VIKAS METHA Evaluating Public Space PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Javeria]
On: 22 January 2014, At: 06:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Urban Design

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20
Evaluating Public Space

a
Vikas Mehta
a
School of Architecture and Community Design, University of
South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Published online: 10 Dec 2013.
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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Urban Design, 2014
Vol. 19, No. 1, 53–88, http://dx.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
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Javeria] at 06:04 22 January 2014
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
cultural context. It begins by defining public space, followed by a brief

examination of the role of public space in contemporary urban society. Next,
engaging the literature on the subject and based on empirical observations of
public spaces in several cities, five key dimensions of public space are suggested.
These are discussed as critical qualities of good public space, and a public space
index (PSI) is developed to evaluate the quality of present day public space.
Defining Public Space

There are various definitions of public space distinguished by issues of
ownership, control, access and use. Some authors define it as the “space that is
not controlled by private individuals or organizations, and hence is open to the
general public” (Madanipour 1996, 144). Others base their definitions on issues of
access and use, and public space is defined as “publicly accessible places where
people go for group or individual activities” (Carr et al. 1992, 50). For the purpose
of this paper, ‘public space’ will refer to the access and use of the space rather than
its ownership. Hence, privately owned spaces that are accessible to the public
qualify as public space and those publicly owned spaces that are not accessible to
the public do not. This paper limits the evaluation of public open space to the
study of streets, plazas and urban parks in mixed-use type neighbourhoods and
downtowns. Public space will connote not only the spaces between buildings but
also the objects and artifacts therein, and the building edges that help define the
physical boundaries of the spaces.
A host of non-privatized spaces do not neatly fit into the chosen definition
anchored on access and use. For example, in several cultures, only men have
access to certain public spaces or men and women are permitted to use them at
different times. These spaces are public spaces too, but they fall outside the
discussion of this paper. It is also important to distinguish between non-privatized
spaces of the neighborhood (typically close to home) from public space, and
characterizing space as private, parochial and public (Hunter 1985). Meaningful
interactions and encounters, similar to the ones likely to take place in public space,
occur in parochial space too, but this paper only focuses on public space. There are
several other types of public spaces that are appropriate for various uses, but this
paper addresses public space that generates public use and active or passive social
behaviour. Therefore, the paper will consider public space as the space that is
open to the general public, which generates public use and active or passive social
behaviour, and where people are subject to the general regulations that govern the
use of the space.
An important notion in Western thought about public space is of an
unrestrained public sphere where social and political movements can occur
(Mitchell 1995). However, as Duncan (1996) suggested, several such roles of the
public realm often do not neatly overlap and materialize in the physical public
space. Even when public space is completely accessible to all, certain user groups
tend to discourage others. At the least, to minimize conflict, users often separate
themselves in public space over time and space. Although public space is referred
to as a space of participation and amicable social behaviours, it is also a contested
territory between various groups, between private and public, and between
regulating authorities and the citizenry. Scholars agree that an unconditional
universal access to public space is almost impossible. Nevertheless, access and use
are good measures to define and evaluate public space. By no means does this
Evaluating Public Space 55
definition capture all dimensions of public space. However, it covers several

crucial and fundamental dimensions of public space in contemporary society.
Sociability: A Primary Role of Public Space

Historically, public spaces in cities were used as spaces to serve basic survival,
communication and entertainment needs and to perform several political,
religious, commercial, civic and social functions. In contemporary developed
societies, many of these functions have moved to private or virtual realms or to
different types of privatized and parochial spaces (Brill 1989; Rybczynski 1993;
Banerjee 2001). However, particularly in many centre-city and mixed-use
neighbourhoods, people still depend on public space for functional, social and
leisure activities—for travel, shopping, play, meeting and interaction with other
people, and even relaxation. The intention of this paper is not to produce an
extensive list of the roles of public space through history. Rather, the intention is to
focus on the social role of public space in highly privatized contemporary
societies.
Scholars of urbanism articulate the need for public space in political, social
and cultural contexts—as an important arena for the growth of the individual and
society. The dichotomy of private and public, the duality of life man leads, was
recalled by Berman (1986) in interpreting Marx’s concept of an ‘egoistical
individual’ and a ‘communal being’ or ‘a man and a citizen’. Making a case for
public space and associating sociability with political action, Berman suggested
that to resolve the differences and inner contradictions between the private and
the public self, and to lead more integrated lives true to democratic societies,
people not only need radical change in the political and social systems but a place
to “come together freely to do it on their own” (Berman 1986, 476). Emphasizing
the role of public space in democratic societies, Arendt (1958) argued that public
space provides the ability for people to come together, to discuss and to recognize
each other’s presence, which is crucial to democracy. Thomas (1991) highlighted
the social role of public space and suggested “that public space is an essential
arena which provides opportunities for individuals and communities to develop
and enrich their lives” (222). He identified four social roles for public space:
(1) as an arena for public life;
(2) as a meeting place for different social groups;
(3) as a space for the display of symbols and images in society;
(4) as a part of the communication system between urban activities. (210)
Public spaces where people regularly meet their friends and watch daily life play a
critical role in people’s lives (Low 2000). Lofland (1998) added yet another
dimension of tolerance, and argued that active and passive social contact in public
space provides the setting for the ‘learning of cosmopolitanism’ and citizens
. . . must, in the normal course of their everyday lives, rub shoulders
with—accomplish uneventful interactions with—persons of whom they
disapprove, with whom they disagree, toward whom they feel at least
mild antipathy, or who evoke in them at least mild fear. That means that
any city that is capable of teaching urbanity and tolerance must have a
hard edge. Cleaned-up, tidy, purified, Disneyland cities (or sections of
cities) where nothing shocks, nothing disgusts, nothing is even slightly
56 V. Mehta
feared may be pleasant sites for family outings or corporate gatherings,

but their public places will not help to create cosmopolitans. (243)
Good public space creates a platform for engagement and discussion, for
planned and spontaneous encounters, and for learning of diverse attitudes and
beliefs. Crowhurst-Lennard and Lennard (1987, 1995) engaged the literature from
several disciplines to develop a list of social functions served in public spaces,
including learning, the development of social competence, the exchange of
information, the facilitation of social dialogue, the fostering of social awareness,
the enhancement of social integrative functions, and the encouragement of ethical
conduct. Scholars in various fields related to urban studies contend that it is the
streets, plazas, squares, parks and other urban public spaces that have the
potential to be “the stage upon which the drama of communal life unfolds” (Carr
et al. 1992, 3). Public space offers various possibilities for social contact to
experience diversity and creative disorder, which, as Sennett (1971) suggested,
enhances personal growth. Meaningful public space has the ability to support,
facilitate and promote social life, adeptly characterized by Oldenburg (1989) as an
essential counterpart to our private, home and work spaces, to satisfy our need for
contact, communication, play and relaxation.
Public Space Today

At present there is a renewed interest in urban living and public space. Although
preference for suburban living has not waned in the West (particularly in North
America), and is gaining popularity around the world, many groups deem centre-
city living desirable. Those not choosing to live in the urban core and yet looking
for a lifestyle that offers amenities within easy reach are opting for small town
type urban villages—mixed-use neighbourhoods with a center that accommo
dates shopping, entertainment, some workspace, community-oriented uses and
the associated public space. The renewed interest in the revitalization of the Main
Street across North America for the purpose of commerce, neighborhood identity
and social interaction is testimony to this (www.mainstreet.org). There is a
growing belief that while modern urban 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 (Poppink cited in Cooper-
Marcus and Francis 1998). New types of public spaces are emerging around the
world and old typologies are being retrofitted to contemporary needs. Several
scholars of urbanism argue that even with this renewed interest in public space,
the variety of functions of public life that public space fulfills is diminishing
(Sorkin 1992; Zukin 1996). A significant proportion of public spaces emerging as
controlled environments are modifying our needs in public life by separating,
segregating and filtering both the uses and users. Banerjee (2001) noted that in
present times public life occurs in privatized environments as well as public
space. He argued that urban designers should focus more on supporting and
creating opportunities for public life instead of the limited focus on public spaces.
However, public spaces do exist in urban environments and public life does occur
in them. Residents of the city deserve an examination of the quality of these public
spaces. This study of evaluating public space does not claim to capture the full
range of activities and locations where public life is likely to exist. However, by
creating a framework to evaluate public spaces, it is possible to assess an

important part of the public realm that continues to foster public life.
Qualities of Public Space

For a long time, urban designers, architects, planners and scholars of urbanism
have been concerned with the quality of public space. Lynch’s essays ‘The
Openness of Open Space’ (Lynch 1965) and ‘Open Space: Freedom and Control’
(Lynch and Carr 1979) addressed concerns of access, control and equity along with
stimuli and social contact. Whyte’s (1980) study of urban plazas resulted in
guidelines adopted by the New York City Planning Department and these have
become common knowledge. Several other compilations and empirical studies
have assembled a great deal of knowledge on the nature and use of public space
such as streets, plazas and urban parks (Anderson 1978; Moudon 1989; Carr et al.
1992; Jacobs 1993; Celik, Favro, and Ingersoll 1995; Cooper-Marcus and Francis
1998; Fyfe 1998; Low 2000; Forsyth and Musacchio 2005; Loukaitou-Sideris and
Ehrenfeucht 2009; Mehta 2013). Many other studies have focused on specific
groups in public spaces, such as women, poor, specific racial groups, the disabled
and the elderly. Although urban designers have been working towards
developing measures of public space for a long time, much more empirical
work is required to better measure the performance of public spaces. However,
generating such tools is a complex and arduous task, particularly since the
reliability of these measures depends on data collected through first-hand field
observation, surveys and interviews in public space.
Yet, so far, two texts have provided the most elegant and complete
understanding of activities in public space. First, by extensively engaging
empirical research and scholarship on public space, Carr et al. (1992) put forth a
holistic and comprehensive description, suggesting that ideal public space is
responsive, democratic and meaningful. Second, by proposing a simple
framework to understand the use and sociability of public space, Gehl (1987)
suggested categorizing outdoor activities as necessary, optional and social.
Necessary activities, such as going to work or school, occur almost regardless of
the quality of the environment; optional activities, such as taking a leisurely walk
or lingering only occur when the environmental conditions are optimal; and social
activities are a result of a high level of optional activities requiring a high
environmental quality. Using Gehl’s framework it is possible to categorize the
qualities of public space as ones that make the space work—the space is used, and
ones that make it desirable—where the user-experience is a ‘good’ one and where
people prefer to linger and socialize. Using the definition put forth by Carr, et al.
and the framework suggested by Gehl, this paper suggests a theoretical
framework to evaluate public space: good public space is accessible and open, is
meaningful in its design and the activities it supports, provides a sense of safety,
physical and environmental comfort and convenience, a sense of control, and
sensory pleasure (Figure 1). These are discussed in detail below.
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
Figure 1. The five dimensions/aspects of public space.
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
public space index, this measure is called Meaningful Activities. To be specific,

the study is interested in the aspect of place meaning where space becomes
meaningful when it is useful, when it supports activities that are symbolically
and culturally meaningful to individuals or groups, and when it supports
sociability. Usefulness is the ability of the environment to satisfy basic needs
for shopping, eating, entertainment, and so on, and special needs to gather,
display, express, discuss, debate, demand and protest. However, it is not only
the presence, but also the quality of the public space, the goods and services
provided in and adjacent to it by businesses and other uses that make the
environment useful. Usefulness translates the general criteria of space design
and land-use diversity and makes it meaningful to the individual or group.
Studies in phenomenology suggest that by satisfying day-to-day needs,
environments encourage repeated visits and increased frequency of use that

translate into a familiarity with the environment and become a routine,
creating a sense of place and place-attachment (Seamon 1980). Such seemingly
ordinary time-space routines make the space useful to people, and these were
at the core of Jacobs’ (1961) observations on the life of the streets.
For a long time, sociologists have emphasized the significance of symbolic
dimension of shared experiences of people. Both Maslow (1954) and Steele
(1973) recognized the sense of belonging and shared symbolic identification as
basic human needs. A sense of belonging and emotional attachment along
with an ability to influence and fulfill certain needs is required to achieve a
sense of community in a neighbourhood in order to define it as a community
rather than just a group of people (McMillan and Chavis 1986). It has been
suggested that associations with people, places and events contribute to a
sense of familiarity and belonging to the community (Hester 1984; Oldenburg
1989). Places that help shape community attitudes, that provide a continuity
from past to present, that may often cater to mundane but essential everyday
functions, that help in establishing their community’s identity, become
significant to people and achieve a social value and meaning (Lofland 1998;
Johnston 2005). Often these are small local businesses or informal community-
gathering places and are what Oldenburg (1989) termed ‘third places’. Hester
(1984) contended that in neighbourhoods these places are usually “public and
ambiguously owned private spaces” and are likely to be favourite spaces,
streets, sidewalks, storefronts, alleys, parks and so on. His research suggested
that these places attain a sense of ‘collective-symbolic ownership’ and are ones
that people in the neighborhood hold most ‘sacred’ (Hester 1984, 1993).
Whyte’s (1980) study of small urban spaces and the subsequent empirical
research work on myriad types of public spaces has clearly established the
role of eating and drinking establishments in supporting sociability.
While all meaningful public space does not need to be (and is not) sociable,
this paper is interested in this aspect of public space—that sociable spaces are
meaningful to people. Hence, the public space index is designed to measure the
meaningful activities of public space by rating whether the public space supports
any community-gathering third places, the suitability of the layout and design of
the space to support activities and behaviour, the number of businesses that offer
food and drinks, and the variety of uses and businesses.
60 V. Mehta
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,
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
Inclusiveness 1 Presence of people 0.4 0¼ very limited Determined by obser

of diverse ages 1¼ low vations using counts*
2¼ medium
3¼ high
2 Presence of people 0.4 0¼ very limited Determined by obser
of different genders 1¼ low vations using counts
2¼ medium
3¼ high
of diverse classes 1¼ low vations using counts
2¼ medium
3¼
high
of diverse races 1¼ low vations using counts
2¼ medium
3¼ high
with diverse 1¼ low vations using counts
physical abilities 2¼ medium
3¼ high
6 Control of entrance 1.0 3¼ none Determined by
to public space: 2¼ low observations
presence of 1¼ medium
lockable gates, 0¼ high
fences, etc.
7 Range of activities 1.0 0 ¼ very limited Determined by
and behaviours 1 ¼ low observations using
2 ¼ medium count of activities,
3 ¼ high behaviours, postures
8 Opening hours of 1.0 0 ¼ very limited Determined by signs
public space ,10 hrs indicating such and/
1 ¼ open at or security guards,
least 10 hrs guides, etc. asking
2 ¼ open people to leave
most hours
3 ¼ no
restrictions
9 Presence of posted 1.0 3 ¼ none Determined by
signs to exclude 2 ¼ somewhat number of signs,
certain people or 1 ¼ moderately their location, size
behaviours 0 ¼ very much and the verbiage
10 Presence of 1.0 3 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective
surveillance 2 ¼ somewhat rating**
cameras, security 1 ¼ moderately
guards, guides, 0 ¼ very much
ushers, etc.
intimidating and
privacy is infringed
upon
11 Perceived 2.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective
openness and 1 ¼ some parts/ rating
accessibility at some time
2 ¼ mostly
3 ¼ completely
12 Perceived ability to 1.0 0 ¼ cannot User ’s subjective
conduct and in most rating
participate in 1 ¼ only in
activities and some/at
events in space some time
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued)
Aspect of
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
0 ¼ very limited
14 Range of activities 1.0 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
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
Comfort
20 Places to sit with 2.0 0 ¼ none
Determined by obser
out paying for 1 ¼ few
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
2 ¼ several in
some parts
of space
(Continued)
64 V. Mehta
Aspect of
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
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)
Aspect of
30 Perceived safety 1.0 3 ¼ very much User’s subjective

from presence of provide a sense rating
surveillance cam of safety
eras, security 2 ¼ provide
guards, guides, some sense
ushers, etc. of safety
providing 1 ¼ not at all
safety 0 ¼ make me
feel unsafe
31 Perceived safety 2.0 0 ¼ not safe User’s subjective
from crime during at all rating
daytime 1 ¼ somewhat
unsafe
2 ¼ mostly safe
3 ¼ very safe
32 Perceived safety 2.0 0 ¼ not safe at User’s subjective
from crime after all rating
dark 1 ¼ somewhat
unsafe
2 ¼ mostly safe
3 ¼ very safe
33 Perceived safety 2.0 0 ¼ not safe User’s subjective
from traffic at all rating
1 ¼ somewhat
unsafe
2 ¼ mostly safe
3 ¼ very safe
Pleasurabil
ity
For street 34 Presence of mem 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by
orable architectural 1 ¼ very few observations
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 Permeability of 1.0 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

37 Personalization of 1.0 0 ¼ not at all Determined by
the buildings on 1 ¼ some parts observations
personalized
2 ¼ moderate
personalization
(Continued)
66 V. Mehta
Aspect of
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
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
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
elements in space very few vations using counts
providing sensory 1 ¼ few
complexity 2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ high
in space providing 1 ¼ very little vations using counts
sensory complexity 2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ high
(Continued)
Aspect of
39 Design elements 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser

providing focal 1 ¼ one vations using counts
points 2 ¼ two
3 ¼ several
openness to adja 1 ¼ somewhat
cent street/s or tentative
spaces 2 ¼ moderately
well connected
3 ¼ very well
connected

2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
Pleasurabil
ity
For attached 34 Presence of mem 0.7 0 ¼ none Determined by
plaza, orable architectural 1 ¼ very few observations
square, park or landscape fea 2 ¼ moderate
enclosure
1 ¼ moderately
well enclosed
2 ¼ good sense
of enclosure
3 ¼ very good
sense of
enclosure
36 Variety of sub 0.7 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
spaces 1 ¼ very few vations using counts
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ several
elements in space very few vations using counts
providing sensory 1 ¼ few
complexity 2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ high
in space providing 1 ¼ very little vations using counts
sensory complexity 2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ high
39 Design elements 0.7 0 ¼ none Determined by obser
providing focal 1 ¼ one vations using counts
points 2 ¼ two
3 ¼ several
openness to adja 1 ¼ somewhat
cent street/s or tentative
spaces
(Continued)
68 V. Mehta
Aspect of
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
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
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
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
2 ¼ moderate
3 ¼ very much
* 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.
Along with imageability, spatial quality is particularly important for public

spaces. Although several factors contribute to the spatial quality of open spaces,
this study is concerned with two—human scale and sense of enclosure. Humans
feel comfortable in spaces with physical elements that can be related to the size of
our bodies and body parts. Spaces achieve human scale by way of the size, texture
and patterns of the materials and elements that make up the floor, vertical edges
and any overhead elements as well as any fixed or movable elements. Sense of
enclosure is the degree of definition of a space by way of physical elements that
surround it. Enclosure may be achieved by the fixed features bounding the space
such as building edges, walls, trees or by semi-fixed or movable objects such as
awnings, canopies, parked vehicles and so on. A space is considered to have a
sense of enclosure if it has a room-like quality that evokes a feeing of being ‘inside’
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.
Evaluating Public Space Using the PSI

The public space index (PSI) is constructed from 42 to 45 variables to evaluate the
five dimensions of public space. The index captures and measures both observed
70 V. Mehta
behavior (use) and perceptions of public space. Twenty-nine or 32 variables

(depending on type of space) of the survey are observable and are rated by the
researchers by observing the space and the interaction between the space and its
occupants. Thirteen variables are perceptual and have to be rated by the people
using the public space. The scoring criteria for each variable are based on a rating
scale ranging from 0 to 3.
Weighting the variables. Weighting the variables in an index or measure is a

complex task. In the case of the public space index, it could be argued that the
weighting should depend on what is expected from a particular public space. For
example, if inclusiveness is the foremost concern, then all the characteristics of the
public space that support or inhibit inclusiveness must be weighted more than
others. Indeed, different public spaces, depending on their location, user-groups
and so on, are likely to have different expectations from them. However, this is
likely to result in dozens of variations that would probably not lead to any
consensus in weighting the variables that add up to the overall quality of public
space. In order to arrive at a generally agreeable weighting, the study based the
weighting of the variable on its significance in contributing to some dimension of
public space as determined by the literature (particularly empirical work), the
empirical studies of numerous public spaces conducted by the author, and by the
users of public space. For the 13 perceptual variables in the public space index,
first, 15 users in four public spaces were asked to rate their importance (on a 0 to 2
scale). Next, an independent study was conducted and 18 users of the same four
public spaces were asked to rate the importance (on a 0 to 2 scale) of the same 13
perceptual variables. The weighting of variables that received a mean rating of 1.5
or more on this scale was doubled to 2. For inclusiveness, users considered
‘perceived openness and accessibility’ to be more important than other variables
(mean rating over 1.5 on a scale of 0 to 2). Hence, the rating for the variable
‘perceived openness and accessibility’ was doubled to 2 (see Table 1). For
meaningful activities it was ‘perceived suitability of space layout and design to
activities and behaviour’, for comfort it was ‘perceived physical condition and
maintenance appropriate for the space’, for safety it was ‘perceived safety from
crime during daytime’, ‘perceived safety from crime after dark’ and ‘perceived
safety from traffic’, and for pleasurability it was ‘perceived attractiveness of space’.
Therefore, the rating for these six variables was also doubled to 2 (see Table 1).
For the remaining variables, the author weighted them based on other
empirical literature on similar public spaces and on the empirical studies of
numerous public spaces mentioned earlier. The variables that were most
important in contributing to the quality of public space per the empirical literature
and author’s studies were rated higher. For example, sitting space is an important
attribute of good public space that makes it comfortable and convivial. Whyte
(1980) clearly showed this with his work on small urban spaces, and several other
empirical studies have corroborated this (Joardar and Neill 1978; Linday 1978;
Share 1978; DiVette from Rapoport 1990; Hass-Klau et al. 1999; Mehta 2007).
Within the seating options, the public seating (rather than private seating)
provides an opportunity for anyone to use the public space without patronizing
any business. This adds not only to the comfort and conviviality of the space but
also to its inclusiveness. Hence, within the dimension of comfort of public space,
public seating was selected to be one of the characteristics with a higher
weighting.
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.
Using the Index

At least two researchers each need to independently visit the space six times over
the weekday and weekend spread out during the day to capture the range of
activities and behaviors in the space. On site, the researchers complete a survey,
part of which is filled out by the researcher by observing the characteristics of the
space, its use and management and the interaction between the space and its users
(Researcher input). The other part of the survey is also conducted in the public
space by getting inputs from users of the space (User input). Since the researchers
observe the space at multiple times during the day and week, the results of the
researcher input must be averaged and means calculated.
Applying the Index

To test the index, an evaluation was conducted of four public spaces—a street, an
urban park, a plaza and a pedestrian-only street in downtown Tampa (Figures 2
and 3). The author and eight graduate architecture students conducted the
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
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
Total responses 23 16 13 25 77
Age 18– 24 3 13.04% 5 31.25% 2 15.38% 8 32.00% 18 23.38%

25– 34 7 30.43% 4 25.00% 4 30.77% 6 24.00% 21 27.27%
35– 44 6 26.09% 2 12.50% 6 46.15% 3 12.00% 17 22.08%
45– 54 1 4.35% 3 18.75% 1 7.69% 5 20.00% 10 12.99%
55– 64 2 8.70% 1 6.25% 0 0.00% 2 8.00% 5 6.49%
65– 74 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.00% 1 1.30%
75 and above 1 4.35% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.30%
Unanswered 3 13.04% 1 6.25% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 5.19%
Gender Male 13 56.52% 11 68.75% 5 38.46% 14 56.00% 43 55.84%
Female 7 30.43% 5 31.25% 6 46.15% 10 40.00% 28 36.36%
Unanswered 3 13.04% 0 0.00% 2 15.38% 1 4.00% 6 7.79%
Race White 16 69.57% 13 81.25% 8 61.54% 22 88.00% 59 76.62%
Black or African- 2 8.70% 2 12.50% 1 7.69% 1 4.00% 6 7.79%
American
American Indian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Hispanic 3 13.04% 1 6.25% 3 23.08% 1 4.00% 8 10.39%
Asian or Pacific 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Islander
Other 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Unanswered 2 8.70% 0 0.00% 1 7.69% 1 4.00% 4 5.19%
Live/work Live 4 17.39% 0 0.00% 1 7.69% 1 4.00% 6 7.79%
Work 11 47.83% 9 56.25% 8 61.54% 13 52.00% 41 53.25%
Live/work 2 8.70% 1 6.25% 0 0.00% 3 12.00% 6 7.79%
Visit 6 26.09% 6 37.50% 3 23.08% 7 28.00% 22 28.57%
Unanswered 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 7.69% 1 4.00% 2 2.60%
Frequency of Once a day or more 4 17.39% 3 18.75% 2 15.38% 9 36.00% 18 23.38%
visiting
Few times a week 9 39.13% 3 18.75% 3 23.08% 4 16.00% 19 24.68%
Few times a month 4 17.39% 6 37.50% 4 30.77% 5 20.00% 19 24.68%
Only occasionally 5 21.74% 3 18.75% 3 23.08% 4 16.00% 15 19.48%
Other 1 4.35% 1 6.25% 1 7.69% 3 12.00% 6 7.79%
(Continued)
73
74
V. Mehta
Franklin St. Ped.

Gaslight Park Franklin St. BoA Plaza / Poe Plaza Total
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
Total responses 23 16 13 25 77
Occupations 1 Fibre Solutions Analyst 1 Sears Portrait Studio 1 Driver 1 Teacher

1 County Employee 1 Financial Consultant 1 Office Manager 1 H R manager
1 Accounts Manager 1 Engineer 1 Maid for Marriot 1 Bank Employee
2 Homeless 1 Street Maintenance 1 Secretary 1 School Aide
2 Student 1 Student 1 Realtor 4 Student
1 Police 1 Banker 1 1 Banker
1 Administrator 1 Waiter 1 Asst director 1 Server
2 Cleaning/housekeeping 1 Teacher 1 Curriculum specialist 1 Nurse
1 College student/retail 1 Sales 1 Receptionist 1 Secretary
1 Works at Subway 1 Promoter of Company 1 Electrician 1 Financial Advisor
1 Accountant 1 Manager of Pizza shop 1 CPA 1 Intern
1 Manager 1 Restaurant Server 1 Field Support Rep 1 Executive Assistant
1 Supervisor 1 Intern 1 Not Reported 1 Interior Designer
2 Retiree 1 Mental Health Counselor 1 Contractor
1 Structural Engineer 1 Construction Worker 1 Construction Manager
1 Web Designer 1 Not Reported 1 Teller
3 Not Reported 1 Legal Assistant
1 Accountant
1 Unemployed
3 Not Reported
Table 3. Results of the public space index for the four spaces in downtown Tampa, Florida
Gaslight Park B of A Plaza Franklin St. Franklin St. Ped.
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
(Continued)
75
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
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
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
(Continued)
77
78

V. Mehta
Perceived attractiveness of space 2.0 1.73 3.45

Perceived interestingness of space 1.0 1.64 1.64
Aggregate score 10 16.96
Index rating for Pleasurability (out of 100) 57
Pleasurability (for Street)
Presence of memorable architectural or landscape 1 1.30 1.30 2.03 2.03
features (imageability)
Sense of enclosure 1 1.58 1.58 2.33 2.33
Permeability of building facades on the 1 1.39 1.39 1.55 1.55
streetfront
Personalization of buildings on the streetfront 1 2.14 2.14 0.90 0.90
Articulation and variety in architectural features 1 1.63 1.63 0.98 0.98
of building facades
Density of elements on sidewalk/street providing 1 2.03 2.03 1.83 1.83
sensory complexity
Variety of elements on sidewalk/street providing 1 2.10 2.10 1.64 1.64
sensory complexity
Perceived attractiveness of space 2 1.94 3.88 2.33 4.67
Perceived interestingness of space 1 1.81 1.81 1.86 1.86
Aggregate score 10 17.86 17.79
Index rating for Pleasurability (out of 100) 60 59
Total score for all aspects of 107.13 88.45 103.26 93.94

public space
Average public space index (out of 71 59 69 63

100)
* Assigned weighting to variable

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
Average rating for all Average index score

Aspect of public space 4 spaces (out of 3) for 4 all spaces
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)
Average rating for all Average index score

Aspect of public space 4 spaces (out of 3) for 4 all spaces
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
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.
Pedestrian-only Franklin Street/Poe Plaza. The biggest difference in perception of

safety was that of the pedestrian-only portion of Franklin Street, also known as
Poe Plaza. Compared to men, women of all ages were very concerned about their
safety in this space after dark (mean score of 0.2 for women versus 1.83 for men).
Safety was much less of a concern during the daytime; only 1 of all 25 respondents
(4%) found Poe Plaza unsafe during the day. Poe Plaza is raised from the street
level, has a very articulated floor surface paved in dark brick with many sub
areas, multiple levels, low walls, high buildings on either side, many mature trees
and so on, which give the space a very enclosed feeling where all the sub-spaces
are not easily visible from any vantage point (Figure 3). The building edges are not
lined with active storefronts and hence there are few ‘eyes on the street’ after work
hours. For the majority of the year, in the daytime this shaded enclosed space
provides a relief from the harsh sun of Florida. However, after dark, the
combination of the physical characteristics and surrounding uses makes the space
feel unsafe, particularly for women. At the same time, for use during the day,
compared to men, women found the plaza more inclusive (mean score of 2.6 for
women versus 2.05 for men); they found it to be more open and accessible (2.8
versus 2.15), were less concerned about the security measures (3 versus 2.54) and
perceived a greater ability to conduct and participate in activities and events in the
plaza (2 versus 1.46).
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
in downtown, is entered through the plaza. The block-long plaza has

unobstructed view from the street but with defined edges, it has movable chairs
and tables under a tree canopied space, a water body and public art sculpture. At
one glance, it is easy to see that the bank has a stake in this space. The finishes of
the floor and other surfaces, the furniture, the sculpture, the maintenance and the
presence of a doorman, all clearly have a look and feel of a corporate space
(Figure 3).
Almost across the board, women rated the Bank of America Plaza less
favourably than men. Compared to men, women found the plaza less
interesting (1.17 versus 1.67) and less open and accessible to them (2.4 versus
2.83), and were concerned about safety both during the day (1.75 versus 2.5)
and night (1.2 versus 2). The plaza was also rated less favourably by the
youngest cohort. Compared to participants in the 35 to 44 years age group, 18

to 34 year olds found the businesses at the edges of the plaza less useful (0.6
versus 1.4), perceived a limited ability to conduct and participate in activities
and events (0.83 versus 2), and found the physical condition and maintenance
inappropriate for the plaza (1.4 versus 2.17). Usually, the plaza is impeccably
maintained and this possibly deters and detracts from several activities that
the younger group would like conduct in the space.
However, perhaps the value of the index is best interpreted not as absolute
numbers and scores but by the graphic representation of the spaces on all five
aspects of public space, as shown by comparative charts in Figure 4. From these
charts, it is easy to quickly and clearly gauge the overall strengths and weaknesses
of each of these spaces. The same charts overlaid represent a comparison of the
spaces downtown (Figure 5).
Interpreting the PSI

The index is designed to produce an evaluation of a public space in each of the five
categories as well as an overall evaluation. For example, after evaluating a space it
is possible to establish how inclusive (accessible) or how comfortable the space is.
Looking at the evaluation in detail can reveal, for example, whether the space is
not accessible (physically or symbolically) to a certain group or class of people or
whether it discourages certain activities and behaviours. Further, the evaluations
of several spaces in a neighborhood or precinct may be combined to achieve a
collective evaluation of the public spaces in the neighborhood or precinct.
Researchers may be able to look at any aspect of the public space in a
neighborhood or precinct. For example, much like the case in downtown Tampa,
the PSI may reveal that a public space is not very well used because it does not
support any meaningful activities even though it is safe and comfortable. The City
of Tampa could use these results and continue to keep the downtown public
spaces open, easily accessible and well maintained, but pay special attention to
focusing on providing activities desired by users of the spaces. The City could
conduct focused surveys with the users of these spaces to find out what types of
activities and businesses would make them more attractive and meaningful to
them. The City could also temporarily infuse the spaces with activities and
determine what is working for the users.
84 V. Mehta
Figure 5. A comparative visual display of the results of the public space index for four spaces in
downtown Tampa, Florida.
Limitations and Future Research

Although the evaluation tool proposed here is based on extensive prior theoretical
and empirical research, developing and suggesting methods and tools for
evaluation inherently have limitations. For example, even though users of public
spaces were asked to determine the importance (and thus weighting) of the
variables, the choice of themes and the selection of variables reflect certain values
of the author. The purpose of studying spaces in a downtown was to try and
capture as many cultural differences as possible; downtown Tampa is used by a
wide range of people from different cultural backgrounds, race, income, age, and
so on. Yet, there is no denying that even within the North American context,
different regions and cities (and even parts of cities) have their own cultures and
subcultures. Evaluating public spaces in such contexts must take into account the
possible changing need and focus on aspects of public space. There may even be
other aspects that are not addressed in most literature on public space. Hence, the
themes and variables in the PSI must be understood as somewhat open-ended to
include other variables if needed. Future research could use the PSI and cross-test
it in other contexts to determine how it holds up as a tool used by others in
different locations. Using the PSI, other researchers should also aim for a much
larger sample size. Perhaps evaluating public space in very different contexts
would further aid in the development of such a tool that may be more defensible
as a possible methodology to evaluate public space.
Conclusions
This paper has outlined a method to empirically evaluate urban public open
spaces. Several groups can benefit from this method of evaluating various
dimensions of public space. With the limited public funding, it is imperative to

design and construct new public spaces and make upgrades to existing ones in
ways that benefit a wide range of needs of citizens. By providing a clear outline of
the dimensions and important variables to consider, the index will be useful to
planning and design practitioners to address specific issues to improve the quality
of public space. Further, with the considerable changes in management and
control of public space, it is important to constantly review and manage the critical
dimensions of space that give it the designation of public space. Public, semi
public and private agencies that manage and control public spaces may use the
index as a tool to gauge the performance of public space on several facets. Citizens
may use this index to determine the quality of public spaces in their
neighbourhoods or cities and demand definitive changes and improvements
based on the results of the specific dimensions and variables of the PSI. Because
the index provides a systematic evaluation, using the index to measure the state of
their public spaces repeatedly over time can provide the public agencies and
citizens, in current times of increasing privatization, with a much-needed
yardstick to measure the changing nature of their public realm. The index will be
equally useful to the researcher to measure the quality of public spaces; to the
educator to teach and discuss important dimensions and issues of design and
management; and to the student to learn about public space through first-hand
empirical evaluation. Most importantly, working as a tool to assess a vital
dimension of the public realm, the public space index captures the pulse of a
society’s cultural and political attitudes. It informs the citizens of the condition of
equity, securitization and individual and group rights in their local public realm,
and ultimately provides a glimpse into the state of their civil society.
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.
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.

VIKAS METHA Evaluating Public Space PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

VIKAS METHA Evaluating Public Space PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Javeria]

On: 22 January 2014, At: 06:04

Journal of Urban Design

Evaluating Public Space

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Evaluating Public Space

cultural context. It begins by deﬁning public space, followed by a brief

Deﬁning Public Space

deﬁnition capture all dimensions of public space. However, it covers several

Sociability: A Primary Role of Public Space

feared may be pleasant sites for family outings or corporate gatherings,

Public Space Today

creating a framework to evaluate public spaces, it is possible to assess an

Qualities of Public Space

Figure 1. The ﬁve dimensions/aspects of public space.

public space index, this measure is called Meaningful Activities. To be speciﬁc,

environments encourage repeated visits and increased frequency of use that

Inclusiveness 1 Presence of people 0.4 0¼ very limited Determined by obser­

14 Range of activities 1.0 Determined by obser­

the space 3 ¼ several

17 Variety of 1.0 0 ¼ none

services some parts

21 Seating provided 1.0 0 ¼ none

the space—shade comfortable observations

30 Perceived safety 1.0 3 ¼ very much User’s subjective

meable all along

39 Density of 1.0 0 ¼ none or Determined by obser­

39 Design elements 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser­

41 Perceived attrac­ 2.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective

42 Personalization of 0.7 0 ¼ not at all Determined by

Along with imageability, spatial quality is particularly important for public

sensory stimuli identiﬁed in contributing to the retention of people in public

Evaluating Public Space Using the PSI

behavior (use) and perceptions of public space. Twenty-nine or 32 variables

Weighting the variables. Weighting the variables in an index or measure is a

Using the Index

Applying the Index

Table 2. Characteristics of study participants

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

Age 18– 24 3 13.04% 5 31.25% 2 15.38% 8 32.00% 18 23.38%

Other 1 4.35% 1 6.25% 1 7.69% 3 12.00% 6 7.79%

Franklin St. Ped.

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

Occupations 1 Fibre Solutions Analyst 1 Sears Portrait Studio 1 Driver 1 Teacher

Gaslight Park B of A Plaza Franklin St. Franklin St. Ped.

Gaslight Park B of A Plaza Franklin St. Franklin St. Ped.

Aggregate score 10 23.07 18.93 20.70 20.43

Gaslight Park B of A Plaza Franklin St. Franklin St. Ped.

Perceived attractiveness of space 2.0 1.73 3.45

Total score for all aspects of 107.13 88.45 103.26 93.94

Average public space index (out of 71 59 69 63

* Assigned weighting to variable

Average rating for all Average index score

presence of lockable gates,

Average rating for all Average index score

Perceived safety from crime after dark 1.63

surveillance cameras, security guards, ushers, etc. as means of intimidation or an

Pedestrian-only Franklin Street/Poe Plaza. The biggest difference in perception of

in downtown, is entered through the plaza. The block-long plaza has

youngest cohort. Compared to participants in the 35 to 44 years age group, 18

Interpreting the PSI

Limitations and Future Research

Inclusiveness 1 Presence of people 0.4 0¼ very limited Determined by obser

14 Range of activities 1.0 Determined by obser

39 Density of 1.0 0 ¼ none or Determined by obser

39 Design elements 1.0 0 ¼ none Determined by obser

41 Perceived attrac 2.0 0 ¼ not at all User ’s subjective