Transforming Public Space through Play

Gregor Mews

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000579390
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

This book provides an empirical analysis of the concept of play as a form of spatial practice in urban public spaces. The introduced City–Play–Framework (CPF) is a practical urban analysis tool that allows urban designers, landscape architects and researchers to develop a shared awareness when opening up this window of possibility for adventure.

Two case studies substantiate and illustrate the development process and testing of the framework in Canberra, Australia, and Potsdam, Germany. The appropriation of public spaces that transcend boundaries can facilitate an intrinsic connection between people and their immediate environment, towards a more joyful ontological state of human existence in which imagination, co-creation and a sense of agency are key elements of the design approach. The framework presents an alternative understanding of public spaces and public life, reflecting on theory and its implications for practice in a post-pandemic world in dense urban centres.

A bridge between theory and practice, this book explores possibilities on what future design ought to be when openness and ambiguity are consciously integrated parts of practice and process. The book presents a valuable discussion on public space and play for academic audiences across a wide range of disciplines such as landscape architecture, urban design, planning, architecture and urban sociology, which is informative for future practice.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781003133803-1

Cities are complex systems, encompassing spaces and networks, which provide possibilities for social encounters and informal activities. From a functional perspective, public spaces in cities have historically been associated with socialisation and participation in a wide range of different social encounters and activities (Simões Aelbrecht, 2010). However, since the mid-20th century, public spaces in post-industrial cities have been suffering from a loss of diversity of human experiences as part of public life (Akkar, 2005). Are we, as design professionals, so obsessed with materiality that we have lost the essential skill to deliver environments that elevate the human condition?

Without oversimplifying the issue, it appears that the likely causes of this phenomenon relate to the failure of modernist architecture and urban design to take a fuller range of human lived experience into consideration. This has ultimately led to the homogenisation, separation and fragmentation of spatial practices (Iveson, 1998; Kingwell, 2008; Low, 2006, 2017; Mitchell, 1995). Furthermore, continuous privatisation and the associated regulation of space has contributed to a shift in the public sphere from a realm for public discourse (Habermas & Mccarthy, 1991) into spaces that are owned and operated by private landholders (although many users perceive these spaces as public). One example of this shift in the public sphere is that of the ‘third places’, which include not only public spaces but also bars, shopping centres, libraries and cafés (Oldenburg, 1999, 2007).¹ Mierzejewska (2011) even claims that spatial structures that promote the privatisation of public spaces can impoverish interpersonal relations and ultimately lead to socio-cultural degradation. This would mean that the full range of possibilities for appropriating public spaces could not be realised, as opportunities for human activities are spatially predetermined and restricted. This indicates that a debate around public space cannot simply be reduced to spatial structures without taking interpersonal relations (activities) and conceptual design thinking into consideration.

After the 1960s there is a proliferation of research on various ways of understanding successful cities and then applying that knowledge in the design of new places. Thus, in the 1970s there were a number of tools specifically developed for the analysis of public space, most of which applied and transformed the existing research methods from social science, anthropology and environmental psychology as well as geography. During that period prominent research emerged from researchers such as Lynch (1960), Cullen (1971) and Whyte (1980), committed to developing a new theory in parallel with the decline of modernist architecture and emerging post-modernism. The trend continued to gain momentum with researchers such as Gehl and Koch (1987), Alexander et al. (1977), Jacobs (1961) – all developing an understanding of the qualities of public space from interdisciplinary perspectives that informed approaches in urban design and enriched the academic discourse. This book aims to contribute to this growing discourse by expanding this study of human behaviour within the spatial dimension.

Today, this complexity continues to create fertile ground for a debate that commenced at the beginning of industrialisation, and has continued to shape the discourse on the role of public spaces in cities and the function of design to encourage social encounters (Benjamin, 1997; Carmona, 2014; Chawla, 2002; Debord, 1957; Harvey, 2006; Lefebvre, 1991a, b; United Nations, 2016; Zieleniec, 2018). For example, the impact of functional design decisions made without consideration of human behaviour was prominently recognised by Jacobs (1961, 2010), one of the first researchers to recognise the damaging effects of urban design and planning decisions on social life in cities. Since the second half of the 20th century, this nexus has been explored by social science, anthropology, culture, environmental psychology, human geography, urban design and architecture (Alexander, 1965/1996; Freeman & Tranter, 2011; Kaplan, 2017; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982, 2009; Larkin et al., 2010; Lynch, 1977; Norberg-Schulz, 1980).

In response, novel design theories and methods for studying and understanding social life in public spaces have emerged and brought empirical evidence to the fore (Appleyard et al., 1981; Bosselmann, 1998; Brewster & Bell, 2009; Gehl & Gemzoe, 1996; Gehl et al., 2013; Goffman, 1961, 1974, 1989; Jacobs, 1995, 1961; Matan & Newman, 2012). For example, in their observational research on public spaces, Gehl and Koch (1987) found that functional designs in residential areas were unable to respond to the subtle qualities of social needs and the ways in which people interact in public spaces. Over time, research methods aimed at understanding social life in public spaces have become more established, refined and mainstreamed (Gehl et al., 2013).

However, existing research methods have both advantages and weaknesses. On the one hand, established research methods for studying public life effectively capture a wide range of important features, such as object-related user experiences (Gehl, 1968; Moore, 1986; Peri Bader, 2015), quantitative aspects of people’s activities in space including movement patterns (Hillier & Hanson, 1989), duration of space use (Gehl & Koch, 1987) and spatial features, as well as built environment characteristics; this is done in order to understand, protect, enhance and ultimately improve the qualities of social life (Goffman, 1961; Hall, 1966, 1989; Sommer, 1969). On the other hand, there is surprisingly little empirical research available that examines informal social and non-instrumental interactions in urban core areas within public space analysis. Unfortunately, it appears that urban design and landscape architecture practitioners have yet to realise the potential of empirical research related to informal and non-instrumental activities (Borden, 2001; Day, 2017; Simões Aelbrecht, 2018). Established public life research methods have not adequately addressed the role of informal and non-instrumental activities that cannot be easily planned for. Therefore, research methods addressing the analysis of human behaviour in public spaces require rethinking and reframing in order to examine informal, non-instrumental activities (Stevens & Dovey, 2004).

Fortunately, this reframing of public spaces has been pioneered by Stevens (2003, 2007), who examined play as a type of informal and non-instrumental activity, along with its uses in urban public spaces. In his book The Ludic City, Stevens explored play from a theoretical perspective and examined play in public spaces through several case studies, including Melbourne, London, Berlin, New York and Brisbane (Stevens, 2007). The word ‘ludic’, which describes spontaneous and undirected playfulness, originates from the Latin word ‘ludus’, referring to play. In addition to Stevens’s work, other valuable insights into the temporary use of space and bodily experiences in space have been gained in relation to several specific types of play, including skateboarding (Borden, 2001) and parkour (Lamb, 2014; Rawlinson & Guaralda, 2011, 2012), while other researchers have explored novel methods of examining play as an experience in space (Shirtcliff, 2015, 2018; Spencer, 2013).

The anthropological concept of playfulness or play is not easy to define or qualify in the city context. The leisurely aspects of life in cities create a distinct realm of life in which an escape from the instrumentality of everyday life is possible (Stevens, 2007). This voluntary escape from mundane everyday life can become spatially visible through different active forms of play that override and transform spatial functions (Stevens, 2007). These escapes create possibilities of imbuing spaces with life that can lead to the realisation of diverse human needs. Simões Aelbrecht (2018) stresses that despite the asocial nature of non-instrumental activities and interaction with strangers, these types of interaction have profound implications for public life, as they constitute the dominant type of human social relations. Arguably, a fundamental function of public spaces is to realise their potential for meeting rich and diverse human needs, including those for non-instrumental and informal activities, as a distinct form of spatial practice (Stevens, 2007).

This book provides empirical research on the qualities and dynamics of public spaces by interrogating them through the window² of a type of informal and non-instrumental activity (i.e., play) in ways that overcome the shortcomings discussed above. This in turn provides urban designer and landscape architect scholars with a novel framework and data to help them realise the potential of play in public spaces to actively facilitate such non-instrumental activities.

Here are a few remarks on how to approach the content of this book. Play is a complex concept that allows people to construct meaning and to form social relationships with each other in space. The concept of play applies not only to children, who are arguably the natural experts when it comes to play, but also to adults (Brown & Vaughan, 2010; Hamayon & Simon, 2016; Mouledoux, 1977; Sutton-Smith, 1997). People of all ages are exposed to a range of stimuli and experiences in cities (public spaces). Due to the complexity of the concept of play, a specific working definition for the concept in this context has been developed, which is explained in detail in Chapter 2. In brief, play is defined as an intrinsically motivated activity, which takes place on a voluntary basis and creates opportunities for positive experiences in space through enjoyment of its temporary transformational nature.

However, it should be noted that this book is...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Understanding play and public space
• 3 Public space methods and the City-Play-Framework
• 4 City-Play-Framework in operation
• 5 Adventure in public space
• 6 Designing for adventure in a world with COVID-19
• Index