Public vs. Private: The Evaluation of Different Space Types in Terms of Publicness Dimension

Abstract

Most of researchers from various disciplines assert conflicting definitions about public spaces. In this context, when some researchers express the decline of public spaces, others claim that the contemporary public spaces are quite inclusiveness and revival. However, the common features expected from all public spaces are: provide opportunities for social life, include various activities, convenient to use by access and linkage, and has unique identity with image. It is accepted that all these features contribute to publicness of public spaces which increase the sustainable development of the city. Aim of this study is to determine publicness of different urban spaces types and making comparison among them. Thereby, publicness dimension of urban spaces which have public or private ownership will be revealed and a new contribution to public space arguments will be made. Duzce city center was chosen as a research area since its rapidly development and transformation process after the 1999 earthquakes. As a research method, different public space types were illustrated and these illustrations were interpreted by site observations. Consequently, publicness and public use were found as not directly related with their public or private ownership, so political and commercial forces behind urban spaces that influenced on public life were debated.

A Comparative Analysis of Different Urban Spaces Using Public Space Index

“…While most scholars believe that public spaces should be open and visible to everyone, many urban locations, such as shopping malls, gated communities, and private sports clubs, have limited access and visibility to their target user/consumer group. Neoliberal policies that offer greater public spaces for specific groups reinforce this spatial segregation based on socioeconomic inequality [26].…”

Finding a Balance Between Public and Private Spaces in Student Housing Design in Thailand

“…Apart from physical access, the social accessibility of a space must also be considered. Birch, 2007;Carr et al, 1992;Francis, 1989;Jackson, 1974;Karacor, 2016;Madanipour, 2010;Madden, 2010;Mehta, 2014 Inclusivity In limiting access to private spaces, inclusivity plays a crucial role in defining the publicness of the space and who is authorized to use it. The more people allowed into the space, the more public it becomes.…”

Repensar lo público: la creación del espacio público en una «ciudad global excelente» y la retórica y la realidad de la orientación hacia las personas

“…Similar publicness models also consider uses/users (Németh and Schmidt, 2011), management and inclusiveness (Langstraat and van Melik, 2013;Mehta, 2014), and so on as dimensions of publicness. The different publicness models have been variously applied to evaluate and compare public spaces' status quo (Varna and Tiesdell, 2010;Németh and Schmidt, 2011;Langstraat and van Melik, 2013;Mehta, 2014;Ekdi and Çıracı, 2015;Karaçor, 2016;Lopes, Santos Cruz, and Pinho, 2020), measure the change of publicness before and after a given development project (Akkar, 2003(Akkar, , 2005a(Akkar, , 2005b, and evaluate how different stakeholders contribute to the increase or decrease of publicness (Németh and Schmidt, 2011;Ho, Lai, and Wang, 2020). This is not an exhaustive summary of existing approaches to interpreting publicness, but it shows that most of these models, built on a singular ideal publicness that is «"out-there" and external to people» (Varna and Tiesdell, 2010: 578), are preoccupied with determining «what mix of conditions might lead to a highly public and democratic public space» (Tornaghi, 2015: 25).…”