facilitate cultural exchange.
Gender equality is all together a new subject for study
but both the parks having shown satisfying results of
gender distribution, though gender equality haven’t
been looked upon in the research. Safety can be
considered appropriate in both the case as there are
security personnel who are there for 24 x 7 for safety
and security. The height of the wall can be issue for
people, one if someone falls from it the person can

78
injure or in worst case can die. And secondly even

the wall gives a psychological fear, because people
are not able to see what is happening in lower
promenade and what is happening in the parks. The
break of vision can be harmful for many visitors. Thus
safety can be considered poor as of now. Economic
development is as such seen on the whole 11 km
stretch of riverfront there are two CBDs proposed
along the banks and the proximity of both the park to
CBD is within 3 km. Public health is one of the major
boost that both park provides to the visitors because
of proper design and landscape of the park, health of
individuals is improved. Environment is considerably
taken care off by the parks, though Subhash Bridge
Park have more potential for improving environmental
conditions compared to Usmanpura Park. As a whole
many elements are still missing in both the parks yet
it cannot be said it is made for all. Proper strategy
and usage can make this park more inclusive in
nature the parks have got the ability to become a
public space for all. All it need is a proper policy and
strategy to improve.
Conclusion
After investigating both the cases from Usmanpura
Park and Subhash Bridge Park, through theoretical
as well as practical framework of place and process,
can we no answer the question that was posed as the
title of the thesis, and identify how public are public
spaces? The complexity of urban planning, urban
design, development and management process of
the cases and the constellation of people’s behaviour
and perception towards a space they are located
in, makes it impossible to find a simple answer. But
across both the cases, we are able to identify a
recurring themes in regards to the use of the space, the
activities, the publicness, the accessibility and other
direct and indirect elements associated with public
space. Instigating space with a process of inclusion
and exclusion of the associated elements, creating

79
space with overlapping meanings. We can see how

public spaces are crucial for all urban communities,
irrespective of size of the city, its economic or political
base, and cultural conformations. Public spaces, as
significant material and social components of cities,
are therefore subject to intense process of social
interaction through their quality and character are
determined. (Madanipour, 2010)
The case studies presented in this thesis map out

the changing landscape of public space. Public
open spaces are transforming from being engrafted
in the social fabric of the city to being a part of more
impersonal and fragmented urban environments.
The decline of public space reflects a breakdown in
social and spatial linkages and a deterioration of the
city as a whole (Mandanipour, 2010). Public space
provides linkages to both private as well as public
spheres, and it represents the quality, the character
and the most important the urban life of the city.
The chapter two details out how public spaces
are changing alongside the changing nature of the
city development, in other words, they are going a
transition from a communicative/expressive to a
subservient character. Public spaces that once were
meaningful places are becoming a mere part of robust
developmental practices. They are at risk of being
taken over by influential self-interested minorities,
being privatized in the name of safety, security and
exclusivity, further fragmenting the urban society.
The particular character of public spaces may be

subservient or communicative/ expressive. As a
subservient spaces, they are used as a means to an
end, such as the development of riverfront as a public
spaces, for purpose of gaining commercial profit for
businesses, or the paid and gated access of Subhash
Bridge Park, for the perceived safety of the users from
particular community or religion. Public spaces may
physically change very slowly, but socially they are like

80
water, embodied with new beliefs and behaviours.

Public space is more than just “Usmanpura Park &
Subhash Bridge Park” as essential as that function
is. It is also a delegation of the self-awareness
that comes from public control and ownership, as
contested and problematic as these may be. Public
space is a place of direct interaction. It is a practical
vision of the public space that determines its very
publicness and accessibility. The most of the public
space in Ahmedabad city has always been a hybrid
(Mixture of private & public essence) and definitely
a contradictory space. Depending on the level of
political, economic and cultural power and influence,
individuals and organization can shape and determine
some of the features of the public space.
Public spaces, even in their most public form, tends

to find particular flavours, a different character
associated with particular combination of groups and
interests, under pressure to find a fixed identity within
a particular fragment of society. (Mandanipour, 2010).
Figure 42 Usmanpura Park : In Morning

81
If a public spaces is equally accessible to everyone,

irrespective of physical abilities, age, gender, religion,
income level, and social status it can be considered
as a public space. In words of A. Mandanipour who
suggests that “public spaces should be designed and
developed, as a places that embody the principles of
equality, by being accessible places, made through
inclusive and democratic processes. Democratic
and inclusive processes that create public space
as a common good appear to be the best way of
ensuring a better physical environment with social
and psychological significance of the citizens. Where
every day needs for public spaces are met through
participative processes, the result is both physical
improvement and social development, laying the
foundations for further enhancement of democratic
practices.” The true form of becoming a publicly
public space is achieved when a public space acts
as a clay, where each individuals are a potter in itself,
who are continuously re-modifying the structure of
public space as and when they like it.
Figure 43 Usmanpura Park : In Evening

82

83
REFERENCES
Amin A., (2006) Collective culture and urban public space. Available from: http://www.publicspace.org/en/
text-library/eng/b003-collective-culture-and-urban-public-space [Accessed 20 December 2015].
Benn, S.I. and Gaus, G.F., (1983) The Public and Private: Concepts and action’, in S.I. Benn and Gaus (eds)
Public and Private in Social Life, London: Croom Helm; Newyork: St Martin’s Press. Available From: https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/274859892_Public_and_Private_in_Social_Life [Accessed 14 January
2016]
Borja J., (1998) Citizenship and Public Space. Available from: http://www.publicspace.org/en/text-library/
eng/11-ciudadania-y-espacio-publico [Accessed 20 December 2015].
Boyer, M.C., (1993) The city of illusion: New York’s public places in P. Knox (ed.) The restless Urban Landscape,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Carmona M., Heath T., Oc T., and Tiesdell S. (2003) Public Places – Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban
Design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Crowther, J., (1995) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford University Press.
Fraser N., (1989) Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theroy, Minneapolis:
Minnesota University Press.
Fecht S., (2012) Urban Legend: Can City Planning Shed Its Pseudoscientific Stigma? Available from: http://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/urban-legend-can-city-planning-shed-its-pseudoscientific-stigma/?wt.
mc=SA_Facebook-Share [Accessed 22 December 2015].
Gehl J., and Svarre B., (2013) How to Study Public Life. 1st ed. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.
Harvey D., (2012) Rebel Cities: From The Right to the City to Urban Revolution. London and New York: Verso
Available from: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=IKJE02gfP0cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rights+to+th
e+city&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_gMrEr6zKAhXHc44KHRIhDMsQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q=rights%20
to%20the%20city&f=false [Accessed 12 January 2016]
Gove P.B., (1976) Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica
Keleg M., Latif A M., Salheen., (2015) LIVABLE PUBLIC SPACES AS A MEANS FOR LIVABLE CITIES. Available
from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284284266_LIVABLE_PUBLIC_SPACES_AS_A_MEANS_
FOR_LIVABLE_CITIES [Accessed 22 December 2015].

84
Lin J., and Mele C., The Urban Sociology Reader 2nd Ed. London and New York: Routledge Available form:
https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JXfm_pQ4aXQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA429&dq=Rights+to+city&
ots=UNTRKZ-a86&sig=mqX23OOJ5xaQ5oMHUG8LEk4oolA#v=onepage&q=Rights%20to%20city&f=false
[Accessed 10 January 2016]
Makins M., (1998) Collins Concise Dictionary, Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Madanipour A., (2010) Whose Public Space? International case studies of in urban design and development.
1st ed. 2nd Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge
Madanipour, A. (1995) Dimensions of urban public spaces: the case of the metro Centre, Gateshed’, Urban
Design Studies 1: 45-46
Mehrabian A., (1976) Public Places and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work, Play, and Living Environments.
1st ed. New York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers.
Morange M., Spire A., (2015) A Right to the City in the Global South? Available from: http://www.metropolitiques.
eu/A-Right-to-the-City-in-the-Global.html [Accessed 20 December 2015].
Neal Z., (2009) Seeking Common Ground: Three perspectives on Public Space. Available from: https://www.
msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-seekingcommon.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2015].
Nolan L., (1995) Standards in Public Life: First Report on the standards in Public Life. London: HMSO.
Saalam H., (1968) Medieval Cities, London: Studio Vista.
Shaftoe H., (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places 1st ed. UK and USA: Earthscan
Silver, A., (1997) Two different sorts of commerce: friendship and strangership in civil society. In J. Weintraub
and K. Kumar ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smithsimon G., (2015) The Right to Public Space. Available from: http://www.metropolitiques.eu/The-Right-
to-Public-Space.html [Accessed 20 December 2015].
Surayamarayanan A., (2015) The Right to Public Spaces. Available from: http://www.newindianexpress.com/
education/edex/The-Right-to-Public-Spaces/2015/04/27/article2779416.ece [Accessed 20 December 2015].
Tadum., (2013) The Right to Public Space. Available from: http://www.tadamun.info/2013/07/01/the-right-to-

public-space/?lang=en#.VpiIcxV97IX [Accessed 10 January 2016]

85
Tadum., (2014) The Right to Public Space in Egyptian Constitution. Available from: http://www.tadamun.
info/2014/02/16/the-right-to-public-space-in-the-egyptian-constitution/?lang=en#.VpiIeBV97IX [Accessed
10 January 2016]
Thompson et al. (2011) Space Place Life: Learning from Place 1. London and New York: Routledge.
Tonnelat S., (2010) The sociology of urban public spaces. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/313641/
The_Sociology_of_Urban_Public_Spaces [Accessed 22 December 2015].
UNESCO (2015) Inclusion through Access to Public Spaces. Available from: http://www.unesco.org/new/
en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/urban-development/migrants-inclusion-in-cities/good-practices/
inclusion-through-access-to-public-space [Accessed 22 December 2015].
UNESCO., (2004) World Charter for The Right to the City. Available from: http://www.urbanreinventors.net/3/
wsf.pdf [Accessed 20 December 2015].
Wacks R., (1993) Privacy, Aldershort, UK: Ashgate.
Whyte W., (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. 7th ed. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
Wikipedia., (2015) Patidar reservation agitation. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patidar_

reservation_agitation [Accessed 20 December 2015].
Low.M.S., Zuniga.D.L., (2012). The Anthropology of space and place. Locating culture. 12th ed. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Kostof.S, (1992). The City Assembled: The elements of urban form through history.1st ed. Hong Kong: Thames
and Hudson.
Mitchell.D., (2014). The Right to the City: Social Justice and The fight for Public Space. United States of
America: The Guildford Press.
Harvey.D. (1973). Social Justice and the City: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Republished Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing)
Harvey.D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Harvey.D. (1996). Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

View publication stats

Shaurya Patel UP4012 Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shaurya Patel UP4012 Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Thesis · May 2016

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Public Spaces for All: How

Shaurya Patel | UP4012

Public Spaces for All: How “Public” are Public Spaces?

Shaurya Patel Dr. Rutul Joshi

Prof. Neeru Bansal Dr. Rutul Joshi

Date: 02 - 05 - 2016 Shaurya Patel

Background Literature Review 12

Public Space and the Right to the City 18

Meaning & Etymology of “Public” 23

Selection of the Site 25

Data Collection Method 25

Public Space Scenario 30

The narrative of two parks 38

Finding Accessibility & Publicness: Usmanpura Park 41

Subhash Bridge Park 58

Finding Accessibility & Publicness: Subhash Bridge Park 59

Table 2 Zone wise details of Open Spaces 30

Table 3 Categories of parks with standards 33

Table 4 Provision of Parks and Open Spaces in AMC & AUDA 33

Table 5 Usmanpura Park: Notion of people regarding entry fee 48

Table 6 Usmanpura Park: Notion of people when entry fee is increased 50

Table 8 Usmanpura Park: Activities people like or dislike to see 55

Table 9 Subhash Bridge Park: Perspective about entry fee 64

Table 13 A methodology created by PPS for evaluating public space 70

Figure 2 Process of making of questionnaire for the research 26

Figure 3 Primary Questionnaire for the Survey 27

Figure 4 Location of existing parks and gardens. Source: AUDA DP 2021 31

Figure 8 Landuse of Sabarmati Riverfront. Source: SRFDCL 36

Figure 9 Recreational Spaces. Source: SRFDCL 37

Figure 10 Early Construction face of Usmanpura Park. Source: SRFDCL 38

Figure 11 Location of the site 39

Figure 13 Usmanpura Park: Zoomed in view 40

Figure 14 Usmanpura Park - Gender Distribution 40

Figure 15 Usmanpura Park - Religion Distribution 41

Figure 16 Usmanpura Park - Gender Distribution 42

Figure 17 Usmanpura Park: Which are visitors comes from 42

Figure 18 Usmanpura Park: Spatial location of the places 42

Figure 19 Usmanpura Park: % distribution of family income 43

Figure 20 Usmanpura Park - Age Group Distribution 43

Figure 21 Usmanpura Park: Income Disparity 43

Figure 22 Usmanpura Park: Why do you come here? 44

Figure 23 Usmanpura Park: Students Studying 45

Figure 24 Usmanpura Park: Alternative public spaces people visits 46

Figure 25 Usmanpura Park: Children’s Play Section 51

Figure 26 Usmanpura Park: Parking near the park 52

Figure 27 Usmanpura Park: In Afternoon 56

Figure 28 Usmanpura Park: Public Spaces for all? 57

Figure 29 Subhash Bridge Park: Zoomed in view 58

Figure 30 Subhash Bridge Park: Rules & Regulation 58

Figure 31 Subhash Bridge Park: Gender Distribution 58

Figure 32 Subhash Bridge Park: Religion Distribution 59

Figure 33 Subhash Bridge Park: Mode of Travel 59

Figure 35 Subhash Bridge Park: % of people coming from which area 60

Figure 36 Subhash Bridge Park: Age Group Distribution 60

Figure 37 Subhash Bridge Park: Why people come here? 62

Figure 39 Subhash Bridge Park: Spending time with loved ones 68

Figure 40 Subhash Bridge Park: Public Space for All? 69

Figure 42 Usmanpura Park : In Morning 80

Figure 43 Usmanpura Park : In Evening 81