Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evaluating Public Space
Evaluating Public Space
Vikas Mehta
To cite this article: Vikas Mehta (2014) Evaluating Public Space, Journal of Urban Design, 19:1,
53-88, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
VIKAS MEHTA
School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
ABSTRACT Public space plays an important role in sustaining the public realm. There is
a renewed interest in public space with a growing belief that while modern societies no
longer depend on the town square or the piazza for basic needs, good public space is
required for the social and psychological health of modern communities. New public spaces
are emerging around the world and old public space typologies are being retrofitted to
contemporary needs. Good public space is responsive, democratic and meaningful.
However, few comprehensive instruments exist to measure the quality of public space.
Based on an extensive review of literature and empirical work, this paper creates a public
space index to assess the quality of public space by empirically evaluating its
inclusiveness, meaningfulness, safety, comfort and pleasurability. Four public spaces in
downtown Tampa, Florida, are examined using the index and several applications for
public space planners, designers and managers are suggested.
Introduction
What is the quality of our public space and how should we evaluate it? Before
embarking upon this discussion ‘public space’ must be contextualized and
defined. Meanings and uses of the words public space abound. Like the notion of
place, public space occurs at various scales and levels of understanding (Relph
1976; Smith and Low 2006): from the physical small scale of a street, plaza and
park, to the neighbourhood, city and country, as well as the media, World Wide
Web, the local and national governments and even international governing
bodies. Urban designers, landscape architects, architects and planners primarily
think of it as physical space and are often concerned with the relationship between
people and space; urban sociologists discuss public space in the context of social
dynamics; geographers and political scientists are concerned with public space in
the context of civil society and the rights of individuals and groups. Scholars of
public space in these and other fields address several cultural and political
concerns about the public realm. For the present discussion, however, Thomas’
(1991) interpretation of the relationship of public space to the public realm is
fitting. He clarified that public space is only one part, a physical manifestation of
the public realm. Yet, most scholars agree that public space plays an important
role in sustaining the public realm (Sennett 1971; Thomas 1991; Lofland 1998). This
paper is about public space as a physical manifestation of the public realm.
However, it positions the discussion of the physical public space in its social and
Correspondence address. V. Mehta, School of Architecture and Community Design,
University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., HMS-ARCHITECTURE, Tampa 33620,
USA. Email: mehta@usf.edu
q 2013 Taylor & Francis
54 V. Mehta
Inclusiveness
Public space is a space of participation. It is an arena for the collective voice and
shared interests, but is also the space where the differences and conflicts of various
groups play out. In discussing the publicness of public space, Mitchell (2003)
58 V. Mehta
suggested that the appropriation and use of space by a group to fulfill its needs
makes the space public. Subsequently, it could be suggested that the extent of
inclusiveness of any space is only revealed when some activity takes place in it. In
addition, the range of activities a pubic space is able to support and the actors it is
able to include may determine its inclusiveness. The discussion and debate on
public space is often the discussion on which activities and behaviors are deemed
appropriate in space. In many ways, public space may be thought of as ‘flexible
and ambiguous’ (Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucth 2009)—ever changing to
accommodate the activities and behaviors of its users. This way of conceptualiz
ing public space is particularly important because sometimes people also invent
new activities in public space and often appropriate spaces to activities and
behaviors that suit their needs (Franck and Stevens 2007). However, public spaces
have never been completely inclusive. Historically, when public space played an
active role in supporting daily life, certain groups were not allowed to participate.
Nevertheless, the idea of an inclusive and accessible public space is worthy as an
ideal, even though the space may never be able to support all activities and
behaviors or be open to people from all walks of life. Access to public space is
concerned with two aspects—the ability to reach the space and to enter and use it.
The first deals with distribution of public spaces, proximity and connectivity to
other parts of the city. Although the ability to get to the public space is crucial in
order to be useful, this is not the focus of this study; rather, it is interested in the
second aspect—that of the ability of people to be in the public space and use it. The
public space index is designed to measure the inclusiveness of public space by
rating how accessible the space is to varying individuals and groups and how well
their various activities and behaviors are supported or not.
Meaningful Activities
Place meaning is a complex phenomenon influenced by both individual and
collective experiences and by the narratives of places that help construct place
identity. There are several factors that contribute to meaningfulness, such as
prior familiarity, and historic and political events. However, this paper
measures meaningfulness in the context of the ability for space to support
activity and sociability and the resultant place attachment. As a part of the
Evaluating Public Space 59
Safety
Safety is often cited as the first concern in public spaces. Several environmental
characteristics affect the real and perceived safety of public space. Present times
have seen a heightened concern regarding safety, and policies addressing such
fears have dominated the design and management of public space. A sense of
safety may be achieved using explicit means and controls, although some suggest
that over-securitization and policing can itself make the space perceptibly unsafe
(Davis 1990). Alternatively, a feeling of safety may be achieved simply by the
constant presence of people and ‘eyes on the street’ where the space becomes self-
policed. Regardless, perceptions play a significant role in making places appear
safe or unsafe. Empirical research shows that the sense of perceived safety from
crime is affected by the physical condition and maintenance, the configuration of
spaces, the types of land uses, the alterations and modifications made to the
environment, and the presence or absence of, and the type of, people. Some
studies showed that people perceived public space to be safer where there was a
presence of stores and other non-residential properties (Perkins et al. 1993).
Perkins (1986) also found that personalization of property made the street
environment appear safer, as did the presence of streetlights, block watch signs,
yard decorations and private plantings (Perkins, Meeks, and Taylor 1992).
Conversely, a lack of territorial control made the street environment perceptibly
less safe (Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower 1984). Besides acting as a source of
attention and interest, the presence of people increases the perception of safety
(Newman 1972). Various other studies have found the perception of safety to be
negatively affected by the presence of litter, graffiti, vandalism and poorly
maintained buildings (Skogan and Maxfield 1981; Hope and Hough 1988; Perkins,
Meeks, and Taylor 1992). In her treatise on city streets, Jacobs’ (1961) identified
stores, bars, restaurants and other ‘third places’ as basic components of
surveillance and safety.
Safety from traffic is another important factor related to the use of public
space. Studies regarding real and perceived safety from traffic have suggested the
importance of many measures and physical features (Clarke and Dornfeld 1994;
Craig et al. 2002). Appleyard’s (1981) landmark work on street activity and traffic
clearly established the inverse relationship between traffic volume and
neighboring behaviours. Thus, in the context of public space, safety is a person’s
ability to feel safe from the social and physical factors—from crime and traffic. The
public space index is designed to measure the safety of public space by rating how
safe people feel in the space during different times of the day, the appropriateness
of physical condition and maintenance of space, and if the presence of
surveillance measures in the public space makes them feel safer or not.
Comfort
The feeling of comfort in a public space depends on numerous factors, including
perceived levels of safety, familiarity of the setting and people, weather, physical
conditions, convenience and so on. Many of these factors, such as safety, have
been addressed in this index independently and comfort only refers to the
physical and environmental effects of the public space. While humans are known
to sometimes function in very challenging environmental conditions, the
satisfaction of basic physiological needs, including environmental comfort,
Evaluating Public Space 61
protection from the natural elements and the provision of shelter, precedes the
accomplishment of higher order needs such as belonging, esteem, cognitive and
aesthetic needs (Maslow 1943, 1954). Existing literature on the effects of
environmental factors on human behavior shows that comfortable microclimatic
conditions, including temperature, sunlight, shade and wind, are important in
supporting outdoor activities in public spaces (Bosselmann et al. 1984). Sunlight
has been found to be a major attraction in the use of public open spaces (Whyte
1980; Liebermann 1984; Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sederis 1992). In a study of 20
towns and cities, Hass-Klau et al. (1999) found that social activities occurred in
places that had ‘plenty of sunshine’ and were protected from the wind. However,
several studies concluded that while sunlight is an important factor in the spring,
people seek shade during the warmer summer months (Whyte 1980; Zacharias
et al. 2001; Mehta 2007). Good microclimatic conditions that may largely be a
consequence of man-made conditions altering the natural climate become a
prerequisite for supporting outdoor activities in public spaces.
At the same time, beyond offering protection from sun, wind and rain, and
providing a physiologically suitable setting, the public space as a milieu also
needs to provide the various activities and standing patterns of behavior that may
potentially occur in the public space within its cultural context (Barker 1968;
Rapoport 1969, 1977). To do so, the design of the public space needs to be
anthropometrically and ergonomically sensitive (Croney 1971; Kanowitz and
Sorkin 1983, cited in Lang 1987). Although several very good and highly visited
public spaces around the world do not contain all these attributes, physical
characteristics that can contribute to comfort in public spaces include sitting
space, other street furniture and physical artefacts, generous sidewalk width,
trees, shade and shelter, a high degree of articulation with nooks, corners, small
setbacks in adjacent walls, and landscape elements such as ledges and planters,
among others (De Jonge 1967 – 1968; Preiser 1971; Cooper-Marcus 1975; Alexander
et al. 1977; Joardar and Neill 1978; Linday 1978; Whyte 1980; Gehl 1987; DiVette
from Rapoport 1990; Hass-Klau et al. 1999; Sullivan, Kuo, and DePooter 2004;
Mehta 2007). By rating the physical comfort and convenience and environmental
comfort, the public space index is designed to measure the physiological level of
comfort the public space is able to provide its users.
Pleasurability
Spaces become pleasurable when they are imageable, have a high level of spatial
quality and sensory complexity. In his landmark study on how people orient and
navigate the city, Lynch (1960) discovered that in order to do so, people formed a
mental image of the city. He called it ‘imageability’ and defined it, as the “quality
in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in
any given observer” (9). Lynch found that places with high environmental
imageability provided comfort and were pleasurable. Most imageable places are
ones where several factors come together to create a coherent impression. “It is
that shape, color, or arrangement which facilitates the making of vividly
identified, powerfully structured, highly useful mental images of the environ
ment” (9). There is no doubt that some places are highly imageable because of
their strong negative attributes. However, this paper associates and measures
imageablility of public space for its positive attributes.
62 V. Mehta
Table 1. Public space index: variables, weightings, scoring and measuring criteria
Aspect of
public space Variables Weighting Scoring criteria Measuring criteria
(Continued)
Evaluating Public Space 63
Table 1. (Continued)
Aspect of
public space Variables Weighting Scoring criteria Measuring criteria
2 ¼ in many
3 ¼ in almost
all/all
Sub-total 10 30 (maximum)
Meaningful
Activities
13 Presence of com 2.0 0¼ none Determined by obser
munity-gathering 1¼ one vations of businesses
third places 2¼ two or other specific places
3¼ few that act as community
gathering places
14 Range of activities 1.0 0 ¼ very limited Determined by obser
and behaviours 1 ¼ low vations using count of
2 ¼ medium activities, behaviours,
3 ¼ high postures
15 Space flexibility to 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by
suit user needs 1 ¼ somewhat observing any modifi
flexible cations made by users
2 ¼ moderately over time
flexible
3 ¼ very flexible
16 Availability of food 2.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
within 1 ¼ one vations using counts
or at the edges of 2 ¼ two
the space 3 ¼ several
17 Variety of 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
businesses and 1 ¼ very little vations using counts
other uses at the 2 ¼ moderate
edges 3 ¼ high
of the space
18 Perceived suit 2.0 0 ¼ not suitable User’s subjective
ability of space at all rating
layout and design 1 ¼ somewhat
to activities and suitable
behaviour 2 ¼ moderately
suitable
3 ¼ very
suitable
19 Perceived useful 1.0 0 ¼ not at all User’s subjective
ness of businesses 1 ¼ somewhat rating
and other uses 2 ¼ moderately
3 ¼ very much
Sub-total 10 30 (maximum)
Comfort
20 Places to sit with 2.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
out paying for 1 ¼ few vations using counts
goods and 2 ¼ several in
services some parts
of space
3 ¼ several in
many parts
of space
21 Seating provided 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
by businesses 1 ¼ few vations using counts
2 ¼ several in
some parts
of space
(Continued)
64 V. Mehta
Table 1. (Continued)
Aspect of
public space Variables Weighting Scoring criteria Measuring criteria
3 ¼ several in
many parts
of space
22 Other furniture 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
and artifacts in 1 ¼ few vations using counts
the space 2 ¼ several in
some parts
of space
3 ¼ several in
many parts of
space
23 Climatic comfort of 2.0 0 ¼ not Determined by
the space—shade comfortable observations
and shelter 1 ¼ somewhat
comfortable in
some parts of
space
2 ¼ comfortable
in some parts
of space
3 ¼ comfortable
in most of the
space
24 Design elements 1.0 3 ¼ none Determined by
discouraging use 2 ¼ one or two observations
of space 1 ¼ few
0 ¼ several
25 Perceived physical 2.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective
condition and 1 ¼ somewhat rating
maintenance 2 ¼ mostly
appropriate for 3 ¼ very much
the space
26 Perceived nuisance 1.0 3 ¼ none User ’s subjective
noise from traffic or 2 ¼ very little rating
otherwise 1 ¼ moderate
0 ¼ high
Sub-total 10 30 (maximum)
Safety
27 Visual and physical 1.0 0 ¼ almost none Determined by
connection and or very poor observations
openness 1 ¼ somewhat
to adjacent street/s tentative
or spaces 2 ¼ moderately
well connected
3 ¼ very well
connected
28 Physical condition 1.0 0 ¼ not at all Determined by
and maintenance 1 ¼ somewhat observations
appropriate for the 2 ¼ mostly
space 3 ¼ very much
29 Lighting quality in 1.0 0 ¼ very poor Determined by
space after dark 1 ¼ many parts observations
not well lit
2 ¼ mostly
well lit
3 ¼ very well lit
(Continued)
Evaluating Public Space 65
Table 1. (Continued)
Aspect of
public space Variables Weighting Scoring criteria Measuring criteria
(Continued)
66 V. Mehta
Table 1. (Continued)
Aspect of
public space Variables Weighting Scoring criteria Measuring criteria
3 ¼ very
personalized
all along
38 Articulation and 1.0 0 ¼ poor Determined by
variety in architec articulation observations
tural features of and variety
building facades on 1 ¼ somewhat
the streetfront articulated
2 ¼ moderate
articulation
3 ¼ very well
articulated
39 Density of 1.0 0 ¼ none or Determined by obser
elements on side- very few vations using counts
walk/street pro 1 ¼ few
viding sensory 2 ¼ moderate
complexity 3 ¼ high
40 Variety of elements 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
on sidewalk/street 1 ¼ very little vations using counts
providing sensory 2 ¼ moderate
complexity 3 ¼ high
41 Perceived attrac 2.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective
tiveness of space 1 ¼ somewhat rating
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
42 Perceived interest 1.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective
ingness of space 1 ¼ somewhat rating
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
Sub-total 10 30 (maximum)
Pleasurabil
ity
For detached 34 Presence of mem 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by
plaza, orable architectural 1 ¼ very few observations
square, park or landscape fea 2 ¼ moderate
tures (imageability) 3 ¼ several
35 Sense of enclosure 1.0 0 ¼ very poor Determined by
sense of observations
enclosure
1 ¼ moderately
well enclosed
2 ¼ good sense
of enclosure
3 ¼ very good
sense of
enclosure
36 Variety of sub 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
spaces 1 ¼ very few vations using counts
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ several
37 Density of 1.0 0 ¼ none or Determined by obser
elements in space very few vations using counts
providing sensory 1 ¼ few
complexity 2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ high
38 Variety of elements 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
in space providing 1 ¼ very little vations using counts
sensory complexity 2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ high
(Continued)
Evaluating Public Space 67
Table 1. (Continued)
Aspect of
public space Variables Weighting Scoring criteria Measuring criteria
(Continued)
68 V. Mehta
Table 1. (Continued)
Aspect of
public space Variables Weighting Scoring criteria Measuring criteria
2 ¼ moderately
well connected
3 ¼ very well
connected
41 Permeability of 0.7 0 ¼ not at all Determined by
building facades on 1 ¼ some parts observations
the streetfront somewhat
permeable
2 ¼ moderate
permeability
3 ¼ very per
meable all along
42 Personalization of 0.7 0 ¼ not at all Determined by
the buildings on 1 ¼ some parts observations
the streetfront somewhat
personalized
2 ¼ moderate
personalization
3 ¼ very
personalized
all along
43 Articulation and 0.7 0 ¼ poor Determined by
variety in architec articulation observations
tural features of and variety
building facades on 1 ¼ somewhat
the streetfront articulated
2 ¼ moderate
articulation
3 ¼ very well
articulated
44 Perceived attrac 2.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective
tiveness of space 1 ¼ somewhat rating
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
45 Perceived interest 1.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective
ingness of space 1 ¼ somewhat rating
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
Sub-total 10 30 (maximum)
* All variables measured by observing the public space require a minimum of six observations on
weekdays and six at weekends spread throughout the day
** All variables recording users’ subjective ratings are part of the interview/survey questionnaire.
the space as distinct from being outside it. Although several very memorable and
large public spaces may not have a distinct room-like quality, most small and mid-
sized urban spaces that are well defined such that they create ‘outdoor rooms’ are
considered psychologically and physiologically comfortable.
Pleasure derived through a sensory experience of the public space depends
on various stimuli perceived from the environment—from lights, sounds, smells,
touches, colours, shapes, patterns and textures of the natural and man-made fixed,
semi-fixed and movable elements (Lang 1987; Bell et al. 1990; Rapoport 1990;
Arnold 1993; Porteous 1996; Elshestaway 1997; Stamps 1999; Heath, Smith, and
Lim 2000). Researchers have argued that to achieve sensory pleasure pedestrians
prefer a certain level of complexity resulting from variety and novelty (Rapoport
and Kantor 1967; Lozano 1974; Rapoport 1990) as well as order and coherence
(Kaplan, Kaplan, and Brown 1989; Nasar 1998). Empirical studies have shown that
sensory stimuli identified in contributing to the retention of people in public
spaces include other people and activities, building features and personalized
shop windows, signs, trees, and density and variety of form, texture, and color of
shrubs and plants (Grey et al. 1970; Ciolek 1978; Joardar and Neill 1978; Whyte
1980; Coley, Kuo, and Sullivan 1997; Hass-Klau et al. 1999; Sullivan, Kuo, and
DePooter 2004; Mehta 2007). In sum, studies have concluded that people prefer
public spaces that provide a high level of culturally acceptable sensory stimuli,
resulting in a complexity that heightens interest without becoming over
stimulated and chaotic. The public space index is designed to measure the
pleasurability of public space by rating the imageability, spatial quality, sensory
complexity and attractiveness of the public space.
Methods
Creating the Public Space Index (PSI)
Using structured and semi-structured observations across the time of day, week
and year, the author studied in detail several public spaces in North America,
including ones in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline in Massachusetts,
and Tampa, St. Petersburg and Sarasota in Florida. Interviews and surveys were
conducted with people using the spaces. In addition, using semi-structured
observations, several public spaces were studied in Baltimore, San Francisco and
Portland, OR. These studies helped in the empirical understanding of the detailed
use of urban public spaces such as streets, plazas, squares, and small urban parks,
and to discern the specific characteristics of public space within the five
dimensions that must be evaluated to determine their performance. The
observations and user inputs from these studies also helped with understanding
the importance of various characteristics of the spaces that, in turn, aided the
weighting of these characteristics (variables). Using the five dimensions of public
space discussed earlier, a public space index (PSI) was developed to evaluate
public space. This public space index is designed to measure the quality of
traditional public spaces such as streets, plazas, squares, and small urban parks.
As another example, the ability for a public space to provide access to people
of different ages, genders, races, classes and physical ability, is of primary
importance and deserves to be weighted at 2. For ease of measuring and accuracy,
this was divided into five variables with a weighting of 0.4 each for a total
weighting of 2. The ‘presence of community-gathering third places’ is certainly an
important factor in making public spaces usable, friendly and sociable even if a
third place may not serve all the potential users of the space. Similarly, the
‘availability of food within or at the edges of the space’, ‘places to sit without
paying for goods and services’ and ‘climatic comfort of the space—shade and
shelter’, that, through empirical research, are known to be important in
supporting social behavior in public spaces, were weighted higher. Each of the
five dimensions of public space has a total weighting of 10. The maximum score
for each dimension is 30. Hence, any public space can have a maximum score of
150. All scores are converted to percentages to achieve a final PSI out of 100.
Figure 2. An aerial map of downtown Tampa, Florida, showing the location of the four public spaces
studied. 1. Gaslight Park; 2. Bank of America Plaza; 3. Pedestrian-only Franklin Street (Poe Plaza); and
4. Franklin Street.
72 V. Mehta
Figure 3. Four public spaces in downtown Tampa, Florida. Clockwise from top left, Gaslight Park, Bank
of America Plaza, Franklin Street and Pedestrian only Franklin Street (Poe Plaza).
surveys. For the researcher input, 196 surveys were completed. Inter-rater
reliability was very good as evidenced by interclass correlation coefficient of 0.86
and above for the four spaces. Seventy-seven participants completed the user
input. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the users who participated in the
survey.
Results
Table 3 and Figure 4 show the results of the evaluation. The PSI provides detailed
information about various dimensions of four central public spaces in downtown
Tampa, and an interesting insight into the overall character and quality of public
space in the CBD. Starting with the most generalized results, it can be seen that the
public spaces in downtown Tampa are more comfortable, safe and inclusive than
they are meaningful and pleasurable. The PSI for each individual space provides
more specific information on the quality of the spaces. For example, the Bank of
America Plaza rates the lowest on meaningful activities even though the space is
comfortable, safe and inclusive relative to other spaces. The plaza is also not
particularly pleasurable for its users. The results for the pedestrian-only Franklin
Street are also somewhat similar. However, it is by studying the results of each
variable that we get to understand the specific positive and negative qualities of
public spaces in downtown Tampa (Table 4). From the results it can be inferred
that these spaces are perceived to be open and accessible, they are generally in
good physical condition and well maintained, the spaces are comfortable to be in,
and they do not lack sitting space. The spaces are also perceived to be safe from
crime, particularly in the daytime (see a detailed discussion below) and are
visually open to the streets and connecting spaces. Although traffic volume and
speed are very high in downtown Tampa (due partly to one-way streets), three of
the four spaces studied are in the part of downtown where the street is pedestrian-
friendly. As a result, the users do not perceive a threat from traffic when they are in
Table 2. Characteristics of study participants
Franklin St. Ped.
Gaslight Park Franklin St. BoA Plaza / Poe Plaza Total
Total responses 23 16 13 25 77
(Continued)
73
74
V. Mehta
Table 2. (Continued)
Total responses 23 16 13 25 77
Inclusiveness W*
Presence of people of diverse ages 0.4 1.67 0.67 1.26 0.50 1.75 0.70 1.25 0.50
Presence of people of different gender 0.4 1.38 0.55 1.17 0.47 2.25 0.90 1.47 0.59
Presence of people of diverse classes 0.4 1.55 0.62 0.70 0.28 1.72 0.69 1.00 0.40
Presence of people of diverse races 0.4 1.58 0.63 0.83 0.33 1.75 0.70 1.41 0.56
Presence of people with diverse physical 0.4 1.59 0.64 0.23 0.09 1.88 0.75 0.80 0.32
abilities
Control of entrance to public space: 1 2.74 2.74 2.86 2.86 1.81 1.81 2.54 2.54
presence of lockable gates, fences, etc.
Range of activities and behaviours 1 1.16 1.16 1.09 1.09 1.42 1.42 0.81 0.81
Opening hours of public space 1 2.96 2.96 2.24 2.24 2.37 2.37 2.75 2.75
Presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, 1 1.70 1.70 1.73 1.73 2.35 2.35 1.79 1.79
guides, ushers, etc. intimidating and privacy
is infringed upon
Presence of posted signs to exclude 1 3.00 3.00 2.71 2.71 2.13 2.13 2.19 2.19
certain people or behaviours
Perceived openness and accessibility 2 2.74 5.48 2.69 5.38 2.56 5.13 2.50 5.00
Perceived ability to participate in activities 1 1.90 1.90 1.54 1.54 2.00 2.00 1.91 1.91
and events in space
Aggregate score 10 22.05 19.23 20.94 19.63
Index rating for Inclusiveness (out of 100) 74 64 70 65
Meaningful Activities
Presence of community-gathering third places 2 1.54 3.07 1.43 2.86 1.97 3.94 1.36 2.72
Range of activities and behaviours 1 1.24 1.24 0.91 0.91 1.81 1.81 0.81 0.81
Space flexibility to suit user needs 1 1.76 1.76 1.27 1.27 1.65 1.65 1.25 1.25
Availability of food within or at 2 2.32 4.64 0.45 0.91 2.74 5.48 0.75 1.50
the edges of the space
Variety of businesses and other uses 1 2.15 2.15 0.73 0.73 2.26 2.26 0.84 0.84
at the edges of the space
Evaluating Public Space
(Continued)
75
Table 3. (Continued)
76
Perceived suitability of space layout and 2 2.39 4.78 2.15 4.31 2.06 4.13 2.36 4.73
design to activities and behaviours
V. Mehta
Perceived usefulness of businesses and other 1 2.50 2.50 1.18 1.18 1.94 1.94 1.05 1.05
uses
Aggregate score 10 20.14 12.16 21.19 12.89
Index rating for Meaningful Activities (out of 100) 67 41 71 43
Comfort
Places to sit without paying for 2 1.67 3.33 2.27 4.55 2.84 5.68 2.69 5.39
goods and services
Seating provided by businesses 1 2.74 2.74 1.77 1.77 2.32 2.32 1.75 1.75
Other furniture and artifacts in the 1 1.44 1.44 2.23 2.23 1.53 1.53 1.68 1.68
space
Climatic comfort of the space—shade and shelter 2 2.74 5.48 2.32 4.64 2.06 4.13 2.70 5.41
Design elements discouraging use of space 1 2.30 2.30 1.59 1.59 2.03 2.03 1.78 1.78
Perceived physical condition and maintenance appropriate 2 2.38 4.76 2.15 4.31 2.31 4.63 2.48 4.95
for the space
Perceived nuisance noise from traffic or 1 2.41 2.41 2.08 2.08 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.50
otherwise
Aggregate score 10 22.47 21.16 22.57 23.46
Index rating for Comfort (out of 100) 75 71 75 78
Safety
Visual and physical connection and openness 1 2.65 2.65 2.41 2.41 2.13 2.13 1.77 1.77
to adjacent street/s or spaces
Physical condition and maintenance appropriate for 1 2.66 2.66 1.95 1.95 2.23 2.23 2.48 2.48
the space
Lighting quality in space after dark 1 2.06 2.06 1.00 1.00 2.27 2.27 1.29 1.29
Perceived safety from presence of surveillance 1 1.90 1.90 1.59 1.59 1.61 1.61 1.78 1.78
cameras, security guards, guides, ushers, etc.
providing safety
Perceived safety from crime during daytime 2 2.73 5.24 2.27 4.55 2.40 4.80 2.64 5.27
Perceived safety from crime after dark 2 1.95 3.41 1.44 2.89 1.64 3.27 1.47 2.95
Perceived safety from traffic 2 2.39 5.15 2.27 4.55 2.19 4.39 2.45 4.91
Aggregate score 10 23.07 18.93 20.70 20.43
Index rating for Safety (out of 100) 77 63 69 68
Pleasurability (for detached plaza, square, park)
Presence of memorable architectural or 1 1.48 1.48
landscape features (imageability)
Sense of enclosure 1 1.70 1.70
Variety of sub-spaces 1 2.15 2.15
Density of elements in space 1 1.21 1.21
providing sensory complexity
Variety of elements in space providing 1 1.48 1.48
sensory complexity
Design elements providing focal points 1 1.50 1.50
Visual and physical connection and openness 1 2.70 2.70
to adjacent street/s or spaces
Perceived attractiveness of space 2 2.52 5.04
Perceived interestingness of space 1 2.13 2.13
Aggregate score 10 12.23 19.40
Index rating for Pleasurability (out of 100) 65
Pleasurability (for attached plaza, square, park)
Presence of memorable architectural or landscape 0.7 2.50 1.75
features (imageability)
Sense of enclosure 0.7 1.55 1.08
Variety of sub-spaces 0.7 2.41 1.69
Density of elements in space providing 0.7 2.14 1.50
sensory complexity
Variety of elements in space providing 0.7 2.50 1.75
sensory complexity
Design elements providing focal points 0.7 2.00 1.40
Visual and physical connection and openness 0.7 2.09 1.46
to adjacent street/s or spaces
Permeability of building fac ade on the streetfront 0.7 0.95 0.67
Personalization of buildings on the streetfront 0.7 0.32 0.22
Articulation and variety in architectural features 0.7 0.50 0.35
of building facades on the streetfront
Evaluating Public Space
(Continued)
77
78
Table 3. (Continued)
Figure 4. A visual display of the results of the Public Space Index for four spaces in downtown Tampa,
Florida.
these public spaces. However, the same results also reveal specific information on
why these spaces are not particularly meaningful and pleasurable. The PSI
indicates that these public spaces support a limited range of activities and
behaviours, are not very flexible to the changing needs of the users, there is little
variety in the businesses on the enclosing edges of these spaces and there are few
places that serve food. The users of the spaces do not perceive these businesses as
very useful, and hence there are few businesses that are community-gathering
places. Although the users find these spaces somewhat attractive they do not
perceive the spaces to be very pleasurable, possibly because the buildings that
enclose the spaces are not very interactive and do not contribute much to the
spaces; they are not very articulated or permeable towards the spaces, nor are they
very personalized.
Table 2 shows that the survey participants may be categorized into a few
subcategories using gender, age and users who worked in, lived in or were
visiting downtown. By gender, there were more male than female (approximately
56% male to 36% female, with 8% not responding). By age, four categories were
made from the seven in the survey—18 to 34 years (approximately 50%), 35 to 44
years (approximately 22%), 45 to 64 years (approximately 20%), and 65 years and
older (less than 3%). Finally, approximately 53% of those surveyed were people
who only worked in downtown and probably used the public spaces mostly
during the lunch hour, approximately 28% who were visiting downtown for
business or pleasure, and approximately 15% who either lived in downtown or
lived and worked there. Within these categories, overall, for the downtown public
spaces studied, the differences in perception were most apparent when
80 V. Mehta
Table 4. Combined mean ratings for each variable for all four public spaces in
downtown Tampa, Florida
Inclusiveness
Presence of people of diverse ages 1.48
Presence of people of different gender 1.57
Presence of people of diverse classes 1.24
Presence of people of diverse races 1.39
Presence of people with diverse 1.13
physical abilities
Control of entrance to public space: 2.49
presence of lockable gates,
fences, etc.
Range of activities and behaviours 1.12
Opening hours of public space 2.58
Presence of surveillance cameras, 2.11
security guards, guides, ushers, etc.
intimidating and privacy is
infringed upon
Presence of posted signs to exclude 2.51
certain people or behaviours
Perceived openness and accessibility 2.62
Perceived ability to participate in 1.84
activities and events in space
Total for Inclusiveness (out of 100) for all 4 spaces 68
Meaningful activities
Presence of community-gathering third places 1.58
Range of activities and behaviours 1.19
Space flexibility to suit user needs 1.48
Availability of food within or at the 1.57
edges of the space
Variety of businesses and other uses at 1.50
the edges of the space
Perceived suitability of space layout and 2.24
design to activities and behaviours
Perceived usefulness of businesses and 1.67
other uses
Total for Meaningful Activities (out of 100) for 56
all 4 spaces
Comfort
Places to sit without paying for goods 2.37
and services
Seating provided by businesses 2.15
Other furniture and artifacts in the space 1.72
Climatic comfort of the space—shade 2.46
and shelter
Design elements discouraging use of space 1.93
Perceived physical condition and maintenance 2.33
appropriate for the space
Perceived nuisance noise from 2.31
traffic or otherwise
Total for Comfort (out of 100) for all 4 spaces 75
(Continued)
Evaluating Public Space 81
Table 4. (Continued)
Safety
Visual and physical connection and 2.24
openness to adjacent street/s or spaces
Physical condition and maintenance 2.33
appropriate for the space
Lighting quality in space after dark 1.66
Perceived safety from presence of surveillance 1.72
cameras, security guards, guides,
ushers, etc. providing safety
Perceived safety from crime during daytime 2.51
Perceived safety from crime after dark 1.63
Perceived safety from traffic 2.33
Total for Safety (out of 100) for all 4 spaces 69
Pleasurability
Presence of memorable architectural 1.83
or landscape features (imageability)
Sense of enclosure 1.79
Variety of sub-spaces 2.28
Density of elements in space providing 1.68
sensory complexity
Variety of elements in space providing 1.99
sensory complexity
Design elements providing focal points 1.75
Visual and physical connection and openness 2.40
to adjacent street/s or spaces
Permeability of building fac ade on the streetfront 1.30
Personalization of buildings on the streetfront 1.12
Articulation and variety in architectural features 1.04
of building facades on the streetfront
Density of elements on sidewalk/street providing 1.93
sensory complexity
Variety of elements on sidewalk/street providing 1.87
sensory complexity
Perceived attractiveness of space 2.13
Perceived interestingness of space 1.86
Total for Pleasurability (out of 100) for all 4 spaces 60
Average public space index (out of 100) for 66
all 4 spaces
comparisons were made between women and men. Women of all ages, compared
to men, found the spaces more inclusive and pleasurable but less safe. They
perceived the public spaces to be more open and accessible and more attractive
and interesting, but found the design and layout of spaces less suitable than men
did. Perhaps as expected, women were much more concerned with their safety in
the downtown public spaces, especially at night. However, looking at the
individual spaces it can be found that these concerns were mostly related to the
pedestrian-only Franklin Street also known as Poe Plaza. The differences in
perception were most evident in the three spaces discussed below.
Franklin Street. Franklin Street is one of the few pedestrian-friendly streets in the
core of downtown Tampa. On both sides of five blocks of Franklin Street there
82 V. Mehta
exists a variety of coffee shops, restaurants and bars, a historic theatre, police
headquarters, one side of city hall property and some offices. In most cases along
these blocks of Franklin, the building stock is an eclectic mix of various historic
styles, with many small buildings adding up to make up the block. The street has
wide sidewalks with space for benches, movable chairs and tables, bike racks,
street trees and other street furniture and amenities. As a result, Franklin Street is
one of the more active and lively streets in downtown (Figure 3).
Even though, compared to men, women perceived Franklin Street to be less
safe during the daytime (mean score of 2.06 for women versus 2.57 for men) and
after dark (1 versus 1.42), they found it to be a more pleasurable setting that was
both attractive (2.07 versus 1.21) and interesting (1.73 versus 1.25) and somewhat
more inclusive (2.44 versus 2.21). Participants in the 18 to 34 years age group found
the street more inclusive. In particular, they were less concerned about the
surveillance cameras, security guards, ushers, etc. as means of intimidation or an
infringement upon their privacy compared to the participants in the 45 to 64 years
age group (mean score of 2.83 for 18 to 34 years group versus 1.69 for 45 to 64
years). At the same time, this older cohort of participants found the street to be
more attractive than the younger people who used the street. Compared to
participants who only came to downtown to work or visit, those that lived or lived
and worked in downtown found Franklin Street to be somewhat more inclusive—
they found the street to be more open and accessible (mean score of 2.75 for people
who lived or lived and worked versus 2.5 who worked or visited), and also
perceived a greater ability to conduct and participate in activities and events at the
street (2.25 versus 1.65). This is probably a result of their greater familiarity with the
setting and a greater level of knowledge of what could be possible on the street.
Bank of America Plaza. The Bank of America Plaza is a privately owned public
space in the heart of downtown Tampa. It is one of the most clean and well-
maintained spaces in downtown. The Bank of America building, one of the tallest
Evaluating Public Space 83
Figure 5. A comparative visual display of the results of the public space index for four spaces in
downtown Tampa, Florida.
Conclusions
This paper has outlined a method to empirically evaluate urban public open
spaces. Several groups can benefit from this method of evaluating various
Evaluating Public Space 85
References
Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King, and S. Angel. 1977. A Pattern
Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, S. 1978. On Streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Appleyard, D. 1981. Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Arendt, H. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Arnold, H. 1993. Trees in Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Banerjee, T. 2001. “The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places.” Journal
of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 9–24.
Banerjee, T., and A. Loukaitou-Sederis. 1992. Private Production of Downtown Public Open Spaces:
Experiences of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, School of
Urban and Regional Planning.
Barker, R. 1968. Ecological Psychology. California: Stanford University Press.
Bell, P., J. Fisher, A. Baum, and T. Green. 1990. Environmental Psychology. London: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Berman, M. 1986. “Take it to the Streets: Conflict and Community in Public Space.” Dissent 33: 476 – 485.
Bosselmann, P., J. Flores, W. Gray, T. Priestley, R. Anderson, E. Arens, P. Dowty, S. So, and J. Kim. 1984.
Sun, Wind and Comfort: A Study of Open Spaces and Sidewalks in Four Downtown Areas. Berkeley:
Institute of Urban and Regional Development, College of Environmental Design, University of
California.
Brill, M. 1989. “Transformation, Nostalgia, and Illusion in Public Life and Public Place.” In Public Places
and Spaces, edited by I. Altman. New York: Plenum Press.
Carr, S., M. Francis, L. G. Rivlin, and A. M. Stone. 1992. Public Space. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Celik, Z., D. Favro, and R. Ingersoll, eds. 1995. Streets: Critical Perspectives on Public Space. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
86 V. Mehta
Ciolek, M. T. 1978. “Spatial Behavior in Pedestrian Areas.” Ekistics 45: 120 – 122.
Clark, A., and M. Dornfeld. 1994. Traffic Calming, Auto-restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management
Techniques: Their Effects on Bicycling and Pedestrians, National bicycling and walking study, Federal
Highway Administration Case Study 19. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Coley, R. L., W. C. Kuo, and F. E. Sullivan. 1997. “Where Does Community Grow?: The Social Context
Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing.” Environment and Behavior 29 (4): 468 – 494.
Cooper-Marcus, C. 1975. Easter Hill Village: Some Social Implications of Design. New York: Free Press.
Cooper Marcus, C., and M. Francis. 1998. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space.
New York: Wiley.
Craig, C. L., R. C. Brownson, S. E. Cragg, and A. L. Dunn. 2002. “Exploring the Effect of the
Environment on Physical Activity: A Study Examining Walking to Work.” American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 23 (2): 36– 43.
Croney, J. 1971. Anthropometrics for Designers. New York: Van Nostrand.
Crowhurst-Lennard, S., and H. Lennard. 1987. Livable Cities – People and Places: Social and Design
Principals for the Future of the City. New York: Center for Urban Well-being.
Crowhurst-Lennard, S., and H. Lennard. 1995. Livable Cities Observed. Carmel, CA: Gondolier Press.
Davis, M. 1990. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London: Verso.
De Jonge, D. 1967 – 68. “Applied Hodology.” Landscape 17: 10 –11.
Duncan, N. 1996. “Renegotiating Gender and Sexuality in Public and Private Spaces.” In BodySpace:
Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, edited by N. Duncan, 127– 145. London: Routledge.
Elshestaway, Y. 1997. “Urban Complexity: Toward the Measurement of the Physical Complexity of
Streetscapes.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 14: 301 – 316.
Forsyth, A., and L. Musacchio. 2005. Designing Small Parks: A Manual for Addressing Social and Ecological
Concerns. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Frank, K., and Q. Stevens, eds. 2007. Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. New York:
Routledge.
Fyfe, N., ed. 1998. Images of the Street. London: Routledge.
Gehl, J. 1987. Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.
Grey, A. L., G. Winkel, D. Bonsteel, and R. Parker. 1970. People and Downtown. Seattle: College of
Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Washington.
Hass-Klau, C., G. Crampton, C. Dowland, and I. Nold. 1999. Streets as Living Space: Helping Public Spaces
Play Their Proper Role. London: ETP/Landor.
Heath, T., S. Smith, and B. Lim. 2000. “The Complexity of Tall Building Facades.” Journal of Architectural
and Planning Research 17: 206 – 220.
Hester, R. 1984. Planning Neighborhood Space with People. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hester, R. 1993. “Sacred Structures and Everyday Life: A Return to Manteo, North Carolina.”
In Dwelling Seeing and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology, edited by D. Seamon, 217 – 298.
New York: State University of New York Press.
Hope, T., and M. Hough. 1988. “Area, Crime and Incivility: A Profile from the British Crime Survey.”
In Communities and Crime Reduction, edited by T. Hope, and M. Shaw, 30–47. London: HMSO.
Hunter, A. 1985. “Private, Parochial, and Public Social Orders: The Problem of Crime and Incivility in
Urban Communities.” In The Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building in Modern
Society, edited by G. D. Suttles, and M. N. Zald, 230– 242. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Jacobs, A. 1993. Great Streets. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Cambridge.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Joardar, S., and J. Neill. 1978. “The Subtle Differences in Configuration of Small Public Spaces.”
Landscape Architecture 68: 487 – 491.
Johnston, C. 2005. “What is Social Value?.”, Teaching Heritage. WWW page, Accessed. http://www.
teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/1views/w1v_johnston.html
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and T. Brown. 1989. “Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains
of Predictors.” Environment and Behavior 21 (5): 509– 530.
Lang, J. 1987. Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Liebermann, E. 1984. “People’s Needs and Preferences as the Basis of San Francisco’s Downtown Open
Space Plan.”, Paper presented at the 8th conference of the International Association for the Study of
People and Their Physical Surroundings, Berlin.
Linday, N. 1978. “It All Comes down to a Comfortable Place to Sit and Watch.” Landscape Architecture
68: 492 – 497.
Lofland, L. 1998. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. New York: Aldine
De Gruyter.
Evaluating Public Space 87
Loukaitou-Sederis, A., and R. Ehrenfeucht. 2009. Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation Over Public Space.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Low, S. 2000. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lozano, E. 1974. “Visual Needs in the Urban Environment.” Town Planning Review 45: 351 – 374.
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynch, K. 1965. “The Openness of Open Space.” In City Sense and City Design, edited by T. Banerjee, and
M. Southworth. Cambridge, MA: 2002 MIT Press.
Lynch, K., and S. Carr. 1979. “Open Space: Freedom and Control.” In City Sense and City Design,
edited by T. Banerjee, and M. Southworth. Cambridge, MA: 2002 MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. 1996. Design of Urban Space. New York: Wiley.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50 (4): 370– 396.
Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
McMillan, D. W., and D. M. Chavis. 1986. “Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.” Journal of
Community Psychology 14 (1): 6–23.
Mehta, V. 2007. “Lively Streets: Determining Environmental Characteristics to Support Social
Behavior.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (2): 165– 187.
Mehta, V. 2013. The Street: A Quintessential Social Public Space. New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. 1995. “The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy.”
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85: 108 – 133.
Mitchell, D. 2003. Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.
Nasar, J. 1998. The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Newman, O. 1972. Defensible Space; Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York: McMillan.
Oldenburg, R. 1989. The Great Good Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Perkins, D. 1986. “The Crime-related Physical and Social Environmental Correlates of Citizen
Participation in Block Associations.”, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Perkins, D. D., J. W. Meeks, and R. B. Taylor. 1992. “The Physical Environment of Street Blocks and
Resident Perceptions of Crime and Disorder: Implications for Theory and Measurement.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 12 (1): 21– 34.
Perkins, D. D., A. Wandersman, R. C. Rich, and R. B. Taylor. 1993. “The Physical Environment of Street
Crime: Defensible Space, Territoriality and Incivilities.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (1):
29–49.
Porteous, J. 1996. Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. London: Routledge.
Preiser, W. 1971. The Use of Ethological Methods in Environmental Analysis: A Case Study. Edmond, OK:
Environmental Design Research Association.
Rapoport, A. 1969. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice Hall.
Rapoport, A. 1977. Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Rapoport, A. 1990. History and Precedent in Environmental Design. New York: Plenum Press.
Rapoport, A., and R. E. Kantor. 1967. “Complexity and Ambiguity in Environmental Design.” Journal of
the American Institute of Planners 33 (4): 210– 221.
Relph, E. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Rybczynski, W. 1993. “The New Downtowns.” Atlantic Monthly 271: 98 – 106.
Seamon, D. 1980. “Body-subject, Time-space Routines, and Place-ballets.” In The Human Experience of
Space and Place, edited by A. Buttimer, and D. Seamon, 148 – 165. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Sennett, R. 1971. The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. New York: Vintage Books.
Share, L. 1978. “A. P. Giannini Plaza and Transamerica Park: Effects of Their Physical Characteristics on
Users’ Perception and Experiences.” In New Directions in Environmental Design Research, edited by W.
Rogers, and W. Ittelson, 127 – 139. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.
Skogan, W., and M. Maxfield. 1981. Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, N., and S. Low, eds. 2006. “The Politics of Public Space.” New York: Routledge.
Sorkin, M., ed. 1992. Variations on a Theme Park. New York: Noonday.
Stamps, A. E. 1999. “Sex, Complexity, and Preferences for Residential Facades.” Perceptual and Motor
Skills 88 (3c): 1301 – 1312.
Steele, F. 1973. Physical Settings and Organizational Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sullivan, W. C., F. Kuo, and S. DePooter. 2004. “The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces.”
Environment and Behavior 36 (5): 678 – 700.
Taylor, R. B., S. D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower. 1984. “Block Crime and Fear: Defensible Space, Local
Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21 (4): 303– 331.
88 V. Mehta
Thomas, M. 1991. “The Demise of Public Space.” In Town Planning Responses to City Change, edited by
V. Nadin, and J. Doak, 209– 224. Avebury: Aldershot.
Moudon, A. V., ed. 1989. Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Columbia University Press.
Whyte, W. H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Zacharias, J., T. Stathopoulos, and H. Wu. 2001. “Microclimate and Downtown Open Space Activity.”
Environment and Behavior 33: 296 – 315.
Zukin, S. 1996. The Culture of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.