Journal of Urban Design

ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20

Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework

for Emerging Urban Conditions in a High-density
Context

Im Sik Cho, Zdravko Trivic & Ivan Nasution

To cite this article: Im Sik Cho, Zdravko Trivic & Ivan Nasution (2015) Towards an Integrated
Urban Space Framework for Emerging Urban Conditions in a High-density Context, Journal of
Urban Design, 20:2, 147-168, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2015.1009009

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1009009

Published online: 03 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1102

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20
Journal of Urban Design, 2015
Vol. 20, No. 2, 147–168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1009009

Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework for

Emerging Urban Conditions in a High-density Context

IM SIK CHOa, ZDRAVKO TRIVICb & IVAN NASUTIONb

a
Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore,
Singapore; bCentre for Sustainable Asian Cities (CSAC), School of Design and Environment,
National University of Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT In the dense and hybrid urban conditions emerging globally, urban space is
seen not only as a precious and contested commodity, but also as one of the key vehicles for
achieving socially, environmentally and economically sustainable urban living. Therefore,
the conventional ways of designing, utilizing and managing public spaces need to be
revisited and re-conceptualized, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Drawing from
contemporary theories and concepts addressing the quality of public spaces, this paper
outlines the discourse analysis used to develop an integrated Urban Space Framework to
systematically classify, assess, analyze and guide the design of urban spaces in high-
density contexts.

Introduction
The prevailing paradigm in both the recent urban planning and urban design
literature advocates for compact and dense environments populated with people,
activities and movement, while also maintaining the right balance to ensure the
inhabitants are not oppressed by these conditions (see, e.g. Jenks and Dempsey
2005; Newman and Kenworthy 2006; Uytenhaak 2008; Chan and Lee 2009).
Proximity, connectivity and accessibility are often seen as the key attractors in
contemporary cities, as they contribute to higher diversity, intensity and
walkability, as well as to active living (see, e.g. Norman et al. 2006; Forsyth
et al. 2008; Talen 2011). Researchers have argued that the compact city model also
stimulates environmentally and socially sustainable urban development by
providing greater opportunities for cultural and economic communication
and other forms of exchange (Hillier and Hanson 1984; Song and Knaap 2004;
Carmona et al. 2010).
Unsurprisingly, once density increases, space becomes a precious commodity
and the negotiation processes between the diverse users and agencies intensify.
This is particularly apparent in Asian cities with a high population density and
limited land availability, such as Hong Kong, Tokyo or Singapore. In these cities,
compact, intense and high-rise development is neither ‘good’ nor ‘undesired’, but
rather an inescapable challenge.
Correspondence address. Im Sik Cho. Department of Architecture, School of Design and
Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566.
Email: akicis@nus.edu.sg
q 2015 Taylor & Francis
148 I.S. Cho et al.

Well-designed public space is increasingly seen as one of the critical vehicles

for achieving environmental, social and economic sustainability and well-being
worldwide (Amin 2006; Madanipour 2006). In the context of high-density
environments, the ways in which public spaces are conventionally understood,
planned, designed, utilized and managed are challenged. The emerging types and
conditions of urban spaces require the re-examination and re-conceptualization of
conventional approaches, both quantitatively and qualitatively. This includes
investigating new, systematic-yet-flexible approaches, frameworks and instru-
ments to understand, analyze, assess and guide the design and management of
emerging urban spaces that would reflect their qualities and performances as
holistic, relative, dynamic and pluralistic conceptions.
The main objective of this paper is to discuss the key elements of the critical
review and discourse analysis, which primarily focuses on the quality of
contemporary urban spaces and the ways of assessing them. The result of this
discourse analysis is an integrated Urban Space Framework, developed to guide
the design of urban spaces and decision-making processes in emerging hybrid,
highly dense and intensely contested urban conditions through the means of a
holistic and systematic understanding, classification, evaluation and analysis.

Public Space Discourse: Need for Re-conceptualization

The production of both space and public space in cities has historically relied on
two main actors, the public and the private, who are the main sources of power
and capital. In contemporary, high-density conditions, the relationship between
these two spheres is further challenged. However, the existing debate on
discourses of public space typically sees such a relationship as oppositional, rather
than as a two-directional and dynamic dialogue.
Arendt (1958) defined the public as the arena of debate, discussion and
collective decision making that belongs to a certain citizenship or community, as
opposed to an alliance of the government and market, which constitutes the
private. The liberal-economic perspective sees the public (sector) and the private
(sector) as the opposition between the ‘governmental’ and ‘non-governmental’,
the state and the market (Weintraub 1997). Another perspective sees the public
sphere as the social domain, while the private sphere refers to the household
(Sennett 1977; Borret 2008). In line with such a view, Lofland (1998) defined the
public realm as the urban settings in which co-present individuals tend to be
‘personally unknown’, in contrast to the private realm, which consists of spaces
for personal gatherings of friends and neighbours.
As a result of these two parallel processes—the privatization of space by
commercial forces and the exercise of power over space through the political will
of the state—the boundary between the public and private domains has been
blurred, which is often seen as the main reason for the decline in the quality and
‘publicness’ of public spaces today (see, e.g. Crawford 1992; Zukin 1995;
Madanipour 2003; Kohn 2004). Both spheres have gradually acquired some
characteristics of the other, resulting in a hybrid condition of a semi-public-private
or ‘neo-public’ continuum (Pimlott 2008), and in multiple publics (Featherstone
2000; Iveson 2007). Commonly termed as ‘privately-owned publicly-accessible
spaces’, ‘PROPASt’ (Mitrasinovic 2006), they are often criticized as ‘quasi-public’
(Dovey 1999). On the other hand, some authors (see, e.g. Carr et al. 1992; de Solà-
Morales 1992; Worpole and Knox 2007) have claimed that public space is not
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 149

declining, but rather expanding, by offering new modes of ‘publicness’ due to the
increased opportunities for various forms of exchange.
This paper suggests that the predominant debates, which insist on the nature
of the ‘ideal publicness’ and the opposition of the public and the private, may not
be sufficient to fully understand the emerging types and conditions of public
spaces in high-density urban contexts. A more important issue would rather be to
re-examine such new spaces, as well as their performance and capacity both to
contribute to a higher experiential quality of the living environment and to foster
sustainable urban development. Instead of reiterating the above-mentioned
debates, this paper looks at the spatial, contextual, infrastructural, functional and
operational layers of hybridization that result from the exchange and negotiation
processes that are intensified within high-density urban conditions.

Defining Hybrid Urban Space Types and Conditions

Instead of relying on ‘classical’ and sometimes ‘judgemental’ definitions and
types of public spaces, this paper adopts a more inclusive notion of ‘urban space’
that includes emerging types of spaces that may not be publicly owned or
managed, but increasingly act as public spaces. Urban spaces are understood as
dynamic and often conflicting systems of synergies between spatial typologies
and programmes, as well as methods of utilization and management, rather than
as isolated and static entities. As such, ‘urban space’ somewhat relates to the
notion of the ‘collective space’ which refers to the space where different groups
coexist and interact on a competitive basis, a concept first suggested by the
Spanish architect de Solà-Morales (1992).
Most of the available literature addresses the familiar models of public space,
such as squares, plazas, streets or parks. As a result, we still know little about the
hybrid types of urban spaces currently emerging, such as transit and commerce-
led spaces (e.g. subway stations and airports), multi-levelled and elevated spaces
(e.g. roof-parks and pedestrian bridges), and intensified mixed-use residential
developments, among others. Some of these spaces include the existing buildings
and infrastructure that are increasingly being used and re-used today in such a
way as to acquire the role of civic places. Childs (2004) called them the ‘unsung
civic places’.
The Van Alen Institute’s exhibition ‘OPEN: New Designs for Public Space’,
held in New York in 2003, showcased this recent trend of hybrid urban-space
development, playing out across the world, by exploring their typological,
morphological, infrastructural, programmatic and operational complexities
(Gastil and Ryan 2004). In the context of Asian cities, The Making of Hong Kong
by Shelton, Karakiewicz, and Kvan (2011) and Learning from the Japanese City by
Shelton (2012) convincingly explore new models of the compact, high-rise,
volumetric, dense and intense urbanism that is emerging, particularly in China
and Japan. In these contexts, hybrid development results from the re-assessment
and re-definition of the site (the ground), as well as the movement and functions
that form the large and highly complex volumetric network of urban spaces.
According to Fenton (1985), architectural hybridization goes beyond the mere
mixing of programmes, requiring greater interaction between structural and
programmatic pieces, and the mutual intensification and activation of the
surrounding context. In this paper, the term ‘hybrid’ is used to describe urban
spaces that combine one or more of three modes of hybridization: spatial,
150 I.S. Cho et al.

programmatic and/or operational (ownership). Spatial hybridization refers to

structural complexity and its relationship to the surrounding context, which often
forms new spatial typologies and new conditions for innovative public use.
Examples include indoor, underground, multi-levelled or elevated spaces.
Programmatic hybrids combine various activities that are mutually synergetic.
Railway stations and other transportation infrastructures are some examples of
functional hybridization. Finally, operational hybridization refers to the various
combinations of the ownership and management of space.

Assessing the Quality of Urban Space: Literature Review

In spite of the numerous concepts used to assess and create quality public space
throughout the history of urban design, a consensus on what constitutes good
public space has not yet been reached. The ways that public spaces are perceived,
designed, used, experienced and maintained inevitably change over time, directly
reflecting their particular historical, social, economic and cultural contexts.
In the nineteenth century, the rise of new building materials and technologies
allowed for new types of public spaces to emerge, such as exhibition halls, covered
markets, shopping arcades and railway stations. Camillo Sitte witnessed this
intense change in European cities, where it was triggered by new economic factors
and the increased demand for sanitation and transport. In his book City Planning
According to Artistic Principles (1965), Sitte criticized the late nineteenth century
urbanism for its obsession with order and regularity, arguing for the creative
qualities of ‘traditional’ urban spaces, with their accent on irregularity.
New political and economic shifts, globalization and technological advance-
ment in the second half of the twentieth century have further accelerated changes
in the provision, design, and management of public spaces (Schmidt and Németh
2010). Finally, the renewed interest in urban design and its role in sustainable
urban development has emerged globally in the past few decades, mostly as a
result of the challenges of the world’s rapid urbanization, the scarcity of land and
resources, enhanced densification and intensification, increased diversity, an
ageing population, and the request for sustainable urban living. Yet, in spite of
such global attention, the results are often described as disappointing, and good
examples as scarce (Sandercock and Dovey 2002; Chapman 2011).
The aim of this paper, however, is not to provide an overview of urban design
and planning history. Rather, it focuses on the most influential and recent
conceptions of the quality of public space, with the objective of setting a critical
foundation for a more systematic and integrated Urban Space Framework to help
understand the urban space typologies emerging in high-density contexts.
Accordingly, this review only touches on the influential theories and concepts
proposed by the so-called ‘urban design classics’, such as Kevin Lynch, William
Whyte and Jane Jacobs, among others. The frameworks recently used to describe
and assess the quality of public spaces often build upon the ‘classics’.
For example, building on the work of Relph (1976), Canter (1977) and Punter
(1991), Montgomery (1998) recognized three main elements that constitute good
public space—activity, image and form—on the basis of which he further
identified 25 ‘principles of place making’ while emphasizing that these principles
are not axioms but rather illustrations.
Another influential and highly practical concept, developed by Gehl (1996,
2010), explored various approaches to understanding and creating better ‘lives
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 151

between buildings’. In Cities for People, Gehl (2010) developed a series of

arguments and suggestions for making lively, safe, sustainable and healthy cities
with an emphasis on the ‘human dimension’. The result is ‘the toolbox of
principles’ and design recommendations ranging from the largest scale of city
planning to the smallest dimension of qualities at the ‘eye level’.
Apart from the physical, psychological, sensual and geographical facets,
the concept of ‘convivial space’ emphasizes the ‘managerial’ and negotiating
aspects of public spaces (Illich 1985; Harries 1997; Childs 2004; Shaftoe 2008).
Illich’s (1985) proposition of convivial society suggested that people should not
be mere consumers of urban spaces. Instead, conviviality is achieved through
individual freedom and personal interdependence, while also shaping and
enriching public spaces according to people’s own tastes and needs. Similarly,
Harries (1997) criticized the dominant formalist and aesthetic approach in
urban design, instead emphasizing its responsibility to serve the community
by playing both an ethical and a political role. Shaftoe (2008) further described
convivial urban spaces as rich, vibrant and enjoyable open spaces where
people can socialize, encounter differences, negotiate and resolve conflicts, and
practice tolerance and solidarity. For Childs (2004), convivial spaces are made
through a deep understanding of civitas (the ways people gather), genius loci
(the spirit of the place and interaction with landscape), and urbanitas
(traditions of built form).
In the ‘place-making’ approach, the focus shifts from the physical space
towards activities, the local community and social aspects. The concepts of place-
making originated in the 1960s, based on the pioneering works of Jacobs (1961)
and Whyte (1980, 1988). Since 1975, the PPS (Project for Public Spaces) (PPS and
MPC 2008) has been developing an extensive place-making approach, as well as
one of the most comprehensive of the available frameworks for public space. The
four key attributes of successful places, presented in their ‘Place Diagram’, are:
access and linkages, comfort and image, uses and activities, and sociability. Within
each of the four attributes, the PPS further differentiates two groups of criteria,
namely: the intangibles, which describe the more intuitive and qualitative aspects
of space, and measurements or tangibles, which give weight to the quantitative
aspects.
Rather than exploring the quality of public spaces, some studies have
attempted to develop frameworks and tools to measure the level of their
‘publicness’, such as the recent research by Van Melik, Van Aalst, and Van Weesep
(2007), Varna and Tiesdell (2010), and Németh and Schmidt (2011). Although they
overlap on many levels, these two groups of studies should not be mistaken, as the
quality of space depends considerably on its level of publicness. In their study,
Varna and Tiesdell (2010) conceptualized a ‘star model’, derived from a triangular
model recognizing three key dimensions of publicness: the legal, managerial and
design-oriented. These three dimensions are further broken into five sub-
dimensions: control, civility (managerial), ownership (legal), physical configur-
ation and animation. While proposing a scale for measuring each sub-dimension,
the authors admit that the act of ‘weighting’ is debatable, since it involves the
inconsistency of subjectivity and judgement. The study by Németh and Schmidt
(2011) focused on identifying the hybrid conditions of public space, based on the
combination of ownership and operation, including: publicly owned and
operated, privately owned and publicly operated, publicly owned and privately
operated, and privately owned and operated.
152 I.S. Cho et al.

The most influential work for this research, however, is that of Carmona
(2010a, 2010b) and colleagues (Carmona and de Magalhães 2008; Carmona et al.
2010), who have strongly criticized the stagnant condition of the on-going debate
on the decline of public space. Carmona has argued that there is a considerable
degree of privatization of public space, and vice versa, which is not necessarily an
undesired or ‘bad’ phenomenon. Many of these hybrid spaces perform well
and are successful in supporting the exchange of goods, experiences, information
and ideas.
In Public Places-Urban Spaces, Carmona et al. (2010) offered a comprehensive
literature review of urban design theories and practices, while proposing a
framework of six key dimensions for looking at urban design and public space
today: morphological, perceptual, social, visual, functional and temporal
dimension. Understanding the implementation and management processes
is seen as crucial for the performance of public space. In his recent papers,
Carmona (2010b, 165) highlighted three critical perspectives for approaching the
complexity of contemporary public spaces, namely: the “design, socio-cultural
and political-economy perspectives”. These three perspectives are used to arrive
at the three major aspects—function, perception and ownership—that help
categorize the emerging, increasingly hybrid, typologies of public spaces.
However, Carmona’s attempt to identify and classify the hybrid conditions
of contemporary public spaces mainly contributes to measuring the gradients of
publicness, from the most ‘public’ to the most ‘private’, rather than the ‘quality’
of urban spaces.

Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework

Building upon the literature review and inspired by the structure of Carmona’s
(2010a, 2010b) classification framework, an integrated Urban Space Framework is
developed as a means for systematic and analytical investigations into those
attributes of urban space that are critical to its performance. The framework
recognizes three key components that shape urban space performance:
HARDware, SOFTware and ORGware (Figure 1). HARDware mainly refers to
the design values of space, which are its tangible properties. SOFTware involves
the uses, and social and perceptual values, of urban space. Finally, ORGware
relates to the operational and management aspects. The three components
inevitably overlap and directly or indirectly influence one another.

HARDware: The Design Values of Urban Spaces

Analytical concepts that focus on the spatial and morphological qualities of cities
are numerous, and have a long history in architectural enquiry (see, e.g. Zucker
1959; Alexander 1965; Carr et al. 1992). For Carmona et al. (2010), the design
perspective is framed by the discussion between physical configuration and
function. Physical configuration is mostly discussed in terms of territoriality,
density, physical and visual accessibility, connectivity and permeability (see, e.g.
Varna and Tiesdell 2010; Talen 2011), as well as in relation to the control and
regulation of its time and use (Oc and Tiesdell 1999; Németh and Schmidt 2011).
However, the Urban Space Framework incorporates control and regulation as the
operational qualities of urban space, i.e. ORGware.
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 153

Figure 1. Urban space framework: HARDware, SOFTware and ORGware components, values and
attributes.

There are seven HARDware (physical) attributes, which are crucial for the
nodal, spatial and environmental performance of urban spaces, namely:
accessibility, connectivity, mobility means, legibility and edges (porosity),
spatial variety, environmentally friendly design strategies, and user comfort
(Figures 1 and 3a).

Accessibility. Accessibility is typically described as the measure of interaction

between users and the cadastral patterns of the city (Carmona et al. 2010). It has
been associated with increased interaction, smart growth (Song and Knaap 2004),
active living (Norman et al. 2006), social equity, safety and health (Handy et al.
2002; Moudon and Lee 2003). According to Salingaros (1999), good urban space
prioritizes pedestrians by providing a variety of easy pedestrian paths that are
protected from non-pedestrian traffic and designed according to universal
standards in order to cater for all user groups, especially the disabled, children
and the elderly.

Connectivity. Connectivity refers to the degree to which the environment offers

points of contact across a range of scales and purposes (Talen 2011). Maximizing
the level of connectivity in urban space, by providing a larger number and variety
of pedestrian routes, increases the opportunities for social interaction and
exchange (Hillier and Hanson 1984; Gehl 1996; Salingaros 1998). It is generally
agreed that large-scale urban blocks, cul-de-sacs and tree-like networks rarely
154 I.S. Cho et al.

provide good connectivity (Trancik 1986). Accordingly, Jacobs (1961) argued that
smaller urban blocks with multiple connections permit more flexible paths while
also attracting users and encouraging diverse uses. As suggested by Salingaros
(1998), good connectivity results from linking three distinct types of nodes: natural
elements, human activity nodes and architectural elements.

Mobility means. While prioritizing the pedestrians, a successful urban space is

also accessible to people with all types of mobility—that is, vehicular, public
transport and cycling—without being dominated by their presence (Urry 2007;
Shaftoe 2008).

Legibility and edges. Legibility is a function of balancing between the space’s

content and its accessibility to the various available stimuli. As Lynch (1960, 1981)
claimed, a legible environment is an axiom for helping people accurately structure
their mental image, which, as a result, helps them to more effectively navigate
space and react to the environment. He suggested five physical attributes of a
legible environment: paths, edges, landmarks, nodes and districts. Another
essential aspect of movement and legibility in urban space is the permeability of
its edges, defined as the extent to which an environment allows a choice of routes
both through and within it (Carmona et al. 2010).

Spatial variety. Spatial variety relates to the visual, experiential and functional
diversity provided within a setting (Marcus and Francis 1997). Spatial subdivision
is thus encouraged, as it contributes to a sense of distinctiveness, territory and
privacy, while also maintaining a visual and physical connection to the entire
setting as a whole. In addition, urban spaces that possess the ability to flexibly
adjust to a number of different activities and weather conditions increase their
users’ comfort and choices, encourage social interaction, and build a sense of
control over the space. In highly dense environments, such qualities may be
crucial. Examples include the provision of flexible and movable seating,
adjustable means of shading and multi-functional spaces.

Environmentally friendly strategies and user comfort. Urban form has a considerable
impact on environmental benefits, as well as on the human comfort that is
achieved and experienced within the urban space. The main parameters include
greenery and water features, ecological considerations, the implementation of
environmentally friendly design strategies and sensorial comfort. Spaces and
natural features that are well integrated into the physical environment incite
interactions both with and within space, while also contributing to the alleviation
of the urban heat phenomenon (Marcus and Francis 1997); their benefits include a
better micro-climate, a restorative environment and community bonding (as in the
case of community gardening, for example).

SOFTware: The Use and Socio-perceptual Values of Urban Spaces

The SOFTware component involves the uses of a place, as well as its social and
perceptual values. It focuses on the relationship between people and space, and on
issues related to the diversity of its uses, the choice of activities, seating amenities,
interactivity and privacy, as well as the identity, history and culture of urban space
(Figures 1 and 3b).
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 155

Lefebvre (1991) defined space as a complex social product, constantly being

constructed and reconstructed, affecting spatial practices and perceptions; it is
both a means of production for the social realm and a social product of that
realm. His occasional usage of the term ‘place’ refers to ‘bounded space’ or the
everyday, or lived, space.
The sum of the values, skills, habits, tastes, practices, dispositions
and expectations that are attained through long-term everyday lived
experiences—which are often regarded as ‘unspoken’, ‘taken-for-granted’ and
‘precede[ing] the knowledge’ (Merleau-Ponty 1962)—is closely related to the
concept of ‘habitus’. Bourdieu (1990) defined habitus as the mental structure or set
of internalized patterns through which people perceive, understand, appreciate
and evaluate the external world. While internalizing the external, people
simultaneously externalize the internal. Similarly, in his theory of the colonization
of the life-world, Habermas (1984, 1989) sought to explore the interactions
between the ‘life-world’ (internal perspective) and the ‘system’ (external
perspective). Communication and negotiation are essential to this conception,
although both the system and the life-world are becoming increasingly
rationalized through consensus and bureaucracy, which substantially restrict
the level and quality of communication.

Diversity and intensity of use. Activities and events are crucial elements of places.
Jacobs (1961) identified four conditions that are required to generate
diversity and activity in public space: a non-singular function, permeable edges,
a variety of forms and conditions and a sufficient concentration of people.
Focusing on the activities that happen ‘between the buildings’, Gehl (1996)
identified three types of activities within the public realm—necessary, optional
and social activities—and drew strong links between the intensity of activities and
the quality of the space. Necessary activities include compulsory everyday
activities, such as going to school, shopping or waiting for the bus. Necessary
activities, being independent of the seasons, weather and exterior
environment, are generally only marginally influenced by the physical aspects
of the space. On the other hand, optional activities involve the voluntary activities
that people engage only if they wish to and if the time and place allow, such as
strolling, sitting and sunbathing; they are dependent on both spatial and weather
conditions.

Social activities. Continuing Gehl’s (1996) classification of activities, social

activities include those that depend on the presence of other people in the space,
such as children at play, conversations and communal gatherings. They occur
spontaneously, as a result of better environmental conditions or of other
necessary and optional activities. Their intensity may range from a passive
and chance contact to a gathering of close friends. According to Whyte’s (1980)
rule of ‘triangulation’, the arrangement of programmes and amenities in
space can substantially contribute to the intensity of its use and of social
interaction. If elements in a space are positioned in such a way that they form a
triangle, they increase the possibility for activities and human interactions to
occur.

Identity (image and character). Lynch (1960, 6) defined an environmental image as

the result of ‘a two-way process between observer and environment’, between
156 I.S. Cho et al.

what the environment objectively suggests and what the observer subjectively
filters from it. It requires three elements: identity, structure and meaning.
However, Lynch’s mental mapping method only captures whether an
environment is memorable or forgettable through the perceptual recognition of
its physical form, while failing to capture its meaning and its symbolical and
emotional values (Carmona et al. 2010).

ORGware: The Operational and Management Values of Urban Space

ORGware refers to the operational and management aspects of public space,
including the provision and maintenance of amenities and supporting services
(healthcare, eldercare, childcare, etc.), safety and security, access, time and use
regulations, affordability and equity. While there may be a clear differentiation
between HARDware and SOFTware components, in many aspects ORGware
overlaps with both HARDware and SOFTware, linking the two components based
on how the spaces operate and perform (Figures 1 and 3c).
The political-economy perspective, including managerial, is the last aspect of
urban space in Carmona’s (2010a, 2010b) framework, and yet the most widely
discussed and problematic of its aspects. Moreover, the above-mentioned
concepts of ‘convivial space’ and ‘habitus’ provide, in their own way, valuable
insights into the negotiation processes between the individual and the collective,
the subjective and the objective, the internal and external, the user and space, and
the user and other users, all of which are closely related to the behaviour, equity
and regulations in public space. For Lofland (1998), the public realm operates as
the centre of communication and the ‘practice of politics’—in other words,
agreements and conflicts—while also allowing for solitude and passive individual
integrity. Her insights into civic behaviour are especially valuable for dense urban
environments with increasingly diverse and mobile user groups whose
interactions are constantly re-negotiated.

Provision of amenities, services, public facilities and infrastructure. Amenities refer to

elements such as lighting, garbage bins, drinking fountains, public toilets,
signage, telephones, ATMs and healthcare facilities, among others. Their
provision and maintenance have a strong impact on the usage of public space,
way-finding, security and users’ overall quality of life (Marcus and Francis 1997;
Oc and Tiesdell 1999; Németh and Schmidt 2011).

Safety and security. Carmona et al. (2010) related security to the protection of
people, and of individual and common property. A lack of security threatens even
successful urban designs. Safety and security are generally defined in relation to
activity, surveillance and territorial control. As suggested by Van Melik, Van Aalst,
and Van Weesep (2007), the recent trends towards increased safety, programmed
events and entertainment spaces have all resulted in two types of public places:
secured spaces and themed spaces. The secured public spaces are characterized
by hard control mechanisms of surveillance, the enforcement of appropriate
activities, and the exclusion of undesirable behaviours and unwanted user groups
(Newman 1995; Shaftoe 2008; Carmona et al. 2010). On the other hand, themed
public spaces use the soft control mechanism of inclusion, by creating ambience
and stimulating activities in order to attract people and encourage self-policing
(Jacobs 1961; Shaftoe 2008).
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 157

Management and regulations. Management and regulations refer to methods used

by owners to indicate the appropriate uses, users and behaviours. To assess the
management of public spaces, Németh and Schmidt (2011) have developed an
index showing the presence and intensity of management techniques. The index
includes four major dimensions: (1) the laws and rules that govern the space; (2)
the presence of surveillance and security guards; (3) the employment of image
techniques to facilitate appropriate behaviour, either literally or symbolically; and
(4) the restriction of access and demarcation or division of territory.
According to Carmona (2010a, 2010b), two poles for the critique of public
space exist today: one criticizes their under-management and the other
emphasizes their over-management. One side argues that certain qualities (or
rather deficiencies) of the environment increase people’s tendency towards
uncivil behaviour, crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour, and thus should be
managed (Newman and Hogan 1981; Wilson and Kelling 1982), while the other
group criticizes the increasing trend to overly manage public space, which leads to
the homogenization of the public realm (Zukin 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and
Banerjee 1998). However, Carmona (2010a, 2010b) argued that both approaches
represent two sides of the same coin, as they directly or indirectly contribute to
each other. Public space that is poorly designed and managed by the public sector
encourages individuals and smaller communities to manage the public space
privately. On the other hand, the increasing act of privatization and the movement
of facilities to the periphery enhance the ‘cracks’ in urban fabric and neglect
the space in between developments.
It is obvious that, in the contemporary provisions for public space,
contractual relationships, such as public-private partnerships, are becoming
increasingly important (de Magalhães 2010). Although the traditional ways of
providing, governing and managing public space are still predominant, the
gradual transfer of responsibilities from the public sector to the private seems
inevitable, which causes further changes to the very notion of public space and the
ways in which it is used and experienced.

Application and Discussion: The Urban Space Instrument

While primarily used to frame the theoretical discourse, the Urban Space
Framework is also employed to develop a holistic mechanism for a more empirical
analysis of urban space. For this purpose, a research instrument is proposed with
the primary capacity of classifying and assessing urban spaces.
The Urban Space Instrument consists of Classification and Evaluation
systems, which are descriptive mechanisms enveloped by the HARDware,
SOFTware and ORGware components of the Urban Space Framework (Figure 1).

Classification System
The Classification System consists of a number of neutral descriptors and tags
that are used to label urban spaces and classify them into primary, secondary
and hybrid urban space typologies and conditions. While the majority of tags are
qualitative (descriptive), some are measured or calculated, such as the scale, building
coverage, Gross Plot Ratio (Floor Area Ratio) or percentage of softscape area.
The ‘Primary Use of Space’ within the SOFTware component is seen as the
key descriptor, upon which five default urban space typologies are created:
158 I.S. Cho et al.

residential, recreational, mixed-use, urban centres (streets, promenades, squares

and plazas) and infrastructural transit-led spaces.
A total of 53 example case studies in local (Singapore) and international high-
density contexts (Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing, Hong Kong and New York) have been
documented and analyzed, with the aim of testing, refining and improving the
initial Urban Space Framework. Apart from the high-density condition, the main
criteria for selecting case studies were: the emerging new typologies and high
level of complexity in terms of both hybrid spatial configurations and the high
intensity of use. Figure 2 shows the distribution of all 53 case studies in terms of
their density and intensity levels.
However, the analysis is not solely limited to the primary urban space
typologies. By combining different tags, it is possible for each space to
simultaneously belong to multiple typologies and hybrid conditions. As such,
the Classification System challenges static and conventional typologies by
providing a means for multi-layered explorations of the emerging hybrid,
dynamic and transformative configurations of urban spaces. Documented spaces
range from the more conventional and well-known recreational and residential
public spaces to highly hybrid developments and elusive typologies, some of
which are explained below.

Figure 2. Distribution of case studies based on built density and intensity of use levels.
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 159

. Intensified residential developments are the new community centres that often
oppose conventional housing schemes. Residential use is accompanied by a
number of different functions (with an emphasis on sociability), which serve not
only local residents but also the general public. Such case studies include:
Shinonome Codan Court in Tokyo, Dangdai Moma-Linked Hybrid and Jianwai
Soho in Beijing.
. Integrated mixed-use developments are characterized by the high diversity and
intensity of users and activities (mostly commercial) present at one place. They
are often new focal points that bring new identities to urban districts. Such
developments include: Midtown Tokyo and Roppongi Hills in Tokyo, and
Sanlitun in Beijing.
. Pedestrian-friendly city zones emerged from the initiatives for reclaiming street
space in order to make the city more walkable, building better communities,
and increasing the quality of life in highly dense environments. Such case
studies include: Times Square in New York, and Albert Mall and Clarke Quay in
Singapore.
. Infrastructural transit-led spaces, such as subway and train stations, bridges and
reused, dated infrastructure systems, have increasingly adopted planning and
design strategies that emphasize the community, culture and pedestrian
friendliness as their new values. Such spaces thus aim to become more than just
transit nodes, but instead rich, complex and dynamic spaces with multiple
functions on multiple spatial levels. Such case studies include: the Shinjuku and
Shibuya subway stations in Tokyo, Kyoto Station in Osaka and the Central Mid-
Levels Escalator in Hong Kong.
. Elevated public spaces are emerging types of urban spaces such as elevated parks
or pedestrian bridges. They possess a high potential to improve mobility,
accessibility and connectivity, as well as the environmental and social quality of
densely built urban environments. Moreover, they will provide novel ways of
perceiving and experiencing the city from above, intensify the use of vertical
space, and encourage healthy lifestyles. Such cases include: High Line Park in
New York, Henderson Wave, Garden Bridge, the Pinnacle at Duxton and the
Skypark at Vivocity in Singapore.

Evaluation System
The Evaluation System highlights the desired qualities of urban spaces, based on a
literature review, continuous site visits and the initial analyses. It consists of sets of
evaluators and descriptive criteria that have an intrinsic positive value, with the
aim of both describing and positively assessing urban spaces. The result is an
evaluation checklist consisting of 94 criteria, grouped into 47 evaluators, 13
attributes, 5 urban space values (nodal, spatial, environmental, use and socio-
perceptual and operational) and finally 3 urban space components (HARDware,
SOFTware and ORGware), as shown in Figure 3a, 3b and 3c.
All urban spaces are assessed based on a checklist of evaluation criteria.
A space scores ‘one’ if it meets a criterion. Each criterion is of equal importance,
i.e. criteria are not weighted. The sum of all the met criteria (as a percentage)
within each component represents the space’s HARDware, SOFTware and
ORGware performance. An average of the component performances creates the
overall Urban Space Value (USV).
160 I.S. Cho et al.

Figure 3a. Evaluation checklist: HARDware evaluators and criteria.

Rather than ranking the urban spaces according to their overall performance,
the main aim of the evaluation is to identify their main strengths and weaknesses
from among the 94 criteria. For this purpose, two types of circular diagrams are
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 161

Figure 3b. Evaluation checklist: SOFTware evaluators and criteria.

Figure 3c. Evaluation checklist: ORGware evaluators and criteria.

devised (Figures 4, 5 and 6). The diagram is an integrated device that can serve as
both an evaluation sheet and a scoring chart, and has a form similar to a circular
pie chart. The USV diagram consists of circular stripes, each representing one
evaluative criterion, grouped according to the three components of urban space.
Coloured stripes represent the criteria that the space meets. The Overall USV (as a
percentage) is shown as a black circle within a larger outer circle; the size of the
outer circle represents the ideal USV of 100%, while the size of the inner circle
162 I.S. Cho et al.

Figure 4. Evaluation of Tokyo Midtown, Tokyo, Japan: USV diagram (middle-down) and HARDware-
SOFTware-ORGware chart (middle-up).

Figure 5. Evaluation of Esplanade Underpass Square, Singapore: USV diagram (middle-down) and
HARDware-SOFTware-ORGware chart (middle-up).
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 163

Figure 6. Evaluation of Central Mid-levels Escalator, Hong Kong: USV diagram (middle-down) and
HARDware-SOFTware-ORGware chart (middle-up).

represents the Overall USV percentage. Another diagram—the HARDware-

SOFTware-ORGware chart—is a simplified USV diagram resembling a pie chart,
in which all of the fulfilled criteria are grouped towards the centre. In this manner,
the diagram explicitly shows the average performance for each component of a
space. However, these numerical values should only be used as relative indicators
of an urban space’s success.
For example, Figure 4 is an illustration of evaluation diagrams for Tokyo
Midtown, a large-scale mixed-use complex in downtown Tokyo. This complex
consists of office, commercial, residential, hotel and art and leisure spaces
surrounded by an area of lush greenery and interconnected by a network of
pedestrian spaces. The diagram clearly shows that the development scores are
high for all urban space components, especially in the SOFTware category (95%).
Such high socio-perceptual performance mainly results from the high diversity of
activities, encouragement for social interaction through the provision of formal
and informal seating, art and culture programmes, guided tours, events and
community participation (including clean-up activities and neighbourhood
festivals), as well as the preservation of the space’s historical and environmental
heritage. Tokyo Midtown is an exemplary hybrid urban space that explores the
interactive relationships between the site and context, indoor and outdoor
environment, and users and space, while enhancing the identity of the urban
space through natural and artistic means. There is, however, room to improve the
connectivity within the urban space and to make the space more legible, as well as
opportunities to encourage soft, non-intrusive security measures and informal
activities within the management and operational value.
164 I.S. Cho et al.

Figure 5 illustrates the performance of the Esplanade Underpass Square, an

underground pedestrian passage that is part of a larger network linking the main
transportation and retail nodes in Singapore’s downtown. Diagrams show that the
space scores average for ORGware (63.63%) and low for SOFTware (35%) and
HARDware (44.23%). Such a low performance, especially in SOFTware, is the
result of a design that primarily accentuates the space’s passing-through function
(the necessary activities). Yet, despite being a linkage, the space is somewhat
secluded, with no commercial or complementary activities. All it provides is
merely an empty space that is underused most of the time. This space becomes a
vibrant setting only periodically, particularly due to its late-night lighting, air-
conditioning and low-maintenance requirements. It is more vibrant over the
weekend, when young groups of users gather and participate in juggling,
breakdancing (b-boys), skateboarding and other informal activities that are, in
fact, against the regulations imposed on this space. Such spontaneous activities
are, thus, not triggered and supported by the strengths of its design, but rather by
the marginal user groups who occasionally appropriate the space. Although it
does not cater to its diverse user groups and their intense activities, this space is
still a valuable example of negotiation and, to a certain extent, self-management,
which are relevant in high-density conditions.
Another example is the Central Mid-levels Escalator in Hong Kong (Figure 6),
the longest outdoor covered escalator system in the world. After its opening, it
soon became a memorable tourist attraction and made a substantial positive
impact on its surroundings. It increased the number of pedestrians in the area and
triggered various commercial activities. However, its low score in SOFTware
performance (only 20%) results from its superficial integration into the
environment, because it missed the opportunity to become a fully symbiotic
and dynamic 3D public-space network. As a result, while many activities happen
in its surroundings, the escalator does not offer its users much to do, and is thus
used according to its primary function—passing through. Yet, the lessons from
the escalator highlight how important such new types of infrastructural spaces are
for intensifying highly dense urban contexts, while also revealing the potential
for enhancing and integrating the transitory, informal and everyday experiences
of the highly dense city centre.
As shown in the examples above, the circular diagrams are integrated
devices that possess multiple capacities. At the same time, they serve as
checklists for documenting and evaluating the positive attributes of urban
spaces, based on the Urban Space Framework, and provide an innovative and
comprehensive means of visual communication and quickly comparing the
performance of urban spaces. As such, they possess both an analytical and
‘instrumental’ value, as they clearly suggest the initial direction for the design
improvements at both overall and specific levels. More importantly, the circular
diagrams provide a means of identifying which component is the strongest or
weakest in a particular urban space, providing further insight into which
particular criteria (among the total of 94 criteria) contribute to that performance,
as illustrated by coloured stripes that represent the criteria the space has met
(as shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6). Design recommendations for meeting
critical criteria can be drawn from best-practice examples in the case-study
database, including all urban space typologies, given the assumption that
current trends of hybridization will continue to intensify in future, high-density
developments.
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 165

Concluding Remarks
By integrating the design, use and operation-related complexities in high-density
urban space environments, the Urban Space Framework recognizes HARDware
(design value), SOFTware (use and social value), and ORGware (management and
operational value) as the three major components influencing and shaping urban
space performance. The three components are interdependent and inevitably
overlap on various levels, providing a holistic and comprehensive platform for
understanding how contemporary urban spaces operate and perform. The
authors believe that the complexity of emerging, hybrid urban developments in
high-density contexts can be grasped by simultaneously looking at all three
components.
While having a somewhat instrumental value, the intention is not to propose
a regulatory instrument based on rigid, static, ready-made and taken-for-granted
sets of design principles and aim. Rather, the framework and research instrument
outlined in this paper aim to respond to change, hybridity, dynamism and
negotiation, which together are the essential and unavoidable elements of
contemporary, high-density urban environments. Together, the framework and
instrument establish an integrated mechanism for suggesting timely, flexible,
inclusive and context –sensitive interventions for urban space on a case-by-case
basis. Such an attempt is in line with the recent tendencies in urban design and
urban planning, which demonstrate a shift from a centralized, top-down to a more
decentralized, bottom-up approach, from master planning and over-control to
strategic and more spontaneous planning, and from singular and static design
solutions to dynamic and pluralistic design processes (Ellin 2006; Meredith,
Lasch, and Sasaki 2008).

Implications for Further Research

The Urban Space Framework is only a starting platform for further in-depth
investigation into complexities and qualities of contemporary urban spaces in
high-density contexts. This may include further enriching the Urban Space
Framework, with a stronger focus on the social, behavioural and operational
facets of urban space design and performance. One challenge would be to
explore methods for capturing and/or measuring intangible and dynamic
elements that substantially shape the experiential quality of an urban
environment, and to further integrate the qualitative and quantitative
dimensions of research.
As more case studies are evaluated, the Urban Space Framework has the
potential to become a more powerful analytical tool with the ability to highlight
the critical attributes for each particular set of hybrid typologies and conditions,
including more specific analyses on their relationship to specific criteria, density
measures and specific contexts, among others. This may include developing an
integrated computational tool to serve as a database and an automated means of
analyzing urban spaces. Such a tool would allow for greater flexibility in the
research analysis and for the accommodation of future changes, as well as a means
of updating the existing database and adding new spaces. With such capacities, it
could be a useful, guiding tool in practice, policy making, decision making,
design-brief development and urban space pre- and post-evaluation; ultimately, a
tool for predicting and testing future urban space scenarios.
166 I.S. Cho et al.

Acknowledgements
The content discussed in this paper is part of the research project ‘Urban Space Planning for Sustainable
High-Density Environments’ conducted at the Centre for Sustainable Asian Cities (CSAC), School of
Design and Environment (SDE), National University of Singapore (NUS), in collaboration with the
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Singapore; National Parks Board (NParks), Singapore; and
Housing and Development Board (HDB), Singapore. The project was funded by the Ministry of
National Development (MND), Singapore. The authors also wish to thank Dr Limin Hee (former
Principal Investigator), Dr Davisi Boontharm, Dr Erwin Viray, Dr Patrick Janssen and Professor Chye
Kiang Heng, SDE, NUS, for their valuable contributions to this research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Alexander, Christopher. 1965. “A City Is Not a Tree.” Architectural Forum 122 (1): 58– 62.
Amin, Ash. 2006. “Collective Culture and Urban Public Space.” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture,
Theory, Policy, Action 12 (1): 5–24. doi: 10.1080/13604810801933495.
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Borret, Kristiaan. 2008. “On Domains: The Public, the Private and the Collective.” OASE 75: 301–311.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.
Canter, David. 1977. The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press.
Carmona, Matthew. 2010a. “Contemporary Public Space: Critique and Classification, Part One:
Critique.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (1): 123–148. doi: 10.1080/13574800903435651.
Carmona, Matthew. 2010b. “Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification.” Journal of Urban
Design 15 (2): 157 –173. doi: 10.1080/13574801003638111.
Carmona, Matthew, and Claudio de Magalhães. 2008. Public Space: The Management Dimension. London:
Routledge.
Carmona, Matthew, Steve Tiesdell, Tim Heath, and Taner Oc. 2010. Public Places-urban Spaces: The
Dimensions of Urban Design. 2nd ed London: Architectural Press.
Carr, Stephen, Mark Francis, Leanne Rivlin, and Andrew M. Stone. 1992. Public Space. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Chan, Edwin H. W., and Grace K. L. Lee. 2009. “Design Considerations for Environmental
Sustainability in High Density Development: A Case Study of Hong Kong.” Environment,
Development and Sustainability 11 (2): 359–374. doi: 10.1007/s10668-007-9117-0.
Chapman, David. 2011. “Engaging Places: Localizing Urban Design and Development Planning.”
Journal of Urban Design 16 (4): 511 –530. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2011.585840.
Childs, Mark C. 2004. Squares: A Public Place Design Guide for Urbanists. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
Crawford, Margaret. 1992. “The World in a Shopping Mall.” In Variations on a Theme Park: The New
American City and the End of Public Space, edited by Michael Sorkin, 3 –33. New York: Hill and Wang.
de Magalhães, Claudio. 2010. “Public Space and the Contracting-out of Publicness: A Framework for
Analysis.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 559– 574. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2010.502347.
de Solà-Morales, Manuel. (1992) 2008. “Public and Collective Space: The Urbanisation of the Private
Domain as a New Challenge.” In A Matter of Things. Reprint. Rotterdam: Nai Publishers.
Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. New York: Routledge.
Dovey, Kim. 2010. Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. New York: Routledge.
Ellin, Nan. 2006. Integral Urbanism. New York: Routledge.
Featherstone, Mike. 2000. “The Flâneur, the City and Virtual Public Life.” Urban Studies 35 (5–6):
909–925. doi: 10.1080/0042098984619.
Fenton, Joseph. 1985. Hybrid Buildings. New York: Pamphlet Architecture.
Forsyth, Ann, Mary Hearst, J. Michael Oakes, and Kathryn H. Schmitz. 2008. “Design and Destinations:
Factors Influencing Walking and Total Physical Activity.” Urban Studies 45 (9): 1973–1996. doi: 10.
1177/0042098008093386.
Gastil, Raymond, and Zoë Ryan. 2004. Open: New Designs for Public Spaces. New York: Van Allen
Institute.
Gehl, Jan. 1996. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. Copenhagen: Arkitektens Forlag.
 Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework 167

Gehl, Jan. 2010. Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Handy, Susan L., Marlon G. Boarnet, Reid Ewing, and Richard E. Killingsworth. 2002. “How the Built
Environment Affects Physical Activity.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 23 (2): 64–73,
10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0.
Harries, Karsten. 1997. The Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Illich, Ivan. 1985 (c1973). Tools for Conviviality. London: Boyars.
Iveson, Kurt. 2007. Publics and the City. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jenks, Mike, and Nicola Dempsey, eds. 2005. Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities. London:
Architectural Press.
Kohn, Margaret. 2004. Brave New Neighbourhoods: The Privatisation of Public Space. London: Routledge.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford, OX: Blackwell.
Lofland, Lyn H. 1998. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia, and Tridib Banerjee. 1998. Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of
Form. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynch, Kevin. 1981. A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Madanipour, Ali. 2003. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.
Madanipour, Ali. 2006. “Roles and Challenges of Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design 11 (2):
173–193. doi: 10.1080/13574800600644035.
Marcus, Clare Cooper, and Carolyn Francis, eds. 1997. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open
Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Meredith, Michael, Aranda Lasch, and Mutsuro Sasaki. 2008. From Control to Design: Parametric/
Algorithmic Architecture. Barcelona: Actar.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
Mitrasinovic, Miodrag. 2006. Total Landscape, Theme Parks, Public Space. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Montgomery, John. 1998. “Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design.” Journal of Urban
Design 3 (1): 93–116. doi: 10.1080/13574809808724418.
Moudon, Anne, and Chanam Lee. 2003. “Walking and Bicycling: An Evaluation of Environmental
Audit Instruments.” American Journal of Health Promotion 18 (1): 21–37. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-18.1.21.
Németh, Jeremy, and Stephan Schmidt. 2011. “The Privatization of Public Space: Modeling and
Measuring Publicness.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38 (1): 5 –23. doi: 10.1068/
b36057.
Newman, Oscar. 1995. “Defensible Space: A New Physical Planning Tool for Urban Revitalization.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (2): 149 –155. doi: 10.1080/01944369508975629.
Newman, Peter, and Trevor Hogan. 1981. “A Review of Urban Density Models: Toward a Resolution of
the Conflict between Populace and Planner.” Human Ecology 9 (3): 269–303, URL: http://www.jstor.
org/stable/4602609
Newman, Peter, and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. “Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence.”
Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies 2 (1): 35–52, URL: http://www.
escholarship.org/uc/item/2b76f089
Norman, Gregory J., Sandra K. Nutter, Sherry Ryan, James F. Sallis, Karen J. Calfas, and Kevin Patrick.
2006. “Community Design and Access to Recreational Facilities as Correlates of Adolescent Physical
Activity and Body-mass Index.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3 (1): S118–S128.
Oc, Taner, and Steven Tiesdell. 1999. “The Fortress, the Panoptic, the Regulatory and the Animated:
Planning and Urban Design Approaches to Safer City Centres.” Landscape Research 24 (3): 265 –286.
doi: 10.1080/01426399908706563.
Pimlott, Mark. 2008. “The Continuous Interior: Infrastructure for Publicity and Control.” Harvard Deign
Magazine 29: 75– 86.
PPS (Project for Public Spaces) and MPC (The Metropolitan Planning Council). 2008. A Guide to
Neighborhood Placemaking in Chicago. New York: PPS.
Punter, John. 1991. “Participation in the Design of Urban Space.” Landscape Design 200: 24–27.
Relph, Edward. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Salingaros, Nikos A. 1998. “Theory of the Urban Web.” Journal of Urban Design 3 (1): 53–71. doi: 10.
1080/13574809808724416.
168 I.S. Cho et al.

Salingaros, Nikos A. 1999. “Urban Space and Its Information Field.” Journal of Urban Design 4 (1): 29–49.
doi: 10.1080/13574809908724437.
Sandercock, Leonie, and Kim Dovey. 2002. “Pleasure, Politics, and the “Public Interest”: Melbourne’s
Riverscape Revitalization.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (2): 151–164. 10.1080/
01944360208976262.
Schmidt, Stephan, and Jeremy Németh. 2010. “Space, Place and the City: Emerging Research on Public
Space Design and Planning.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 453– 457. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2010.
502331.
Sennett, Richard. 1977. The Fall of Public Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shaftoe, Henry. 2008. Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Spaces. London: Earthscan.
Shelton, Barrie. 2012. Learning from the Japanese City: Looking East in Urban Design. 2nd edition.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Shelton, Barrie, Justyna Karakiewicz, and Thomas Kvan. 2011. The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to
Volumetric. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sitte, Camillo. 1965. City Planning According to Artistic Principles. London: Phaidon Press.
Song, Yan, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2004. “Measuring Urban Form: Is Portland Winning the War on
Sprawl?” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (2): 210–225. doi: 10.1080/01944360408976371.
Talen, Emily. 2011. “Sprawl Retrofit: Sustainable Urban Form in Unsustainable Places.” Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 38 (6): 952–978. 10.1068/b37048.
Trancik, Roger. 1986. Finding Lost Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Urry, John. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.
Uytenhaak, Rudy. 2008. Cities Full of Space: Qualities of Density. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
Van Melik, Rianne, Irina Van Aalst, and Jan Van Weesep. 2007. “Fear and Fantasy in the Public
Domain: The Development of Secured and Themed Urban Space.” Journal of Urban Design 12 (1):
25–42. doi: 10.1080/13574800601071170.
Varna, George, and Steve Tiesdell. 2010. “Assessing the Publicness of Public Space: The Star Model of
Publicness.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 575–598. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2010.502350.
Weintraub, Jeff. 1997. “The Theory and Politics of the Public/Private Distinction.” In Public and Private
in Thought and Action: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, edited by Jeff Weintraub and Krishan Kumar,
1–42. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC:
Conservation Foundation.
Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1988. City: Rediscovering the Centre. New York: Doubleday.
Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. 1982. “The Police and Neighbourhood Safety: Broken
Windows.” Atlantic Monthly 127: 29–38, URL: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_
monthly-broken_windows.pdf
Worpole, Ken, and Katherine URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2050-public-space-
community.pdf Knox. 2007. The Social Value of Public Space. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zucker, Paul. 1959. Town and Square from the Agora to the Village Green. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zukin, Sharon. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.