With Reference to Both Streets and Squares, Discuss the Importance of Enclosure Design of Public Places

A major characteristic of all cities in the world, at any time in history, is the distinction between the public and private spaces. An individual’s freedom within the city is determined by the management of space with the city, which in turn affects the patterns of spatial behaviour. The main way of organising space is to define some as private and others as public. Unlike private spaces, public spaces by definition are expected to be open to everyone, and thus have fewer restrictions on their uses. In recent years most of the focus on urban design has centred on the creation and development of public places in our cities. City authorities around the world have accelerated a campaign of improvement of public spaces. Debate has raged over concerns about the privatisation of public space (e.g. Punter, 1990) and various ways in which this space can be developed (see Tibbalds, 1992). This essay intends to explore the development of the public place, its changing nature and significance, specifically the reoccurring importance of the enclosed design of public spaces. How has the nature of the organisation of urban streets and squares changed over time? Why are these kinds of public places so important to urban design? To answer this, the essay will draw on specific case studies and analyse the respective literature. From this a conclusion will be formed in order to determine the importance of these design features.
Much of what lies beyond privately owned property could be considered to be public space. These spaces often have different shapes and functions. The narrow streets that encourage people to pass through them as quickly as possible are quite different from the wide public squares that encourage people to stop and look around. But together these two polar opposites make up the public places of the city. In the nineteenth century Camilo Sitte argued that the public squares of his day were little more than an empty space formed by four streets meeting each other (Sitte, 1886). After an extensive study into the organisation of many European cities, he made some fundamental conclusions about the public spaces within a city should be arranged. Sitte argued that in the case of a public square, the most important factor was that it be an enclosed space that offered only a limited view from any point within it (Ibid.). There is a need to keep the centre of square empty and free of anything that might compromise the relationship between the square and the buildings that surround it. However, the modernist approach to design has often contradicted Sitte’s attitudes to urban space.
Modernism differed from Sitte’s approach by considering the possibilities of movement in their view of the world (Giedion, 1967). Priority was shifted away from the pedestrian and moved towards cars and the concept of fast movement across urban space. This obviously undermined Sitte’s original notion of the close relationship between these open spaces and the buildings that surrounded them. The closed vistas that had existed in the old public squares were to be dismantled in favour of vast open spaces that offered a flexible approach to building arrangement (Le Corbusier, 1971). The modernists nominally put an emphasis on the needs of the public in their city designs, but they paid little attention to the public spaces of old. They ultimately desired to reshape the urban space, by redefining the relationship between public and private space, and to this end they created a mass of open space for both hygienic and aesthetic reasons. As a result, vast expanses of space that had little or no connection with the buildings that surrounded them could be left underused. Many remained unconvinced by this modernist approach to urban design and believed that a return to the historic view of public spaces seemed increasingly likely (Lefebvre, 1991). This prediction was obviously not unfounded, as the creation of spatial enclosure once again became an important prerequisite of urban design (County Council of Essex, 1973; Cullen, 1971).
Spatial enclosures became increasingly important as a means to navigate around a city (Lynch, 1960). As Krier (1979) pointed out ‘streets and squares became the alphabet with which to read, and design, urban space’. Thus, it became important to created lively and active edges for these spaces in order that they succeed in their environment. To this end a program of small, mixed land uses was promoted to strengthen the relationship between the public space and the buildings around it (Bentley et al, 1985). It was now essential for urban designers to create a “positive urban space”, meaning a space that is enclosed by buildings rather than just being defined as what is left over after the buildings have been constructed (Alexander et al, 1987). Birmingham City centre is a prime example of how these often contradictory approaches to public space have affected the urban map. Having been dominated by a network of motorways, it was first transformed by deconstructing half of its fast road network and by introducing a number of pedestrianised public spaces (Tibbalds et al, 1990). The designers sought to create lively enclosure in urban space, with the intention of bringing people together. They are therefore treated as being an infrastructure for social activity, achieving both political and economic significance. The question still remains as to why these public spaces have become significant for cities and urban life.
Throughout history some public spaces have always acted as a hub of social interaction and community involvement. The cities themselves may have change drastically, but these spaces seemed to have often retained their importance. However, when compared with earlier periods of human history, the importance of the public space has undoubtedly diminished. This is partly due to decentralisation of modern cities, a clear transition from the days when the central public space of surrounded the administrative centre of a city. Public spaces have, therefore, lost much of the importance they once had. The ancient Greek agora, the main public square at the centre of Greek towns, is perhaps the most famous historic precedent for the enclosed urban public space. It was primarily a marketplace, but also acted as a place of assembly for the public and became the setting were ceremonies and spectacles were performed. The agora was therefore a place that combined cultural, economic, political and social activities. This is surprising, as originally the agora was simply an open space located somewhere near the town centre. Buildings grew around it to facilitate the various activities mentioned above; temples, halls, law courts, fountain houses for example. Although the city infrastructure would eventually outgrow the agora, it remained the heart of the city and was seen as a necessary feature of city life (Glotz, 1929, p.23).
The agora was, of course, not the only means of social integration within Greek society. The cities were supported by institutions that went far beyond the more formal democratic establishments whose buildings surrounded the agora. The collective social activities of Greek society played a prominent roll in social cohesion and community interaction. As well as the agora these communities met at sanctuaries, gymnasia and even within the private realm of the house, where a special room existed for social gatherings (Jameson, 1990). These areas reproduced the social cohesion that took place at the agora, which still remained the main hub of social interaction. The importance of this space remained even after the demise of the Greek city-state and the rise of the Macedonian Empire. This trend would continue into the Middle Ages, although the integration between the spiritual and the temporal the existed in the ancient world would be eroded in favour of a distinction between the two. For example, Italian cities would often contain two or three principle squares each associated with a distinct activity or set of activities. Thus, the cathedral square remained separate from the Mercato (market square) and from the Signoria (secular square). In spite of this specialisation of space there was still an intense use of these squares in public life. City squares would be decorated with monuments, fountains and works of art and used for a multitude of events, from public celebrations to commercial enterprise. However, this all began to change in the modern period when public squares began to be used as parking lots and the relationship between them and the buildings that enclosed them disappeared (Sitte, 1986, pp.151-154)
The modern age saw the eradication of the functional integration that had characterised the ancient city. The growth of cities has lead to the reorganisation and specialisation of public space, which has destroyed the functional coherence that existed between the public and the private. Industrialisation led to the separation of places of work and places of living and as a consequence the private sphere was completely transformed. Improved transport networks have made it possible for individuals to live and work outside the city and so the city centres can largely be avoided. Added to this is the recently acquired ability to travel through cities at high speeds, undermining the close physical contact between citizens and their environment (Sennett, 1994). These high speeds have led to the despatialisation of activities that is associated with new transport and communications technologies. Following the development of the printed word, the new networks of communication have effectively rendered the cultural, economic, political and social significance of public spaces obsolete. The functional role of the public space, effectively the exchange of goods, services and ideas, in no longer a central focus in their design.
The public spaces of the city have since been relegated to residual spaces, at best having a particular and limited function, but more often than not just as a place to park cars. The “old town” has come under pressure from these modern ideas, with ancient churches and public libraries and museums being affected. The modern city has gone through a massive change in both its design and function, with multiple nonconverging networks undermining its social focus. Although some public places, restaurants, museums and libraries for example, have come under pressure they are still protected by their functional significance. It is the open public spaces of a city, those which have no specific function, that have come under the most pressure from the specialisation of the modern city. Madanipour (1999) argues that the dispersion of cities has had severe social consequences.
The nineteenth century saw the rise of the industrial city and the influx of large numbers of people from the villages and small towns. From the earliest point this led to the social segregation between the middle and the working classes. Speaking about Manchester in the 1840s, Engels argued that it was possible to live in the city and go about your daily business without coming into contact with the working class areas (Engels, 1993). It became evident that this segregation was explosive, and led to concern amongst the political and cultural elite. Still, this segregation has remained a feature of the city even in recent years, with it still being possible for people to live in their cloistered suburbs without entering the inner-city. This division is perhaps more pronounced in the American city, but it can also be seen in European city (Madanipour, 1999). The industrial cities are being de-industrialised to meet the needs of a service economy and, as was the case in the past, anxiety over destabilisation has emerged.
To counter this, the idea of the public space as a way to foster community cohesion is being promoted. The public space is being redefined as “the common ground where people carry out the functional and ritual activities that bind a community” (Carr et al, 1992, p.xi), or as a “space we share with strangers… space for peaceful coexistence and impersonal encounter” (Walzer, 1986, p.470). By creating spaces were people can intermingle it is expected that they can be brought together in the spirit of tolerance and respect. This, Madanipour (1999) maintains, is especially crucial at a point in time where the welfare state is under threat and the issue of social fragmentation is at the forefront of people’s minds. The promotion of the public space can therefore be associated with a number of major issues of debate, essentially centring on whether individual autonomy should be favoured over communal living. If one were to promote the idea of a public space as a meeting point it would clearly promote togetherness. Added to this is another issue concerning the separation of private and public realms. A strong link between these two spheres is considered by many to be essential for a healthy society. Marxists would criticise this idea, as they would consider private property to be the detriment to a healthy society. Postmodernists would also criticise this idea as they would reject the universal tendencies and “see the withdrawal from the public sphere as a sign of self-preservation and dynamism of a society by developing new forms of communities” (Madanipour, 1999).
Urban society is threatened by the increased social polarisation and segregation found in the modern city. This is made evident by the expansion of the suburbs and the resulting inner-city decay. The general trend of social trend has resulted in the weakening of state control, meaning that urban development has favoured the private sector. The combination of increasingly privatised space and the alleged social fragmentation presents a potential threat to the future of the city. Urban designers have attempted to counter this problem by promoting the idea of public space as a means of social integration and community cohesion. This works well with the change in the economic makeup of the city, from the industrial base of the past to the service based economy of the present.
Throughout the course of history, the urban public space has usually played a vital role in the social life of its inhabitants. However, in the modern age they have lost the significance that once defined them. This is due mainly to technological change, a growth in population and the specialisation of activities. Space has become a commodity and this combined with stratification of society has led to increased segregation and privatisation of public space. If one were to treat design as merely an exercise in aesthetics it would be in line with marketing the cities and bring economic attention to these areas. Urban designers have therefore moved to promote spatial enclosures that are positively defined and that can accommodate a wide range of people and activities. Creating spaces like this would be a positive step toward the reduction of conflicts that have arisen from the contradicting uses of urban space, thus leading to a more tolerant and socially cohesive city.