Placemaking For Green Urban Regeneration

The Urban Book Series
Israa Hanafi Mahmoud
Placemaking
for Green
Urban
Regeneration
Editorial Board
Margarita Angelidou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL, Silk
Cities, London, UK
Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK
Simin Davoudi, Planning & Landscape Department GURU, Newcastle University,
Newcastle, UK
Geoffrey DeVerteuil, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University,
Cardiff, UK
Jesús M. González Pérez, Department of Geography, University of the Balearic
Islands, Palma (Mallorca), Spain
Daniel B. Hess , Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at
Buffalo, State University, Buffalo, NY, USA
Paul Jones, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney,
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Andrew Karvonen, Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH Royal Institute
of Technology, Stockholm, Stockholms Län, Sweden
Andrew Kirby, New College, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Karl Kropf, Department of Planning, Headington Campus, Oxford Brookes
University, Oxford, UK
Karen Lucas, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Marco Maretto, DICATeA, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Parma, Parma, Italy
Ali Modarres, Tacoma Urban Studies, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma,
WA, USA
Fabian Neuhaus, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary,
AB, Canada
Steffen Nijhuis, Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Vitor Manuel Aráujo de Oliveira , Porto University, Porto, Portugal
Christopher Silver, College of Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Giuseppe Strappa, Facoltà di Architettura, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome,
Roma, Italy
Igor Vojnovic, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI, USA
Claudia Yamu, Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, University of
Groningen, Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Qunshan Zhao, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow, UK
The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research
worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments
in the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for
urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development.
The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustain-
ability, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization,
urban and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management,
transport systems, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban
landscapes. It also invites research which documents urbanization processes and
urban dynamics on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as
well as comparative and applied research.
The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects,
policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of con-
temporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs, edited
volumes and textbooks.
Indexed by Scopus.
Placemaking for Green

Urban Regeneration
Laboratorio di Simulazione
Urbana (Fasto Curti)
Department of Architecture and Urban
Studies (DAStU)
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-031-15407-2 ISBN 978-3-031-15408-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
A City is not a Coincidence, it is the Artwork
of Architects
and Urban Planners Orchestrated.
For urban planners, placemaking enthusiasts,
and nature lovers, this book is for you.
Foreword
At the centre of any wonderful place are people, well-being, and joy. In this way, we
can say the best urban places foster positive human experiences—driven by their form
and function. Therefore, city planners and urban designers need to know-how to (a)
evaluate and understand the problems associated with the design and performance of
urban spaces, and then (b) know-how to enact policies and programmes to solve the
problems observed. Key to this is knowing how to understand the human experience
in urban places—from the ecosystem to the human scale—and what makes them
joyful, enriching, and special. Therefore, the main goal of this book is to appreciate,
observe, and understand the human experience of urban places, and then figure out
how to make things better.
This book is timely as the importance of place has been brought to the forefront
of academia and the new urban agenda lately by the UN. This book covers the
interaction between people and their environment, moving from the human-centred
to ecosystem scale in its recognition of urban regeneration, helping us understand
interactions at the scale of our human senses and sensibilities. As Dr. Mahmoud
states. “A great public space cannot be measured by its physical attributes alone;
it must also serve people as a vital community resource in which function always
trumps form,” which again highlights the importance of people in the placemaking
equation, accentuating our humanity and the sensory experiences of place.
At this time when some are talking about building cities in the desert out of
nothing, we need to think about the happy accidents that occurred to create great
places. Times Square, for example, grew out of the intersection of Broadway, which
existed before the gridiron plan as an organic path travelling from the south part of
Manhattan to the north, and seventh avenue.
vii
viii Foreword
This book also talks about how we can rapidly respond to make conditions better
for people through lighter, quicker, cheaper approaches and other placemaking tech-
niques. This book examines the efforts to quantify the hard to quantify and provides
generalisable lessons on how to enhance any public space, so it lives up to its potential
of fostering enriching and joyful human experiences.
Bruce Appleyard
Associate Professor, City Planning
and Urban Design
San Diego State University
San Diego, USA
Preface
Processes of green urban regeneration have to embed an intrinsic, measurable sense

of improvement in changing and adapting urban areas. Both research and practice
demonstrate that most systemic approaches to regeneration, such as placemaking,
need to integrate processes of evaluation both before and after implementation. In
parallel, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have arisen to a key position, bringing to
the forefront the need to create multiple benefits, including social and cultural, in
urban regeneration processes. However, dealing with complex, multifaceted adapta-
tions is neither easy nor something that has been researched much up to now. In this
book, insights into analytical evaluation methods, planning strategies, and shared
governance examples are given as well as a simple tool, namely the Public Space
Index (PSI), that will together help determine successful pathways to implementing
urban change anchored in placemaking that uses a socio-cultural approach. The case
study (the Rose Kennedy Greenway of Boston, Massachusetts, USA) that has been
extensively researched over a number of years, helps to ground the discussion with
examples of how the implementation of the PSI measures the quality of urban space
including its adaptability and replicability in other contexts. As Nature Based Solu-
tions are playing a major role in physical and spatial regeneration in current city
contexts, they represent the key to bringing place and natural flourishing together.
One thing that can certainly be taken from this book is that the combined roles of
people, space, and nature must come to the fore in any current urban planning policies
debate aimed at reform, regeneration, and rebirth.
Milan, Italy Israa Hanafi Mahmoud

2022
ix
Acknowledgements
The journey taken to produce this work was not easy. The book in your hands today is
a result of long days of discomfort, travel, research, and sleepless nights. It was done
with full consciousness of leaving “a science that might help.” For that purpose, I
hope that I may have added something to the field of knowledge of urban regeneration.
I have always been fascinated by how public spaces and urban design would change
our lives, and vice versa. Thus, hopefully, this work adds a drop in the ocean of the
world of urban planning and the development of more humane cities. Together I hope
we can strive for a better future through the design of public spaces in a way that
makes them public places.
Firstly, I thank GOD for giving me the strength and guiding my way and commit-
ment to finish it. Secondly, all praise goes to my mother (Magda Bayoumi El
Karadisy), without her support, love, and understanding I would not have been able
to go so far and beyond. Thirdly, my gratitude goes to my professors along the way,
especially Prof. Eugenio Morello from Politecnico di Milano who believed in me
from day one and gave me all the opportunities for self-development and learning
in my post-doc journey from 2018 at Laboratorio di Simulazione Urbana (Fausto
Curti) until today. I also want to warmly thank Prof. Niki Frantzeskaki from Utrecht
University and Prof. Fabiano Lemes di Oliveira from Politecnico di Milano for all
their kind words and support all the time.
Special words of Gratitude go to Professor Bruce Appleyard and Carmelina
Bevilacqua for guiding me through the writing of this book. I have to admit, it
would not have been easy to combine all this work, without their encouragement and
supervision. I also want to thank Sean Bradley from the Groundwork London, for
his revisions to the text and English editing. For that, I owe him a lot.
Finally, special thanks to the interviewees for the main case study: Katerina
Zimmerman, Nidhi Gulati, John (Tad) Read, Laura Jasinski, Michael Nichols,
and Natalia Urtubey.
xi
About This Book
Placemaking and the sociability of public spaces have been at the centre of urban
planning anthropological studies for quite a long time, either in the academic field
or in on-the-ground implementation. However, there are ongoing difficulties in the
processes of concretely identifying, defining, and evaluating the non-material inter-
relationships that map onto physical space. The coherence of the relationship between
space and day-to-day life is what the concept of sociability is based on and what needs
to be at the core or of regeneration.
Contemporarily, a placemaking-centred approach to green urban design has
emerged, paving the way more refined understanding of the correlation between
the physical qualities and conditions in which these public spaces prosper, taking
into consideration the social and cultural aspects in order to capture the essence of
the contexts and the nature of the places in which human life unfolds. Based on these
notions, finding common ground between the sociability of public spaces and the
placemaking approach in culturally sensitive urban regeneration processes is still
somewhat of a missing link in a robust methodological empirical framework for
evaluating the performance indicators of public spaces, known as the Public Space
Index (PSI).
Hence, the main aim of this book is to understand how in the placemaking approach
to implementation, the dynamics of sociability and the social mixing in public spaces
help to shape the cultural aspects of public space itself. In the case studies presented
here, particular attention was given to the role of green corridors and other nature-
based solutions, in line with current research literature, in order to enhance the cities’
resilience and green strategic planning.
Part I
In the first part of this book, the placemaking movement is investigated by means
of a review of literature on public space development including definitions, social
roles, current trends in placemaking, and the different on-the-ground placemaking
xiii
xiv About This Book
implementation strategies. That is followed by the definition of sociability, its role as

an attribute of public spaces that adds economic and cultural value, and how specific
urban design elements can change its facets.
Chapter 1: Introduction
The first chapter introduces the main concepts addressed in this book: placemaking,
public spaces, and the green urban regeneration nexus. The chapter provides a brief
insight into the overall research approach, hypothesis, and aims and objectives.
Chapter 2: Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The

Implementation Strategies
The focus of this chapter is to identify the definition of public spaces and the role
they play in daily life, whether cultural or social. In addition to that, the main aim
is to analyse placemaking as an approach “in practice” to better regenerate public
spaces in contemporary cities, and how the different implementation techniques and
strategies of placemaking have proven able to produce positive economic outcomes
and social responses. As it is connected to so many urban processes, placemaking
is not an easy topic to wrest with; this is evident in how widely implementation
policies differ between European and US contexts. Definitions tend to be tricky and
fundamentally intertwined, strategies and their execution are inherently multifaceted
and complex, and these can be either top-down approaches, led from a governmental
agency, or bottom-up approaches starting from grassroots or citizen movements.
Chapter 3: Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration

Projects
This chapter introduces the definition of public place with a clear focus on the social
dimension; it sheds light on the different poles of the physical environment that have
an influence on human behaviour, as well as on human agency and other key social
influences on urban spaces. Moreover, it brings sociability to the forefront as the
core identifiable attribute of successful public places. Other key considerations are
how cultural and economic influences can impact the liveability of public spaces.
The important weight of non-physical aspects of public space is clearly qualified by
observations of the occurrence of cultural activities and social events. In sum, this
About This Book xv
chapter intentionally raises the questions of the impact of sociability on public life as
seen through users’ activities, and it relates these processes to urban form and public
space design.
Part II
The second part utilises an empirical methodology to consider the quality of public
spaces in three similar case studies. Key criteria are qualified, quantified, and compar-
atively analysed. This is followed by an evaluation matrix that vertically compresses
four evaluation tools (individual user surveys, observational analysis, in-depth inter-
views with on-site and in-field experts, and finally analysis of micro urban planning
smart tools). This evaluation matrix is built horizontally across two identifiable cate-
gories of metrics (public life and public space). In total, this accounts for the mix of
quantitative and qualitative methods to be subsequently incorporated into the Public
Space Index (PSI) matrix.
Chapter 4: Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases Studies:

Boston, Cambridge, and Valencia
This chapter introduces case studies that are similar to the final implementation case
study, where the similarities and differences are presented either in the stakeholders—
represented by a Public–Private Partnership in which the urban regeneration project
was implemented—or in the urban scale at which the implementation took shape.
That said, three case studies are dealt with; the first is the Lawn on D project, and
the reason for this choice is that it falls in the innovation district of Boston, which
allowed the PPS to intervene and implement the so-called lighter, quicker, cheaper
techniques (LQC) to regenerate the surrounding community.
The second is Harvard Square in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, where
the governmental approach for the city of Cambridge, in collaboration with a variety
of community groups and stakeholders, involves implementing the power of 10+
strategy towards regenerating sociability in the previously underutilised square. The
third and last case study is part of the “Rio Túria Gardens” grassroots movement, a
citizen-led regeneration project that led to significant changes to the city of Valencia,
Spain by transforming a highway into a greenway, similar to the North End Park
project. This case study helps provide a better understanding of the similarities and
differences in urban planning policies in different contexts. The choice of the first two
case studies focused on investigating urban policies implemented in the context of
the State of Massachusetts. Together these case studies all help inform the decision-
making process of public authorities and provide context for the analysis of sociability
and place.
xvi About This Book
Anchoring the analysis in tangible developments has led to better insights into
how to understand the stakeholders and to formulate the placemaking strategies at
the heart of this work. The learnings acquired from the case study of North End
Park provide a critical framework of the implementation of effective placemaking
strategies that can be developed.
Chapter 5: Sociability and Placemaking Methodological

Framework Approach: Identifying a Public Space Index (PSI)
In this part of the research, the public life/public space metrics—as introduced by the
Gehl Institute—are used to identify different criteria sets and/or methods to collect
both qualitative and quantitative data on users, their behaviour, frequency of use,
age, and gender, as well as physical observations on site during the first phase. The
reason for this mixed-methods approach was to capture a wide range of the aspects
of public spaces that affect people and places and vice versa.
Using Gehl’s framework, it is possible to identify the qualities of a public space
that make the space work, including how the space is used, what makes it desirable,
and where user experience is positive mostly based on where people prefer to linger
and socialise. The Application case study in this research is on the so-called North
End Park and Plaza. It falls within what is called the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
Greenway of Boston, MA. The reason for selecting the North End Park in the city of
Boston is that it fulfils the criteria of being a public space formed after a regeneration
project that involved various stakeholders, while transforming an eyesore into a green
corridor as a vital liveable destination in the heart of the city.
Part III
The third and last part encompasses the application of the evaluation tools in the case
study in order to evaluate the success or failure of using the placemaking approach
while emphasising the sociability aspects in achieving the aims of cultural-oriented
urban regeneration projects.
The Case Study in question is the North End Park on the Rose Kennedy
Greenway, Boston, MA; identified as a cultural cluster that—in a wider scope—
aims to foster the infusion of a theoretical approach from literature into the evalu-
ative work of the sociability evaluation matrix of the case study realised on the
ground. That said, with the aim of implementing the placemaking approach as an
identifiable urban planning policy, by which, we can change the key components of
a human-centred approach to designing public spaces in cities today.
About This Book xvii
Chapter 6: Learning Case Study: North End Park, Rose

Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway: Boston, Massachusetts, USA
The North End Park is part of the Boston Ribbon of contemporary parks. The Rose
Kennedy Greenway is a mile and a half of contemporary parks in the heart of
Boston city. The Greenway is a roof garden over a highway tunnel that connects
people, cityscape, and fun. The Greenway connects a series of parks, in which there
are public art installations, water fountains, historical sites (the freedom trail), public
transit and bike sharing stations, food truck vending locations, and public restrooms.
The chapter lays the historical background of the case study area as well as the
context of North End park as a public space within the Greenway in Boston.
Chapter 7: The North End Park as a Liveable Destination,

an In-depth Analysis
While physical analysis is important for any site, one of the most important measur-
able qualities of any public place is its attraction for users. People gather in squares,
walk in parks, and the relationship between people and their urban spaces is an
essential component of urban design. Based on this notion, the following in-depth
analysis looks at the users of North End Park with the help of the public life matrix
toolkit technique; the main outcomes are part of physical observation analysis, with
a statistical survey of the users, interviews with on-site and in-the-field experts, and a
video camera surveillance records analysis, as well as an analysis of smart planning
tools such as Co-Urbanize, Vision Zero, and the Liveability Calculator.
Part IV
Chapter 8: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This Chapter discusses the findings and conclusions from the literature, the method-
ological framework, and the case study of North End Park. It gives a general path
for the application of the Public Space Index in reality, laying common ground
between the theory and practice of placemaking on the ground. It also involves
testing sociability measurements in terms of quantitative authenticity rather than just
an environmental dimension concept. The research was based on a mixed-methods
approach in the case study analysis; Both qualitative and quantitative tools and tech-
niques were used in order to investigate the sociability of public spaces as a driver
for cultural regeneration projects.
The first part of the research involved a literature review to establish a better
understanding of the concept of placemaking. In addition, the important concept of
xviii About This Book
sociability is discussed as a fundamental dimension of urban design as the gener-

ative relationships between people and day-to-day spaces form the collective built
environment. However, it is worth noting that attempting to adapt environmental
psychology into an applied science like urban planning and design is not an easy
task. Sociability is the bridge needed to connect from different perspectives and
correlate the different approaches of these distinct fields. By connecting behaviour
and space through sociability we will be able to develop truly healthy urban space
at a human scale creating liveable places in our parks, squares, and all other public
spaces in general.
Contents
Part I Introduction to Placemaking Theory and Implementation

Strategies in Contemporary Public Spaces and
Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 A Possible Framework for Placemaking in Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Research Approach and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Research Hypothesis and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.1 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Why Public Space? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Definitions of Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Taxonomy, Uses, and Performance of Public Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Rethinking “Public Spaces” or When a Space Becomes
a “Place”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5.1 Placemaking and Climate Change Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5.2 Key Principles of Placemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6.1 Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6.2 The Power of 10+: Applying Placemaking at Every
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6.3 Cultural Programming of Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.7 Social Public Spaces? A Role, a Concept, or an Immeasurable
Quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.8 Place-Based Governance Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
xix
xx Contents
3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects . . . . . . . . 29

3.1 Prologue: The Social Dimension of Urban Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 What Is Sociability? A Possible Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Economic Value of Sociability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4 What Is Social Mixing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.5 Is Sociability Contested in Public Spaces or Is It Affected
by Activities in Public Spaces? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion
and Vitality in Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.6.1 Understanding Social Behaviour and the Character
of Public Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.6.2 Cultural Influences on Sociability Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Part II An Organizational Framework to Assess Sociability of

Public Spaces, a Mixed Methods Approach for a Public
Space Index Deduction
4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases Studies: Boston,
Cambridge, and Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.1 Methodological Analysis of Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2.3 Cultural Programming, Community Games,
and Artwork at the Lawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.4 Placemaking Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.1 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.3.3 Placemaking in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.3.4 Evaluate Short-Term and Long-Term Placemaking
Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3.5 Future Recommendations: Improve Sociability
Around the Edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.4.1 The Urban Highway Project and the Citizen Movement . . . . 58
4.4.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.4.3 The “El llit del Túria es nostro i el volem verd” Civic
Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.4.4 Urban Regeneration of the Highway into Greenway
Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Contents xxi
5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological Framework

Approach: Identifying a Public Space Index (PSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.1 Introduction: Why a Mixed-Methods Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.2 Site Selection: Interpretative Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.3 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Understanding the Model . . . . . . 68
5.4 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Implementing the Model . . . . . . . 69
5.4.1 Public Life Metrics—User Intercept Survey:
Individual Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.4.2 Public Space Metrics—Observational Analysis:
Individual and Groups Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.4.3 Urban Micro Trends: Statistical Analysis Using Smart
Planning Tools and Online Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.5 Case Study Methodology: Data Collection Tools
and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.5.1 Data Collection Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.5.2 User Intercept Survey: Individual Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.5.3 Observational Analysis: Individual and Groups Scales . . . . . 72
5.5.4 Micro Trends: Smart Planning Tools Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.5.5 Evaluation Matrix for the Data Analysis of the Case
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating the Public Space
Index (PSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.6.1 Public Space Index Variables and Measuring Criteria . . . . . . 73
5.6.2 Public Space Index Interpretation of Weighing,
Scoring, and Implementation Techniques
for Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.6.3 Individual Users’ Survey Form (Site Users) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.6.4 In-depth Interviews Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Part III The Case Study of North End Park from Boston,
Massachusetts, USA
6 Learning Case Study: North End Park, Rose Fitzgerald
Kennedy Greenway: Boston, Massachusetts, USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.1 Context Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.1.1 Preliminary Place-based Analysis of the Rose
Kennedy Greenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.1.2 Culturally Oriented Activities on Rose Fitzgerald
6.1.3 Historical Background of the Rose Fitzgerald
6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End Park . . . . . . . . . 93
6.3 North End Park Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
xxii Contents
6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

6.4.1 Physical Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.4.2 Placemaking Programming of Uses and Activities . . . . . . . . 102
6.4.3 Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.5 Conclusion: The North End Park as a Successful “Public
Place” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.1 North End Park: An In-Depth Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2 Visual Observation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.2.1 Visual Observation Analysis: Timeline and Locations . . . . . 108
7.2.2 Visual Observation Analysis: Pedestrians Counts
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.2.3 Visual Observation Analysis: Stationary Activities
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.2.4 Visual Observation Analysis: A Photographic
Storyline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.2.5 Interpretation of Users’ Sociability in North End Park
and Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.2.6 Notes on the Video Camera Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.3 Users Intercept Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
7.3.1 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Timeline and Counts
(See Appendix 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
7.3.2 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7.3.3 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: An In-Depth
Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7.3.4 Discussion of Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.4 Key Informants’ Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.4.1 Key Informants’ Interviews: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.4.2 Key Informant Interviewees and timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.4.3 Interview Results and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools . . . . . . . 149
7.5.1 The Liveability Calculator: Methodology
and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.5.2 The The Liveability Calculator’s Measurement
Metrics: See Appendix 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.5.3 Vision Zero Project: A Real-Time Street Safety
Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.5.4 Co-Urbanize Platform to Imagine Boston 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.6 Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Contents xxiii
Part IV General Discussions and Conclusions

8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.1 Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.2 General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.3.1 Interpretation of the Results from the PSI of the North
End Park Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.3.2 Future Planning in the North End Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.4 General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.4.1 A Vibrant Open Space Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.4.2 Create a Complementary Urban District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.6.1 Meet with the Community and Identify Stakeholders . . . . . . 170
8.6.2 Evaluate Space and Identify Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.6.3 Place Vision and Management Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.6.4 Short-Term Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.6.5 Ongoing Re-Evaluation and Long-Term
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.7 Further Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Appendix 1: Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Appendix 2: Surveys Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Appendix 3: Liveability Calculator Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
About the Author
Israa Hanafi Mahmoud is a Polyglot urban planner and architect by education. Since
2018, she is a Post-Doctoral Researcher Fellow at the Urban Simulation Lab (Fausto
Curti), Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), at Politecnico di
Milano. Now she is the research team leader together with Prof. Eugenio Morello on
CLEVER Cities Project—Funded by the European Commission—Horizon 2020 as
an expert of Co-creation guidance for cities to implement Nature-based solutions in
socially inclusive urban regeneration processes. She holds a Ph.D. in Urban Regen-
eration and Economic Development. In 2016, she pursued her Ph.D. degree in North-
eastern University of Boston MA as an (ESR) early-stage researcher part of a Euro-
pean Commission—MARIE-CURIE Action funded Horizon 2020 Project—GA #
645651—MAPS-LED Project then in 2017, as an Experienced Researcher (ER) in
San Diego State University, CA, USA. In 2010, she earned her bachelor’s degree from
Architectural Engineering Department Alexandria University of Egypt with a major
in Urban Design section about Psychological and Environmental urban design, in a
collaboration programme with Michigan State University and Bauhaus—Universität
Weimar, Germany. In Politecnico di Milano, she also lectures about Nature-Based
Solutions and placemaking in the Master of Science in Urban Planning and Policy
Design, as well as Master of Sustainable Architecture and Landscape design. She is
also an Adjunct professor at the Alleanza Italiana dello sviluppo Sostenibile (ASVIS),
advocating for Climate Change and Environmental sustainability pathways. Lately,
she co-led the Greening Cities, Shaping Cities international symposium at Politec-
nico di Milano, October 2020 and co-edited the latest published book Nature-based
Solutions for Sustainable Urban Planning: Greening Cities, Shaping Cities (2022).
xxv
Part I
Introduction to Placemaking Theory
and Implementation Strategies
in Contemporary Public Spaces
and Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration
Projects
Chapter 1
Introduction
Abstract Placemaking of public spaces is a phenomenon that has arisen in contem-

porary urban cities lately, specifically, those involved in art and cultural urban regen-
eration and, more recently, in climate change challenges. In turn, creative place-
making movement fosters entrepreneurial and cultural activities that generate jobs
and income in most cities. Moreover, when the correct urban development approach
is applied, the outcome can benefit several social target groups such as community
development actors, by increasing economic viability, and cultural vitality. Contem-
porary placemaking, known as creative placemaking, envisions urban public spaces
acting as creative crucibles for citizen engagement between public sector, private
sector, businesses, housing, residents, and visitors. In light of potential radical
changes in the outcomes of placemaking, this book investigates a possible place-
making approach efforts in literature, results from similar examples and finally in
the case of North End Park, on the greenway in Boston, Massachusetts. The final
aim of looking at these areas of research is to revitalise public spaces and improve
their sociability; and to emphasise their significant role towards sustainable commu-
nity development, in general and specifically in green-based urban regeneration
processes.
Keywords Placemaking · Urban design · Public spaces
1.1 A Possible Framework for Placemaking in Cities
With the trend towards greater economic urbanisation and the rapid emergence of
mega-cities continuing unabated (Brenner and Schmid 2015; European Commission
2015; Oliveira and Mell 2019), many policy makers ask themselves whether some
cities are becoming too large, and whether policies should be aimed at stimulating the
growth of intermediate-sized cities (UN-Habitat 2010; Desmet and Rossi-Hansberg
2014). In this light, this research tries to identify models for successful public spaces
in a system of cities, together with some basic urban and aggregate data that can be
used to help identify the success of sociability phenomenon, considering the issues
related to the built environment in a structural setting of cultural-based environment
and economic attributes of public spaces.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 3

I. H. Mahmoud, Placemaking for Green Urban Regeneration, The Urban Book Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_1
4 1 Introduction
For this reason, the sociability of public spaces and the need for new methods to
understand the robustness of public life metrics together with the quality of life in
the public realm is believed to contribute to social mixing of people in current urban
regeneration projects. According to this notion, the focus shifted from empirical data
research to implementation of evidence-based and qualitative/quantitative user-based
design, to support planning decisions to make cities better for people.
Meanwhile, the public realm teaches us that civic equalisation, and design and
planning tools could be equally critical issues for divisions in cities. The mutual
interaction between one’s personal space and social space depends mostly on the
public realm itself. Commutes to work, park walks, a coffee in a plaza; such activities
are the experiences that shape the tolerability, civic commons, and inclusiveness of
a public space.
A closer look at the relationship between public life and public space reveals a
mutual interest. People could sit, enjoy the shadow of a canopy tree, walk pleas-
antly, and/or observe a prevalent visual. Nonetheless, inclusive planning of any
public spaces, influenced by furnishings, types of seating, commercial and cultural
attractions, sidewalks, paving characteristics, etc., catalogues the attractiveness in
the public realm at this fine-grain scale.
This book aims to investigate the taxonomy of successful public urban spaces
meanings in green urban regeneration settings. It also sets out to analyse different
interpretations for public spaces and their significant role in generating social capital
in general, and specifically in urban regeneration processes. The major focus is to
understand the functional aspects of public spaces (urban design features, physical
design elements, cultural values generated, etc.) and their correlation with the social
capital importance of an urban regeneration process, see Fig. 1.1.
Urban design is believed to play a determining role in the quality of existing
and new urban areas by influencing the various dimensions of urban form: urban
layout, land use distribution, building types, density, and mobility infrastructure
(Colantonio and Dixon 2011; UN-Habitat 2014) thus, the need to articulate this within
the trending framework of urban regeneration, as the ultimate goals for urban public
spaces are for people to enjoy them and to provide a gathering place for social events
demonstrating different characteristics and real-life scenario stages (Appleyard 1981;
Gehl Architects 2004; Gehl 2006; Gehl and Svarre 2013; Appleyard et al. 2014).
In addition, it seeks to figure out the importance of social activities in public spaces,
as highlighted by Sassen (2005) in terms of raising the degree of spatial and socio-
economic inequalities in global cities. Dempsey (2010) also put forward a different
planning theory that relies on the benefits of the compact city movement that calls
for development by extending mixed-use approach, walkable communities, cycling,
and increasing social interaction that leads to safety consequences as highlighted by
Ameli et al. (2015).
In any case, the placemaking approach and the city-we-need approach (PPS and
UN-Habitat 2015) are discussed in order to evaluate how the placemaking trend
is improving the efficiency of socio-economic performance in green urban regen-
eration policies. It also covers the newly introduced implementation strategies of
1.1 A Possible Framework for Placemaking in Cities 5
Introduction
PLACEMAKING SOCIABILITY
Placemaking & Sociability EVALUATION FRAMEWORK fill-in the gap

between top-down/bottom-up implementation
▪ Public Life/ Public Life Model explanation
▪ Data collection Tools and Techniques
▪ Evaluation Matrix + PUBLIC SPACE INDEX
NORTHEND PARK IMPLEMENTATION
Fig. 1.1 Book parts and chapter’s structure

6 1 Introduction
placemaking such as the power of 10+ or the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper technique
(LQC).
Further public space case studies are considered in order to evaluate the proposed
urban form analysis methods over a wider range of urban configurations with different
mobility and socio-economic contexts. For example, the Lawn on D project in
the new Boston Innovation District represents a traditionally monocentric urban
region of private-led urban regeneration, the Harvard Square is another example that
demonstrates a successful Public–Private Partnership in placemaking initiatives.
These additional case studies would provide information on the general applica-
bility of the analysis methods and their principles. Lastly, the Public Space Index
aims to contextually analyse the performance of certain cases—such as the North
End Park in this research—in order to better understand the correlation between
some urban planning approaches (such as the placemaking implementation strate-
gies: power of 10+ or LQC) and the Environmental Psychology field studies (such
as the sociability phenomenon).
Summing up, the designated point of arrival is the triangulation of the data
collected, see Fig. 1.1, based on the robust evaluation criteria on which the Public
Space Index is built. Finally, a general discussion is conducted, and findings are
drawn based on the aforementioned analysis; moreover, some limitations to the
research and recommendations are given, based on the premises.
1.2 Research Approach and Methodology
The research in this book attempts to push the knowledge forward in order to under-
stand the sociability phenomenon of public spaces (by analysing different demo-
graphic and social indicators) and their effect on social aggregation and segregation,
in order to generate cultural capital in public spaces in contemporary city morpholo-
gies, in addition to the specific importance of public spaces in urban regeneration
processes.
• Investigate several aspects of public spaces (social, cultural, economic, etc.).
• Correlate several aspects of the formation of public spaces in terms of generating
cultural spillover.
• Evaluate public space sociability as a driver for cultural regeneration processes.
Within this discipline, this research attempts to study the relation between the
social approach as a valuable concept and the placemaking approach, in order
to improve the understanding of how people use public spaces, their motivational
attitude, and how urban designers can stimulate a better qualified built environment
in order to generate cultural spillover.
Finally, this research calculates a numerical Public Space Index (PSI) that
considers the quantification of the sociability of public space attributes and eval-
uation criteria in correlation with placemaking implementation strategies in urban
regeneration projects.
1.4 Aims and Objectives 7
1.3 Research Hypothesis and Problem Statement
To what extent does the diversity and sociability mixture in public spaces affect the
quality of those public spaces? How robust are the socio-demographic metrics for
changing the facets of public policies concerned with the diversity of public life?
How are findings comparable between different taxonomies of public spaces? How
do cultural programming strategies impact the variety of people who spend time in
public spaces? What are the measurable outcomes of public life sociability in the
case study of North End Park, and did the change from a highway to a greenway
affect the cultural aspects of the surrounding area?
1.4 Aims and Objectives
This book aims to investigate the multidisciplinary relationship between the built-
up urban spaces and the social effect users have over them; using this approach
to reformulate the theoretical-operational paradigms of urban—social, cultural, and
sociological—morphology.
It addresses the question of understanding: What relationships are there between
urban design qualities and the human social dimension in public urban spaces?
How can we analyse people’s perception of public urban spaces? What methods
and tools are used for evaluating the interrelation of human social—urban qualities
with cultural activities in green spaces?
1.4.1 Aims
• To acknowledge the role of urban design enterprises and local economic

development within the social context of a built-up environment.
• To explore innovative approaches to cultural-led urban regeneration policies, in
order to strengthen Public–Private Partnerships.
• To improve knowledge and skill in relation to different forms of Public–Private
Partnerships implemented for urban regeneration initiatives.
• To also apply a nature-based solution to the cultural, financial, social, and environ-
mental feasibility of urban and territorial transformation based on community-led
and place-based approaches.
1.4.2 Objectives
1. Evaluate the relationship between urban spatial configuration and the human
social and economic behavioural experience and understanding of specific public
places’ urban qualities.
8 1 Introduction
2. Analyse people’s perception of city public space models through theoretical and
conceptual models (with variations in scale/purpose).
3. Highlight the importance of activities observed in different public spaces in
terms of (stationary/physical/cultural/transit) aspects. In this specific approach,
measuring the people/place relationship using three methods: visual, interaction,
and statistical.
4. Develop a matrix for evaluating the interrelation between social and economic
principles and the formation of urban design using qualitative and quantitative
methods.
References
Ameli SH, Hamidi S, Garfinkel-Castro A, Ewing R (2015) Do better urban design qualities lead
to more walking in Salt Lake City, Utah? J Urban Des 20:393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/135
74809.2015.1041894
Appleyard D (1981) Livable streets. University of California Press, Berkeley
Appleyard B, Ferrell CE, Carroll MA, Taecker M (2014) Toward livability ethics. Transp Res Rec
2403:62–71. https://doi.org/10.3141/2403-08
Brenner N, Schmid C (2015) Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City 19:151–182. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712
Colantonio A, Dixon T (2011) Urban regeneration & social sustainability: best practice from
European cities. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/
9781444329445
Dempsey N (2010) Revisiting the compact city. Built Environ 36:5–8. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.
36.1.5
de Oliveira FL, Mell I (2019) Planning cities with nature. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-01866-5
Desmet K, Rossi-Hansberg E (2014) Analyzing urban systems: have mega-cities become too large?,
pp 1–30. http://www.princeton.edu/~erossi/WBChapterKD%26ERH.pdf
European Commission (2015) Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-
based solutions & re-naturing cities. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/765301
Gehl Architects (2004) Zurich public spaces. Quality & use analyses for 18 selected public streets,
squares, and parks. Report presented to Stadt Zurich and delegation fur wirtschaft und offentlichen
raum des stadtrates. March–September 2004
Gehl J (2006) Life, spaces, buildings. In: Urban design futures. Routledge, London, pp 70–75
Gehl J, Svarre B (2013) Public space, public life: an interaction. In: How to study public life. Island
Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–8
PPS, UN-Habitat (2015) Placemaking and the future of cities. http://www.pps.org/wp-content/upl
oads/2015/02/Placemaking-and-the-Future-of-Cities.pdf. Accessed 3 Oct 2022
Sassen S (2005) The global city: introducing a concept. Brown J World Aff XI:27–43
UN-Habitat (2010) State of the world’s cities 2010/2011-cities for all: bridging the
urban divide. https://unhabitat.org/state-of-the-worlds-cities-20102011-cities-for-all-bridging-
the-urban-divide. Accessed 3 Oct 2022
UN-Habitat (2014) The economics of urban form: a literature review. https://unhabitat.org/
sites/default/files/download-manager-files/The%20Economics%20of%20Urban%20Form.pdf.
Accessed 3 Oct 2022
Chapter 2
Public Spaces and Placemaking
Approach: The Implementation
Strategies
Abstract The focus of this chapter is to identify the definitions of public spaces
and the role they play in daily life, whether cultural or social. In addition to that, the
chapter aims to analyse placemaking as an approach “in practice” to better regenerate
public spaces in contemporary cities, and how the different implementation tech-
niques and strategies used for placemaking have proven to provide diverse economic
and social results. Thus, placemaking is not an easy topic to wrestle with; the imple-
mentation policies differ widely between European and US contexts. Definitions
are tricky and fundamentally intertwined with the execution level to which strate-
gies lead, whether that be a top-down approach from a governmental agency or a
bottom-up approach from grassroots or citizen movements.
Keywords Public spaces · Placemaking · Urban regeneration
2.1 Why Public Space?
Contemporary trends indicate that urban design is stressed in public urban spaces.
Public spaces have been involved in urban revitalisation projects to create a symbol of
city identity, as well as proving to be a useful tool for regeneration processes (Ramlee
et al. 2015). In line with these trends, this part of the book aims to define the role of
public space in contributing to areas of scientific research in terms of (1) definition,
(2) placemaking concept, (3) types of public spaces, and (4) evaluating that role
within a framework that promotes a social contribution to the cultural-based urban
regeneration process (Miles and Paddison 2005). Moreover, the focus on the “criteria
of successes” of public urban spaces is somehow determined based on the users’
perception. These, in fact, include various aspects of motivation, purposes, diversity,
and differences in activities according to cultural backgrounds, local characteristics,
and social cohesion. Hence, this study stresses the role of urban public spaces in
new revitalising developments or bringing public spaces in cities to the forefront of
cultural regeneration developments.
With ideas of equality, plurality, and progress constituting part of its very foun-
dations, the contemporary cities are today facing new challenges arising from their
exponential growth and increasing social and cultural complexity. Some of society’s

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_2
10 2 Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The Implementation …
main problems are expressed in its public spaces (CCCB 2012; Ulldemolins 2014):
segregation, rampant construction, and deficiencies in guaranteeing the rights to
housing and to the city are some of the phenomena that are putting the ideal of the
open and democratic community that has always been so distinctive of cultural cities
into jeopardy. Thus, urban regeneration is a useful tool in understanding cultural
clustering and place branding in contemporary cities.
An important notion in Western thought about public space is that of an “unre-
strained public sphere” in which social and political movements can occur. Although
public space is referred to as a space for participation and amicable social behaviour,
it is also a territory contested between various groups, between private and public,
and between regulating authorities and the citizenry. Scholars agree that uncondi-
tional universal access to public space is almost impossible (Lofland 2010; Carmona
2014; City Space Architecture 2014; Pollock 2014). Nevertheless, access and use
are good measures for defining and evaluating public space, even if they do not
capture all dimensions of public space, they do cover several crucial and fundamental
dimensions of public space in contemporary society.
On that, public spaces are inherently multidimensional. Successful and genuine
public spaces are used by many different people for many different purposes at many
separate times of the day and the year. Because public spaces welcome so many uses
and users—or fail to do so—they are also where a staggering cross-section of local
and global issues converge (PPS 2016).
2.2 Definitions of Public Spaces
While definitions of what public space is are contested, it is still possible to identify
common characteristics that change across spaces and time have kept intact. It takes
the work of protagonist Jane Jacobs (1961) to understand the role of public spaces
in our “urban way of life,” consisting of cultural openness and tolerance, or William
Whyte’s (1980a) masterpiece on social life of public spaces as relevant elements
of people’s quality of life, drawn from observations for designing public spaces for
people.
Then, it is also fundamental to approach Gehl’s (1987) definition of public spaces
as being “responsive, democratic, and meaningful spaces in the city like streets,
squares, plazas, and urban green spaces, which are open and accessible to everyone
for gathering and socialising.” This definition shaped the overall idea about public
space being the centre when it comes to public spatial practice. Later, Gehl (2010)
developed criteria for assessing the qualities of public spaces in cities. Among these,
enjoyment covers the human scale, the aspects of sensory experiences in a place, the
different measures to investigate the physical characteristics of public spaces, and
how people use public spaces and interact there daily. Later, that approach changed
public policies adopted on many governmental levels in some European cities (City
of Copenhagen 2009).
2.2 Definitions of Public Spaces 11
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 organisations, and hence is open to the general public” (Mada-
nipour 1996, 144; 2006). 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). Contemporary definitions of public
spaces have been brought to the forefront of academia and the new urban agenda
lately by the UN-Habitat (2016, 7), as a matter of quality-of-life indicator in the
transformative power of urbanisation, by looking at public spaces as drivers of pros-
perity. In 2011, at the 23rd Session of the Governing Council of UN-Habitat, member
states mandated UN-Habitat to consolidate agency-wide work on public space, to
develop and promote public space policies, co-ordination, disseminate knowledge
and directly assist cities in public space initiatives (UN-Habitat 2015). As a matter of
fact, ten policy tools were amended to be used for public spaces in different contexts
based on the analysis of diverse case studies; nonetheless, these general policies
focus mainly on the dilemma between goals and constraints to achieve better public
spaces.
The term “public” has long been a key concept for interpreting and shaping collec-
tive human life. With roots in Ancient Greece, it has played a constituent role in
the development of modernity from the eighteenth century onwards. In a sphere of
publicness, citizens are said to develop their deliberative capacities and identities,
make claims for recognition and transform multiple self-concerns into a recognised
common interest (Koch and Latham 2012).
Classic conceptions of public space have been those of citizens gathered in the city
in an ideally civil manner: the agora in Ancient Greece; the piazzas of Renaissance
Italy; the streets and coffeehouses of the modern city. In the 1990s, urban public
space emerged as a key focus of geographical concern. Empirically, scholars became
attentive to how the ongoing reconfiguration of all sorts of public spaces was linked
to wider processes of urban transformation.
Public space is an integral part of the public realm and is receiving increased atten-
tion across the range of social science and humanities disciplines. Each academic
discipline views through a different lens and with particular interests and concerns to
the fore, (Hanafi Mahmoud, et al. 2013). Political scientists, for example, generally
focus on democratisation and on rights; geographers on sense of place and “place
lessness”; anthropologists and sociologists on the historical construction and subjec-
tive value of place; legal scholars on access and control in public places (Carmona
2021).
The relative “publicness” of space can be considered in terms of three qualities:
• Ownership—whether the space is publicly or privately owned, and whether—and
in what sense—it constitutes “neutral” ground.
• Access—whether the public has access to the space. This poses the question of
whether a place becomes private when an admission fee is charged: consider, for
example, the difference between museums for which an entry fee is charged and
for which no entry fee is charged: is one public and the other not, or are neither
public While, in urban design terms, “accessibility” is the capacity to enter and
use a space, not all public spaces are “open” and accessible to everyone.
• Use—whether the space is actively used and shared by different individuals and
groups.
This notion was basically initiated by the Charter of Public Space1 (INU 2013, 6,
7) as a key policy document to outline a useful working definition and description
of public spaces as follows:
Public spaces are all places publicly owned or of public use, accessible and enjoyable by
all for free and without a profit motive. Public spaces are a key element of individual and
social well-being, the places of a community’s collective life, expressions of the diversity
of their common, natural, and cultural richness and a foundation of their identity. […] The
community recognises itself in its public places and pursues the improvement of their spatial
quality.
2.3 Taxonomy, Uses, and Performance of Public Space
Carmona (2010) states that public space narrowly defined relates to all those parts
of the built and natural environment to which the public has free access by typology.
It encompasses all the streets, squares, and other rights of way, the open spaces
and parks, and the public/private spaces to which public access is unrestricted, see
Table 2.1.
Parks would be one typical example of green space, while their counterpart the
square would typically be grey space. It is possible to generalise space in terms of
the dominant form or to subdivide it if it is large enough, to describe the space more
accurately. Squares in particular can be defined as intentionally built multi-purpose
open spaces framed by buildings on most sides, usually grey space, and often open
to public access. In accordance with this typology, plazas, like other open spaces,
squares range in scale in relation to city, neighbourhood, and residence, or city-wide,
intermediate, and individual buildings. This emphasises how they are used within
the city as well as their scale rather than their precise size. City scale would refer to
squares or plazas often planned by the government and aimed at serving substantial
portions of population. The intermediate scale impacts multiple residences at local
levels of neighbourhoods, districts, or block levels. A square contained between indi-
vidual buildings or private residences even may have an interior courtyard that might
be only neighbourhood accessible, for instance. With this typology in mind, public
spaces, and squares are historically reviewed in terms of perception importance.
Probably the most coherent literature review on uses and performance of public
space starts with Kevin Lynch’s (1981) “Dimensions of Performance” with vitality,
1 In 2008, under the aegis of the National Planning Institute (INU), the initiative of a Biennial on
public space was launched. In 2013, UN-Habitat engaged in the official partnership and actively
participated in the drafting, review, and adoption of the charter of public space by many city councils
for the development of public spaces.
2.4 Rethinking “Public Spaces” or When a Space Becomes a “Place”? 13
Table 2.1 Urban space types classification

Space type Distinguishing characteristics Examples
Positive spaces
1. Natural/semi-natural Natural and semi-natural features Rivers, natural features,
space/green Space within urban areas, typically under seafronts, canals
State ownership
2. Civic space The traditional forms of urban Streets, squares, promenades
space, open and available to all
even if temporarily controlled
3. Public open space Managed open space, typically Parks, gardens, commons,
green and available and open to urban forests, cemeteries
all, even if temporarily controlled
Negative spaces
4. Movement space Space dominated by movement Main roads, motorways,
needs, largely for motorised railways, underpasses
transportation
5. Service space Space dominated by modern Car parks, service yards
servicing requirement needs
6. Left over space Space left over after development, “SLOAP” (space left over
often designed without function after planning), Modernist
open space
7. Undefined space Undeveloped space, either Redevelopment space,
abandoned or awaiting Abandoned or transient spaces
development
sense, fit, access, and control as the five main criteria for evaluating the city’s provi-
sion of place quality, on the basis of the society occupying it (cultural values implied,
see Patil and Patil [2016]) and not solely with reference to the spatial form of the
city. Along the same lines, Clifton et al. (2008) argue that the impact of urban design
on people’s perception and the dimensional performance of a space are an important
qualitative interpretation of the environment in the form of psychological measures
rather than only cleanliness, attractiveness, and pedestrian friendliness qualities.
2.4 Rethinking “Public Spaces” or When a Space Becomes

a “Place”?
The distinction between “Public Space” and a “Place” is a slippery concept. In

the existing body of literature as well as in policy documents both terms are used
interchangeably. However, not all public spaces are effective “Places” (Chen et al.
2013; Zamanifarda et al. 2016). Indeed, more often the failure of attempting to create
“places” out of regeneration or retrofitting projects, is considered as creating barriers
between people and their places due to them being unsafe, inaccessible, exclusive,
abandoned, or poorly maintained on a variety of scales.
However, the idea of the public space at the centre of the user’s identity or building
spaces around people’s culture is not new or innovative. The Commission for Archi-
tecture and the Built Environment (CABE 2007) introduced the concept of building
public spaces based on a process of measurement whereas the characteristics involved
the access, use, people, environment, design, surrounding community, and the user.
That guide paved the way to involving a variety of diverse groups of people and to
developing relations between users and their space, by measuring the qualities and
recording individual perceptions of their space. In compliance with this, acknowl-
edging human-led design (putting the user at the centre of the policy and planning)
in the so-called “Placemaking Process”—by which physical environment is made
meaningful, or a space becomes a “place”—leads to rethinking about the ways place-
led governance (putting the place at the centre of planning policies) is a key step in
creating safer, healthier places and rebuilding inclusive communities (Locke 2013;
Foo et al. 2014; Mackenzie 2015; Main and Sandoval 2015; Kelkar and Spinelli
2016).
Any research on placemaking would be incomplete without examining the role
of the Project for Public Spaces (PPS)2 in defining the field. Founded in New York
City by Fred Kent in 1975 to build on the work of William “Holly” Whyte and his
Street Life Project, PPS has been championing placemaking since that time. Building
on these premises, one of the most important human-led urban design models for
successful public spaces is the model built by PPS (2009a) in turn from places,
whereas “Sociability”—highlighted in purple—is seen as an “unmistakable feature”
to attain and achieve, see Fig. 2.1.
In evaluating thousands of public spaces around the world, PPS found that to be
successful, they share the following four qualities: they are accessible; people are
engaged in activities there; the space is comfortable and has a good image; and
finally, it is a sociable place: one where people meet each other and take people
when they come to visit. PPS developed The Place Diagram above as a tool to help
people to judge any place, good or bad. The model is place-based, the centre circle
in the diagram is a specific place, a street corner, a playground, a plaza outside a
building. That place could be evaluated according to the four criteria in the orange
ring. In the ring outside these main criteria are a number of intuitive or qualitative
aspects by which to judge a place; the next outer ring shows the quantitative aspects
that can be measured by statistics or research.
Today, the term placemaking is used in many settings, not just by citizens and
organisations committed to grassroots community improvement, but also by planners
and developers who use it as a “brand” to imply authenticity and quality, even if their
projects do not always live up to that promise. Using “Placemaking” in reference to
a process that is not really rooted in public participation dilutes its potential value
(Vazquez 2012; Montgomery 2016; URBACT, n.a.).
2 https://www.pps.org.
2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking? 15
Fig. 2.1 PPS Model of successful public spaces in the urban sphere, the Model originated in 2009
and was then updated3
A great public space cannot be measured by its physical attributes alone; it must
also serve people as a vital community resource in which function always trumps form
(Sepe 2018). When people of all ages, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds can
not only access and enjoy a place, but also play a key role in its identity, creation, and
maintenance, that is when genuine placemaking is in action. The mutual influence
of community and place is, in other words, called the virtuous cycle of placemaking,
see Fig. 2.2; whereas mutual stewardship and community engagement grow and
provides the opportunity to enter, maintain, programme, and enliven on an ongoing
basis (MIT—DUSP 2013).
2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking?
In literature, placemaking refers to “a collaborative process of shaping the public

realm in order to maximize shared value. More than promoting better urban design,
placemaking facilitates use, paying particular attention to the physical, cultural, and
social identities that define a place and support its ongoing evolution” (PPS 2017).
3 https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat.
Fig. 2.2 Placemaking process virtuous cycle (Source MIT—DUSP 2013, 12)
Hence, placemaking is both a philosophy and a practical process for transforming

public spaces. It is centred on observing, listening to, and asking questions of the
people who live, work, and play in a particular space in order to understand their
needs and aspirations for that space and for their community as a whole (Callanan
2014; PPS 2018).
In the growing body of the literature, contemporary placemaking is based on the
teachings of Whyte (1980b) and Gehl and Svarre (2013) as well as the retheorising
urban design theorem introduced by Carmona (2015, 2017), whereas public space
will be affected by the socio-economic and political context within which it is shaped.
Understanding the merging of interdisciplinary spheres over time is non-negotiable,
the placemaking process has intrinsically been accompanied by the physical, social,
economic, and cultural qualities of urban public realm.
Rather, the placemaking concept is based on a simple principle; by planning
cities for cars and traffic, we will get cars and traffic. Planning cities for people and
places, we will get people and places. Yet puzzled by community fabrics, economic
development, and sustainability, governments at all levels must recognise the forma-
tion of public spaces and places as the core incremental process of city-making.
Bearing that in mind, the obstacles facing designing and planning public spaces in
contemporary cities with sustainability challenges have become more complex, more
environmental, as highlighted by Santos Nouri and Pedro Costa (2017), and in need
of continuous adjustments.
2.5.1 Placemaking and Climate Change Approach
The objective of restructuring is not to compete with the other factors as established
by the PPS. Instead, the goal is to complete a generic approach in identifying the
2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking? 17
wholesome “success” of a given public space in a century that can witness continually
growing climatic threats, see Fig. 2.3.
Over time the placemaking concept developed towards the new field of creative
placemaking by describing how this approach could sustain the intersection of
community and cultural and economic development (Vazquez 2012). The National
Endowment Act in 2014, used the definition of “creative placemaking” that is
provided from Ann Markusen and Anne Gadwa Nicodemus’s white paper (2010):
In creative placemaking, partners from public, private, non-profit and community sectors
strategically shape the physical and social character of a neighbourhood, town, tribe, city or
region around arts and cultural activities. Creative placemaking animates public and private
spaces, rejuvenates structures and streetscapes, improves local business viability and public
safety, and brings diverse people together to celebrate, inspire and be inspired.
Having said so, the belief is that effective placemaking centres local commu-
nity, and results in the creation of quality public spaces; those quality public spaces
Fig. 2.3 Environmental climatic comfort model by PPS revised by Santos Nouri and Pedro Costa
(2017)
contribute to people’s health, happiness, and well-being (Sepe 2017, 2018). The core
of the placemaking movement remains the people themselves, in a survey by PPS
(2009b), the public spaces developed by the creative placemaking movement meant
the following: “…designing a public space that can be used by the community as a
meeting place for communication, fun, relaxation, bonding, and civic involvement,
to name a few.”
2.5.2 Key Principles of Placemaking
While creative placemaking goes beyond community development as a concept,

the lack of metrics and models that show the economic and social impact that arts
and culture projects have in community are key barriers to broader integration in
the different contexts of community revitalisation (The Kresge Foundation 2015).
Unfortunately, the rigid planning processes of the twentieth century have become
so institutionalised that community stakeholders rarely have the chance to voice
their own ideas and aspirations about the places they inhabit. Placemaking can break
down these barriers by showing planners, designers, and engineers the broad value of
moving beyond the narrow focus of their own professions, disciplines, and agendas.
Considered as the Springboard for community revitalisation, the placemaking
approach offers wide guidelines for communities to integrate cohesive visions and
translate them into a plan, in other words, to translate theory into practice. Meanwhile,
it ensures the plan’s sustainable implementation (Kelkar and Spinelli 2016). In that
regard, it is believed that placemaking belongs to everyone, its message and mission
are bigger than any one person or organisation. Table 2.2 summarises the distinct
roles that placemaking could be playing in current everyday lives, and above all in
the growing field of human urban design.
2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies
While there are many strategies for transforming cities and public spaces, the growing
momentum relies on effective and immediate solutions for regenerating public spaces
rather than traditional top-down approaches to improving cities (PPS 2017). Another
approach to the field of creative placemaking implementation strategies builds on the
definition of the Transportation for America Initiative (The Scenic Route, see
Fig. 2.4) by encompassing the arts and Culture in the transportation planning field
as follows:
In the transportation context, creative placemaking is an approach that deeply engages the
arts, culture, and creativity, especially from underrepresented communities, in planning and
designing projects so that the resulting communities better reflect and celebrate local culture,
heritage and values. (Transportation4America 2018)
2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies 19
Table 2.2 Placemaking key

Placemaking is Placemaking is not
principles from theory to
practice 1. Community-driven 2. Top-down
3. Visionary 4. Reactionary
5. Function before form 6. Design-driven
7. Adaptable 8. A blanket solution or quick fix
9. Inclusive 10. Exclusionary
11. Focused on creating 12. Car-centric
destinations
13. Context-specific 14. One-size-fits-all
15. Dynamic 16. Static
17. Trans-disciplinary 18. Discipline-driven
19. Transformative 20. One-dimensional
21. Flexible 22. Dependent on regulatory
controls
23. Collaborative 24. A cost/benefit analysis
25. Sociable 26. Project-focused
Fig. 2.4 Creative placemaking project—Downtown Memphis Murals (Source http://www.downto

wnmemphis.com/downtown-mural-guide/)
The inclusion of the arts and cultural programming at the basis of the placemaking
approach somehow became revolutionary in the years 2011–2013. The reason is the
major new US cultural policy and funding trend—creative placemaking, wherein
cross-sector partners strategically shape the social and physical character of a place
(Nicodemus 2012, 2013, 2014). However, the main concerns with implementation
of creative placemaking were about financing such a concept. If not funded, local
communities remain underprivileged in terms of such opportunities. That initiated
the growing momentum to get “back to the basics” of what makes cities thrive,
and how art catalyses Cultural Destinations within Neighbourhoods, as an economic
driver to prosperity (Holmes 2016).
2.6.1 Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper4 Strategy
Since the quality of a public space has always been best defined by the people
who use it. Many of the most effective and immediate solutions proposed by
communities are lighter, quicker, and cheaper than traditional top-down approaches
to improving cities. Hence, one of the most common strategies is the so-called
“Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper (LQC)” approach that is proof that expensive and
labour-intensive initiatives are not the only nor the most effective ways to bring
energy and life into a community’s public space. United under the core principles
of community vision, cost-effectiveness, collaboration, and citizen-led change, this
exciting movement goes by many names—action-planning, guerrilla urbanism, pop-
up projects, city repair, D.I.Y. Urbanism, and Tactical Urbanism (Bazzu and Talu
2017; Lydon and Garcia 2015). All are seen as important tools and catalysts for
larger community-based placemaking processes (Gildner et al. 2014).
The proliferation of LQC efforts all over the world signals the emergence of a
powerful, networked, and creative movement, and it shows that more and more people
are beginning to see how communities can be created and transformed by making
a series of affordable, human-scale, and near-term changes (Bravo et al. 2012).
Although many of the challenges facing today’s cities go well beyond the scope
of these individual interventions, taken together they demonstrate that incremental
and place-led change is possible, even in the midst of ongoing social, economic, and
political obstacles.
To sum up, the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper approach is not for every situation
(it may not be the right solution, for example, for large infrastructural projects like
building bridges), but it can be a creative, locally powered alternative to the kind of
capital-heavy and top-down planning processes that so often yield end results that
are completely detached from the needs and desires of the communities they are
meant to serve.
2.6.2 The Power of 10+: Applying Placemaking at Every

Scale
The power of 10+ is a concept PPS developed to evaluate and facilitate placemaking
at multiple city scales. It is a powerful tool for generating constructive conversations
to identify targeted placemaking efforts. Cities succeed or fail at the human scale—
the place scale—and this scale is often overlooked. The power of 10+ shows how
paying attention to the human experience when building a city’s destinations and
districts can have immediate and widespread impacts, see Fig. 2.5.
4 “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” is a phrase borrowed from Eric Reynolds (Master Of Low-Cost,
High-Return Public Space Interventions in London and NYC) to describe the simple, short-term,
and low-cost solutions that are having remarkable impacts on the shaping of neighbourhoods
and cities.
2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies 21
Fig. 2.5 Power of 10+ as a placemaking strategy on a place scale
The idea behind this concept is that places thrive when users have a range of
reasons (10+) to be there. These might include a place to sit, playgrounds to enjoy,
art to touch, music to hear, food to eat, history to experience, and people to meet.
Ideally, some of these activities will be unique to that particular place, reflecting
the culture and history of the surrounding community. Local residents who use this
space most regularly will be the best source of ideas for which uses will work best.
Further, when cities contain at least 10 of these destinations or districts, their public
perception begins to shift among both locals and tourists, and urban centres can
become better equipped for generating resilience and innovation (PPS 2014).
The power of 10 expands across the cities’ scale as well, not just the place. In
fact, the UN-Habitat (2016) initiated the movement to bring public spaces as a policy
tool to change the urban planning management system. Yet, in 2014 PPS lead the
way with 10 amending strategies for transforming cities and public spaces through
placemaking, as follows:
1. Improving streets as places.
2. Creating squares and parks as multi-use destinations.
3. Building local economies opportunities through market places.
4. Designing buildings to support public places.
5. Linking the public health agenda to public spaces.
6. Re-inventing community planning.
7. Utilising the power of 10+ on a place scale.
8. Creating comprehensive public space agendas.
9. Experimenting with the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper approach.

10. Restructuring the government to support public spaces.
In essence, the 10 amending strategies opened the window of opportunities for
communities to thrive and implement what they think is convenient on their scales.
The governmental approach to supporting public spaces changed over time and,
the implementation process is where the cities’ consultation processes take place.
However, current trends in cities in which placemaking has taken hold, have involved
local government in making the change happen through community development
organisations, business improvement districts, and neighbourhood partnerships.
2.6.3 Cultural Programming of Public Spaces
In a debatable article by Southworth (2014) the argument extends to the cultural

programming of public spaces and how is as important as physical design, whereas
the elements of urban design might stimulate the social life and the setting for public
spaces. Such a demonstration of active edges, attractions for people of all ages and
social backgrounds, comfortable spaces for sitting and observing the urban scene,
or the works of art that engage imagination are the social drivers for the success of
public spaces.
Nikitin (2012) stresses the role the public spaces play as hubs and centres
for contemporary cultural changes. Even with the shifting attitudes, people are
demanding more inspiring, interactive gathering places. While the ideas of creative
class and creatively engaged people are at the forefront of academia (Florida 2002;
Markusen 2006); creating great, engaging centres of culture are the product of great
placemaking; and that is where the cultural programming of public spaces kicks-in.
Despite huge changes in technology, cultural changes, and context, public spaces
have maintained their liveability and continue to serve as the city’s outdoor living
room, and it is therefore undeniable that public spaces are to play a leading social
role.
2.7 Social Public Spaces? A Role, a Concept,

or an Immeasurable Quality?
Outlining the defined role and the cultural value of public spaces has been a long-
debated subject in academia, the political environment, and in professionally inter-
ested communities. The differences in definitions, types of public spaces, quality
goals, implementation strategies, as well as the challenges facing cities nowadays are
the major contradictions between the planned urban developments and the achieved
on-site plans.
2.7 Social Public Spaces? A Role, a Concept … 23
Project for Public Spaces (PPS 2014) offers a guide on how to design sociable
public spaces that are rich in activities and able to guarantee access and linkages: a
guide which is widely used by urban planners to design new or revitalise existing
public spaces, in a sustainable way.
Public spaces—streets, squares, and parks—afford an essential human opportunity for inter-
action, exchange, creativity, and knowledge transfer. They support the capabilities of resi-
dents to improve their own prosperity, health, and well-being, and to modify their own
relations to one another and adapt to conditions and opportunities. On such a connective
matrix, great cities grow.
On one hand, UN-Habitat (2015) recognises the role of public spaces to generate
social capital as an essential part of the “city we need” call, see Fig. 2.6.
On the other hand, urban regeneration of public spaces involves distressed urban
areas, through actions, programmes, and policies on a larger scale, in order to improve
the living conditions; with the development of public spaces, parks, squares, etc.,
and mobilisation of cultural capital (defined as rejuvenation of significant outdoor
spaces). This includes the role of economic and commercial facts about public spaces
as well, which is the focus of the economic regeneration process; it also points out
how urban regeneration tools based on the leverage of “Public–Private Partnerships
Fig. 2.6 The city we need model (Source UN-Habitat 2015)

(PPP)” can give different public spaces a local sense of “place” as an iconographic
symbol of the community and develop this as an outcome.
Yet, the fact of the space itself remains, the guarantees that this space is attrac-
tive to people, how individuals meet, move through the “space,” and interact with
each other; that, in itself, is the heart of public life diversity. This kind of social
behaviour intersects with socio-economic trends, street networks, and down to the
fine-grain small-scale urban furniture, landscape, and programme analysis. In fact,
contemporary theories of urban morphologies encompass the “urban whole” and
the ways the city develops by responding to human behaviour (Bravo and Crawford
2014; Karssenberg and Laven 2012). In other words, public spaces, when they are
part of the entire urban context, are subject to place-based policies. These forces are
somehow constraints on the place’s social development.
2.8 Place-Based Governance Policies
In a controversial article on place-based policies, Robin Hambleton (2015) articu-

lates the role of civic leaders in framing governance of their places. Whereas various
powerful forces shape the context within which they operate, such as environmental
limits, socio-cultural framing, governmental framing, and economic framing, rather
than limiting the impact of forces in any place locality.
While the environmental limits are non-negotiable, as Fig. 2.7 shows, the socio-
cultural forces that include people like activists, entrepreneurs, community-based
groups, and their cultural values may drive place governance. Nonetheless, the hori-
zontal economic forces that drive localities to compete give rise to the need for inward
investment and for attracting talented people. The top-down approach manifested
in governmental framing for place-based governance includes planning policy
obligations in different contexts.
2.9 Conclusion
This chapter discussed the successful placemaking concept, the distinct roles public
spaces play in daily lives, and how the social qualities emerge. It shows the new
paradigm of creative placemaking and the implementation strategies on a local
communities’ scale as well on city-wide scales.
It is now undebatable that the very definition of placemaking has expanded far
beyond its roots in the works of Jane Jacobs, William H. Whyte, et al. Placemaking
encompasses a vast arena of physical scales, from town green to district; processes;
initiators; and partners. The gradual turn from “what makes a good place?” to
“what—and who—makes a good placemaking process?” indicates that an increas-
ingly nuanced understanding of community involvement, political power, and social
capital is beginning to permeate the field. And rather than diluting the field due to
References 25
Fig. 2.7 Framing approach to place-based governance (Source Hambleton 2015)
the increasing size of placemaking’s “tent,” placemaking’s increased inclusiveness

and diversity is strengthening at ground level.
To sum up, the major trends in placemaking point towards a new, “making-
focused” paradigm for the practice. Public and private sector place-makers, funders,
community advocates, and public officials all have a role in successful placemaking.
The most interesting, most successful placemaking projects today leave previous
tenets of the field behind: gone is the master-planner, the big, top-down bureaucracy,
and the enormously expensive, multi-year debt-financed capital plan. By then the
importance of the placemaking movement and its different techniques emerged, in
changing the facets of the current urban design. It has still never been used as an
amending policy in various cities.
The following chapter discusses the sociability attribute and its importance for
evaluating the implementation strategies of the placemaking theorem of public
spaces.
References
Bazzu P, Talu, V (2017) Tactical urbanism. tutta mia la città. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-

567-0
Bravo L, Crawford M (2014) Publics and their spaces: renewing urbanity in city and suburb. In:
Cavallo R et al. (eds) New urban configurations. IOS Press & TU Delft, Amsterdam, pp 784–789.
http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/36063. Accessed 11 Dec 2017
Bravo, L., Carmagnini, C., & Matityahou, N. (2012). Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper: towards an Urban
Activism Manifesto. In INU (Ed.), XXVIII Congresso dell’Istituto Nazionale di urbanistica
(pp. 45–48). http://www.urbanisticainformazioni.it/IMG/pdf/ud004_tema_2.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct
2022
CABE (2007) Spaceshaper: a user’s guide. CABE, London
Callanan L (2014) Creative placemaking. Community Development Invest Rev—Fed Reserve
Bank San Fr 10. https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/publications/community-develo
pment-investment-review/2014/december/creative-placemaking/
Carmona M (2010) Contemporary public space, part two: classification. J Urban Des 15:157–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574801003638111
Carmona M (2014) The place-shaping continuum: a theory of urban design process. J Urban Des
19:2–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854695
Carmona M (2015) Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative.
J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 8:373–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.
909518
Carmona M (2017) The formal and informal tools of design governance. J Urban Des 22:1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338
Carmona M (2021) Public places urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Routledge, New
York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158457
Carr S, Francis M, Rivlin LG, Stone AM (1992) Public space. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
CCCB (2012) Public space. Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona, Barcelona
Chen X, Orum AM, Paulsen KE (2013) Introduction to cities: how place and space shape human
experience. Cities as places and spaces, 1st edn. Blackwell, Hoboken
City of Copenhagen (2009) A metropolis for people: Copenhagen together. Copenhagen. http://geh
lpeople.com/story-article/a-metropolis-for-people/. Accessed 5 Apr 2017
City Space Architecture (2014) Past present and future of public space. http://www.cityspacearchit
ecture.org. Accessed 11 Oct 2017
Clifton K, Ewing R, Knaap G, Song Y (2008) Quantitative analysis of urban form: a multidisci-
plinary review. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 1:17–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/175
49170801903496
Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it is transforming work, leisure, community
and everyday life. Basic Books, New York. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/
0205.florida.html
Foo K, Martin D, Wool C, Polsky C (2014) Reprint of “The production of urban vacant land:
relational placemaking in Boston, MA neighbourhoods”. Cities 40:175–182. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cities.2013.12.006
Gehl J (1987) Life between buildings: using public space. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Gehl J (2010) Cities for people. Island Press, Washington, DC
Gehl J, Svarre B (2013) Public space, public life: an interaction. In: How to study public life. Island
Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–8
Gildner, P., Pacheco, K., Jackson, K., Kalu, O., Bilak, M., Younan, E., Marquez, C., Mayers, J.,
Henderson, St., Rewers, J., Komarakulnanakorn, P., Soldatova, T., & Tham, C. (2014). Hackable
Cities: A Toolkit for Re-imagining your Neighbourhood. https://issuu.com/pgildner/docs/hac
kable-cities-pages. Accessed 27 Jan 2018
Hambleton, R. (2015). Place-based leadership: A new perspective on urban regeneration. Journal
of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 9(1): 10–24. https://www.henrystewartpublications.com/jur
r/v9
Hanafi Mahmoud, I., El Araby, M., Al-Hagla, K. S., & El Sayary, S. (2013). Human social behavior
in public Urban spaces: towards higher quality cities. Spaces and Flows: An International Journal
of Urban and ExtraUrban Studies 3(2):23–35. https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8676/CGP/v03i02/
5369
Holmes TE (2016) The catalyzing power of art. Shelterforce—National Housing Institute, July 1–4
References 27
INU (2013) Charter of public space. https://inu.it/wp-content/uploads/Inglese_CHARTER_OF_

PUBLIC_SPACE.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York
Karssenberg H, Laven J (2012) The city at eye level: lessons for street plinths. In Meredith Glaser
HK, van ‘t Hoff M, Laven J, van Teeffelen J (eds) The city at eye level. Eburon Academic
Publishers, Delft, The Netherlands. 978-90-5972-999-5
Kelkar NP, Spinelli G (2016) Building social capital through creative placemaking. Strateg Des Res
J 9:54–66. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2016.92.01
Koch, R., & Latham, A. (2012). Rethinking urban public space: accounts from a junction in West
London. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(4), 515–529. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/41678652
Locke R (ed) (2013) Shifting from objects to places. In: Future of Places International Conference
on Public Space and Placemaking. Ax:son Johnson Foundation, Stockholm, p 156
Lofland LH (2010) Review essay—American public spaces—whose property? Int J Urban Reg Res
34:709–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00990.x
Lydon M, Garcia A (2015) Tactical urbanism: short-term action for long-term change. Island Press,
Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-567-0
Lynch K (1981) A theory of good city form. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Mackenzie A (2015) Placemaking and place-led development: a new paradigm for cities
of the future. https://www.pps.org/reference/placemaking-and-place-led-development-a-new-par
adigm-for-cities-of-the-future/. Accessed 25 Oct 2017
Madanipour A (1996) Design of urban space. An inquiry into socio-spatial process. Wiley,
Chichester
Madanipour A (2006) Roles and challenges of urban design. J Urban Des 11:173–193. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13574800600644035
Main K, Sandoval GF (2015) Placemaking in a trans-local receiving community: the relevance of
place to identity and agency. Urban Stud 52:71–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014522720
Markusen A (2006) Urban development and the politics of a creative class. Environ Plan A
38(10):1921–1940
Markusen A, Gadwa A (2010) Arts and culture in urban or regional planning: a review and research
agenda. J Plan Educ Res 29:379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X09354380
Miles S, Paddison R (2005) Introduction: the rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration. Urban
Stud 42:833–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500107508
MIT—DUSP (2013) Placemaking is about the “making”. https://issuu.com/mit-dusp/docs/mit-
dusp-places-in-the-making. Accessed 20 Nov 2017
Montgomery A (2016) Reappearance of the public: placemaking, minoritization and resistance in
Detroit. Int J Urban Reg Res 52:776–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665
Nicodemus, A. G. (2012). Creative Placemaking 2.0. GIA READER. https://www.giarts.org/art
icle/creative-placemaking-20. Accessed 31 Oct 2016
Nicodemus, A. G. (2013). Fuzzy vibrancy: Creative placemaking as ascendant US cultural policy.
Cult. Trends 22(3-4): 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2013.817653
Nicodemus, A. G. (2014). Creative Placemaking 101 for community developers. LISC Institute
for Comprehensive Community Development, May (27), 1–5. http://www.instituteccd.org/news/
5014
Nikitin C (2012) Creativity & placemaking: building inspiring centers of culture. PPS. https://
www.pps.org/article/creativity-placemaking-building-inspiring-centers-of-culture. Accessed 26
Jan 2018
Patil R, Patil V (2016) Review of a theory of good city form by Kevin Lynch. Int J Innov Res Sci
Eng Technol 5:1172–1174. https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0501109
Pollock, S. (2014). Production, Use, and Barriers to Access in Public Space: A Comparative Case
Study in Metro Atlanta, GA, USA (Unpublished Thesis).
PPS (2009a) What makes a successful place? http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/. Accessed
2 Mar 2016
PPS (2009b) What placemaking is? http://www.pps.org/reference/placemakingis/. Accessed 5 Apr

2016
PPS (2014) Ten strategies for transforming cities and public spaces through placemaking.
PLACEMAKING 101. https://www.pps.org/reference/ten-strategies-for-transforming-cities-thr
ough-placemaking-public-spaces/
PPS (2016) Public space at the crossroads of everything, July. https://www.pps.org/blog/public-
space-at-the-crossroads-of-everything/. Accessed 5 Apr 2017
PPS (2017) What if we built cities around places? https://www.pps.org/article/greatcitiesinitiative.
Accessed 4 Apr 2017
PPS (2018) 5 steps to making places. https://www.pps.org/article/5-steps-to-making-places.
Accessed 11 Jan 2018
Ramlee M, Omar D, Yunus RM, Samadi Z (2015) Revitalization of urban public spaces: an overview.
Procedia—Soc Behav Sci 201:360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.187
Santos Nouri A, Pedro Costa J (2017) Placemaking and climate change adaptation: new qualitative
and quantitative considerations for the place diagram. J Urban 9175:1–27. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17549175.2017.1295096
Sepe M (2017) The role of public space to achieve urban happiness. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 12:724–
733. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V12-N4-724-733
Sepe M (2018) Placemaking, livability and public spaces: achieving sustainability through eco-
liv@ble design. In Bisello A, et al (eds) Smart and sustainable planning for cities and regions,
green energy and technology. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-75774-2_16
The Kresge Foundation. (2015). Financing the NEXUS of arts and community development:
Key barriers to broader integration of creative placemaking in community development (Issue
january). https://kresge.org/resources/
Transportation4America. (2018). What is creative placemaking? https://creativeplacemaking.t4a
merica.org/what-is-creative-placemaking/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
Ulldemolins R (2014) Culture and authenticity in urban regeneration processes: place branding in
central Barcelona. Urban Stud 51:3026–3045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013515762
UN-Habitat (2015) Habitat III issue papers—public space. United Nation Conf Hous Sustain Urban
Dev 2015:1–8. https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Papers-report.pdf
UN-Habitat (2016) Global public space toolkit from global principles to local policies
and practice. https://unhabitat.org/global-public-space-toolkit-from-global-principles-to-local-
policies-and-practice. Accessed 30 Mar 2017
URBACT (n.a.) https://urbact.eu/p4c-placemaking-cities-complete-overview. Accessed May 2022
Vazquez L (2012) Creative placemaking: integrating community, cultural and economic develop-
ment. Natl Consort Creat Placemaking, p 40. http://www.petkovstudio.com/bg/wp-content/upl
oads/2017/03/Creative-placemaking-integrating-CCED.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2017
Whyte WH (1980a) The social life of small urban spaces. 1st edn. PPS, New York
Whyte WH (1980b) The social life of small urban spaces, 3rd edn. PPS, New York
Zamanifarda H, Alizadeha T, Sipeb N (2016) Why some places do better than others? A closer
look at urban public space management. In: 9th International Urban Design Conference. Hyatt,
Canberra
Chapter 3
Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban
Regeneration Projects
Abstract This chapter introduces the definition of the social dimension of public
places; it sheds light on the two poles of the influence of the physical environment on
human behaviour as well as the human agency and social influences on urban spaces.
Moreover, it brings sociability to the fore as one identifiable attribute of successful
public places as discussed in the previous chapter, the cultural and economic influ-
ences on the liveability of public spaces, as well as the weight of public life as
identified by observation of the occurrence of cultural activities and social events.
This chapter intentionally raises the questions of sociability’s impact on public life
and users’ activities, whether it affects the public space or shapes the public space,
especially green spaces.
Keywords Placemaking · Urban design · Sociability · Urban regeneration
3.1 Prologue: The Social Dimension of Urban Planning
The relationship between people and their environment has long been debated as
a vital component of the determinism of urban design. Claiming social space and
being seen in public becomes a way for social groups to legitimise their right to
belong in society. Yet because they can be used by everyone, public spaces are
frequently considered contested spaces; as argued by Habermas (1989), Mitchell
(2003), Grazian (2004) and Marcuse (2007), places where opposition, confrontation,
resistance, and subversion can be played out over “the right to space,” see also
Appleyard and Riggs (2021).
On the one hand, human behaviour in a built-up environment is strongly influenced
by “the physical milieu” in which people interact (Carmona et al. 2010; Carmona
2015, 2017). Critically, people using public spaces that are unknown to them may
experience a range of emotions from curiosity to uncertainty to insecurity, which can
also affect behaviour. At the same time, the users of these spaces are also capable of
influencing their form and feeling, by introducing social characteristics and elements
such as culture, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and age. These elements, together with
the physical and ambient (or non-physical) features of the public space, are capable of
having a profound effect on the way that people behave in, experience, and interact

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_3
30 3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects
in public spaces. Nonetheless, passive engagement is seen as a low-profile issue,

thus, sociability is better believed to be a two-way process in which people create
and modify spaces while being influenced by those spaces in several ways.
On the other hand, Kashef (2008) describes the urban public space as a “neutral”
container to which economic and social activities are backdrops and considers urban
space to be configured and reconfigured by societal and cultural changes, but not vice
versa. That being said, we come to the argument that urban designers influence the
patterns of human activity and shape social life in public spaces. Hence, the forms
of public life that occur are in perfect correlation with the social space, where used
for social interaction, regardless of the ownership (public or private), as long as it is
accessible to the public (Brill 1989; Banerjee 2001).
Figure 3.1 illustrates the human liveability indicator in relation to the quality
of the Built environment. The human liveability (lifestyle) which is a qualitative
factor, is related to personal preferences and behaviour and is linked to urban design
(the built environment) which is a quantitative factor—related to frequency of
visits, traffic, crime, climate, and measurable urban qualities. In any public space,
objective indicators such as age, gender, and time in the lifestyle domain are to be
quantitatively considered along with frequency of visits, the time of observation,
and weather status. Meanwhile, subjective indicators such as activities based on the
public space and their relation to individual satisfaction levels are to be considered
qualitatively.
The built environment (domains) variables along with the cultural and lifestyle
aspects are responsible for changing (indicators) human behavioural preferences
along with age, personal preferences, and the urban design details, according to
Fig. 3.1.
However, the importance of sociability as a phenomenon is its intangibleness;
public spaces have always been designed to support intensive civic life. However,
sometimes ignored, some urban spaces have been architecturally designed in their
entirety as if sociability has not always been considered (Martí and Roca 2017).
Thus, sociability could be looked at as the weight of life that unfolds in designed
spaces, which is the main aim of urban design for public spaces; identified using
observation as the basic tool.
Besides, urban public spaces work as unlimited community pots, they pave the way
for socialising, public attendance, social relations, and creativity (Moayedi 2014).
Hence, by giving attention to the importance of the quality of public spaces in rela-
tion to people’s voluntary attendance, working on this issue is vital to create focus,
diversity, and dynamism in order to increase the quality of public spaces.
3.2 What Is Sociability? A Possible Definition
In the urban studies sphere, the concept of the sociability of public urban spaces
was first introduced as an analytic term by the German sociologist Georg Simmel
in 1977 to highlight features of organisational life that connect individuals, groups,
3.2 What Is Sociability? A Possible Definition 31
Fig. 3.1 Domains of (human) liveability and urban design (built environment) quality-of-life
indicators
organisations, and society, as also pointed out by Kanter and Khurana (2009). More-
over, Simmel’s ideas—according to Scott (2009)—approach social interaction by
relevantly describing social roles, positions for locating social actors in relation to
each other; and urban structure in order to describe recurring social relationships.
On the definition of sociability, Project for Public Spaces (2009) gives the most
fitting characterisation as “a place where people would meet each other and take
people when they come to visit.” However, it is considered as one of the most difficult
qualities to achieve but once attained it becomes an unmistakable feature, places
where people arrange to see friends, neighbours, and feel comfortable interacting
with strangers. It triggers a stronger sense of place, community attachment and fosters
diverse types of social activities.
Historically, Madanipour (1996, 2003, 102) coined the sociability definition as
“a performative exchange among strangers as a main feature of the modern urban
society” where individuals engage in the exchange of ideas, goods, and services, but
mediated through interpersonal space. As a consequence, this led to more stable and
cohesive societal relations of exchanges between strangers in the realm of the public
sphere.
Meanwhile, Di Giovanni (2014) defines sociability, in other words, as “a new
trend of self-made urbanism”; stating its occurrence as a phenomenon in which
people have organised themselves autonomously, to look for and provide for their
needs, in terms of facilities and performances in the urban public space.
Ravazzoli and Torricelli (2017, 43) reviewed the definition of public spaces from
a social perspective in terms of the quality of public spaces being enhanced when
the space stimulates accessibility, diversity, identity, interactions, openness, social
cohesion, and capital, as well as cultural diversity. While the cultural diversity could
be tracked by a variety of activities and functions in public spaces; it remains one of the
fundamental indicators of liveability and sociability. The place, culture, and historical
background determine how people use and behave in public spaces; although each
public space has its own spatial, historic, social, and economic features that must be
considered.
Moreover, the promotion of social diversity, through creating inviting and active
spaces for social activities is related to how public spaces are designed, what they
offer, and how they are managed (Hes and Hernandez-Santin 2019). Thus, redefining
the role of public spaces from an economic perspective is achieved when there
are opportunities to develop the local economy and the space is self-sustainable
economically (Heynen et al. 2008).
3.3 Economic Value of Sociability
In a study conducted by Cowan (2012) about the occurrence of sociability in public

spaces and consumption by users, he states:
Sociability has figured prominently in recent histories of consumer society and material
cultures. It has become increasingly clear to historians and social theorists that the places
where consumption took place, or where consumer desires were stimulated, and the ‘social
milieux’ in which consumers were located, are just as important to understand as the actual
acts of consumption.
It is crucial to affirm the relationship between income of individuals and the rise
of the “public sphere” in cities. It is clear that studies into deepening the thoughts
of what the major factors could be that affect the presence of people in public places,
their significance in a wider analysis (Hanafi Mahmoud et al. 2013), and what kind of
activities they engage in in these places is related to where they consume and spend
their income.
Similarly, CNU (2016) published a study discussing the economic values of public
spaces in a city and the urban design qualities existing in places themselves, drawing
examples from The San Antonio River Walk in Texas. A similar study conducted
3.4 What Is Social Mixing? 33
in San Francisco by Popper (2010) assessed sociability of public spaces and active
engagement in commercial shopping activities by identifying users’ income.
In addition to that, Steuteville (2015) emphasises that “the real issue involved
behind design elements are economics, because they are critical to establish a unique
place.” On investigating urban design aesthetics and elements in greater depth, it is
considered to play an undebatable role in the quality of existing and new urban
areas by influencing the various dimensions of urban form: urban layout, land use
distribution, building types, density, and the mobility infrastructure (UN-Habitat
2014).
Thus, the need to articulate this role within the trending framework of urban regen-
eration—from a sociological and psychological point of view—since the ultimate
goals of urban public spaces are for people to enjoy them and to provide a gathering
place for social events, in order to demonstrate distinctive characteristics and real-
life scenario stages it is fundamental to follow (Colantonio and Dixon 2011). This,
in addition to figuring out the importance of social activities in public spaces, as
highlighted by Sassen (2005) in terms of the powerful effect of personal economics
in raising the degree of spatial and socio-economic inequalities in global cities.
3.4 What Is Social Mixing?
Human encounters in public spaces depend fundamentally on the chances that we

might pass by someone, contact someone, or that someone may become a familiar
“stranger” (Risom 2015). Social mixing occurs across the spectrum from alone-
ness to close friendships, mixing between different groups, which is because under
appropriate conditions, interpersonal contact is an effective way to reduce prejudice
between social groups.
In the (Chetty et al. 2014) article about economic geography, there is a state-
ment that there is a correlation between areas with high economic mobility and
positive social capital, and outcomes coupled with greater socio-economically inte-
grated neighbourhoods and family stability. Nonetheless, this is demonstrated by the
frequency of public spaces and their urban design. Thus, strengthening the belief
that good urban design, from street networks to benches, creates tolerant, inclusive
communities where there is a shared opportunity for human flourishing. However, the
appropriate tools to measure this inclusiveness or this mixing in public spaces were
always missing. The majority of urban designers blame it on the delayed measure-
ments of social outcomes when it comes to public spaces, which often take years to
physically manifest.
As found from a study conducted by Tonnelat (2010), the sociability of a selected
place is based on correlating physical behavioural preferences of users and their
psychological preferences, using their rating for sociability of the selected place as
a measurement. This measurement considers that the space is fixed in terms of
geographic location, and the period (period) is fixed as well.
In another study Farahani (2015) analyses how the physical characteristics of

commercial streets can either promote, affect, or mitigate the social life of people,
capture social behaviour in spaces, and generate a sociable environment. Agrawal
(2013) argues in a brief sociability review, that successful public spaces in terms of
design elements, increase the sense of safety and security as well as foster social
interactions, community cohesion, and social integration.
According to Whyte (2007), the father of social behaviour studies in urban settings,
the presence and number of people within a space are what define a space’s success.
Whyte also believed the presence of people positively attracts others to enter a space
as well. Thus, increasing social interaction that leads to safety as a consequence as
also highlighted by Smets and Watt (2013) and Ameli et al. (2015).
3.5 Is Sociability Contested in Public Spaces or Is It

Affected by Activities in Public Spaces?
The belief is that sociability is a two-faced coin, it affects public spaces and gets
demonstrated in it. 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. Making a case for public space and associating sociability with
political action, Francis (1989) 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 a radical change in the political
and social systems but a place to “come together freely and to do it on their own.”
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. Public spaces where people regularly meet
their friends and watch daily life play a critical role in people’s lives (Rotenberg
2001). In contemporary developed societies, many of these functions have moved
to private or virtual realms or to diverse types of privatised and parochial spaces
(Brill 1989; Banerjee 2001). Contrarily, in many city-centre and mixed-use neigh-
bourhoods, people still depend on public space for functional, social, and leisure
activities for travel, shopping, play, meeting, interaction with other people, and even
relaxation.
Within this shift in the functions, of a city’s public places the patterns of user’s
activities have shifted too. The activities within the main city spaces were specifically
divided into three main categories of outdoor activities in the public spaces of a
city, each of which imposes very different demands on the physical environment:
necessary activities, optional activities, and social activities, Table 3.1.
Functional, recreational, and social activities intertwine in all conceivable a combina-
tion…Life between buildings is not merely pedestrian traffic or recreational or social activ-
ities. Life between buildings comprises the entire spectrum of activities which combine to
make communal spaces in cities meaningful and attractive. (Gehl 1987, 2006)
3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion … 35
Table 3.1 Activity types in public spaces comparison according to the importance of occurrence
Necessary activities Optional activities Social activities
Include those that are more or That is, those pursuits that are Are all activities that depend
less compulsory, such as going participated in if there is a on presence of others in public
to work, shopping, waiting for wish to do so and if time and spaces. Social activities
a bus or a person, running place make it possible—are include children at play,
errands. Among other quite another matter. This greetings and conversations,
activities, this group includes category includes such communal activities of various
the vast majority of those activities as taking a walk to kinds, and finally—as the most
related to walking. Because the get a breath of fresh air, wide-spread social
activities in this group are standing around enjoying life, activity—passive contacts, that
necessary, their incidence is or sitting and sunbathing. is, simply seeing and hearing
influenced only slightly by the These activities take place other people. These activities
physical framework. These only when exterior conditions could also be termed as
activities will take place are optimal—when weather “resultant” activities because
throughout the year, under and place invite them. This social activities occur
nearly all conditions, and are relationship is particularly spontaneously, as a direct
more or less independent of important in connection with consequence of people moving
the exterior environment. The physical planning. In other about and being in the same
participants have no choice words, these activities are spaces. This implies that social
especially dependent on activities are indirectly
exterior physical conditions supported whenever necessary
and optional activities are
given better conditions in
public spaces
The discussion and debate on public space is often the discussion on which activi-
ties and behaviours are deemed appropriate in the space. In many ways, public space
may be thought of as “flexible and ambiguous” (Loukaitou-Sederis and Ehrenfeucht
2009) ever changing to accommodate the activities and behaviours of its users. This
way of conceptualising social life in public space is particularly important because
sometimes people also invent new activities in public space and often appropriate
spaces for activities and behaviours that suit their needs (Frank and Stevens 2007).
3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion

and Vitality in Public Spaces
Good public space creates a platform for engagement and discussion, for planned
and spontaneous chance encounters, see Table 3.2, and for learning of diverse atti-
tudes and beliefs. That, nonetheless, is unachievable without developing a list of
social functions served in public spaces, including learning, development of social
competence, exchange of information, facilitation of social dialogue, fostering of
social awareness, enhancement of social integrative functions, and encouragement
of ethical conduct. Scholars in various fields related to urban studies contend that it
is the streets, squares, parks, and other urban public spaces that have the potential to
Table 3.2 Types of strangers, their social relations, and behaviours

Types of strangers Unknown strangers Unknown strangers
Familiar strangers Categorical strangers
Categorical strangers
Types of social Passive Active
relations between “People-watching” Fleeting encounters Intimate secondary
strangers “Public solitude” Routinised/necessary
encounters
Chance encounters
Quasi-primary relationships
Types of social Visual encounters Brief encounters Longer encounters
behaviours (observation) (interaction) (sociability)
involved Civil inattention Visual and verbal brief and Visual and verbal
cooperation standard emotional infused
long-lasting
a Definitions adapted from Aelbrecht (2016)
be “the stage upon which the drama of communal life unfolds” (Carr et al. 1992).
Aelbrecht (2016, 125) discusses the fact that in some urban settings, living with
diversity is beneficial to social cohesion; everyday social contact and encounters are
crucial for overcoming ethnic cultural differences and building positive communities.
Sociability in public spaces is hence seen in the context of people’s need to
affiliate and interact with others. This affiliation involves people participating in
a supportive social system in order to acquire psychological comfort. Sociability
not only increases vitality in public spaces but also allows people to connect and to
exchange information. Sociability is also related to the public life of a place.
When the urban environments are uncomfortable, unused, or lack many physical
amenities, sociability in public spaces diminishes. Although in this research the
sociability concept is discussed separately from the physical, functional, security,
and climatic issues, it cannot be fully understood if viewed in isolation from these
factors. Therefore, socialisation occurs in a setting when activities in the square, the
physical amenities, security, and climatic conditions are favourable for attracting
groups of people, hence fostering liveability and vitality.
3.6.1 Understanding Social Behaviour and the Character

of Public Life
One important concept addressed is the notion of public life, which is related to
sociability in public spaces and the behaviour of people around these spaces. Public
life involves bonding different and diverse people together for good or bad. It also
defines people’s roles in the community in order to become members of groups
to make social or political statements. People can discover new things and learn
3.6 Sociability Occurrence as a Driver for Social Cohesion … 37
from others, in fact living in a walkable neighbourhood proves to encourage social

interactions, a sense of community, and informal and social cohesion (Du Toit et al.
2007).
Thus, the character of public life depends on the setting’s characteristics: the
activities, the culture of people that interact in it, and the time activities take place.
Moreover, public life offers relief from daily stress, provides opportunities for relax-
ation, entertainment, and social contact. Public life offers the possibility of bringing
diverse people together and becoming a realm in which people can express and
proclaim their freedom. That, in other words, fosters social interactions between
unknown strangers in public spaces; there is no ideal advocacy on the type of social
interaction in inclusive and lively public realms, it then becomes a place in which
people are brought together with no fear of strangers (Amin and Thrift 2002; Paulos
and Goodman 2004; Amin 2010). Hence, public spaces do not exclude any type of
interactions, on the contrary, the public realm gets populated by diverse types of
strangers and social realms (Lofland 1989).
3.6.2 Cultural Influences on Sociability Value
The socio-cultural characteristics of the community, the social values, and the beliefs
of people influence the way they interact and socialise in public spaces. Another
factor is the presence of shared meanings and rituals in public spaces determined by
holidays, and cultural and historical events that encourage a sense of belonging and
participation in the community in the public space. The nature of the community
also determines the public life of a society; its size and heterogeneity can affect the
balance between public and private realms. In highly diverse communities, it can
be difficult to establish people contact and interaction. This can cause isolation and
create “tunnel vision,” contributing to the “anonymity and facelessness of the city”
(Carr et al. 1992).
Social public spaces are generally filled with people. This presence of people in
public spaces also attracts other people, which suggests that what attracts people
the most to urban plazas is the presence of other people. Therefore, the best-used
open areas are those that are sociable, with a higher diversity of people, more people
engaged in groups, in couples, and more people meeting people. Those who visit
public spaces alone also prefer to frequent the liveable ones (Whyte 1980; Madden
2010). Most sociable and liveable public spaces tend to: have higher numbers of
women in them, amenities such as monuments, stairs, fountains that encourage people
to lean and socialise, and a sense of security experienced in public space.
Theoretically, visually, and aesthetically pleasing open areas are sociable spaces,
but this condition alone does not provide complete satisfaction. The size and number
of seating spaces in the public space and their comfort influence sociability and people
gathering in the space. Finally, cultural programming of public spaces such as the
Fig. 3.2 Research approach to environmental psychology and urban design (Source The author
after James et al. 2015)
presence of unique events, shows, street performances, and public art become activ-
ities or events that link people and make open spaces more amicable and attractive
for people, see Fig. 3.2.
Whyte (1980, 94) defined this ability as “triangulation” which is:
The process by which some external stimulus provides a linkage between people and prompts
strangers to talk to each other as though they were not.
To sum up, urban design and environmental psychology literature suggests

spaces, activities, and conditions that are effective in anchoring social activities—
spaces for stationary activities: sitting, standing, waiting, and “people-watching;”
and favourable spatial conditions, e.g., “people-watching” is usually associated with
places with a theatre setting layout, a well-defined stage and audience (Whyte 1980;
Gehl 1987). Theories related to sociability can provide an understanding of the
factors that bring people together in public open areas and therefore obtain the set of
physical, functional, security, and climatic comfort factors that influence the various
levels of people’s involvement.
3.7 Conclusion
This chapter highlights sociability as a Value, its definition in the built-up environ-
ment, how it could be contested in public spaces and influenced by it, or vice versa. It
also raises the questions of economic and cultural influences of certain public spaces
on sociability. Moreover, it paves the way to better understand sociability in corre-
lation with social cohesion and liveability indicators in some urban morphologies
based on its public life stage.
More than any other dimension, the social dimension raises a host of issues related
to cultural values and affects different individuals in dealing with their “social space.”
Social urban design should focus more on supporting and creating opportunities for
public life than having a limited focus on physical 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.
References 39
Open spaces should provide opportunities for people to interact and engage. This
interaction may occur at various levels of people’s involvement, which will depend
on the conditions in such spaces. This last statement, in particular, is fundamental to
understanding, because knowing about how sociability occurs in public spaces will
provide indications on the physical and functional, climatic, and general conditions
that favour this social contact. In highly populated cities in which the community is
diverse, the possibility of having public spaces that can favour interaction between
people (even strangers) can support people’s sense of community and belonging
within those spaces.
References
Aelbrecht PS (2016) ‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social interaction
among strangers. J Urban Des 21:124–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1106920
Agrawal, A. W. (2013). Literature review of Sociability of Public Places: A Study for Creating and
Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San Jose Freeway (Vol. 4, Issue 1). https://
doi.org/10.1080/14616680010034711
Ameli SH, Hamidi-Castro S, Garfinkel A, Ewing R (2015) Do better urban design qualities lead
to more walking in Salt Lake City, Utah? J Urban Des 20:393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/135
74809.2015.1041894
Amin A (2010) Cities and the ethic of care for the stranger. Joint Joseph Rowntree Founda-
tion/University of York Annual Lecture
Amin A, Thrift N (2002) Cities: reimagining the urban. Urban Policy Res 21:217–222. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rsnr.2002.0171
Appleyard B, Riggs W (2021) Human rights to the street: ethical frameworks to guide plan-
ning, design, and engineering decisions toward livability, equity, and justice. J Transp Land
Use 14(1):911–931. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1918
Banerjee T (2001) The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places. J Am
Plan Assoc 67:9–24
Brill M (1989) Transformation, nostalgia, and illusion in public life and public place. In: Public
places and spaces. Plenum Press, New York, pp 7–29
909518
Carmona M (2017) The formal and informal tools of design governance. J Urban Des 22:1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338
Carmona M, Tiesdell S, Heath T, Oc T (2010) The social dimension. In: Public places, urban spaces:
the dimensions of urban design, 2nd edn. Routledge New York, pp 133–166
Carr S, Francis M, Rivlin LG, Stone AM (1992) Public space. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Chetty R, Hendren N, Kline P, Saez E (2014) Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of
intergenerational mobility in the United States. Q J Econ 129:1553–1623. http://www.equality-
of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobility_geo.pdf
CNU (2016) Welcome to public square: a CNU journal. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/.
Accessed 3 Mar 2016
Colantonio A, Dixon T (2011) Urban regeneration & social sustainability: best practice from
European cities. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/
9781444329445
Cowan B (2012) Public spaces, knowledge, and sociability. In: The Oxford handbook of the history
of consumption. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199561216.013.0013
Di Giovanni A (2014) Open minded urbanism. In: Bravo L (ed) Past present and future of public
space. City Space Architecture, Bologna, Italy, pp 106–107
Du Toit L, Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N (2007) Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local
sociability? Urban Stud 44:1677–1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665
Farahani LM (2015) The social life of commercial streets. Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC
Francis M (1989) Control as a dimension of public-space quality. In: Public places and spaces.
Plenum Press, New York, pp 147–172
Frank K, Stevens Q (eds) (2007) Loose space: possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge,
New York
Gehl J (1987) Life between buildings: using public space. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Gehl J (2006) Life, spaces, buildings. In: Urban design futures. Routledge, London, pp 70–75
Grazian D (2004) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Contemp Sociol
A J Rev 33:361–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/009430610403300361
Habermas J (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere. an inquiry into a category
of bourgeois society (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press). Comp Stud Soc Hist 34(1):189–190.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500017527
Hanafi Mahmoud, I., El Araby, M., Al-Hagla, K. S., & El Sayary, S. (2013). Human social behavior
in public Urban spaces: towards higher quality cities. Spaces and Flows: An International Journal
of Urban and ExtraUrban Studies 3(2):23–35. https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8676/CGP/v03i02/
5369
Hes D, Hernandez-Santin C (2019) Placemaking fundamentals for the built environment. Springer,
Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9624-4
Heynen N, Kaika M, Swyngedouw E (2008) In the nature of cities: urban political ecology and the
politics of urban metabolism. Springer, New York, pp 77–78
James K, Thompson-Fawcett M, Hansen CJ (2015) Transformations in identity, governance, and
planning: the case of the small city. Urban Stud 53:1162–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209
8015571060
Kanter RM, Khurana R (2009) Types and positions: the significance of Georg Simmel’s structural
theories for organizational behavior. In: Adler P (ed) The Oxford handbook of sociology and
organization studies: classical foundations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–11
Kashef M (2008) Architects and planners approaches to urban form and design in the Toronto region:
a comparative analysis. Geoforum 39:414–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.09.002
Lofland LH (1989) Social life in the public realm: a review. J Contemp Ethnogr 17:453–482. https://
doi.org/10.1177/089124189017004004
Loukaitou-Sederis A, Ehrenfeucht R (2009) Sidewalks: conflict and negotiation over public space.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Madanipour A (1996) Design of urban space: an inquiry into socio-spatial process. Wiley, Chichester
Madanipour A (2003) Interpersonal space of sociability. In: Public and private spaces of the city,
2nd edn. Routledge, London and New York, pp 95–118
Madden K (2010) Creating successful public spaces. In: Marušić BG, Nikšič M, Coirier L (eds)
Human cities: celebrating public spaces. Stichting Kunstboek, Oostkamp, pp 97–104
Marcuse P (2007) The politics of public space/the right to the city: social justice and the fight for
public space. Am Plan Assoc J Am Plan Assoc 73:125
Martí M, Roca E (2017) Urban visions for the architectural project of public space. J Public Sp
2:13–26. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i2.89
Mitchell D (2003) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press,
New York and London
Moayedi M (2014) Planning to enhance sociability of urban public spaces in order to manage
creative social relations. Kuwait Chapter Arab J Bus Manag Rev 3:78–89
References 41
Paulos E, Goodman E (2004) The familiar stranger: anxiety, comfort, and play in public places.
Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst (CHI ’04) 6:223–230. https://doi.org/10.1145/985
692.985721
Popper A (2010) Walking, bicycling & public space on market street: a public space, public life study
of San Francisco’s most important street. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco,
CA
PPS (2009) What makes a successful place? http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/. Accessed
2 Mar 2016
Ravazzoli E, Torricelli GP (2017) Urban mobility and public space. A challenge for the sustainable
liveable city of the future. J Public Sp 2:37–50. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i2.91
Risom, J. (2015). Live@SPUR—Putting public life back Into public space. John S. and James L.
Knight Foundation. https://vimeo.com/120541313
Rotenberg R (2001) On the plaza: the politics of public space and culture. Am Anthropol 103:875–
876
Sassen S (2005) The global city: introducing a concept. Brown J World Aff XI:27–43
Scott A (2009) Georg Simmel: the individual and the organization. In: The Oxford Handbook of
sociology and organization studies: classical foundations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp
267–324. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199535231.003.0012
Smets P, Watt P (2013) Exclusion and belonging in urban public and quasi-public space. Open
Urban Stud J 6:27–29
Steuteville R (2015) The economic value of a unique place. CNU, pp 2–4. https://www.cnu.org/
publicsquare/economic?value?unique?place. Accessed 14 Oct 2019
Tonnelat S (2010) The sociology of urban public spaces. In: Territorial evolution and planning
solution: experiences from China and France. Atlantis Press, Paris, pp 1–10. http://stephane.ton
nelat.free.fr/Welcome_files/SFURP-Tonnelat-published.pdf. Accessed 02 Apr 2016
UN-Habitat (2014) The economics of urban form: a literature review. Accessed 22
Feb 2015 https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/The%20Economics%
20of%20Urban%20Form.pdf
Whyte WH (1980) The social life of small urban spaces, 3rd edn. PPS, New York
Whyte WH (2007) The life of plazas. In: Larice M, Macdonald E (eds) The urban design reader.
Routledge, London, pp 349–363
Part II
An Organizational Framework to Assess
Sociability of Public Spaces, a Mixed
Methods Approach for a Public Space
Index Deduction
Chapter 4
Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases
Studies: Boston, Cambridge,
and Valencia
Abstract This chapter introduces similar case studies to the placemaking imple-
mentation case, whereas the similarities and differences are presented either in
terms of the stakeholders’ engagement processes—represented in a Public–Private
Partnership through which the urban regeneration project was implemented—or of
the urban scale on which implementation took shape. That said, three case studies
are dealt with. The first is the Lawn on D project. The reason for that choice is
that it falls within the innovation district of Boston, which allowed the PPS to inter-
vene and implement the so-called Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper techniques (LQC) to
regenerate the surrounding community. The second is the Harvard square in the city
of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in which the governmental approach for the city of
Cambridge was maintained, in collaboration with a variety of community groups and
stakeholders by implementing the power of 10+ strategy for regenerating sociability
in the previously underutilised open space. The third and lastcase study is the first
by the “Rio Túria Gardens” grassroots movement, a citizen-led regeneration project
that changed the facets of the city of Valencia, Spain, by changing a highway into
a greenway like the case of North End Park. The reason for investigating this
case study is to better understand the similarities and differences in urban planning
policies, informing the public authorities involved. The choice of the two first case
studies was made to better investigate the urban policies in place, in the context
of the state of Massachusetts. That gave better insights into how to formulate the
North End Park learning case study, dealt with later in North End in this book, as
well as providing information on the implementation of placemaking strategies at
the forefront of the case study and the stakeholders involved.
Keywords Boston · Urban design · Sociability · Cambridge Greenway
4.1 Methodological Analysis of Case Studies
The important matter is to review how similar case studies used urban regeneration
strategies and implementation techniques to validate the theoretical approach to both
placemaking and sociability concepts.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_4
46 4 Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases …
In each case study, stakeholders are identified, spaces in need of regeneration are
evaluated and developed from a placemaking point of view. That said, the place-
making re-evaluation framework, see Fig. 4.1, is quite flexible and does not always
happen in the same order (PPS 2018). In some cases, short-term experiments are
needed to overturn the current place status or attract attention.
While the placemaking implementation is the core of the process, the techniques
could vary, as explained in Chapter 2; nonetheless, all placemaking processes aim to
develop communities, leading to long-term improvements in terms of amenities and
cultural programming, and help to create/shape a common vision of the place, see
also (Leinberger and Loh 2018).
Fig. 4.1 Methodological

steps for re-evaluating the
placemaking process
4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA 47
4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA
The Lawn on D,1 an outdoor event space in Boston’s Innovation District, reflects
the unique and changing character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The 2.7-acre
public space is owned and operated by the Massachusetts Convention Center
Authority (MCCA), that will eventually expand their facilities and programming for
the space permanently. In the meantime, they are using LQC strategies to evaluate
possible interventions that will facilitate community engagement and nurture local
arts.
4.2.1 Background
The initial installation of the Lawn opened in August 2014 and consisted of colourful
seating, lounge chairs, picnic tables, public art exhibits, a bar under a large white tent,
games such as bocce and ping pong, and free Wi-Fi access. The space had a heavy
programme of performances, live music, food trucks, and frisbee tournaments. In the
winter months, The Lawn on D hosted a series of seasonal events and amenities such
as a giant maze made out of ice blocks, organised snowball fights, and food trucks
serving hot chocolate. There was even a two-storey snow hill on which skiers and
snowboarders could perform tricks.
Since its unveiling, the space has become a centre for cultural events and social-
ising, and because it is equipped with various amenities and a range of program-
ming that includes children’s activities, sports, places for relaxation, a bar, and
performances, the space meets the needs of diverse Bostonians (BCEC 2017).
4.2.2 Stakeholders
A first-of-its-kind outdoor interactive space in Boston, The Lawn on D Powered

by Citizens Bank began as an experimental event landscape that brings together
different communities, audiences, and area residents for innovative programming
and events in the epicentre of the South Boston Waterfront and South Boston
neighbourhoods.
There is always something to see, do, or experience at The Lawn on D, see Fig. 4.2.
Open daily during designated hours, The Lawn on D provides a colourful collection
of public seating and lounge chairs, interactive art exhibitions, assorted games such
as bocce and ping pong, and an open venue for 4,000 people at maximum capacity.
The Lawn on D is the perfect place to relax, enjoy the South Boston neighbourhood,
and spend time with friends and family.
1 https://www.signatureboston.com/lawn-on-d.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(a) The Lawn on D becomes a destination
(b) Rotating installations add excitement to the space
(c) Performances activate the Lawn on D
(d) The ice mazes
(e) Winter-friendly programming is key to the lawn’s success
(f) A great place for conversation
Fig. 4.2 On-ground pictures from the Lawn on D Park in Boston, MA (Source https://www.pps.
org/places/the-lawn-on-d/)
4.2 The Lawn on D, Boston MA 49
4.2.3 Cultural Programming, Community Games,

and Artwork at the Lawn
Swing Time is an interactive, lighting-enabled swing-set from award-winning archi-

tects Eric Höweler and J. Meejin Yoon of Höweler + Yoon Architecture. This
immersive and visually stunning public work of art interacts with guests and reflects
the playful nature and purpose of community embodied by The Lawn on D, see
Fig. 4.3a.
Fig. 4.3 Lawn on D Swings (a and b), Summer 2016–2017 (Source https://www.bostonmagazine.
com/tag/lawn-on-d/)
Fig. 4.4 Musical concerts and networking events on The Lawn on D
The ever-popular Swing Time is a seasonal community activity. Swing Time is

an engaging set of swings fitted with solar-powered LED lights that change colour
when swung at varying speeds and heights, see Fig. 4.3b. This immersive and visually
stunning public work of art interacts with guests and reflects the playful nature of
The Lawn on D. Swing Time 3.0 debuted in July 2016 and includes some design
improvements, including a sleeker design that incorporates the attachment point into
the shape of the swing. The new swings are fabricated using a roto-moulding process,
which makes them more robust, but also smooth and seamless.
4.2.4 Placemaking Activities
The Lawn on D offers a variety of outdoor games for visitors of all ages, game of
bocce, ping pong, cornhole, or Jenga. Game equipment is available to the public
during open Lawn hours, when the Pavilion on D is open and is supervised by The
Lawn on D staff, see Figs. 4.4 and 4.5.
4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA
4.3.1 Historical Background
The Harvard Square triangle used to be a traffic island at the intersection of

Massachusetts Avenue, Brattle Street, and John F. Kennedy Street. Space at the
traffic island was taken up by the kiosk and terminus for MBTA’s newly extended
Red Line leaving little to no room for civic life to unfold. Cars dominated Harvard
Square and stunted its potential as a commercial centre and civic gathering place,
see Fig. 4.6.
A new vision for Harvard Square was beginning to take shape in the 1970s—
as a place for people. In response to these new expectations, extensive street and
sidewalk improvements took place to create a new pedestrian-oriented environment
from Holyoke St to Brattle Square. The island occupied by the kiosk was joined
4.3 Harvard Square, Cambridge MA 51
Fig. 4.5 Community games on The Lawn on D (Source https://signatureboston.com/lawn-on-d)
Fig. 4.6 Harvard Square 1969 (upper)–Harvard Square as of May 2014 (lower)
Fig. 4.7 Harvard Square redesigned site gathering area diagrams (Source Halvorson Design
Partnership)
to the sidewalk in front of the Cambridge Savings Bank to make room for a new
terminus and plaza as seen today, see Fig. 4.7.
For nearly a decade, Harvard’s ongoing placemaking efforts have been activating
the campus’ public spaces and enriching the lives of students, faculty, staff, and the
wider Cambridge community. PPS began working with Harvard in 2005 to support
their long-term placemaking initiative, helping to use Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper
tactics to transform several public spaces. The first step was adding seating.
A number of brightly coloured, movable chairs and benches were scattered around
Harvard Square. This simple intervention quickly gained immense popularity. Chairs
were constantly rearranged and turned into venues for hanging out, studying, eating,
conducting seminars, and even hosting a giant game of musical chairs.
4.3.2 Stakeholders
Harvard Planning + Allston Initiative (HP + AI) hired Project for Public Spaces
in April 2005 to conduct a study of urban design options for creating successful
public spaces in the North Campus. Working closely with Harvard, PPS’ task was to
apply its placemaking methodology by engaging a group of Harvard stakeholders in
the evaluation and visioning process for this key campus opportunity.
PPS conducted a workshop with about 20 faculty and staff and 20 students to
gain the user’s perspective and identify issues and opportunities. Participants agreed
that the North Campus lacks the amenities, activities, identity, and character to make
it a successful public space. Based on the workshop’s findings, PPS developed a
series of programmatic and physical planning recommendations for the campus that
would enhance existing destinations and improve the overall image. In addition to
long-term proposals, PPS identified several short-term experiments that allowed the
University to evaluate ideas, make immediate improvements, and learn more about
how placemaking could be incorporated into future planning efforts (PPS 2005).
On 17 September 2013, the city of Cambridge, along with the Harvard Square
Business Association and Harvard University, co-sponsored a community place-
making workshop attended by over 75 individuals. The workshop was guided by
Project for Public Spaces on helping communities transform public spaces into vital
places that highlight local assets, spur rejuvenation, and serve common needs (PPS
2014, 5, 7; Cambridge CCD 2015).
Local businesses, nearby and city-wide residents, institutions, city departments
including community development and the police, and local non-profit organisations
such as Youth on Fire, participated. Together they developed A Community-Driven
Vision for The Heart of Harvard Square (PPS 2014) to create a thriving civic
square and world-renowned shopping, dining, cultural, and historic destination that
continues to promote an authentic urban experience while encouraging the sponta-
neous interactions and improvisational activities that make, and have made, Harvard
Square a unique and dynamic place. (PPS 2017).
4.3.3 Placemaking in Action
Implement Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper at every scale: It all started with the chairs.
By simply placing some movable furniture in Harvard Yard in 2009, the University
took the first steps in what eventually became a long-term activation of its outdoor
campus space, see Fig. 4.8. With just this small, temporary act of placemaking,
the change was dramatic and immediate. PPS applied the LQC approach to Harvard
Square public spaces—Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper (LQC). In short, the most effective
solutions to improve a public space are often cheap, non-permanent interventions that
can be accomplished instantly (Lester 2009; PPS 2015a, 2016).
Define the power of 10 in Harvard Square: 10+ things to do, layered to create
synergy with the right planning and management, Harvard Square has long been one
of the ten great destinations in Cambridge. The destinations within Harvard Square
and the activities that enliven and define them create these special places. They will
be the attractions that locals and visitors will return to repeatedly, where friends will
gather, and where everyone will experience the unique qualities of a civic square in
the heart of Harvard Square, see Fig. 4.9.
Improve the Activation and Use of the Out-of-Town News Kiosk and its
integration within the Square.
In June 2016, the long-term planning arts, and public facilities together with
the community held a workshop for revising and improving the function of the
Fig. 4.8 Social activities in Harvard Square (Source Places in the making: How placemaking builds
places and communities [MIT–DUSP 2013])
Fig. 4.9 Placemaking activities in Harvard Square: the 10+ destinations (Source Harvard Common
Spaces—Great Public Spaces [PPS 2014, 2015b])
planned open space and surrounding areas and its activities, see Fig. 4.10. Community
workshops helped to further refine a concept of use:
• Reclaim public use of the news kiosk and promote better integration within the
plaza.
Fig. 4.10 Harvard Square Out-of-Town News Kiosk Re-design Project (Source Harvard Square
Placemaking Process: http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/projects/parks/hsquarepublicspace)
• Engage the community year-round through effective presentation, use, and

experience.
• Improve amenities like soft landscapes planters, flowers, greenery, and bring in
pop-up vendors.
• Provide the best local information point in order to engage a diverse population
• The kiosk and plaza should be able to support meetups, free time sitting, and
immersion within the square’s culture and offerings.
• Improve wayfinding signage and circulation planning.
4.3.4 Evaluate Short-Term and Long-Term Placemaking

Experiments
With this success, Harvard Square identified its next site for activation—The Plaza—
an underutilised outdoor space passed through by almost every person on campus.
Through pointed LQC improvements and exciting programming, The Plaza was
turned into an anchor on campus and a destination for the Cambridge population.
The Plaza became the host of The Plaza Pet Therapy Zoo, the Cambridge Open
Market, an ice skating rink during the winter, food trucks, games, exercise classes,
performances, and more. Today, The Plaza and the Harvard Yard are places for
coming together, for relaxation, and for connecting students across disciplines and
with faculty and residents in unprecedented ways (PPS 2005).
If the goal is to transform Harvard Square into one of the world’s most successful
civic squares, then we have to understand how people experience the square. From
our outreach and community engagement, we came to understand that people feel
that there is an overwhelming sense of vehicular traffic surrounding the triangular
area or the “heart of Harvard Square.” For example, every group at the workshop
raised the issues of traffic and recommended redesigning the streets so that space
could be reclaimed for the Square and hence, pedestrians. There are measures that
can be taken in the medium term to right-size the streets and make them work for
the authentic urban experience we are trying to create at the Square.
There is a big opportunity, and an easily implementable improvement, for Harvard
Square to feature amenities that would enhance the image of the Square while also
making the place comfortable for people to use and spend time there. The Square
should offer a variety of seating, especially movable seating, to support a range of
activities such as eating, reading, people-watching, or socialising. The location of
the amenities and how they are triangulated, or layered together with each other and
their uses, are the secrets to creating a truly lively place, see Fig. 4.11.
Fig. 4.11 Redesigned plaza seating and amenities at Harvard Square proposal (Source PPS [2015a])
4.3.5 Future Recommendations: Improve Sociability Around

the Edges
The streets, sidewalks, and storefronts surrounding the square need to be improved
in order for Harvard Square to become a great civic square. Currently, the ground
floor of the adjacent buildings such as the banks or the COOP do not engage with the
outside. The storefronts need to be more porous and transparent so that they open up
to showcase the products and activity happening inside, see Fig. 4.12.
The goal is to have the uses inside spill out onto the sidewalk and contribute
to the street life. The local and historic stores in Harvard Square represent a huge
opportunity for the Square to have active, enticing edge uses that will draw people
in and through the district and square. These include:
Fig. 4.12 Sociability re-designed in Harvard Square Plaza

• Open up the edges of existing Businesses into the triangle.

• Create a better relationship between banks so that they relate more to the
community and public realm.
• Connect the inner square—Harvard Square triangle to the outer square to create
synergy between the two.
4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain
Once the Túria River was diverted to the outskirts of Valencia after the great flood
of 1957, the Francoist government planned to build a large urban highway in the old
channel that runs through the entire city. The great citizen mobilisation that took place
in the mid-70s against this project, organised around the “El llit del Túria és nostre i
el volem verd” (the Túria bed is ours and we want it green) civic campaign, managed
to paralyse it. A few years later, the firm commitment of the first democratic council
emerged after the municipal elections of 1979, chaired by the socialist mayor Ricardo
Perez Casado, would make a citizen’s claim to transform the old Túria channel into
green space, thus becoming the longest urban park in Europe, with its 9 kms in length
(Esteban Longares Pérez 2012), see Fig. 4.13.
4.4.1 The Urban Highway Project and the Citizen Movement
The starting point for the existence of the Túria gardens was the great flood of October
1957, one of the most tragic events in the recent history of the city of Valencia due to
the great human, economic, and material losses it caused. So that such catastrophe
did not return to flood the city, the Francoist government of that time decided to
divert Túria River towards the outskirts of Valencia (the South Plan), building a new
channel to the south of the city. In this way, the old riverbed remained empty and
disused, ceasing to function as such and waiting for a new use (Ciudad Observatorio
2014).
In 1973, the plenary session of the city council of Valencia created a commission to
study the use that would be given to that new space, where it was decided, along with
the central government, to create a great freeway that would cross the entire city and
would connect the access from Madrid with port. But the idea of building a highway
in the urban centre generated strong social rejection, and many critical voices were
soon raised in defence of the paralysis of this project and in favour of the creation of
a large park for citizen use, given the enormous shortage of green areas and public
spaces that characterised Valencia at the time. Then a whole citizen movement was
initiated, contrary to the construction of the road network, a great civic protest that,
however, should not be understood as an isolated claim, see Fig. 4.14.
4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain 59
Fig. 4.13 Location map of Túria River
Fig. 4.14 Valencia, Spain Flooding 1957 (left)–Garden Fountains 2007 (right)
4.4.2 Stakeholders
At the beginning of the 70s, a strong citizen movement emerged in Valencia, as

in other cities of the country, from neighbourhood associations and other groups
and associations, mainly to demand social improvements and basic services in the
neighbourhoods, with serious shortages of equipment and public spaces, gardens
and parks, housing, walks, transport, public lighting, etc. As a result of the devel-
opmentalism of the time, the peripheral neighbourhoods (also Ciutat Vella) were
very degraded by fierce real estate speculation and a disastrous urban policy, which
allowed the city to grow in a completely chaotic and disorderly manner based on a
lot of built-up space and with hardly any green areas or gardens.
The neighbourhood movement of the 70s was local and urban in nature, with a
broad and plural social base, of a vindictive and socio-political nature, diverse in its
forms but essentially united in its approaches since the central basis of its actions
revolved around the poor living conditions in the neighbourhoods, and the lack of
democratic means to rectify them. The neighbourhood associations were formed
by groups of neighbours, professional associations, parish groups, people from the
University Movement, the Women’s Democratic Movement, and by militants from
left-wing political organisations and unions (still clandestine) such as the CCOO
and, above all, the PCE, which appeared as the main anti-Franco opposition force.
4.4.3 The “El llit del Túria es nostro i el volem verd” Civic
Campaign
In the midst of this convulsive social context, the protest movement that sought to
paralyse the project of the urban highway and the transformation of the old Turia
channel into green space was gaining more and more strength, organised around
the “El llit del Túria es nostre i el volem verd” civic campaign. This was a great
success in the mid-70s and was the genesis of what would later become the “Salvem”
phenomenon. Urbanists, architects, and other professionals shaped this movement.
Among them was the great promoter of the campaign, Just Ramírez, who would
play a key role in the citizen movement of the 70s in Valencia. The issue of the
channel became very relevant for Valencians, generating a great debate on the street.
Citizen pressure was increasing; A public debate on the subject, held at the Mercantile
Athenaeum in 1974, had great resonance.
With the triumph of this campaign, the impulse of the Coordination of Neighbour-
hood Associations, and the support of the most important newspaper of Valencia in
the 70s, Las Provincias, which kept the debate alive and gave the opportunity to
neighbours and professionals, played a fundamental role, in expressing themselves
in relation to the projects for the old channel, which was still empty and waiting for
a new use.
4.4 Rio Túria Case Study, Valencia, Spain 61
In this sense, a major role was played by the director of Las Provincias, María
Consuelo Reyna, in her firm support for civic demands. In one of his numerous
articles on the subject, she pointed out that “It is the city who has the word, who must
decide if it is convenient to have a road, although for its construction it is necessary
to touch up a bridge, renounce green areas, of which there are not many left … or if
you prefer to have places where children can play and with sports fields where young
people can enjoy practicing sports.”
This campaign was run in parallel with another whose actions also found great
social support and is none other than “El Saler per al poble,” which fought against
the privatisation and urbanisation of the Devesa del Saler and managed to paralyse a
plan that would have deprived Valencians of one of the most important wetlands in
Europe.
At the end of 1975 new times arrived. The dictator died; the regime changed. Obras
Públicas desisted from its original idea and the City Council of Valencia agreed to
use the old channel for a green zone, modifying the PGOU and asking the State for
ownership. The mayor of the time, Miguel Ramón Izquierdo (1973–1979), facilitated
the conversion of the new urban space into a park, and during the first visit to the
Túria capital of Juan Carlos I as head of state in November of 1976, ownership of the
old channel was given to Valencia, an indispensable condition for the city to decide
on its future use. In 1979 the new democratic town hall would definitively reclassify
the riverbed as a green zone. It was the triumph of citizenship; It was the triumph of
the great social mobilisations of the previous years.
4.4.4 Urban Regeneration of the Highway into Greenway

Gardens
Ricardo Bofill designed the stretch of the garden in the noble area of the city, with
orange and palm trees, the area near the Palau de la Música. The team “Vetges
Tú - Mediterrania” designed the section from Casa del Agua to Nuevo Centro,
including sports facilities and some springs. The Department of Agriculture designed
the section of the “Urban Forest” included between New Centre and the sports area
of Serranos, planting thousands of pines. Subsequently, the Gulliver Garden was set
up, see Fig. 4.15.
Mayor Ricardo Pérez Casado, also in El País, said that “the river is going to be the
great articulator of a modern and different city from the very problematic one we now
have. This new design will be implemented with criteria of maximum efficiency and
participation.“ That’s how it went. From the beginning, this project was considered as
something democratic, which would involve citizen participation. The Architecture
Workshop of Ricardo Bofill presented the project to the public in the months of June
and July of 1982 in an exhibition at the Lonja de la Seda that had great citizen impact,
30 years later.
Fig. 4.15 Images of the initial proposals for the empty channel of the Túria with motorways and
railway tracks. The model on the right explored the coexistence of these infrastructures with a linear
park in the 70s
Around one hundred thousand neighbours came to observe and assess the various
plans and models of the project that were shown in the exhibition. There were also
conferences and round tables that included the involvement of the mayor, Bofill
himself, municipal technicians, and Valencian architects.
This exhibition was the basis for the opening of a citizen participation campaign.
The City Council launched a survey among the population in order to collect sugges-
tions on the final configuration of the channel, editing 100,000 forms of consultation
at the time the campaign began. The survey conducted among those attending the
exhibition of the blueprints and models of the preliminary draft showed that 97% of
the respondents were in favour of implementation of the same.
In December of 1983, the Urbanism Commission of the City Council of Valencia
definitively approved the Special Plan of Interior Reform of the Old Channel of Túria.
The channel was divided into 18 sections, which facilitated its execution in parts.
The objectives and bases of intervention that this project encompassed were defined
after a series of working meetings with qualified professionals and representatives
of citizen associations, as well as the results of the public participation programme
conducted during the exhibition of the plan in the Lonja.
On 27 February 1986, Mayor Pérez Casado officially inaugurated the works with
the symbolic palette in the same channel, marking the beginning of the construction
of the Túria garden, a garden (really much more than that) that represents the success
of the civic effort and popular will, because in the end, it was what the Valencians
wanted it to be.
4.5 Conclusion 63
Fig. 4.16 Rio Túria Gardens aerial view (Source https://www.mimoa.eu/projects/Spain/Valencia/

Turia%20Gardens/)
Already in 2000, after the inauguration of the Alameda metro station and the new
Exposición bridge (popularly “de La Peineta” or “de Calatrava,” due to its peculiar
shape and its designer, respectively) the section next to this station was used for a
sandbox with games, a wooded area useful for fairs and exhibitions, and an esplanade
for the firing off fireworks and the installation of fairs, circuses, and outdoor events.
Next, the bridge of the Flowers was built. In 2007, the section of the garden between
the Parque de Cabecera and the Casa del Agua was reconditioned in such a way that
this park is the beginning of the garden itself, see Fig. 4.16.
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter discusses the placemaking movement and urban regeneration in three
different case studies, see Table 4.1. The main aim is to provide an overview of the
similar implementation cases on the ground, to better understand the validity
of the theoretical literature. The empirical evaluation framework, presented in the
next chapter, starts from the understanding that a difference in project types, sizes,
land ownership, and stakeholder involvement gives a different placemaking result,
and hence a different sociability impact on public spaces users.
The most important deduction from these case studies is that the placemaking
movement—whether grassroots or top-down—irrespective of whether LQC tech-
niques or 10+ strategies are implemented, changes the facets of the surrounding
Table 4.1 Comparative analysis of the three case studies based on evaluation criteria of urban
regeneration project
Lawn on D Harvard Square Rio Túria Gardens
Type of project Public Park Public Square Highway–Greenway
size 10,900 m2 7,689 m2 1,100,000 m2
Land ownership Land owned by City of Cambridge Municipal–city of
MCAA land owned Valencia
Stakeholders Citizens Bank Harvard University Community groups
Students’ groups
Project of Public
Spaces (PPS)
Funding type Private sector Public sector Municipal funding
Placemaking Average Strong Weak–None
Sociability Gated–controlled Strong–open Open
Implementation Top-Down Public–Private Grassroots movement
approach Partnership
Community Little–None Average Time-framed
involvement
Strategies Power of 10+ LQC techniques Natural Disaster
Learned lessons Creative Continuous evaluation Community is powerless
placemaking without public/private
funding
communities. However, opting for the best results, the community should be involved
at the initial planning levels, with continuous evaluation.
Breaking the silos of the governmental approach towards the change in cities is
fundamental when coupled with community willingness and beyond, and with funds
availability, whether from a public or private sector. Another notable outcome of the
analysis of the last example of the urban regeneration project of Rio Túria gardens is
that the main aim was not the placemaking of the greenway, as much as the outcome
of the grassroots movement.
The removal of highways is one of the most expensive types of regeneration
projects in all cities; nonetheless, it changes the people’s perceptions of their neigh-
bourhoods, their parks, and their transit modes. In fact, Walker (2016) discusses the
effect of the induced demand theory of high-occupancy freeways over users; the
triumph over street removals into more public spaces, walking and biking paths, plus
new transit lines instead of “double-decker” freeways.
References 65
References
BCEC (2017) The Lawn on D Powered by Citizens Bank. https://signatureboston.com/bcec/the-

lawn-on-d. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
Cambridge CCD (2015) Harvard Square Kiosk and Plaza. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/pro
jects/parks/hsquarepublicspace. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
Ciudad Observatorio (2014) parque urbano o autopista urbana? http://www.ciudadobservatorio.
com/2014/03/parque-urbano-o-autopista-urbana.html. Accessed 1 Jan 2017
Esteban Longares Pérez (2012) “El llit del Turia es nostre i el volem verd”: Historia de una conquista
ciudadana
Leinberger CB, Loh TH (2018) Catalytic development: (re)creating walkable urban places. https://
www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/brookings-180420-catalytic-development-
paper_may-2018-final.pdf. Accessed 19 Jun 2018
Lester R (2009) Placemaking at Harvard yard: enhancing the humanities with human activity.
PPS. https://www.pps.org/article/placemaking-at-harvard-yard-enhancing-the-humanities-with-
human-activity. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
MIT - DUSP. (2018). Places in the making. https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/attach
ments/project/mit-dusp-places-in-the-making.pdf Accessed May 2022
PPS (2005) Harvard University north campus placemaking study. https://www.pps.org/projects/har
vardcampus. Accessed 7 Mar 2017
PPS (2014) Harvard Square: vision plan. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/projects/parks/~/
media/54BCDC518F594C6B824D4F0115A225AE.ashx. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
PPS (2015a) Meet me at the plaza: new seats, new scene at Harvard University. https://www.pps.
org/article/meet-me-at-the-plaza-new-seats-new-scene-at-harvard-university . Accessed 22 May
2022
PPS (2015b) Harvard Common Spaces, Cambridge, MA, USA. https://www.pps.org/places/har
vard-common-spaces. Accessed 22 May 2022
PPS (2016) 8 placemaking principles for innovation districts. https://www.pps.org/article/eight-pla
cemaking-principles-for-innovation-districts. Accessed 22 May 2022
PPS (2017) Proposal for services: Harvard Square Kiosk. Cambridge, MA
PPS (2018) 5 steps to making places. https://www.pps.org/article/5-steps-to-making-places.
Accessed 11 Jan 2018
Walker A (2016) Six freeway removals that changed their cities forever. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.
com/6-freeway-removals-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
Chapter 5
Sociability and Placemaking
Methodological Framework Approach:
Identifying a Public Space Index (PSI)
Abstract In this chapter, public life/public space metrics—as introduced by Gehl

(Gehl Institute, The public life diversity toolkit 2.0., 2016) are used to identify
different sets of and/or methods for collecting both qualitative and quantitative data
on people’s usage, behaviour, frequency, age, and gender, as well as physical site
observations in the first phase. The reason for this mixed approach is to capture all
the aspects of public spaces that affect people and places and vice versa. In addition
to the designated Public Space Index in this chapter, using Gehl’s framework it is
possible to categorise the qualities of public space that make the space work the space
is used, and those that make it desirable—where the user experience is a “good” one
and where people prefer to linger and socialise. The Application case study in this
research is on what is referred to as the North End Park and Plaza, it falls in the Rose
Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway of Boston, MA. The reason for the selection of the
North End Park in the city of Boston is that it fulfils the criteria of being a public
space formed after a regeneration project that involved different stakeholders as well
as having transformed an eyesore to a vital liveable destination in the heart of the
city.
Keywords Placemaking framework · Public Space Index · Mixed-methods

research
5.1 Introduction: Why a Mixed-Methods Approach?
Carmona (2015, 377) specifically retheorises the mixing methods for urban design
research on placemaking and sustainability as follows: “Mixed methods” are increas-
ingly common in social science research, for reasons implied by an alternative, less
popular term for the approach: the pragmatist paradigm, also see (Creswell and
Garrett 2008, 327).
In other words, “what works” is more important than the “purity” of the approach
taken to the research, and researchers can pick and mix particular methods, depending
on the nature of the problems to be investigated, for example addressing ques-
tions that do not sit comfortably within a wholly quantitative or qualitative genre
(Gaber and Gaber 1997, 2007; Srivastava and Thomson 2009). Creswell and Piano

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_5
68 5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological …
Clark (2011) offer the most comprehensive discussion of mixed methods and argue
that using quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination will provide
a better understanding of research problems than either approach used alone. For
researchers dealing with the sorts of “wicked” multidimensional problems of urban-
isation encompassed in understanding public space, mixed methods can help give
confidence that findings will be robust (Clifton et al. 2008).
Groat and Wang (2013) link the use of mixed research methods to conducting case
studies, arguing that it can be particularly enlightening to explore settings or circum-
stances holistically by using a variety of data collection and analysis tactics. They
cite Jane Jacobs’ (1961) foundational study of New York’s urban vitality to suggest
that many scholars of the built-up environment have gravitated to the use of case
studies, precisely to marshal the benefits of applying different research techniques
to one or more real-life contexts (Flyvbjerg 2006).
5.2 Site Selection: Interpretative Strategy
1. The notion behind these sites is that they are part of larger cultural urban
regeneration projects, which is the scope of the research on a wider scale.
2. The public space is in a downtown/city centre location in the selected cities,
hence, widely used for various levels of activities and is of recognisable impor-
tance at a city level, which makes the hypothesis of sociability basically valid for
producing a captivating outcome of the research.
5.3 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Understanding

the Model
The toolkit used in this research functions on three different scales of analysis. At
the larger scale/the urban form scale, it helps to understand the diversity of the
neighbourhood surrounding and the urban fabric in which the public places are set;
where the people living in a certain buffer zone have easy access to a range of public
places, see Fig. 5.1.
At the block/group scale, the toolkit measures the diverse price points of busi-
nesses that attract a range of socio-economic groups/individuals. The quality criteria
that cover building entrances and facades. Finally, on the smallest scale, which is the
individual scale, it operates on the people’s existence in the space itself. It evaluates
the level of attractiveness of the space, the furnishings, landscape, and programming
to stay and linger.
5.4 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Implementing the Model 69
Fig. 5.1 The different levels of public life/public space toolkit measurements used in study (Source
The author based on the Gehl Institute [2016])
5.4 Public Life/Public Space Toolkit: Implementing

the Model
5.4.1 Public Life Metrics—User Intercept Survey: Individual

Scale
The main aim of the survey is to identify the users of the public spaces, their age
range, gender, race,1 income, educational attainment, and Zip code home location.
Along with those demographic indicators, the frequency of visits to the space is
analysed across different hours of the day, favourite time of visits, and the sticky
places phenomenon.
The in-depth interviews are conducted on two levels; on the first level, prelim-
inary interviews with placemaking experts in the field and urban anthropologists,
to help identify the major quality criteria for measuring successful public space
1Due to research results and triangulation, race was omitted in the course of the surveys due to a
noticeable attitude of discomfort when race was noted in doing on-site surveys in the park.
attributes. This level of interviews helped shape the specific set of criteria that suit
the North American (east coast) culture; basically, the social aspects of public spaces,
cultural programming effects on public life scenarios, the impact of ownership of a
space on the urban policies and people’s existence.
The second level involves conducting interviews with on-site experts that work
with the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy,2 Livable Streets
Initiative,3 The Emerald Network, and the Liveable Streets Alliance in order
to gain insights from key informants into the implications of looking at human
behavioural patterns and uses, when planning and programming in the particular
case study area affected by those initiatives.
5.4.2 Public Space Metrics—Observational Analysis:

Individual and Groups Scale
This layer of data helps understand the physical relationships between a space and its
users; it encompasses the furnishings, surrounding landscape, and physical program-
ming. Finding a reason to stay in that public space and to use it (North End Park
and Plaza) is specifically identified in the premise, with observational counting
techniques and photography. The first level of observation deals with the qualita-
tive information gathered from physical design elements such as paving, furnishing,
seating, lighting, greenery, and sidewalks to understand the extent to which the public
space responds or does not respond to requests from the public realm at this fine-grain
scale, see Fig. 5.2.
The second level of observation looks at pedestrian uses and activities by
measuring stationary activities and the perception of the public space in terms of
staying and enjoying. Thus, the methodology adopted for measuring the stationary
activities uses the framework of capturing the nuances of how people participate in
those different activities by separating the physical position (either lying on the lawn
or sitting) from the activity itself (standing, waiting to transit, commercial, cultural,
or physical activities), etc. This approach reduces surveyor error and interrelates user
comfort in the space, as well as evaluates the sticky places phenomenon picked up
in the user intercept surveys as well.
5.4.3 Urban Micro Trends: Statistical Analysis Using Smart

Planning Tools and Online Mapping
Three online-based mapping and statistical tools are used to analyse the micro social
trends in the North End Park and Plaza. The Liveability Calculator, the Vision Zero
2 https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/overview/.
3 https://www.livablestreets.info/.
5.5 Case Study Methodology: Data Collection Tools and Techniques 71
Fig. 5.2 Graphic representation of the research matrix implementation techniques (Source The
author)
project platform, and Co-Urbanize are the tools selected, and the reason is the easy
open access to the databases of these tools and their online availability. Nonetheless,
the accuracy and triangulation of the qualitative data in correlation to the quantitative
data is also captured from recorded videos.
A frequency count is collected from a security camera at the entrances and
exits to/from the North End Park Plaza. Camera tracking videos capture the
inward/outward connection between The Plaza and the crossing streets to the
Haymarket subway T station across Hanover Street. The records collected are for
the same days of as the observations, divided into 2 hourly intervals during a 12-h
coverage from 10 am to 10 pm over the period from April to July 2017.
5.5 Case Study Methodology: Data Collection Tools

and Techniques
Traditionally, the case study approach allows the use of mixed methods in research,
including qualitative and quantitative approaches. This combination of qualitative
and quantitative approaches can provide a deep understanding of human perception
and preference towards public spaces rather than using a single approach. Also, this
combination allows the use of multiple techniques or data resources to triangulate
findings for consistency and validation.
5.5.1 Data Collection Steps
1. Identification of the public space context, conducting a preliminary qualitative

study to capture the attraction of the space to public usage, and mapping its study
opportuneness.
2. Review of the secondary data sources on and qualitative analysis of the public
space on the larger scale, as part of a cultural corridor and/or part of a historical
cultural district/form.
3. Collection of the public life metrics data in the form of random samples of
intercept surveys, tailored to suit individual levels, for identification of demo-
graphical usage of the public space as well as specific research questions such
as behaviour, social activities, and duration of stay.
4. Physical observational analysis to monitor the public space metrics data in
the forms of image analysis for observation points, from different modes of
transportation to the public space itself, considering the physical design elements,
quality criteria parameters of protection, comfort and image, enjoyment, and
publicness (following the methodology of Mehta [2014]).
5.5.2 User Intercept Survey: Individual Scale
• Demographics: Age, gender, race, income, educational attainment, place

frequency and activities engagement, transportation modes, and accessibility.
• Social Mixing catalysts: individuals with familiar strangers, areas in a space that
facilitate social groups, etc.
• In-Depth interviews with urban anthropologists, liveable streets initiative
experts, and in-the-field placemaking experts.
5.5.3 Observational Analysis: Individual and Groups Scales
• Diversity: Pedestrian, volume of cyclists, and rates of social groups.

• Volume and diversity of social stationary activities: children’s garden, cultural,
physical, commercial, or just “being” in the space.
• Accessibility and linkages to transit nodes.
• Duration and frequency of stays.
5.5.4 Micro Trends: Smart Planning Tools Analysis
• Social shed of the place: the transformation of geo-tagged data sources into people
information. (Campanella 2017).
5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating … 73
• Socio-economic diversity of surrounding neighbourhoods and people who spend

time in that space, by connecting census data to people’s data (Instagram engage-
ment analytics: heat maps http://sproutsocial.com/insights/instagram-analytics/
retrieved April 2017).
5.5.5 Evaluation Matrix for the Data Analysis of the Case

Study
Table 5.1 summarises all the tools and data collection techniques used in the research,
based on the availability of surveys and observation raw data to be cross checked for
evaluation. A mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques are used as follows in
Table 5.1.
5.6 Qualities of Public Spaces and Creating the Public

Space Index (PSI)
5.6.1 Public Space Index Variables and Measuring Criteria
Four qualities are identified and evaluated in the selected public space case study
based on literature to build the Public Space Index (PSI), see Table 5.2 (Mehta
2014).4 This PSI is on a scale of 100 points, where each of the four quality
features scores 25 points. These 25 points are an accumulated score based on on-site
visual observation, pedestrian counts, measurement of stationary activities, socio-
demographic data collected through users’ statistical surveys, background informa-
tion from interviews with key informants, and smart planning tools at the urban micro
scale.
The researcher altered the main five dimensions of the “Mehta” methodology in
order to match the aims of this study and the major qualities to be measured while
implementing the case study. However, this step kept the main aim of the public
life/public space toolkit, but nonetheless, changed the main framework from the
groups/individuals/networks level.
The main weighing score in the Public Spaces Index applied is based on the
existence of the four qualities and them being seen in public spaces, but it does not
claim to cover the full range of activities where public life is likely to be found. It
does help to assess an important part of the public realm that continues to foster
social life. Based on these premises, it is important to define the following qualities
4By far, the most comprehensive and context adaptable methodology of public space sociability
measurement, that shaped and altered the overall Book research methodology, in relation to imple-
mentation of the case study on the North End Park, within the time frame between 2015 and till the
end of 2018.
Table 5.1 Case study implementation: evaluation matrix

Category rating Intercept Visual In-depth Smart
survey observation interview planning tool
Quantitative Qualitative Qualitative Quantitative
Age category 25–35 x
36–46 x
47–57 x
59–68 x
Gender Male x
Female x
Other x
Income Categorial x x
Race Omitted*
Frequency Once a day x x
and stickiness Weekly x x
to place
Monthly x x
Occasionally x x
Other x x
Meaningful Surrounding services x x x
uses and Community activities x x
activities
Vital x
Physical design x x x
Diversity x x
Cultural programming x x x x
Comfort Attractive x x
Safe x x x x
Clean/Well x x
Maintained
Protection x x
Accessibility Identifiable x
and linkages walkable x x x
easily accessible x x x
Interactive/welcoming x
Sociability Groups of people x x
Sense of pride x x
Children/seniors’ x x
presence
* Due to research results and triangulation, race have been omitted through the course of surveys
due to a noticed uncomfortable attitude when race was noted in doing on-site surveys on the park
Table 5.2 Public Space Index (PSI): The qualities and variables observed associated with
measurement tools used
Quality measured Variables observed Weighting Measurement tool Scoring criteria
Inclusiveness 1. Variety in age 5 Users’ survey’s 1 = none
range statistical analysis 2 = very limited
2. Variety in gender 5 3 = low
4 = medium
3. Safety and security 5 Visual observation 5 = high
4. Publicness and 5 Visual observation
opening hours + signs availability
5. Community 5 Key informants
engagement in interviews + micro
planning smart planning tools
Subtotal 25
Meaningful 6. Surrounding 5 Users’ survey rating 1 = none
activities services 2 = very limited
7. Physical design 5 Visual observation 3 = low
flexibility 4 = medium
5 = high
8. Range of activities 5 Stationary activities
and behaviours measurement
9. Diversity of 5 Key informants’
cultural interviews and
programming stationary activities
activities measurement
10. Availability of 5 Visual observation
food within or at the
edges of space
Subtotal 25
Accessibility and 11. Walkability 5 Users’ survey rating 1 = none
linkages 12. Accessibility 5 Smart planning 2 = very limited
3 = low
13. Transit usage 5 Pedestrian counts 4 = medium
14. Transportation 5 Visual observation 5 = high
modes diversity and users’ survey
15. Maintenance and 5 Visual observation
perceived safety + users’ surveys
Subtotal 25
Sociability and 16. Groups of people 5 Users’ Surveys and 1 = none
liveability 17. Interactive space 5 visual observation 2 = very limited
3 = low
18. Stickiness of 5 Users’ surveys 4 = medium
places 5 = high
19. Mixture of uses 5 Key informants’
and a variety of interviews
activities
(continued)
Table 5.2 (continued)

Quality measured Variables observed Weighting Measurement tool Scoring criteria
20. Space 5 Users’ surveys
attractiveness
Subtotal 25
Total 100
and keep them intact, in order to establish some concrete measuring variables that
can be given a score.
5.6.1.1 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) as cited
in Routledge (2004) suggested that the appropriation and use of space by a group
to fulfil 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 public space is able to support and
the actors it is able to include may determine its inclusiveness (Gehl Institute and
JMBC 2015; Patel 2016).
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 behaviours or be open to people from all social classes. Access to public
space concerns two aspects: the ability to reach the space and to enter and use it.
5.6.1.2 Meaningful Activities
Place meaning is a complex phenomenon influenced by both individual and collec-

tive experiences and by the narratives of places that help construct place identity and
ownership. There are several factors that contribute to meaningfulness, such as prior
familiarity, and historical and political events. However, this research measures mean-
ingfulness in the context of the ability of a space to support activity and sociability,
and the resulting attachment to the place.
As part of the Public Space Index, this measurement is called Meaningful Activ-
ities. To be specific, the criterion 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 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, environ-
ments 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 (Buttimer and 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.
While all meaningful public space does not need to be (and is not) sociable, this
research is interested in this aspect of public space those sociable spaces that are
meaningful to people. Hence, the Public Space Index (PSI) 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 behaviours, the number of businesses that offer food
and drinks, and the variety of uses and businesses.
5.6.1.3 Safety and Security
Safety is often cited as the first concern in public spaces (De Vita 2021). Several envi-
ronmental 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-
securitisation and policing can itself make the space perceptibly unsafe. 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, see also (Hosseinalizadeh
et al. 2022).
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, absence of, and 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. (1992) also found that personalisation of property made the street
environment appear safer, as did the presence of streetlights, block watch signs,
yard decorations, and private plantings. Besides acting as a source of attention and
interest, the presence of people increases the perception of safety (Perkins et al. 1993).
Various other studies have found the perception of safety to be negatively affected
by the presence of litter, graffiti, vandalism, and poorly maintained buildings. 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 impor-
tance of many measures and physical features. Appleyard’s (1981) landmark work on
street activity and traffic clearly established the inverse relationship between traffic
volume and neighbouring 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.
5.6.1.4 Sociability5
Spaces become pleasurable/sociable when they are imageable, have a high level of
spatial quality and sensory complexity. In his landmark study on how people orientate
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.” Lynch found that places with high environmental imageability
provided comfort and were pleasurable.
Most imageable places are those in which several factors come together to create
a coherent impression. It is that shape, colour, or arrangement which facilitates the
making of vividly identified powerfully structured, highly useful mental images of
the environment. That imageability is fostered with the presence of groups of people,
interactions in space, a mixture of uses and community involvement as well as the
perceived user’s physical attraction to certain spaces (Ewing and Clemente 2013;
Ameli et al. 2015). There is no doubt that some places are highly imageable because
of their strong negative attributes as well. However, this research associates and
measures imageability of public space in terms of its positive attributes.
5The original Mehta methodology took the Pleasurability of the space to be synonymous
with sociability, however, different measures were applied with precautions related to the types
of spaces, as an alteration to the base methodology, during the course of Implementation of the Public
Space Index, as in this book.
5.6.2 Public Space Index Interpretation of Weighing,

Scoring, and Implementation Techniques
for Measurements
This matrix for evaluating the Public Space Index is built based on the Mehta method-
ological approach as previously mentioned, however, some omittances have occurred
to match the type of the case study used in this book. Nonetheless, it considers the
main research placemaking approach across the Project of Public Spaces (PPS) and
Gehl Institute Toolkits.
The Public Space Index (PSI) is constructed on 20 variables used to evaluate
the four measured qualities of public space, see Table 5.2. The Index captures and
measures behaviour (uses) and perceptions of users in the public space realm. Seven
variables are visual observation related (using structured and semi-structured
observations across times of day, weeks, and a period of almost two-years’ time-
frame) and rated by the researcher in the space and the interaction between the space
and its occupants. Meanwhile, another seven variables are analysed based on a statis-
tical analysis of the users’ surveys. The rating associated with the users that use the
space was collected in relation to scoring criteria for each variable based on a Likert
rating scale from 1 (being the lowest) to 5 (being the highest).
5.6.3 Individual Users’ Survey Form (Site Users)
See Table 5.3.
5.6.4 In-depth Interviews Form
The researcher first introduced herself, the purpose of the study as well as the final
expectation from this interview, for information disclosure and personal data record
authorisation.
1. Please identify yourself for me, stating your current work position as well as your
previous experience in the field of urban planning for people.
Having said so, being an experienced in-field researcher, this interview consists
of 8 questions, I will be asking you 3 theoretical questions, then 5 touch base site
questions.
2. Since the case study falls within The Emerald Network/liveable streets alliance
in which you are the programme manager, what are—in your opinion—the
considerations that are convenient for impacting the presence of people in this
specific case study of North End Park Plaza?
Table 5.3 Users’ individual survey of age, race, time, etc.

Site: North End Park, MA Date:
Thank you for participating in this survey, your response will be confidential
User information: Number:
Age: Race: Gender: M/F/
Income: Education:
Occupation: Home Zip code:
Travel modes: □ Walking alone □ Group walking
□ Bus □ Bike □ Car □ Subway
Instagram user: Yes/No Did you post a photo here? Yes/No
How often you visit the place? How much time do you spend here?
□ Daily □ Walk through □ 15 minutes
□ Weekly □ 5 minutes □ 30 minutes
□ Every month □ 10 minutes □ 1 hour or more
□ Rarely/occasionally
How do you use this place? How do you feel about this place?
□ Just crossing through □ Negative
□ Lunch time □ Somehow Unpleasant
□ Work nearby □ Neutral
□ Public transit station □ Positive
□ Meeting up friends □ Very positive
□ Tourist □ Other
3. In your opinion, does the PPS model in which the evaluation of the place is based
on Imageability, accessibility, activities, and sociability by identifying ratings and
opportunities, sound robust? Do you think there are missing factors that could
be used to correctly study the public spaces’ vitality and life metrics?
4. Gehl Institute recently introduced a toolkit for measuring and quantifying public
life in public spaces, in which the main criteria are to look at social mixing, a
phenomenon that causes strangers in public spaces to become familiar strangers
due to the context. What is your opinion about this? Do the activities conducted
in public spaces, which could be divided into “just being,” waiting to transit,
commercial, cultural, or physical activities, affect user comfort?
Now this scientific research is specifically designed to be conducted based on
four criteria (users intercept survey, physical observations, interviews with field
experts, and statistical heat maps based on ACS) that are divided horizontally into
two categories of evaluation.
People life category:
People diversity: age, gender splits, frequency (sticky places) and duration of stay,
transportation mode used, stationary activities, Perception of place, different usage,
and perceived feelings of (protection, sense of comfort, enjoyment).
5.7 Conclusion 81
Place form category:

Accessibility, physical attributes (furniture, enclosure, etc.), aesthetic quality,
planning and programming (cultural events, food trucks, etc.), quality of surround-
ings, business services, street vibrancy, and imageability.
5. I will list a few items and ask that you give me a rating of their importance
from 1 to 5:
• Evidence of diversity (age/gender/social classes) safety and security
• Comfort and space image furniture and physical attributes
• Accessibility, walkability and biking attractiveness
• Mixture of uses and activities (concerts, food trucks, etc.); pride and
ownership of places
• Business activities surrounding and rent prices green and natural elements
6. In your opinion what are the catalysts of social mixing in public spaces, can
you name three in order of importance?
7. In terms of public policies, the NEA6 recently endorsed creative placemaking as
a cultural movement and supports its funding. What other local/public partner-
ships could there be, that when implemented, improve the public spaces sphere
that we witness nowadays? In your opinion, what are the long-term changes
that change the face of public spaces?
Now, for the sake of scientific credibility, the questions above will be
quantified. As you may have been told the main aim of the research is to
quantify the quality criteria of public spaces. However, the quality criteria in
the index (inclusiveness, pleasurableness, comfort, safety, and activities) are
quantified on a scale of 0 to 100 that is based on observing 45 variables, of
which just 14 are user-oriented.
8. In your opinion, how much is the quantification of this phenomenon based on
the users’ experience of public spaces? How likely do you think it is that those
aspects might affect the users’ presence in the case study area of North End
Park Plaza, on a scale of 0 to 100?
9. For the specific case study of Boston, have you previously worked on identifying
cultural attributes related to public spaces in the east coast culture?
10. Do you have any additional opinions to express?
5.7 Conclusion
This chapter takes the different methodological tools used in the deductive evaluation
matrix framework for the final evaluation (PSI) into consideration. It investigates the
public life/public space model against which then the case study was analysed in-
depth, by collecting both qualitative and quantitative data on people’s usage of the
public spaces, behavioural patterns, and frequency, by means of visual observations
6 https://www.nea.gov.sg/.
on site, during the first phase. Then, in the second phase, data on the users is collected
through on-site surveys (see Table 5.3) covering their sticky places, sociability index,
and socio-demographic data (such as age, gender, residency zip code, and yearly
income).
In the third phase and last level of analysis, the case study is investigated on a Micro
trend scale based on the public space scenario as a successful liveable destination by
analysis using the Liveability Calculator, Vision Zero, and Co-Urbanize data tools.
In greater depth, a Public Space Index tool is built up to produce an overall evalu-
ation of four different qualities based on 20 categories. Alterations were considered
over the time frame in which the research was conducted in place; however, the main
aim of outlining a method to empirically evaluate urban public spaces remained
robust.
The implementation of the PSI and its results is discussed after the case study
analysis in Chapter 7.
References
Ameli SH, Hamidi S, Garfinkel-Castro A, Ewing R (2015) Do better urban design qualities lead
to more walking in salt lake city, Utah? J Urban Des 20:393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/135
74809.2015.1041894
Appleyard D (1981) Livable streets. University of California Press, Berkeley
Buttimer A, Seamon D (1980) The human experience of space and place, 1st edn. Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315684192
Campanella R (2017) People-mapping through google street view. Places Journal. https://placesjou
rnal.org/article/people-mapping-through-google-street-view/?cn-reloaded=1. Accessed 19 Nov
2017
909518
Clifton K, Ewing R, Knaap G, Song Y (2008) Quantitative analysis of urban form: a multidisci-
plinary review. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 1:17–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/175
49170801903496
Creswell JW, Garrett AL (2008) The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of
educators. S Afr J Educ 28:321–333. http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/art
icle/view/176/114
Creswell JW, Piano Clark VL (2011) Designing and conducting mixed-methods research. In: The
Sage handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
De Vita GE (2021) Safety and security: renewed challenges for urban regeneration. In: Coppola F,
Girmaldi M, Fasolino I (eds) Safe urban space strategies and actions for an integrated approach
to settlement quality. FedOA Press, Naples, pp 463–481
Ewing R, Clemente O (2013) Measuring urban design: metrics for liveable places. Island Press,
London
Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12:219–245. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Gaber J, Gaber SL (1997) Utilizing mixed-method research designs in planning: the case of 14th
Street, New York City. J Plan Educ Res 17(2):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701
700201
References 83
Gaber J, Gaber SL (2007) Qualitative analysis for planning and policy: beyond the numbers.
American Planning Association, Chicago
Gehl Institute (2016) The public life diversity toolkit 2.0. https://gehlinstitute.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/02/20160301_Public-Life-Diversity-Toolkit-V2_HighQuality-1.pdf. Accessed 21
Mar 2017
Gehl Institute, JMBC (2015) Public life and urban justice in NYC’s Plazas. https://gehlinstitute.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PublicLifeUrbanJustice_Gehl_2016.pdf. Accessed May 2022
Groat LN, David W (2013) Architectural research methods. Wiley, Somerset, NJ. ProQuest ebrary.
Web. 1 Apr 2016
Hosseinalizadeh S, Mahmoud IH, Morello E (2022) A deduced method for assessing safety and
security perception: case study of Biblioteca Degli Alberi Park in Milan, Italy. In: Mahmoud IH,
Morello E, Lemes de Oliveira F, Geneletti D (eds) Nature-based solutions for sustainable urban
planning. Contemporary urban design thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-89525-9_8
Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House Inc., New York
Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Mehta V (2014) Evaluating public space. J Urban Des 19:53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.
2013.854698
Mitchell D (2003) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press,
New York and London. ISBN 1 57230 847 8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/147
4474004eu312xx
Patel S (2016) Public spaces for all: How “public” are public spaces ? Case of Ahmedabad city’s
Riverfront Parks. CEPT University
Perkins DD, Meeks JW, Taylor RB (1992) The physical environment of street blocks and resident
perceptions of crime and disorder: implications for theory and measurement. J Environ Psychol
12:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80294-4
Perkins DD, Wandersman A, Rich RC, Taylor RB (1993) The physical environment of street crime:
Defensible space, territoriality, and incivilities. J Environ Psychol 13:29–49. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0272-4944(05)80213-0
Routledge P (2004) Book review: The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space.
Cult Geogr 11(3):356–357. https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474004eu312xx
Srivastava A, Thomson SB (2009) Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied
policy research. J Adm Gov 4(2):72–79
Part III
The Case Study of North End Park
from Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Chapter 6
Learning Case Study: North End Park,
Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway:
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract The North End Park is part of what is known as Boston’s ribbon of contem-
porary parks. The Rose Kennedy Greenway is a mile and a half of contemporary
parks in the heart of Boston city. The Greenway is a roof garden topping a highway
tunnel that connects people, cityscape, and fun. The Greenway connects a series of
parks, in which there are public art installations, water fountains, historical sites (the
freedom trail), public transit and bike sharing stations, food truck vending locations,
and public restrooms.
At the same time, The North End Park Plaza is part of The Emerald Network, 200
miles of greenway networks that is an initiative under the liveable streets alliance.
The Emerald Network is a seamless shared-use series of Greenway paths in the urban
core of the city of Boston and adjacent cities, that provides walking trails and biking
connections through parks. The major aim of the greenway project is to connect
people to jobs and to neighbourhood assets by foot, bike, and any non-motorised
means, which is explored in this chapter in detail.
Keywords Boston · Greenway · North End Park · Urban Greening
6.1 Context Overview
6.1.1 Preliminary Place-based Analysis of the Rose Kennedy

Greenway
As stated in Mahmoud et al. (2019), The Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway is part
of the Emerald Necklace. Primarily planned as a series of parks and open spaces to
provide linear recreation facilities that are continuous and provide connectivity. The
Emerald Necklace parks system was the first to be built in Boston based on Olmstead’s
This chapter contains materials from the previous publication by the main author Mahmoud, I.H.,
Appleyard, B., Bevilacqua, C. (2019). From ‘Highway into Greenway’: How Public Spaces Change
Zoning Regulations. In: Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L., Bevilacqua, C. (eds) New Metropolitan
Perspectives. ISHT 2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 101. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92102-0_22.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_6
88 6 Learning Case Study …
vision; sinuous parkways, connected pathways, which provide opportunities for quiet
contemplation, together with conveyed travel ways for pedestrians that have a slower
pace than the parkway users. However, the term “Emerald Necklace Greenway” arose
in the late 1990s; by virtue of state legislation in 1996, the re-generation of the Central
artery on the downtown portion was renamed “Rose Fitzgerald Greenway” in honour
of the mother of President John Kennedy (BPRD 2015) (Fig. 6.1).
This greenway corridor stretches for 11/4 miles in a highly dense section of down-
town Boston and contains 11 acres of protected parkland (Fig. 6.2). Owned by the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which also owns and manages the
“Tip” O’Neill Tunnel underneath, these parklands are managed and maintained by
the Rose Fitzgerald Greenway Conservancy. This non-profit organisation is a partner
with the state, which provides 40% of its funding; the other 60% is provided through
donations, endowment income, and earned revenue.
The Greenway has several enhanced features that are emblematic of its highly
urbanised location: a carousel, a labyrinth, many public art pieces, a pavilion for
visitors to the Boston Harbour Islands National Recreation Area, several fountains,
various horticultural beds, and an urban arboretum. In 2011, one of the Greenway
parks became the temporary site of the Occupy Boston protest, an offshoot of the
Occupy Wall Street protest movement, entering the history books like the Boston
Common as a site for political speech and assemblage.
The Conservancy is currently engaged in a five-year public art strategy to help
liven up the spaces (BPRD 2015, 137). This Greenway helps to connect users to the
New Charles River Reservation, Harbour walk, and the Boston Harbour Islands via
the Visitor Pavilion located on the Greenway. It has become an important corridor
for residents in adjacent neighbourhoods, downtown workers, tourists, and regional
recreation enthusiasts.
6.1.2 Culturally Oriented Activities on Rose Fitzgerald

Kennedy Greenway
By definition, the Greenway’s corridors act as linear “recreation” facilities, which

can be formed by different components such as natural preservation areas, parks, and
open spaces, cultural and historic resources, and sidewalk corridors (BPRD 2015,
7.1.1, 131). The common belief is that in urban areas, these linear facilities could be
used to link existing parklands and natural areas. Interchangeably, parks, squares, and
recreation areas are ideal candidates for social inclusion in greenways. In addition
to that, the open space linkage help to reinforcing a feeling of connectedness and
connectivity, providing relief from the maze-like spatial experience of city streets
typical of the urban public realm in dense cities.
In that sense, cultural and historical resources that are features of human origin
help define the character of places along the gGeenway. They, in fact, provide special
core points along the Greenway route that attract a diverse set of users and stewards
6.1 Context Overview 89
Fig. 6.1 The mapped location of the North End Park along the Greenway in Boston, MA (Source
http://www.mappery.com/map-of/rose-fitzgerald-kennedy-greenway-map)
Fig. 6.2 Bird’s Eye View of the Greenway, November 2017 (Source The researcher after MDA
Geospatial Services, scale 1:250 m)
of the Greenway. On the one hand, recreation-oriented greenways are based on trails,
paths, or water fountains (Fig. 6.3).
On the other hand, culturally oriented greenways based on historical and cultural
resources are often created with tourism in mind. Yet, on the ground, these greenway
categories overlap as is the case with the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway.
Fabos (1995) states that in older, highly urbanised cities like Boston, this overlap is
inevitable and part of the attraction and excitement of well-established greenways.
The target area selected along the Greenway (Fig. 6.4), is characterised by cultur-
ally oriented enrichment, due to touristic traffic passing through following the
freedom trail (a historical landmark in the city centre of Boston). In fact, the on-
site design reinforces the tourism-focused activities at the crossroads of the North
End Park and Square.
6.1.3 Historical Background of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy

Greenway
The North End Park—currently known as part of the Greenway (Fig. 6.5)—was
designed by Gustafson Guthrie Nichol and Crosby Schlessinger Small-ridge back
in 2005. Both firms were commissioned by the city of Boston, specifically by the
6.1 Context Overview 91
Fig. 6.3 Recreational

Greenway Rings Fountain,
July 2016 (Source City of
Boston 2016, 10)
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA 2008a), to design a park that reflects the
link between the historic neighbourhood of North End and the rest of the city.
The North End Park and Square, opened on 5 November 2007, replacing an
area that was formerly an eyesore—the long awaited controversial sixteen-year-long
Central Artery/tunnel project known as the “Big Dig,” (Fig. 6.6(a), (b)). One of the
largest and most expensive public works projects in American History, it replaced an
elevated highway that bludgeoned the city for nearly half a century, dividing the city
waterfront and historical North End from the adjacent Downtown area (Mahmoud,
2021).
The buried sections of Interstate 93 and 90, are now topped with the 1.5-mile-long
Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway (Fig. 6.6(b)). The project was federally funded
and overseen by the state, at the place the Bostonians recall it as “the battlefield
of Menino.” Somehow, though, Mayor Tom Menino managed to sell investors and
ordinary citizens alike on his vision for the clean, efficient, and business-friendly
city that would emerge from the project’s dust (Goldhagen 2010). “The Big Dig”
ballooned into a $22 billion extravaganza boondoggle, but Boston came out of it as a
better city; Property values have more than doubled, streets are safer, and economy
is more robust than ever.
“The Rose Kennedy Greenway will transform the heart and character of Boston in so many
ways. We have taken a space that previously hosted an outdated elevated steel highway and
turned it into a vibrant park. Today’s dedication of the North End Parks is a significant step
Fig. 6.4 North End Park site interactive map (Source https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/Greenway_Map-1.jpg)
6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End Park 93
Fig. 6.5 The current view of North End Parks (Source The researcher, Summer 2016)
forward in the overall development of this Greenway.” said Governor Patrick in the opening
ceremony of the North End Park. (MTA 2008b)
This was once the “Land Bridge” that connected the peninsula of Boston with
Sudbury Street to the west, a site with a rich history of more than 300 years as a
crossing ground for Bostonians. This site was also the low point between Beacon
Hill and Copps Hill and subsequently was the logical choice for a mill canal that
connected the swampy area known as the Mill Pond (later the Bulfinch Triangle) with
the bay. The Central Artery Master plan developed in 2001 by the Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority (Fig. 6.7), provided a framework designating eight acres for
open spaces and parks in Bullfinch triangle and North End. The plan stipulated the
development parcels, focusing on reconnecting districts with a seam of futuristic—
yet historical—open space that knits its neighbourhoods back together (McCown
2001; EDRG 2006).
6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End

Park
The “Big Dig” left planners debating long and hard about the mix of open spaces
and buildings on the freed-up land following the removal of the elevated highway.
However, the (Boston Redevelopment Authority, 1991) mandated the development
of 75% of the land “as a series of parks and urban squares,” and that was later adopted
the “Air-Rights Park plan” mandating 25% surface development only, while the rest
remained as public open space (Federal Highway Administration; Turner 2003).
In 2003, the mapped central artery corridor main plan showed designated specific
parcels for open space development; among which Parcels 19, 21, and 22 were
assigned to the Massachusetts Horticultural Society to develop outdoor gardens and
an enclosed winter garden. Then, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority delegated
the assignment of development Parcels 6, 12, and 18 to the Rose Kennedy Greenway
Conservancy (RFKGC) which created the Dewey Square and Fort Point Channel
parks (Fig. 6.8).
Fig. 6.6 (a) The Central Artery, 2004. North End to the right, Downtown to the left (b) The Rose
Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway in 2012. Picture from Peter Vanderwarker, author of The Big Dig:
Reshaping an American City (Source Boston Magazine 2013)
6.2 The Land Use Dilemma and Re-birth of North End Park 95
Fig. 6.7 Map of Central Artery Parcel Land Use, year 2001 (Source Economic Development
Research Group)
Fig. 6.8 Massachusetts

Turnpike Authority, Parcel
Land use map, year 2007
(Source https://www.mas
sdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/
Images/bigdig/parcelmap.
gif)
NORTHEND
DOWNTOWN
6.3 North End Park Site Description 97
Fig. 6.9 Greenway Open space and John Fitzgerald Surface road continuum, view from top of
Custom House tower towards Parcel 8, 10, and 12 (Source Map Data Imagery Google 2022, CNES,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA)
Nonetheless, the “Big Dig” plan called for the creation of a pair of one-way surface
roads extending the length of the Greenway, now called the John Fitzgerald surface
road (Fig. 6.9), to manage local traffic that existed, underneath most of the replaced
Central Artery. In the meantime, the Greenway parks and development parcels were
bordered as well by other crossing streets (North, Cross, and Sudbury streets)
separating the development parcels.
Both Parcels 8 and 10 gave way to the North End parks in 2005. The same land
parcels were formerly seen as underutilised space, as described by (Baker 2017):
Before the Big Dig brought down the Central Artery, the North End felt more like a lovable
enclave off the beaten path…literally. I lived there in the early ’90s and had to access the
neighbourhood from downtown via a shadowed and cracked asphalt walkway under the
elevated highway. A welcoming gateway it was not.
6.3 North End Park Site Description
Geographically located at coordinates 42.362358 N, 71.055875 W; the North End

Parks and Square are physically identified as Parcels 8 and 10. With a size of 2.83
acres and approximately 12.000 m2 , the design of the North End open space and
park square (identified in Boston Maps geospatially as ID 570) whereas the open
spaces data layer is defined as open spaces of conservational and recreational interest
in Boston, Massachusetts regardless of ownership (Analyse Boston 2017) framing
Fig. 6.10 Constructed design of the North End Park, after Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd (Source
http://www.ggnltd.com/north-end-parks)
the entry to North End neighbourhood from one side and to downtown on the other
(Fig. 6.10).
In 2010, the Boston Redevelopment Authority developed Greenway District
Planning Study Use and Development Guidelines with the purpose of repairing the
urban fabric of the neighbourhoods surrounding the new park system. The aim was
to place equal weight on urban design issues of parcels within a unified and contin-
uous system of parks and public spaces (City of Boston and Boston Redevelopment
Authority 2010).
Similarly, the unique location of the Parcels 11A and 11B presented an oppor-
tunity to reinforce the area as a destination with its abundant historical sites and
popular restaurants. In fact, the goals presented in the development plan built on
expanding the food-related retail in North End, in relation to its historical fabric;
limiting development to consistent heights of existing buildings; and re-establishing
connectivity with infill developments on the edges and the residentially scaled fabric
surrounding it.
The notion of design for the North End Park and Square is that it works as a signif-
icant “city hinge,” between the grand civic spaces of Quincy Market, Government
Center, and Haymarket, leading to approach the intimate North End, Boston’s oldest
Italian neighbourhood.
6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch” 99
Fig. 6.11 Freedom Trail at night across the North End Park Parcel 8 (Source http://www.cssbos
ton.com/portfolio/nep/)
While located at the threshold between downtown and a historic/touristic neigh-

bourhood, the concept behind the design was not been easy, creating a critical link that
acknowledged the importance of North End as a “home” to a large Italian community
since 1890s. In fact, the neighbourhood—still distinguishably abutting the narrow
streets and alleys—contains several historical sites that still remain an appealing
attraction. Hence, local residents have accepted the resulting influx of tourists and
the gradual increase of restaurants and retail shops over the years (City of Boston
2006; Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge 2016).
Ken Greenburg, an urban design consultant hired by the city to visualise the future
of the Greenway, noted the importance of keeping existing businesses in the North
End to retain the Italian ambiance and help retain a 24-hour environment. At the same
time, he predicted, that North End’s parks could be “one of the great public spaces in
America” (Reidy 2004). However, since the 1950s, the freedom trail crossed the site
in a confined space beneath the Central Artery viaducts. Now, the park design holds
the city’s historic freedom trail high (Fig. 6.11), as it now crosses the main path. sit
in the dark shadow of the elevated highway.
6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch”
The flexible design of The North End Parks features spaces that include green land-
scapes with a path system, squares with pergolas, and water features that run through
both parks and appeal to a wide range of people, including North End residents of all
ages and the thousands of tourists and Bostonians who visit them each year (MTA
2008a). The Gustafson Nichol (2017) design for these two adjacent parcels restored
views and street connections that were severed for decades by the elevated highway.
The North End Parks, which had always been a physical and social threshold, are
now the most popular Greenway destination in Boston.
The enthusiastic involvement of the neighbourhood community centred on an
engaging public process—through local collaboration and public meetings—that
was fundamental in shaping the design of a new “front porch” for the North End.
The residents’ traditional, lively street culture is celebrated in the parks’ design of
furnished terraces, intimate garden spaces, and interactive water features. A large
pergola defines the North End neighbourhood’s gateway and “front porch” as a place
to gather, to stroll, and to be seen (Fig. 6.12).
A steel pergola lines one side of the site and is the conceptual “Front Porch”
of the North End neighbourhood, complete with site furnishings that encourage its
use, making it an “exception” as described by (Goldhagen 2010). A reflective water
feature separates the porch from a series of lawns and perennial gardens.
The design of the circumference of the park design has streets and walkways
(North Street, Hanover Street, and Salem Street walkways) that reconnect the
city to North End. Each crosses the gardens, water feature, and pergola. The site’s
rich history is reflected in interpretive elements that include granite marking the edge
of the Mill Pond and the water’s edge, descriptive quotes and a timeline engraved in
Fig. 6.12 The North End “Front Porch” steel pergola (Source The researcher, Spring 2016/ Summer
2017, Spring 2018)
leaning rails, and an engraved stone map illustrating the changing form of the site
(Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge 2016).
6.4.1 Physical Conditions
The park furniture was continuously improved, in 2014 the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
Greenway Conservancy approved the placement of 14 sets of tables and chairs, 11
umbrellas, and 32 benches along the North End Park alone (Fig. 6.13). That, however,
increased the attractiveness of the square and the Rose Fitzgerald Conservancy
recorded 1,190,000 visitors in the year 2014 due to the offerings of food vendors,
Counts of Public WI-FI logons, carousel riders, and the attendance at Musical Events,
making the greenway a major attraction in Massachusetts.
A boxwood hedge frames the perennial gardens of irises, lavender, peonies, and
poppies that border the western edge of the parks. A variety of plants flower contin-
uously through spring, summer, and fall. Trees such as magnolia, ash, and a larger
Washington elm adorn the parks. As a vibrant expression of the Italian origins of
today’s North End, the community porch pergola is planted with flowering vines.
Chairs and tables and benches abound to read a book or enjoy a slice of local pizza.
The park’s leaning rails on Hanover Street feature quotes from some of North End’s
prominent residents as well as a timeline of historical events. The parks are divided
by the reconnected Hanover Street, which can be closed to traffic to connect the two
parks.
Moving water with vertical jets invite park visitors to explore (Fig. 6.14). Paving in
the park uses granite in a variety of textures and sizes to mark the contrasts between the
park’s elements. Patterned granite slabs are a visual reference and link to the historical
stone pavements in the North End neighbourhood. More specifically, the North End
Park was listed in June 2015, with a total budget of $400,000 and underwent to face-
lifts to lighting fixtures, and lights along the freedom trail were made to work again
and condensed. Benches were replaced, along with porch swings under the pergolas
and the greenery in the gardens, and redesigned to be more welcoming (RFKGC
2015).
Fig. 6.13 Cross sectional and front design of the North End Park’s Pergolas and Seating areas
(Source Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway North End Community Meeting, 25 February 2015)
Fig. 6.14 (a) Aerial View towards Parcels 8 and 10 to show the flower boxes and the front Porch steel
pergola (b) Stationary activities observation: Kids playing in water fountains, and adults reading
on sides. Summer 2017 (c) water jets fountains along the edge of the sitting chairs, tables, benches,
and the steel pergola (d) Kids playing in water fountains
6.4.2 Placemaking Programming of Uses and Activities
The park is planned to take advantage of all its spaces. While the primary use is
passive activities (such as watching water fountains, relaxing on lawns, and sitting
around, with benches, chairs, and existing tables); active engagement programmes
include the Berklee Concert series (Fig. 6.15(a)) on Fridays in July and August
(Berklee 2017)), free fitness, pilates, and yoga classes (Fig. 6.15(b)), or, food cart
vendors, Galleries on the fence (Conti 2012).
By October 2016, the Conservancy had already partnered with for-profit and non-
profit organisations to run 300 + free events and programmes designed to connect
people from all backgrounds and generations in the park. In fact, about $500,000
was invested in an Arts, Culture, and Humanities programme for June 2016 through
May 2017. The conservancy’s public art programme has received highly competitive
national grants from Art Place America and the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) (RFKGC 2016).
Fig. 6.15 (Left) North End Park seasonal summer concerts (Berklee Concert Series) (Source The
researcher, July 2017. (Right) Yoga and fitness classes activities in the North End Park [Photo
courtesy of local artist and North End resident Lucie Wicker, via http://www.luciewicker.com/])
6.4.3 Accessibility
Bounded by two metro stations, the (North Station) on the edge of Parcel 8 connects
to the exit of Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy surface road (Fig. 6.16) and the (Haymarket
Station) at the edge of Parcel 10. Both stations are on the green line and the
orange line, which makes the accessibility of the North End Park quite easy from
inbound connections. As a consequence, crossing over Hanover Street gets difficult
on weekends due to the Public Market held on the adjacent Blackstone Street.
Fig. 6.16 Accessibility from North End station towards Parcel 8, an aerial view of the crossing
6.5 Conclusion: The North End Park as a Successful

“Public Place”
The ever-evolving debate about the difference between a “Public Space” and a
“Place” goes beyond semantics when distinguishing between the two concepts. A
place is shaped by the environment in which people invest meaningful time; it has its
own history, a unique cultural and social identity that is defined by the way it is used
and the people who use it (Boros and Mahmoud 2021). In addition, physical, social,
environmental, and economic aspects of communities can be nurtured by creating
places (Carmona et al. 2010; Mackenzie 2015).
In this regard, the North End park shows successful pillars. While the North End
Park and square were at the heart of a city-wide project to regenerate a highway area,
the leading characteristics of the public place were its historical roots of community
engagement and a deep culturally oriented territorial neighbourhood relationship.
That said, based on the notion of the North End Park as a city hinge and the historical
freedom trail path, the physical design and the imagery of the park was a challenging
task. The city ballooned the economic debt of the Big Dig giving rise to an ever-
evolving economic urban regeneration project of the Greenway. Then, its location
on the very end of a series of open spaces and parks and due to its context, the North
End park is considered one of the greatest parks and squares in the city of Boston,
MA (Mahmoud et al. 2017).
Nonetheless, community involvement in the design process played an essential
role in creating a distinguished public place. In addition to that, there is the continuous
effort of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy in promoting the
cultural programming of the Greenway through festivals and special events such
as artistic installations, outdoor movie displays, and dog carnivals (RFKGC 2017).
Moreover, the public art programme along with the active placemaking activities
of creating and activating open spaces, have bolstered the creation of longer-term
economic value creation in the whole urban downtown business district and North
End in particular (BRA 2010; RFKGC 2016).
References
Baker MR (2017) The evolution of Boston’s North end how the neighbourhood has changed—but
thankfully also stayed the same. Boston Magazine
Berklee (2017) Berklee returns to the Greenway for another summer series of Concerts. In: Music
Movies Greenw. https://www.berklee.edu/events/summer/greenway-series. Accessed 4 July 2017
Boros J, Mahmoud I (2021) Urban design and the role of placemaking in mainstreaming nature-
based solutions. Learning from the Biblioteca Degli Alberi case study in Milan. Front Sustain
Cities 3(June):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.635610
Boston A (2017) Open space layer BOSTONMAPS: OPEN DATA. http://maps.massgis.state.ma.
us/map_ol/oliver.php. Accessed 17 March 2017
Boston Magazine (2013) Then and now: Menino’s Boston. https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/
2013/09/24/mayor-tom-menino-big-dig-photos/. Accessed 21 Apr 2017
References 105
Boston Redevelopment Authority (1991) Boston 2000: A plan for the central artery. United States
of America. https://ia800501.us.archive.org/21/items/boston2000planfo00bost/boston2000planf
o00bost.pdf
BPRD (2015) Open space & recreation plan 2015–2021. Boston Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment, City of Boston. https://www.cityofboston.gov/Parks/openspace/2015_2021.asp. Accessed
12 Aug 2017
BRA (2010) Rose Kennedy Greenway: creating long-term value. HR&A ADVISORS, INC.
Accessed 11 Feb 2017
Carmona M, Tiesdell S, Heath T, Oc T (2010) The social dimension. In: Public places, urban spaces:
the dimensions of urban design, 2nd edn. Routledge, pp 133–166
City of Boston (2006) Community open space & recreation mission: the neighborhoods. Central
Boston. https://www.cityofboston.gov/parks/pdfs/os3c.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2017
City of Boston. (2016). Imagine Boston 2030: A Plan for the Future of Boston. In Boston redevelop-
ment Authority. https://www.boston.gov/civic-engagement/imagine-boston-2030. Accessed 12
Oct 2017
City of Boston, Boston Redevelopment Authority (2010) Greenway district use and development
City of Boston. Boston
Conti M (2012) Pilates on the North end greenway attracts hundreds. In: Northend
Waterfront. http://northendwaterfront.com/2012/09/hundreds-turn-out-for-pilates-on-the-north-
end-greenway/. Accessed 1 May 2017
Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge (2016) North end parks. http://www.cssboston.com/portfolio/
nep/1/2. Accessed 25 April 2017
EDRG. (2006). “Economic Impact of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority & Related Projects
Volume II: The Metropolitan Highway System & Urban Transformation” (p. 24). Economic
Development Research Group Inc. http://www.masspike.com/pdf/reports/MTA-Economic-V2.
pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2017
Fabos JG (1995) Introduction and overview: the greenway movement, uses and potentials of
greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 33:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)02035-R
Federal Highway Administration. The Central Artery Environmental Oversight Committee. https://
www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/artery/artery_4.asp. Accessed 1 May 2016
Goldhagen, S. W. (2010). Park Here | Architecture in Millenium Park, the High Line, and City
Garden Reviewed | New Republic. New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/76951/city-
parks-urban-planning. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
Gustafson Guthrie Nichol (2017) North end parks. http://www.ggnltd.com/north-end-parks.
Accessed 25 April 2017
Mackenzie A (2015) Placemaking and place-led development: A new paradigm for cities
of the future. https://www.pps.org/reference/placemaking-and-place-led-development-a-new-par
adigm-for-cities-of-the-future/. Accessed 25 October 2017
Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2019). From ‘Highway into Greenway’: how public
spaces change zoning regulations. Smart Innov, Syst Technol 2:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-92102-0
Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2017) From a highway to a greenway: A land use
dilemma or a rebirth of a place? The case of Northend Park, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Green
Way: Boston, MA, USA. Urban Inf 272:388–392. ISSN 0392–5005
Mahmoud I (2021) Nature-based solutions: The holy grail of green urbanism. International confer-
ence on eco-urbanism and nature-based solutions at: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 28–35.
Accessed 20 Jun 2022 https://attachments.waset.org/21/ebooks/october-2021-in-dubai-2021-10-
13-12-29-37.pdf
McCown, J. (2001). Boston Reconnecting. Architecture Week, September 2001, 2–3. http://www.
architectureweek.com/2001/0926/building_2-1.html. Accessed 25 Apr 2017
MTA (2008a) The North end parks. In: May. http://web.archive.org/web/2008a0514151741/http://
www.masspike.com/bigdig/parks/nendpark.html. Accessed 23 April 2017
MTA (2008b) North end parks openings. In: July. http://web.archive.org/web/2008b0724170121/

http://www.masspike.com/bigdig/parks/nendpkopen.html Accessed 23 April 2017
Reidy, C. (2004). North Enders determined to shape their future. The Boston Globe, June(15), 27.
http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2004/06/15/north_enders_determined_to_shape_t
heir_future/. Accessed 27 Apr 2017
RFKGC. (2015). North End Parks Community Meeting: 2015 Improvements. https://www.roseke
nnedygreenway.org/calendar/?event-categories=board-meeting. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
RFKGC (2016) Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy Inc. NON-PROFIT Report,
Boston. https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/. Accessed 11 Feb 2017
RFKGC (2017) Special events. In: GSA Today. ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0906.
pdf. Accessed 1 November 2017
Turner RL (2003) A spectacular winter garden is the centrepiece of the Massachusetts Artery. But
can the society get the job done? Boston Globe 1–4
Chapter 7
The North End Park as a Liveable
Destination
Abstract This chapter explains in detail the methodological analysis conducted on

the main case study in this book: The North End Park in Rose Kennedy Greenway,
Boston, Massachusetts. The multi-methods evaluation framework, known as the
Public Space Index (PSI), implemented encompasses visual observation analysis,
behavioural pattern tracing, the measurement of stationary activities, a photographic
storyline, as well as users’ surveys, key informants’ interviews, and finally analysis
of urban micro trends. Mainly, this chapter presents the results of the methodological
analysis implemented on North End Park as a case study.
Keywords Liveable cities · Northend Park · Rose Kennedy Greenway ·

Placemaking · Social evaluation
7.1 North End Park: An In-Depth Analysis
While physical analysis is important for any site, one of the most important measur-
able qualities of any public place is its attraction for users. People gather in squares
and walk in parks, and the relationship between people and their space is an essential
component of urban design (Nassar 2010, 312). Based on this notion, the following
in-depth analysis looks at the users of North End Park with the help of a public
life matrix toolkit technique. The main outcomes are part of a physical observation
analysis, an intercept user’s statistical survey, interviews with on-site and in-the-field
experts, and a video camera surveillance records analysis, as well as the analysis of
smart planning tools such as Co-Urbanize, Vision Zero, and Liveability Calculator.
In compliance with the above, North End Park is as vibrant as one can imagine a
public place to be. An intensive visual observation timeline1 conducted for a three-
month period from April 2017 to July 2017 and showed an attractiveness factor for
usage of the North End Park as a culturally oriented destination due to its adjacency
to the Italian Neighbourhood’s cluster of food and restaurants, which occurred espe-
cially on weekend days. Sociability (defined as a liveable street life and diversity in
1The visual observation timeline was conducted from 10 am to 10 pm for a full 3 months and
divided into 2-hour slots based on a preliminary analysis that frequent users do not spend more than
2 hours in North End Park each day.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_7
108 7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination
public place use and stewardship [PPS 2009; Carmona et al. 2010; Wortham-Galvin
2013]) measured a noticeable feminine presence in the square, within a frequent
period between 5:30 pm and 8 pm that peaks on weekend days.
The evaluation framework matrix constructed beforehand considers the variation
of types and uses of the public space chosen, the North End Park in this case. Methods
for analysing public space frequently use observation either in person or by video,
and/or a combination of the two. That was elaborated, coupled with intercept users’
surveys to verify the sociability attribute in the public space, in addition to interviews
with key informants and governmental bodies in BPDA.
7.2 Visual Observation Analysis
The visual observation techniques used in this analysis are based on a mix between
the researcher’s individual observations and video camera surveillance recordings.
The matrix was used to analyse uses and activities, comfort and imagery of the
North End Park, accessibility, and links with services, and lastly the sociability of
the place. Within this, the major observational categories were the trends in stationary
or frequent uses in terms of pedestrian pattern counts. Ten specific points of observa-
tions were assigned in order to easily map the users’ behavioural patterns, in addition
to their locations and their in-space experiences.2
7.2.1 Visual Observation Analysis: Timeline and Locations
In-person observations were conducted over three months between April and July
2017. The reason for this period choice was a previous weather frame analysis, Boston
was hit by cold fronts in both the 2015 and 2016 winter seasons, which made winter
observation impossible, see Fig. 7.1. At the same time, the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
Greenway Conservancy plans cultural programming events during the period from
May to August each year.
A timeline for the observational studies was built up based on time slots from
10:00 am to 22:00 and normally divided into two-hour stays, see Fig. 7.2 (that is due
to an earlier observation that no frequent users stay in the North End Park for more
than two consecutive hours at weekends or on workdays).
A specific focus was placed on the days on which the weather conditions showed
a better temperature and an accommodating environment in correlation with the
occurrence of cultural events occurring in the North End Park, such as the weekend
2 As part of the observational phenomenological experiments, the researcher assessed various

seating areas from different perspectives and deliberately analysed her own travel pattern behaviour
and environmental considerations. Idea adopted from (Johnston 2012, 57) and considerations
adopted from (Gehl Institute 2016b, 47).
7.2 Visual Observation Analysis 109
Fig. 7.1 Monthly average temperature recorded in Boston Massachusetts, year 2017 (Source
https://www.foreca.com/United_States/Massachusetts/data-sources)
Fig. 7.2 Timeline and dates of the visual observation during the month of July 2017
of 15th and 16th of July and Friday 14th or Friday the 21st when the Berklee music
concerts took place.
Data collection on the ten observation points, see Fig. 7.3 was completed by taking
a “snapshot” of the park and/or attentively observing the users at walkthrough or
crossing points. Attention was paid to avoid double counting, this required between
5 and 30 min at each point to record all stationary activities. A total of 1160 pictures
were taken in the site observational analysis process, varying between the ten points
and within the 10:00 and 22:00 timeframe.3
3 This chapter contains a figure from the previous publication by the main author Mahmoud IH,
Appleyard B, Bevilacqua C (2019) From ‘highway into greenway’: how public spaces change zoning
regulations. In: Calabrò F, Della Spina L, Bevilacqua C (eds) New metropolitan perspectives. ISHT
2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 101. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-92102-0_22
Fig. 7.3 Observation points base map with exemplary views from around the North End Park,
April/July 2017 (Source The researcher, base map adapted from Microsoft Corporation Here Maps
©2017)
7.2.2 Visual Observation Analysis: Pedestrians Counts

Methodology
Starting December 2015, the physical observation of the plaza showed a touristic
tendency at the crossing between Hanover Street and the Blackstone Street whereas,
on the freedom trail path, when the weather is good, the human flow increases.
Tourists often stop at a specific spot to take pictures (point 2 or point 8), enjoy
the view of the waterjet fountains, and maybe grab something to eat from adjacent
bakeries of the Italian neighbourhood (point 10), see Fig. 7.3.
While the observational analysis was set up to understand the behavioural travel
patterns in the North End Park and Square, the main technique was about analysing
the pedestrian counts around/through the observation points. Due to the large sample
size, the readings were compiled into two categories: weekdays (from Monday to
Thursday) and weekends (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) for simplification. However,
the two hours timeframe slots were kept unchanged from 10 am to 22:00, and the
readings for same points over the observation hours were averaged.
Pedestrian counts include total number of walkers, cyclists, etc.; other categories
of sitting users (on benches, chairs, laying on lawns, etc.) were recorded separately
for analysis of stationary activity events. However, the measurement counts followed
the same order as the ten observation points, see Fig. 7.3. The same observation points
order as that mapped for the site was followed for the pedestrian counts graphs.
Fig. 7.4 Total pedestrian counts over 4 consecutive weekends in July 2017
7.2.2.1 Behavioural Pattern Tracing at Weekends
During the observation of pedestrian counts, a peak trend was noticed between the
hours of 12:00 (34 users) and 20:00 (15 users) for the point 8 location, at weekends
see Fig. 7.4. That is due to the location of observation point 8 at the crossing between
the Haymarket metro station and North End Park in the direction of the North End
neighbourhood (either Salem or Hanover Street), see Fig. 7.5. Saturday 15th of July
2017 had the highest count recorded; that may be due to the adjacency to the market
on weekends from 9:00 am to 18:00. The temperature recorded for that weekend had
an average of between 28 and 31°C with zero chances of rain and clear skies, which
explains the impactful significance of this on the North End Park users.
7.2.2.2 Behavioural Pattern Tracing on Weekdays
The major trends during weekdays showed an increased users count during lunch
time between 12:00 and 14:00, also around point 8 at the crossing from Haymarket
Station and Public Market where some eateries are clustered as well, see Fig. 7.6. The
second trend of a higher pedestrian traffic flow was at point 2 towards the restaurant’s
area between 10:00 am and slowing down at 14:00, and drastically increasing again
at 16:00 until 20:00. Again, the temperature recorded for the weekdays between
July 1st and July 29th average between 18 and 28°C with a low chance of rain and
Fig. 7.5 Observation point 8, Saturday 15th July 11:00
scattered clouds, which affected the flow of pedestrians to some extent. Moreover, a
noticeable count occurred at both points 5 and 6 in Parcel 10. This was specifically in
the time slot between 16:00 and 20:00, the justification of which was the installation
of an art piece that has the surrounding fountains working daily around 14:00 during
July, see Fig. 7.7.
It is easier to visually compare the values of the pedestrians crossing at each point
of observation by the same time slot as well, see Fig. 7.8. This shows that the weekends
(second reading at each observation point) have a higher average in some locations
and times such as points 2, 4, 8, and 10, respectively. That is explained by them being
on the axes of crossings either in the early morning at 10:12:00 or late in the evening
at 18:20:00 due to the connection between the North End neighbourhood and the
Haymarket Metro Station and/or with the cluster restaurants, while the weekdays
only showed peaks at points 2, 8, and 10 at times between 12:14:00 and 18:20:00.
7.2.3 Visual Observation Analysis: Stationary Activities

Measurement
Many of the stationary activities recorded at the North End Park and Square are
explained by its nature as an open public park located between a residential neigh-
bourhood, and one famous for its food, and as a major crossing point between
Haymarket metro transit station and the freedom trail as a culturally attractive
touristic path. It is also explained by its being part of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
Greenway which gives privileges in terms of its cultural programming uses, and its
Fig. 7.6 Total pedestrian counts over 4 consecutive weeks (Monday to Thursday), July 2017
Fig. 7.7 Observation point 5, Tuesday 11th July 20:00

Fig. 7.8 Average pedestrian counts for both weekends and weekdays at 10 observation points, July
2017
usage by the North End residents during their commuting times and Lunch-eaters
around their workplaces.
The quality of the space is measured by the number of people who spent time in
the park and the amount of time spent there (Popper 2010, 27). Stationary activities
were recorded six times on both one weekday and one weekend—at least—between
10:00 am and 22:00 and then compiled across days and 12 hours of observation for
simplification. The same ten visual observation points were used and recorded by
mapping users’ activities. That helped understand the “sticky places” around the
North End Park and Square and the variety of activity types and attractiveness to the
park users’ whether on weekends or weekdays.
7.2.3.1 Stationary Activities—Recording Methodology
The methodology used for recording stationary activities was built from the classic
Gehl categorisation of stationary activities, within a framework of how people partic-
ipate in different activities in the space by separating “type” of activity from “time”
they spent in there (Gehl Institute 2016a). The primary function of this framework is
also depicted by stationary activity “mapping” in order to understand the occurrence
of a variety of activities in a space and their length of stay.
This methodology of tracking the duration of stationary activities reduces errors
by tracking users who spent between 5 and 30 min in the same position whether
sitting, standing, waiting to transit, or doing any other activity. This measurement
provides greater flexibility than standard stationary activity recording. A space in
which the majority of people spend 5 min or less is more of a passing-through

place than a place that encourages people to sit, talk, and linger for 15 min or more.
Another layer of data is revealed by mapping social groups in the stationary activity,
representing groups of people who are socialising with one another in the space. This
method helps with the evaluation and tells the story of social life in the park.
7.2.3.2 Stationary Activities—Uses and Locations
In the case of stationary activities, the number represents an average of the users in
the park in the process of engaging in that stationary activity within a certain depicted
timeframe. Again, the timeframes in which the count took place are between 5 and
30 min with a range of two hours to cover the whole park’s ten observation points at
a certain time at least once a day. The sum of users is then compiled and averaged
by days, be they weekdays or weekends. Peaks in certain activities were noticed on
specific occasions and around certain points, as explained later for specific locations.
Moreover, this is consistent with the pedestrian counts in the previous section, in terms
of the lunch-hour hypothesis and the major crossing points around the Haymarket
Station and the North End neighbourhood such as points 2, 8, and 10, respectively.
Stationary activities were then identified by type such as standing, waiting to
transit around the edges, or crossing; while for instance, the seating behaviour was
analysed in two diverse ways, by sitting on/in a bench/chair and lying down on the
grass throughout the entire observation process. Importance was also given to the
occurrence of culturally oriented activities such as musical concerts in Parcel 8,
the Art Installation piece in Parcel 10, or the physical activities such as the pilates
or the yoga classes that both occur in Parcel 8. Another trend was observed in the
Children playing activity around the water fountains, especially on sizzling summer
days (weekend of July 21st, 22nd, and 23rd) at observation points 3, 5, and 6 due
to their protected location from the surrounding streets’ traffic and being seen as
“families’ corner.” A total of 271 users were recorded at weekends while 184 were
recorded on weekdays for the park entire and square, see Fig. 7.9.
Figure 7.9 shows the cumulative readings for stationary activities during the week-
days and weekends of July 2017. Mapping of stationary activities was done in two-
hour timeslots, by recording the count and activity type on location at the observation
by hand, and then digitalising it for ease of analysis. Afterwards, the hourly maps
were compiled into a daily composition in order to look for patterns in stationary
activity types in the North End Park and Square in both Parcels 8 and 10. A noticeable
tendency of the standing pattern and waiting to transit or crossing through the edges
of the North End Park is easily tracked and was higher at weekends than on week-
days. Meanwhile, the sitting behaviour is equally proportional whether on weekends
or weekdays.
In the same way, the cultural activity is engaged in during the weekend, which is
due to the Berklee musical concerts held on Friday afternoons from 17:00 to 19:00 in
Parcel 8. In addition to that, there was a noticeable extent of children playing during
300
271
children playing
250
physical activity
25
200 184 cultural activity
30
150 5 28 commercial
22
35 lying down on grass
100
88 seating bench/ chair
50 60
waiting transit/ crossing
31 45
0 Standing
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
Fig. 7.9 Stationary activities measurement on weekdays and weekends for a total of the 10
observation points, July 2017
the weekend that is, however, explained later by point of observation as a cluster in
points 3, 5, and 6, respectively.
7.2.3.3 North End Park and Square—Stationary Activities in Detail
Figure 7.10 shows the mapping of the stationary activities throughout the North End
Park and Square during the month of July 2017. The ten observation points were
looked at respectively and represented by two pie charts for each point, whereas
the outer ring shows the intense activity at weekends, and the inner ring shows the
weekdays activities.
No extremely prominent differences were recorded in the observed activities
between weekends and weekdays; however, some noticeable trends in waiting to
transit or crossing were easily tracked by eyesight at all points, but especially at
points 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10, as well as some concentration of culturally oriented activ-
ities at points 3, 6, and 9. In addition to that, the obvious preference of users to lay
down on the grass as a seating behaviour was seen at points 1, 6, and 8 respectively,
as opposed to the sitting on benches or chairs at points 2, 3, 4, and 7.
Figure 7.11 depicts the count differences between weekends and weekdays at each
point of observation and gives an idea for the setting, as to how the users’ activities
have different patterns at different observation points. Moreover, it records users’
count gaps, such as at points 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10, between weekends and weekdays. In
fact, which is explained by the locations of these observation points as can be seen
in both Figs. 7.12 and 7.13. That said, the weekends show a higher count at points
1 and 5 due to children playing events as well as the observation of few skaters in
those two locations, while the gap at point 3 on weekends is due to an amateur guy
playing the guitar nearby.
Fig. 7.10 Mapping stationary activities at ten observation points during July 2017
Fig. 7.11 Average users count for measuring stationary activities at the 10 observation points on
weekends and weekdays, July 2017
WEEKEND
40
35
children playing
30 physical activity
25 cultural activity
20 commercial
lying down on grass
15
seating bench/ chair
10
waiting transit/ crossing
5
Standing
0
point 1 point 2 point 3 point 4 point 5 point 6 point 7 point 8 point 9 point 10
Fig. 7.12 Average stationary activities at weekends—observation by points in July 2017
WEEKDAY
30
25 children playing
physical activity
20
cultural activity
15 commercial
lying down on grass
10
seating bench/ chair
5 waiting transit/ crossing

Standing
0
point 1 point 2 point 3 point 4 point 5 point 6 point 7 point 8 point 9 point 10
Fig. 7.13 Average stationary activities on weekdays—observation by points in July 2017
In the same manner, point 9 is ambiguously high in cultural activities occurrence

during weekends due to the Berklee musical concerts on Fridays while remarkably
high in physical activities during weekdays due to yoga and pilates classes groups
on Wednesdays. Point 10 however remains stable as just a standing and waiting to
transit or crossing point, which is due to a lack of places to sit in addition to the fact
that it is located between the public market held at weekends and the entrance to the
North End park as well as to the whole neighbourhood, see Fig. 7.11.
However descriptive the visual observation analysis gets, the main image the
user can get is usually by walking through the North End park at all times and all
observation points. The following parts of the visual observation analysis are based
on imagery as captured on site—point by point—and during the entire observation
period from April 2016 (preliminary) to July 2017.
7.2.4 Visual Observation Analysis: A Photographic Storyline
The initial observation of park users started in December 2015. However, intensive
photography and specific observation points were established from April 2016 to
July 2017. The photographic storyline aims, then, to compare the same observation
points and camera angles during weekends and weekdays as much as possible, and
so each picture recorded is dated and analysed in its context.
Point 1
Weekends Weekdays
Friday, July 21, 2017, 17:52 Monday, July 17, 2017, 17:50
Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:46 Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 20:08
Sunday, July 2, 2017, 19:00 Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 19:01

During the weekends we can see more families People around this observation point tend to be
around the corner tree of the observation point more in couples or groups gathering, sitting, or
on Parcel 8, more children playing under the lying on grass due to seats missing in that spot.
tree shade. It is common as well to see adults However, it is noticeable the noise barriers from
rambling around barefooted in running water. the street traffic helps which leaves this spot
There will always be someone sitting there appealing for a relaxing crowd
Point 2
Weekends Weekdays
Saturday, July 22, 2017, 16:40 Thursday, July 20, 2017, 17:18
Saturday, July 15, 2017, 20:45 Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 20:26
Saturday, July 22, 2017, 17:56 Monday, July 10, 2017, 14:17
Point 2 (Continued)
Weekends Weekdays
Sunday, July 16, 2017, 13:06 Monday, July 17, 2017, 17:49
This is one of the most projecting points in the During weekdays, the most common trend is
observation, it is a highly crowded crossing the pedestrian crossing flow from Downtown to
point during the weekends and a famous North End around lunch break time and vice
(touristy) pictures spot through the Freedom versa towards the Haymarket public market and
Trail and the North End Custom Tower view. metro station around 17:00. A usual wanderer
Nonetheless, the sitting behaviour around this pedestrian behaviour occurs in this point before
point is ambiguous, very few people stay seated people take the decision to cross to North End
on the chair and tables around this point for or stay other few minutes in the shades of the
long times due to its vicinity to the street noise park or take touristy pictures. The sunken
and crowded all the time. However, few sitting fountains surprise them with some breeze so
clusters form around the sunken edges of the they, somehow, bring desserts to eat and come
water fountains, children playing there are back for a quick pause. Very few bicycles were
always accompanied by their parents, and noticed around this spot as the bike crossing
whatever time there will be crossing flows sign prohibition is enforced
Point 3
Weekends Weekdays
Point 3 has an almost fixed rate of pedestrian From pictures is observed some
count and stationary activities counts, that is families/children point of gatherings, strollers
due to its location in between a crossing point are observed frequently on the lawn during the
and a sitting area in front of a lawn where some midday time till dinner time. The crossing at
consider one of the nicest spots of the park the end of point 3 towards Hanover Street is
It is also considered a cultural spot during the popular for locals as the street narrows and they
weekends as sometimes the dog festival takes don’t risk while crossing. Moreover, most of
place. Some marketing agents use the spot to sitting activity is on benches, tables, and chairs
give away their samples or hang on their posters
Friday, July 21, 2017, 19:37 Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 20:05
(continued)
(continued)
Point 3
Weekends Weekdays
Sunday, July 16, 2017, 12:05 Thursday, July 20, 2017, 12:01
Point 4
Friday, July 14, 2017, 12:30 Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 14:40
(continued)
(continued)
Point 4
During the weekends, the seating crowd seems The main seating crowd during the week are the
to be more into groups and families, meanwhile outdoor working people or the lunch break
the crossing pedestrian flow doesn’t stop by the eaters. Meanwhile, the pedestrian crossing flow
small alleys leading to the street as far as they wanders around a little bit of pause figuring out
can use the main pedestrian crossing at the which alley to cut towards the park crossing
street curb. More people lying on the grass are (into point 7) or just stay a little bit
observed in the midday time and a lot of Shade seekers are observed around this point
families take advantage of the sunken part to sit whereas in midday they stop under the tree and
aside and take pictures sit around the edge of the pathway
Point 5

(continued)
(continued)
Point 5
Sunday, July 16, 2017, 19:20 Thursday, July 6, 2017, 17:40
Friday, July 22, 2017, 16:20 Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 12:57
(continued)
(continued)
Point 5
Through the visual analysis it was depicted There is an average of 24 pedestrians crossing at
that this point holds the family corner this point by two hours average in a weekday
preferred spot tag. During the summer between 10:00 am and 20:00. As well as an
weekend since the art piece installation average of 12 people sitting in this spot whether
however the weather, always children were scattered on the few tables and chairs around or
playing with water fountain and adults will around the corner of the stairs
stop, sit, relax either on the red chairs around It was noticed a sticky spot around the handrail;
the corner or lay on the grass. On average the polish was a bit rut, and it was a bit away
there are around 40 pedestrians crossing by from the splash of the water jets so noticeable
two hours average in a weekend day and an sitting pattern on the floor/stairs so basically
average of 26 persons sitting/lying down on avoiding the wet feeling around while still
grass or playing with their children at this enjoying the space feeling
point by two hours average count
Point 6
(continued)
(continued)
Point 6
It is noticeable that this point has fewer users During the weekdays, this spot has almost the
that is due to its location around the edge of same crowd of users for stationary activities
Parcel 10. Moreover, no transit or crossing while it holds half the number of pedestrian
patterns are almost present owing to the counts than weekends. More in-depth, it is
hidden path that is not visible from the Joan believed that the art installation project activated
Fitzgerald Kennedy surface street that edge of Parcel 10 in terms of users’ presence
However, the remarkable pattern is the sitting and lying on grass pattern whether on weekends or
weekdays, that is due to the missing of seats or benches to use
Point 7
(continued)
(continued)
Point 7
There is always a scattered crowd of locals who During the week, there are always few people
cross at this observation point, which is maybe seated under the shade of the big tree around
due to the long waiting time for the pedestrian midday hours, most of the times a small family,
traffic light between the surface road and or a couple. A common point to seek some
Hanover Street. Another remarkable issue is the privacy is the corner between the edge of Parcel
crossing pedestrian count during the weekends 8 from Hanover Street with the Kennedy
at this point that is the triple of the rest of the surface road where point 7 is on the elevated
week (45vs12) while the number of people in level of the park. That is due to the canopy trees
stationary activities remains intact at 15 during that work as a noise barrier as well as the seats
weekends vs 10 on weekdays with no variations availability with a less crowd than the rest of
in activity types the parcel
Point 8
Friday, July 14, 2017, 18:06 Thursday, July 6, 2017, 18:07

(continued)
(continued)
Point 8
(continued)
(continued)
Point 8
Statistically, the crossing point has around 100 During the weekdays, the users crossing the
users by an average of two hours during the street or standing at this point have a faster pace
weekend days. Meanwhile, the stationary than users during the weekends. On average of
activities count, and types remain intact with no two hours, 36 persons cross from this point that
remarkable changes between weekends and is due to the location in between the transit
weekdays (27vs23) per average of two hours station from one side and the park along with
However, the main noticeable activity is the the North End neighbourhood on the other side
waiting transit and crossing pattern that is due Another noticeable attribute to this observation
to the location of this point following the point is the low seating behaviour around this
historic freedom trail towards the park. Users point, users uncomfortably sit around the edges
during the weekend have a slower pace than of the lawn (due to the homeless spikes
weekdays and a wanderer attitude at the info designed) which make them never stay for
pole around the corner more than 30 min at most (Whyte 1990).
Interestingly, the Berklee musical concerts However, they remarkably sit on the lawn at all
around this point and the following (9) form a times with no limitations to time or weather
diverse crowd during the Fridays from 17:00 to
19:00 that are either standing or sitting on lawn
Point 9
(continued)
(continued)
Point 9
During the weekends, this is a common point to During the weekdays, this is a common spot to
passively watch the musical concert without sit and relax or for the yoga and Pilates classes
interfering with the crowd on Wednesdays
More privacy seekers around this point as seen, there is always a couple of people sitting under
that corner tree and someone talking over the phone around the edge or two people chatting in
private space around the same edge. However, someone is standing or sitting on the edge to be
facing the mid path of the parcel at that end or a group or individuals scattered on the ground
wherever they can sit or lay on the lawn. 2 h stay guitar guy, he seemed more comfortable to be
playing around an edge where there is no traffic volume surrounding. As well as a more passive
watching pattern is observed, at this end of Parcel 8 people sit around to see and not to be seen
Point 10
Saturday, July 8, 2017 18:07 Monday, July 17, 2017, 16:48
Friday, July 14, 2017, 19:08 Thursday, July 20, 2017, 17:17

(continued)
(continued)
Point 10
Point 10 is one of the clearest observation point Noticeably, the only sitting chairs and tables
that showed no specific diversity in the activities were always locked up between midday and
between weekends or weekdays as it is just used 20:00 which made the seating pattern almost
as crossing or transit point. In weekends the uncountable. Even though the biking lane is
crowd is the public market one, which made the highlighted, very few bikers were noticed.
visual observation ambiguous hence it was Statistically, 35 persons were counted per two
impossible to follow the users’ diverse patterns. hours average at this point for stationary
Statistically, the peak of pedestrian counts activities, which is however due to the low
occurred between 12:00 and 18:00, that is numbers between 17:00 and 20:00 while the
however due to the market occurrence on peak occurred between 12:00 and 14:00
Fridays and Saturdays till 18:00
7.2.5 Interpretation of Users’ Sociability in North End Park

and Square
In relation to social behaviour in public squares, Whyte (1980a, b) notes that people
sit where there are places to sit, and that was observed during the visual analysis.
Scholars vigorously argue that the quality of the built environment manifested
in public spaces, such as the case of the North End Park, helps understand and
contributes to the flourishing of public life diversity or hinders it (Whyte 1990; Chen
et al. 2013; Carmona 2015; Gehl Institute 2015; Zamanifarda et al. 2016). Hence,
an assessment of the Users’ patterns or stationary activities helps to unfold the main
qualities of the North End Park as it depicts the users’ preferred uses, times, and
sticky locations.
Points 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 show a triangle of transit or pedestrian crossing-
oriented activities, however, they also show a great appeal to small groups of families
or individuals to pause, sit for fleeting time, and/or move towards their designated
destinations. In few cases, there is a noticeable slow pace at weekends between
midday and 18:00 or a high pace on weekdays between midday and 16:00 around
the same points. That is due to the historical freedom trail path tours around points
2, 8, and 10. However, points 3, 4, and 7 have a more local crowd either for crossings
Pedestrian counts / by point

600
542
point 10
500 87 point 9
32 point 8
400
101 point 7
300 45 point 6
251
38 point 5
35 42
200 15 point 4
36 50
12
20
22 35 point 3
100 17
24 76 point 2
55
15 36 point 1
0
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
Fig. 7.14 Summary of pedestrians count at observation point on weekends and weekdays, July
2017
Table 7.1 Uses and activities: quality criteria of a place

Protection Safe against vehicular Safe against crime and Safe against unpleasant
traffic violence sensory experiences
Comfort Walkable Standing/staying Sitting
Seeing Hearing Play/recreation
Enjoyment Human scale Climate Aesthetic qualities
or stationary activities, as they accommodate traffic calming shrubs, and/or more

sitting opportunities and a pleasant human-scale enjoyment experience, see Fig. 7.14.
In the same fashion, during the observations some quality criteria for those visual
experiences were noted as indicated in Table 7.1.
However, the importance of tracking and recording daily life on the small streets
surrounding the North End Park was noted, such as the market that occurs at the edge
between points 7, 8, and 10, see Fig. 7.15. Then there are the users crossing traffic
lights at observation point 2, see Fig. 7.16. The signage around the park also offers a
variety of safety indications and informations on how to use the park, see Fig. 7.17.
7.2.5.1 Daily Life in the North End Park and Square
See Figs. 7.15 and 7.16.
7.2.5.2 Signs Around North End Park
See Fig. 7.17.

Fig. 7.15 Public market at the edge of the park at crossing point 10
Fig. 7.16 Pedestrian crossing at traffic lights at observation point 2
7.2.5.3 Passive Watchers Around North End Park
While the main passive watching pattern is persistent, see Fig. 7.18. There is active
placemaking around the edges on both Parcels 8 and 10, that is visible in variations
in the stationary activities between weekends and weekdays, around points 3, 6, and
9 in terms of space.
7.2.6 Notes on the Video Camera Analysis
The Video Surveillance Camera was located at the crossing of Hanover Street with
Blackstone Street, where the Haymarket public market is held each weekend. The
pedestrian counts observed for this crossing were taken at point number 10, and
there was a noticeable increase during weekend peak hours around the Crossing
Fig. 7.17 Different signs and wayfinding stands as seen around the North End Park
Fig. 7.18 Passive watching behaviour around the niches of the North End Park
as per the observed counts. Data was collected in two-hour timeslots at weekends
in April 2017 and on weekends and weekdays in July 2017 to match the visual
observation timeline and objectives. The total mass is analysed based on a selection
of non-randomised videos, done at the time of the visual observation, and extracted
from surveillance camera tapes afterwards. The outcome of the video recordings was
Fig. 7.19 An amateur guitar guy, casually playing for money at the North End Park for two hours
between 15:00 and 17:00 (Source The researcher, captured on Sunday, July 23, 2017)
subsequently combined with the visual in-person quantitative analysis and qualitative
data obtained via interviews with key informants about daily life in the square.
7.2.6.1 The Weekend Guitar Guy
As in Fig. 7.19, when he was seated at the crossing next to the North End Salem
Side (point 2) people stopped for the traffic light, so they were able to notice him
because of their slow pace. There are also seats and chairs available so they could
sit for a bite. Nonetheless, he was not heard because of the street noise around that
point. Statistically, at this point, an average of 55 persons cross every two hours on a
normal weekday and 76 persons on a weekend every two hours. 25–30 people could
be seated around this point at most whether weekday or weekend, respectively.
Meanwhile, where he was seated (Point 8) people do not stop, as it is a crossing
point at high pace towards the park (following the freedom trail) or from the park
towards the downtown area and the corner store opposite the public market. Or they
wander around the info pole in front of him, but they are already heading towards
their goal. They do not stop there; they have no place to sit so they improvise seating
(uncomfortably because of edges blades/homeless spikes) as seen in both Figs. 7.20
and 7.21 (and that means they do not stay long (no more than 30 min)). Statistically,
at this point, 36 persons cross on average every two hours on a normal weekday, and
101 persons on a weekend every two hours. 23–27 people could be seated around
this point at most.
7.2.6.2 The Small Alleys—Privacy Seekers in the North End Park
See Fig. 7.20.
7.2.6.3 Signs of Personal Ownership at North End Park
See Fig. 7.21.

Fig. 7.20 Different locations for privacy seekers around the park, in the back alleys at points 6, 7,
8, and 9
Fig. 7.21 Signs of personal ownership signs in North End Park (Source The author)
7.2.6.4 North End Park—Maintenance
Rubbish cleaning, trees, and horticulture maintenance as seen around the park along
with security rangers taking care of the entrances and exits of the North End Park,
see Fig. 7.22.
7.3 Users Intercept Survey 139
Fig. 7.22 Various aspects of park maintenance efforts by the Greenway Conservancy
7.3 Users Intercept Survey
In compliance with any physical or visual analysis of an urban park, it is of major

importance to understand the perception of its users, their reason for being there,
and their overall satisfaction with their urban experience (Popper, 2010). Based on
this notion, a preliminary survey was conducted during the summer of 2016 to better
understand the North End Park’s physical attractiveness to the users. Then, starting
April 2017 and until July 2017, overall surveys were conducted in correlation with
the locations of the observation points and on site, using a hard copy survey form
that was then digitised by building an SAV database using STATA software, and
re-analysed using the DataCracker online tool, for the full data set See https://www.
datacracker.com/Dashboard?project_id=-240748.
7.3.1 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Timeline and Counts

(See Appendix 2)
In-person and on-site surveys were conducted in the North End Park, in a totally
anonymous form, the respondents were given a brief idea of the purpose of the
survey and the background research idea. Moreover, the survey was assessed and
adjusted with local stakeholders from the Boston Planning and Development Agency
and urban experts from the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy and Project for
Public Spaces (PPS) Consultancy, as well as with an expert from Gehl’s US offices,
in order to comply with the public life, public space toolkit.
Originally more than 70 surveys were conducted then some of the on-site
responses were excluded due to them falling outside the general profile, skewing
the overall sample used for analysis. As for the observation, the surveys covered
the peak hours of counting pedestrian stationary activities crowd points and mean-
ingful times. As a matter of fact, Figures 7.23 and 7.24 show the story timeline of
the chronology of users intercept surveys conducted and the counts done during the
observation times from 10:00 am to 22:00.
As we have seen, special emphasis on the surveys was given to the time slot
between midday and 16:00, and to the time slot between 17:00 and 19:00. A lower
number of users opted to participate in the survey either early in the morning (before
Story Timeline Of Users Surveys Conducted

21:36
45 1213 3940 4748
19:12 9 1011 46
123 678 33 363738 4142434445 68
32 67
16:48 27 31 62 66
16 18
17 22 30 53
52 57 65
14:24 21 2829 51 56 6364
1415 26 4950 61
12:00 1920 25
24 5455 60
59
23 35 58 70
34 69
9:36
7:12
4:48
2:24
0:00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69
Fig. 7.23 Users intercept surveys timeline and counting
Fig. 7.24 Timeline of the surveys conducted during the month of July 2017
12:00) or late in the evening (after 21:00), due to the use trends in these hours that
rely on transit-oriented activities.
7.3.2 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: Methodology
70 surveys were conducted spread over weekends and weekdays evenly, however, it
was noticed that on working days during lunch times or after-work hour, people opted-
out, whereas at weekends they generally opted-in with no concern about the time
the survey was conducted. In addition, conducting the survey was evenly subdivided
between Parcels 8 and 10. The survey collected the following data:
• User age, gender, yearly income, education, and home zip code.
• User sociability (alone, couple, or groups), commuting modes, and social media
usage.
• Users’ frequency of visit, length of stay based on time spent
• Users’ preferred activity (purpose of the visit: meeting friends, lunch time,
tourism, etc.)
• User’s feeling about the place (positive, negative, neutral, or preferred public
place).
Those surveyed were given a five-point Likert scale to rate their overall level of
satisfaction with the qualities of the North End Park and square, where 1 indicates
dissatisfied and 5 satisfied, in relation to a few physical and social qualities such as:
• The availability of surrounding services (coffee shops, community activity and
involvement, physical design elements, and the park’s uses and activities)
• The comfort rate in relation to the park’s attractiveness, safety, cleanliness, and
maintenance.
• Accessibility and links to the park’s surroundings, in terms of them being
identifiable, walkable, easily accessible, and interactive/welcoming.
• Sense of ownership and sociability (the presence of groups of children and seniors,
and a sense of pride about visiting and using North End Park).
7.3.3 Users Intercept Survey Analysis: An In-Depth

Statistical Analysis
In statistical terms, in the 70-user intercept surveys conducted, we analysed a 37%

tendency towards using the public space among the surrounding inhabitants and
community of the North End neighbourhood and greenway district. Considering
the strong influence, the park parcels have on shaping the cultural aspects of the
neighbourhood, it is significant that most of the frequent users are from the same zip
codes of 02113 and 02114 as those for the park’s location, showing that it is seen as
an important node in the neighbourhood’s profile.
7.3.3.1 Users Survey—Sociability Findings in Detail
The North End Park visitors span a broad spectrum from daily workers around the
area to North End residents, as well as tourists from other parts of the USA or Europe.
However, their diverse opinions help shape the perception of the park compared to
other public places. Yet, tourists tend to see the park through rose-coloured glasses
rather than as it truly is. Hence more locals were subjected to the intercept surveys,
as they are more familiar with the environment and likely to have greater depth to
their experience in the place. Only 14% of the survey users were tourists from all
genders in comparison to the rest of the survey sample.
There was a noteworthy female attraction of 14% of survey takers during the
weekends of 16th and 22nd July due to pleasant weather conditions (an average
temperature of between 19 and 28°C was recorded) and the occurrence of two planned
musical concerts on Fridays from 17:00 to 19:00. Meanwhile, the age and gender
differences were not substantial, both categories reported ages of between 34 and
38 years as the most significant quantiles; a noticeable low correlation of 0.80 was
recorded, between gender and age in the survey results.
However, a higher correlation was assessed between age and social clusters of
users; 57% preferred frequenting the park alone in the average age bracket of 34
and less, while 35 % preferred group activities in an age bracket between 35 and 40;
lastly, only 8% of the survey takers were in couples at an average age of 34. While
looking at gender in correlation to sociability of the park, 62% of female surveyors
were walking alone and felt neutral or positive about the park vs 38 % of the opposite
gender. Another important aspect of the users’ behavioural analysis refers to their
yearly income, while 26% declared having an annual income between $60k and $90k
(with a majority of 29% of males), 23% preferred to not declare their income (with
a majority of 24% of female).
Lastly, the 70 users were divided into subcategories by latent class analysis, while
“daily” or “weekly” were the highest percentile of female gender frequency at 38%,
“monthly” was the remarkable subcategory of opposite sex with just 14% of the
sample analysis and a 95% confidence interval. On the same scale, the female gender
scored 48 % in staying 30 min or more up to 1 hour in the square, which coincides
with the female’s higher evaluation of the sociability of the public place as confirmed
by the visual observation analysis.
7.3.3.2 Users’ Gender
More females than males stopped to complete the survey, see Fig. 7.25. However, this
was not influenced by the researcher nor by the location at which the surveys were
conducted, but simply correlated to the remarkable female presence in the North End
Fig. 7.25 Gender of

respondents. July 2017
neighbourhood, as well as the Boston population between the benchmarked ages of

the survey takers of between 25 and 34 (Boston Planning & Development Agency
Research Division 2017, 11–16, section 3).
Nonetheless, this deduction seems logical aside from the North End share, more
families were observed around the park constantly with their baby strollers on week-
ends; as well as that it somehow emphasises Whyte’s theory of female usage of a
public square (Whyte 1980a, b, 18)
The most used places tend to have a higher-than-average proportion of women. the female-
male ration is a plaza reflects the composition of work force... Women are discriminating
than men as to where they will sit, more sensitive to annoyances, and women spend more
time casting the various possibilities. if in a plaza, there is a higher-than-average proportion
of women, the plaza is probably a good one and has been chosen as such.
7.3.3.3 Age and Gender in Correlation with Users’ Sociability
As seen in Fig. 7.26, the average age for couples’ using North End park was about 34,
while the main groups surveyed had an average age of 39 years. On the other hand,
the average age of walking alone was between 32 and 33, that, however, is a sign of
perceived safety and security as the park falls between a residential neighbourhood
and a regenerated downtown project such as the Big Dig. Moreover, the gender
aspect in correlation with sociability showed the same tendency towards the safety
and security quality, see Fig. 7.26 (left).
More females (62%) responded that they prefer coming to the park walking alone
vs 38% of male respondents. While 67% of females came along in couples vs. 33%
of male respondents. Only 55% of females preferred coming along in groups vs.
45% of males in the park users surveys, see Fig. 7.26 (right).
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
Couple Group walking
Alone
Fig. 7.26 Left Sociability aspect as in correlation with the age in surveys. Right Sociability aspect
in correlation with gender, July 2017
Fig. 7.27 Sociability by income ranges in surveys, July 2017
7.3.3.4 Users’ Income and Sociability
For sociability ”Group,” see Fig. 7.27, 45% preferred to not declare their yearly
income bracket. Meanwhile, 26% of survey respondents have a yearly income of
“$90,001 to $120,000” which is relatively high compared to the average income
in the age category of 18–34 in the Boston metropolitan area (Boston Planning &
Development Agency Research Division, 2017, 15). In terms of sociability in the
form of “walking Alone,” 19% have a yearly income of “$15,001 to $30,000” that
is low for the North End neighbourhood.
7.3.3.5 Users’ Length of Stay and Frequency
The thorough investigation of users made it possible to include and categorise them
into patterns and frequencies of visit, that, however, elicit their length of stay in the
Fig. 7.28 Users’ length of stay and frequency of visits to North End Park—Surveys, July 2017
diverse locations of the park and how they use the place in a time-based manner.
While the sociability of the North End Park is measured according to the diversity
of the users’ ages, gender, income, and frequency of visits; the users’ length of stay
added the time dimension to the analysis. Initially, the main perception was that
users stay no more than 30 min; however, surveys revealed a consistent portion of
users over the time remained 1 hour or more. Among the users, almost 50% visited
weekly or 25% visited on a daily basis; that relates strongly to the family visits on
weekends observed. Yet, the theory of lunch-eaters on weekdays and quick pause
users at midday and after-work hours remains, which dominates the 30 min length of
stay class with 50% on a weekly basis and almost 42% on a daily basis, see Fig. 7.28.
7.3.3.6 Users’ Place Feeling and Usage
The activity usage of North End Park by the 70 users surveyed, was correlated with
their feeling for the place indicated to be neutral, positive, or preferred (the Negative
category was excluded as no one picked it). Most of the users who assessed the park
with a positive feeling had the majority use of crossing the park and using public
transport, while the users who come because they work in the nearby area range did
not vary between neutral or positive feelings, see Fig. 7.29.
7.3.3.7 Users Satisfaction
The 70 users concerned with the conducted surveys on North End Park were asked
to assess their level of satisfaction with the quality of the conditions. 40 % rated the
park as highly socially attractive on the Likert scale. This is followed by Cleanliness,
Fig. 7.29 Feeling for place by usage type for survey respondents, July 2017
Fig. 7.30 Word cloud for

users’ perception of quality
in North End Park,
researcher infographics tool,
December 2017
Safety, Accessibility, and Walkability with 34%, 30%, and 24% respectively, see
Fig. 7.30.
7.3.4 Discussion of Survey Results
Many of those who use North End Park on a daily basis provided answers that
indicated work nearby, meeting friends, or lunchtime. However, the most ambiguous
category was that of crossing through (they only spend 5 min walking across the park
from one side to the other) as they were somehow excluded from the observation of
stationary activities and are only counted at pedestrian crossings at transport-oriented
points (2, 3, 8, and 10) in an earlier observation section.
The location of every survey respondent was recorded at the time of the survey and
was then excluded from the study as users were aware of the park’s overall condition
and status, whether, for instance, naming North End Park in particular or the Rose
7.4 Key Informants’ Interviews 147
Kennedy Greenway in general. In fact, a good portion of respondents was seen every
week in diverse locations between Parcel 8 or 10, in other words, they come to the
North End Park and enjoy it, whatever location they were seated or lying on the
grass, or when attending a concert or any other stationary activity was recorded.
All the survey’s findings were statistically correlated to sociability and conducted
with a 95% confidence level. However, the overall satisfaction question was open-
ended and provided a summed-up count of all the responding users based on their
answers and ratings from 1 to 5.
7.4 Key Informants’ Interviews
The third stage of the case study analysis was in-depth interviews with in-the-field
experts. Interestingly, the insights gained from the meetings with Boston Devel-
opment Planning Agency officials, the Emerald Network, and the Rose Fitzgerald
Kennedy Greenway Conservancy all concerned with the success of North End Park
due to its strategic location in the city’s downtown area. Furthermore, there was a
noticeable governmental approach to conserving age/gender/social class diversity
and encouraging people mixing along the Greenway. Meanwhile, the matters that
topped the agenda were safety, security, and accessibility for all colours to the park
and to surrounding economic activities.
7.4.1 Key Informants’ Interviews: Methodology
Key informants’ interviews were conducted and recorded in person using audio and
written means. The interview form was divided into three parts with 8 questions,
of which 5 were semi-open questions, one was an evaluative rating question, and
two were open-ended questions. The personnel interviewed were explicitly asked
for their consent to use the information given to construct the analysis of the case
study’s authenticity, and their influence over the conclusions as well.
The first part introduced the research approach and the methodological framework
analysis, in addition to introducing the contextual case study of North End Park being
investigated for scientific purposes. The second part collected each interviewee’s
rating of importance for the elements of sociability triggers in the methodological
framework such as mixture of uses and activities, walking and biking opportunities,
evidence of diversity and social mixing by (age/gender/income ranges/users’ length
of stay/and personal feelings). The third and last part, detailed the quantification and
qualification of the sociability measures and techniques in public spaces according
to the culturally oriented urban regeneration development projects.
7.4.2 Key Informant Interviewees and timeline
See Appendix 1: Key Informants Interviews—Biographies

1. Katerina Zimmerman: an urban anthropologist expert.
April 18th, 2017—http://thinkurban.org/projects/about
2. Nidhi Gulati: Emerald Network Program Manager/livable streets alliance.
May 1st, 2017—http://www.livablestreets.info/staff
3. Michael Nicholas: Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, Chief of Staff.

July 14th, 2017—https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/
4. Laura Jasinski: Associate Director of the Boston trustees of Reservation—Former

director of the Programs and Planning department on the greenway Conservancy
2010–2017.
July 18th, 2017—https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-jasinski-ba28777
5. John (Tad) Read: (Senior Deputy Director for Transportation & Infrastructure
Planning—Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA)
July 20th, 2017—http://www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail?
id=820
6. Natalia Urtubey—Director of Engagement, Imagine Boston 2030—Department

Planning, Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA)
July 26th, 2017—http://www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail?id=
1367
7.4.3 Interview Results and Discussions
For the first part, the most noticeable outcome of the interviews conducted is the
difference in scale of perspective among urban planners who engage with the commu-
nity on a daily basis or deal with the micro urban scale of placemaking and cultural
programming, compared to governmental officials or those responsible for larger
scale development projects. However, most of the interviews stressed conserving
the liveability of the downtown area, whereas the North End Park case study is, in
addition to work on equitable cultural programming, about inclusiveness in planning
processes, and wayfinding and safety issues.
Mostly, the goals set out in the blueprint document “Imagine Boston 2030”
released in 2016 were in the core discussions, specifically investing in open spaces,
arts, and cultural programming, together with transportation and infrastructure (City
of Boston 2016, 48426). The second part of the interviews was more of a statistical
overview of the importance according to rating by the interviewees, of measures for
safety, security, sociability, mixture of users, etc. The third and last part integrated
7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools 149
the officials’ experience in the field with the evaluation matrix methodology, which
shapes the urban environment in Boston. That helped to provide information for the
following section of the Urban Micro Trends Analysis using smart planning tools.
7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning

Tools
In recent years, the use of smart planning and collaborative tools has advanced in
the field of academia as well as in the research methods, accompanied by open
data sources to optimise urban planning performance and help rethink urban design
processes (Civic Data Design Lab and Gehl Institute 2017; Farinea et al. 2017;
Mangialardi 2017). That said, the following part analyses a few prominent identified
smart planning tools that helped to provide information for the case study such as
the Liveability Calculator, the Vision Zero tool map, and the Co-Urbanize platform.
In fact, one of the measurable tools used to identify the success of the case study
of the North End Park was liveability performance, in which the transit corridor—in
which it falls—showed a high ranking in terms of walkability, biking opportunity,
accessibility to economic opportunities, social and governmental services, vibrant
community and cultural recreation opportunities, healthy and safe neighbourhood,
but scored low in terms of mixed income housing opportunity as is to be expected in
the North End case (Appleyard et al. 2016; Oliver 2017).
7.5.1 The Liveability Calculator: Methodology

and Implementation
The Liveability Calculator relies on identifying the FIPS CODE of the zone being
analysed. These codes consist of 12 or 11 digits based on the selected state. In the
North End park case, 27 codes of 12 digits were identified using the OLIVER tool
known as MASSGIS, an online mapping tool for the cities of Massachusetts, see
Fig. 7.31. Using census Block groups, the query parcels are identified at the urban
design scale and then input into the calculator, see Table 7.2, to identify the liveability
opportunities, based on z-score metric measuring as follows:
• Quality of transit, walking, biking opportunity: 6.55
• Mixed income: −0.17
• Accessible economic opportunity: 9.23
• Accessibility to social and governmental service: 5.30
• Vibrant and accessible cultural and recreational opportunities: 6.18
• Healthy, safe, and walkable transit corridors: 2.36
Fig. 7.31 Manual identification of the North End Park case study—FIPS codes using MASSGIS
online tool (Source The researcher, 29 March 2017, after http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/
oliver.php)
7.5.2 The The Liveability Calculator’s Measurement Metrics:

See Appendix 3
As seen in Fig. 7.32, the calculator’s performance indicators show a high-

performance transit corridor around the North End section, that is due to the accessi-
bility to transport services provided in the area, as well as to the high walkability of
the neighbourhood. However, the undeniable low performance metrics in relation to
mixed income housing refer to the percentage of income spent on housing, in terms
of which affordability seems low in North End (Ferrell and Appleyard 2016).
In greater depth, the Liveability Calculator considers the people’s accessibility
to arts and cultural recreational opportunities among the evaluation principles (CFA
Consultants 2017). That indeed helps to shape the calculator’s metrics with a more
place-/people-oriented basis, see Fig. 7.33.
The particular evaluation matrices covered the cultural enrichment through public
art, creating cultural destinations, and district revitalisation. While the implementa-
tion strategies correlated to the Liveability Calculator seem to be efficient in the
case of North End Park, a remarkably high coefficient in the pedestrian collisions
per 10,000 pedestrians, was noted. That related to the data obtained through Boston
Police department—fatality data 2010–2014.
Table 7.2 FIPS CODE identified using the MASSGIS online tool for the Liveability Calculator input
FID STATEFP10 COUNTYFP10 TRACTCE10 BLKGRPCE10 GEOID10
GISDATA.CENSUS2010BLOCKGROUPS_POLY.1479 25 025 070101 2 250250701012
7.5 Urban Micro Trends Analysis Using Smart Planning Tools

(continued)
151
152
FID STATEFP10 COUNTYFP10 TRACTCE10 BLKGRPCE10 GEOID10

7 The North End Park as a Liveable Destination
Fig. 7.32 Liveability calculator performance of indicators in North End Park case study (Source
The researcher, January 2018)
Fig. 7.33 Measurement principles of the livability calculator (Source CFA Consultants 2017)
7.5.3 Vision Zero Project: A Real-Time Street Safety Platform
Pedestrian safety enjoys priority on the Imagine Boston 2030 visionary plan, the
result of the human scaled transformation of a highway into a greenway covered
by the North End Case study, seems to have benefitted from that approach in
recent years. However, the issues of the safety and street crashes are the focus of
the Vision Zero Project.4 The Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition advocates for
the implementation of Vision Zero in Boston and for the adoption of Vision Zero
throughout Massachusetts. The new and growing coalition includes community-
based and non-profit organisations, businesses, civic groups, and individuals who
represent communities across the state (Vision Zero Coalition 2017).
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while
increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. The core principles of the project
rely on limiting traffic deaths and promoting safe human behaviours in roadways:
That said, the city of Boston Transportation Department (2016, 15–16) has put in
place an action plan to reduce speeds and build safer streets. In that sense, there is
a city-wide action plan to create a safe crossing programme that improves bicycle
and pedestrian crossings of major streets and includes criteria for un-signposted and
mid-block crossings.
During visual observational analysis of the North End Park, a pedestrian collision
just once at the crossing from Hanover Street and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
Surface road was only noted once, at point 10, see Fig. 7.34. Yet, at some crossings—
such as Salem Street and the Surface road—as reported in Vision Zero, people run
the red lights or even cross away from the crosswalk due to the longer walk signal
time (City of Boston 2017).
In greater depth, the priority concerns raised more on biking safety than pedes-
trian safety in the Vision Zero action plan, revealed community engagement folds
in the process. In fact, the Walk Boston and the Boston Cyclists Union take part
in the Vision Zero Boston Task Force. However, the Public–Private Partnerships,
as mentioned, have always focused on implementation mostly related to the pedes-
trian, safety, awareness, and enforcement programme, as collaborative tools involving
MassDOT, MassBike, and MBTA to name a few. On the topic of safety and security
of public spaces, see (Hosseinalizadeh et al. 2022).
7.5.4 Co-Urbanize Platform to Imagine Boston 2030
Co-Urbanize is an online sharing platform on which citizens and residents of Boston

were given a voice to share their inputs on how and where Boston should grow
between now and 2030. Informed by Bostonians, the Imagine Boston 2030 blueprint
4 Vision Zero is a real-time online Platform to report safety issues as they occur in the city streets;
Supported by the city of Boston and ESRI mapping tool. See http://app01.cityofboston.gov/VZS
afety/.
Fig. 7.34 North End Park vision zero investigation of crossings (Source The researcher after [City
of Boston Transportation Department, 2016]—Accessed: April 2017)
document—in which the Co-Urbanize tool was implemented—aims to preserve and

enhance the city of Boston, while using growth to address challenges in terms of
where to locate new housing and jobs, and make the city stronger and inclusive
(Co-Urbanize 2016).
The Co-Urbanize platform allowed the Bostonians to express their viewpoint
(based on surveys) on where to live, work, and play, see Fig. 7.35. The North End
section of the greenway was highlighted as one of the places to play. Residents’
comments showed great enthusiasm in relation to the pedestrian environment along
the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. However, they pointed out the long waits at
pedestrian crossing lights between Crossing streets and Hanover Street, which may
give rise to a risk of people running across outside the lines or not respecting the
times.
The knowledge gained through community voices is tremendous as we could see that from the
Legions of Bostonians, in community workshops from September 2015 to November 2015.
We could see their fears, hopes and dreams; that’s when Co-Urbanize came to life in May
2016. They entailed what they wanted to see in their expanding Neighborhoods or where
there is an opportunity for growth, and the underutilized spaces in their opinions
Natalia Urtubey5—Director of Engagement, Imagine Boston 2030

Fig. 7.35 Imagine Boston 2030 co-urbanize platform. The North End Park section
cropped (Source https://courbanize.com/projects/imagineboston/comaps/3?loc=16%2C42.362388
87921827%2C-71.05332612991334)
7.6 Discussion and Conclusion
This chapter particularly captured the North End Park users’ perceptions and diverse
uses and activities while in the park, using three stages of analysis: A visual obser-
vation, statistical analysis of users’ surveys, and interviews with key informants. In
greater depth, the analysis of the case study using visual observation highlighted the
role North End Park plays as a “transit node” in the heart of the downtown district
between a residential neighbourhood and a culturally attractive destination, such as
the North End neighbourhood. Thus, it became clear that North End Park is subject
to a variety of creative placemaking techniques, ranging from activation of the edges
in both Parcels 8 and 10, to the cultural programming diversification for a wider
audience by the Rose Fitzgerald Greenway Conservancy committees.
Tracing behavioural patterns on both weekends and weekdays, along with
measuring of stationary activities using image or video recordings, unfolded the
daily life attractiveness factor of North End Park. There is an average of 250 pedes-
trians that cross on an ordinary day of the week and double that count at weekends.
Whatever the time or the day, there will always be someone in the park standing,
sitting, walking, waiting for a friend, riding their bike, and/or children playing in
the fountains on a breezy summer day. It is also undeniable that a highlight is the
activity of the neighbouring Haymarket public market held at weekends, augmenting
the park’s sociability, and bringing in more users at peak hours.
Surveys also revealed the matching sociability patterns in the park; vicinity to two
metro stations, a residential neighbourhood, and a cluster of restaurants as is the case
in North End brought a diversity of groups and individuals to the park constantly
in remarkable commuting times and peak lunch/dinnertimes. In addition, key infor-
mants’ interviews unfolded the governmental and statuary approaches to the planning
References 157
development of the case study. However, the microscale of the North End Park is
not among the placemaking priorities in the “Imagine Boston 2030” plan, used as
the guideline for development; yet, the inclusiveness, community engagement, and
safety issues come to the fore for a variety of the stakeholders involved. Among the
Boston Planning and Development Agency, the Greenway Conservancy, the Live-
able Streets Alliance, the Vision Zero Coalition, etc., there seems to be a certain
collaborative linking on the wider scale of the parks and open spaces department and
the transportation department, in that sense.
To sum up, North End park is doubtlessly an open stage community for a variety of
daily life scenes. While users vary in terms of their preferences for walking, bicycling,
and stationary activities, evidence of sociability and the perceived attractiveness of
the space is clear to see. Hence, North End Park illustrates a special and spatial
uniqueness of success as a case study.
References
Appleyard BS et al (2016) Livability calculator for the TCRP H-45 handbook, building livable
transit corridors: methods, metrics, and strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
Boston Planning and Development Agency Research Division (2017) Boston by the numbers.
Boston. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIM.2009.4762951
Carmona M et al (2010) The social dimension. In: Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of
urban design, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York, pp 133–166
J Urban: Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 8(4):373–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.
2014.909518
CFA Consultants (2017) TRB Webinar: livable transit corridors. In: National academics of sciences:
transportation research funds, March, p 24. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/web
inars/170316.pdf
Chen X, Orum AM Paulsen KE (2013) Introduction to cities: how place and space shape human
experience. Cities as places and spaces, 1st edn. Blackwell, Hoboken
City of Boston (2016) Imagine Boston 2030: a plan for the future of Boston, Boston redevelopment
authority. Available at: http://imagine.boston.gov/%5Cnpapers3://publication/uuid/A8A094EF-
DDA7-4F57-B273-0714CD2B6D58
City of Boston (2017) Vision zero safety issues. Available at: http://app01.cityofboston.gov/vzsafe
ty/. Accessed 19 April 2017
City of Boston Transportation Department (2016) Vision zero Boston action plan. Boston. Available
at: https://www.visionzeroboston.org/. Accessed 23 April 2017
Civic Data Design Lab and Gehl Institute (2017) Digitally measuring public life: benchmark project.
Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802915.ch1
Co-Urbanize (2016) No title. Available at: https://courbanize.com/projects/imagineboston/updates.
Accessed 2 Nov 2017
Farinea C et al (2017) Merging the physical and digital layer of public space: the PobleJoc installation
case study. In: Fioravanti A et al (eds) eCAADe ShoCK! Sharing of computable knowledge!
Volume 1 Proceedings of the 35th international conference on education and research in computer
aided architectural design in Europe. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, pp 471–476
Ferrell CE, Appleyard BS (2016) Livable transit corridors: methods, metrics, and strategies. In:
Schwager DS (ed). National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/23630
Gehl Institute (2015) Public life diversity toolkit: a prototype for measuring social mixing and
economic integration in public space. San Francisco. https://issuu.com/gehlinstitute/docs/gehl_p
ubliclifediversitytoolkit_pag/1. Accessed 1 Apr 2017
Gehl Institute (2016a) The public life diversity toolkit 2.0. Available at: https://gehlinstitute.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016a0301_Public-Life-Diversity-Toolkit-V2HighQuality-1.pdf
Gehl Institute (2016b) The public life diversity toolkit 2.0. Available at: https://issuu.com/gehlinsti
tute/docs/2016b0128_toolkit_2.0
Hosseinalizadeh S, Mahmoud IH, Morello E (2022) A deduced method for assessing safety and
security perception: case study of Biblioteca Degli Alberi Park in Milan, Italy. In: Mahmoud IH,
Morello E, Lemes de Oliveira F, Geneletti D (eds) Nature-based solutions for sustainable urban
planning: contemporary urban design thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-89525-9_8
Johnston KL (2012) Public space and urban life: a spatial ethnography of a Portland Plaza. Portland
State University, Portland
Mangialardi G (2017) Reflections on urban management for unravelling the complexity. Urbanistica
Informazioni, 272 (Creative Urban Metabolism, Social Networks, and ICT):588–591
Nassar UAE (2010) Landscape as a tool to enhance behavioural response and activities in historic
urban parks: an evaluative methodology—Al Azhar park. Suez Canal University, Ismaïlia
Oliver (2017) MASSGIS online mapping tool. Available at: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_
ol/oliver.php. Accessed 29 March 2017
Popper A (2010) Walking, bicycling & public space on market street: a public space, public life study
of San Francisco’s most important street. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco,
CA
PPS (2009) What makes a successful place? Available at: http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefe
at/. Accessed 2 March 2016
Vision Zero Coalition (2017) Massachusetts vision zero coalition the movement is growing.
Available at: http://www.visionzerocoalition.org/. Accessed 1 Jan 2017
Whyte W (1980a) The social life of small urban spaces. Urban Life. https://doi.org/10.1177/089
124168201000411
Whyte WH (1980b) The social life of small urban spaces. In: Ebook, 3rd edn. PPS. https://doi.org/
10.1177/089124168201000411
Whyte WH (1990) City: rediscovering the center. Anchor Books, New York
Wortham-Galvin BD (2013) An anthropology of urbanism: how people make places (and what
designers and planners might learn from it). Footprint 7(2):21–40. Available at: http://footprint.
tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/issue/view/13
Zamanifarda H, Alizadeha T, Sipeb N (2016) Why some places do better than others? A closer
look at urban public space management. In: 9th international urban design conference. Hyatt,
Canberra. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309575666
Part IV
General Discussions and Conclusions
Chapter 8
Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendations
Abstract This chapter contains a general discussion of the findings and conclusions
based on literature, the methodological framework, and implementation of the case
study of North End Park. It gives a general path for implementation of the Public
Space Index in reality, establishing common ground between the theory and practice
of placemaking on the ground, and testing of sociability measurements, for quantita-
tive authenticity rather than just an environmental dimension concept. This research
is based on a mixed-methods approach to case study analysis. Both qualitative and
quantitative tools and techniques were used in order to investigate the sociability of
public spaces as a driver for green urban regeneration projects.
Keywords Placemaking · Green urban regeneration · Research methods ·

Northend · Nature-based solutions
8.1 Brief
The first part of the book deals with a literature review to establish a better under-
standing of the placemaking concept on the one hand. On the other hand, the socia-
bility concept is discussed as a fundamental dimension of urban design, as the
physical milieu in which the public spaces foster relationships between people and
their built-up environment. However, putting environmental psychology into a rigid
science of urban planning and design framework is not an easy job. The sociability
concept was revisited from different perspectives and using different fields of correla-
tions, in order to achieve it on a small scale in cities, in places such as parks, squares,
and public spaces in general, see Williams and Green (2001), Madanipour (2003),
Toit et al. (2007), Carmona et al. (2010), Cowan (2012), Agrawal (2013), Smets and
Watt (2013), Moayedi (2014), Boros and Mahmoud (2021).
The second part of the book puts together an empirical analysis of similar case
studies found in the context of Massachusetts or a similar highway/greenway such
as the case of Valencia, Spain. Consequently, the model of public life/public space
is analysed based on users’ levels of interaction and sociability with the space. The
Public Spaces Index is hence built-up and its different qualities are identified and
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9_8
162 8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
defined, based on the availability of metrics of implementation tools and techniques,

see Mehta (2013, 2014), Nikitin (2013), Pollock (2014), Simões Aelbrecht (2016).
The third and last part of the book undertakes a qualitative and quantitative analysis
of the North End Park case study, see Conti (2012), Mahmoud et al. (2017, 2019),
Baker (2017). On that, the patterns of user’s use of the space were discovered, as per
the sociability indicators analysed using deductive evaluation framework analysis.
Moreover, an in-depth analysis was done of the premises of the BIG DIG urban
regeneration project, which helped triangulate the findings of the research, in order to
better understand the historical background of the context, and therefore, distinguish
its perceived importance and its current and future attributes.
For the case study, the evaluative matrix proposed using a combination of four data
collection methods—users surveys, visual observation, key informants interviews,
and in-depth smart planning tools—to combine the public life and public space
aspects in one robust framework statistically and qualitatively. Lastly, this research
departs from the notion of creating a more comprehensive approach between the
urban design field and the environmental psychological sciences. It empirically and
statistically proves that common ground exists. To sum up, the aim was to respond
to the research hypothesis that placemaking affects the sociability of public spaces
extensively and in various aspects, based on the cultural-perceived importance of the
context.
8.2 General Discussion
Placemaking is both a philosophy and a practical process for transforming public spaces.
It is centered on observing, listening to, and asking questions of the people who live, work,
and play in a particular space in order to understand their needs and aspirations for that
space and for their community as a whole.
The placemaking process can be used either in retrofitting an existing space or

planning a new space. Because every situation is different, the steps are not always
exactly the same, nor do they always happen in the same order. The general trends
prove that these could be to shape communities, involve creative classes (Florida
2002; Evans 2009), and help shape a cultural framework for certain places. Nonethe-
less, to a major extent, its success depends on land ownership, surrounding land
uses, community involvement in planning, identification of stakeholders, and funding
opportunities, as well as the implementation strategies put in place.
Generally, public spaces—including streets are, and must be seen as, multi-
functional areas for social interaction, economic exchanges, and cultural expression
for a wide diversity of people. UN-Habitat (2016) amends the sociability, walka-
bility, street vibrancy, and affordability using the latest toolkits in the global policies
and customary practices context, on public spaces. In that regard, the link with place-
making is not new, the only novelty might be the transferability of knowledge in the
8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study 163
implementation processes between cities and regions, and in international contexts,

see UN-HABITAT (2013, 2015).
While the main aim is to measure the quality of public spaces by means of a
contextual place-specific analysis of the park, the overall aim of the research was
to provide a policy guideline for better designing of human spaces and leveraging
public space as a resource multiplier for cultural and economic development. The
challenges faced by these policy tools would be territorially tailored policies on
a general scale. The American measures are different from European standards,
however, the proven scale of placemaking implementation strategies on the ground
improves social cohesion, adds cultural value to spaces, and helps regenerate the
districts as a whole economically.
Importantly, the status of developing a specific guideline to better develop and
move the practice of public life/public space forward has significantly increased in the
last few months. This is due to the Public Life Data Protocol, just launched by Gehl
Institute in Partnership with the city of San Francisco, Copenhagen Municipality,
and the Seattle Department of Transportation, see Gehl Institute et al. (2017).
The process of creating places is not linear, nor is the relationship between commu-
nities and their places. Even for traditional, open-and-closed, top-down placemaking
projects such as the design and construction of a new park, public programming and
maintenance can completely shift the way a community relates to and shapes its
place, going forward. There are remarkable challenges to urban space strategies
and planning, see Frantzeskaki et al. (2022). In consolidated areas, adequate public
spaces must be carved out within the existing built fabric. In expansion areas, plan-
ning must secure the availability of adequate public spaces, particularly for lower
income residents.
The last words on the development of this research deal with having solid poli-
cies and/or implementation strategies in placemaking practice, without compromises
to different governmental approaches. That said, the part that follows discusses the
results for North End Park and gives a brief idea of research of the results produced
by implementing the Public Space Index, and finally, research limitations and
conclusions.
8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study
The Big Dig regeneration project helped to change the mindset of average Bosto-
nians on seeing the long-awaited project results. This paved the way to acceptance of
the new Greenway District and the changes to the old—somewhat dead—downtown
district. The North End case study is really diverse and makes a vivid contribution
to the overall neighbourhood. This was demonstrated throughout the visual observa-
tion, whether covering pedestrian counts or stationary activities, and the analysis of
the users’ surveys. The sociability of the park is subjective as the stakeholders behind
its success are funded by public money, which makes the approach more govern-
mental—top-down—than a bottom-up community-led one. However, a debate on
successful public spaces is never achieved without putting the public into it.
8.3.1 Interpretation of the Results from the PSI of the North

End Park Case Study
This index is designed to produce an evaluation for the public space’s sociability
ratings in relation to 20 different criteria, see Table 8.1. When the case of the North
End Park is compared to Mehta Methodology measured Public Spaces Indices, it
produces an above average score of 79.37 (71 is the average score). That is due to the
park having a more flexible design, mostly open access, more aggregate activities
and uses, and above all more perceived safety and security.
Using the PSI is however subjectively contextual. The North American cities
have their own subcultures as well, and that is the case within the North End Park. A
lot of the inclusiveness measured is low (based on the weighing score) considering
the users’ changing needs and focuses on certain aspects in the park. Neighbouring
residents who use it, such as families and couples, were annoyed with overcrowding
at weekends; even though that is a remarkable indicator of Sociability success.
The sample size was also carefully measured, in other words, using econometrics
models in an earlier version of the data17F.1 Sociability shows a correlation of 0.47
when associated with users’ surveys and visual observation tools. However, in this
research, the sample size had a correlation of 0.86 which gives a higher confidence
in the results overall, but a 0.95 confidence interval between the separate criteria
evaluated.
The case of the North End Park is a gem analysis in terms of the overall outcome.
The reasons would rely on the living standards and location with the neighbouring
high-end northern part of the city. In addition, its location within the Rose Kennedy
Greenway, which favours cultural programming activities, put the park in shape as
an overall idea.
8.3.2 Future Planning in the North End Park
The future of the North End neighbourhood relies much on its park and current
profile. In 2016, the Boston Planning and Development Agency approved a 145,000
square feet hotel space to be developed in Parcel 9, namely the Haymarket Hotel
(Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division 2017).
1Sociability of another case was studied by the researcher in a microeconomics case as an imple-
mentation case for a multiple regression analysis report and figured between 30 and 100 surveys
generate more accurate results.
8.3 Findings from the North End Park Case Study 165
Table 8.1 Public Space Index (PSI) implementation results in the case of North End Park
Quality measured Variables observed Weighting* Measurement tool Scoring
Inclusiveness 1. Variety in age range 5 Users’ surveys’ 3.5
2. Variety in gender 5 statistical analysis 3.96
3. Safety and security 5 Surveys + security 3
videos
4. Publicness and 5 Visual observation + 3.75
opening hours signs availability
5. Community 5 Visual + key 3
engagement in informants interviews
Planning + micro smart planning
tools
Subtotal 25 17.2 = 68.8%
Meaningful 6. Surrounding 5 Users’ survey rating 3.25
activities services
7. Physical design 5 Visual observation + 3.5
flexibility users’ surveys
8. Range of activities 5 Stationary activities 5
and behaviours measurement
9. Diversity of 5 Key informants’ 5
cultural programming interviews and
activity types stationary activities
measurement
10. Availability of 5 Visual observation 5
food within or at the
edges of space
Subtotal 25 21.75 = 87%
Accessibility and 11. Walkability 5 Users’ survey rating 4.6
linkages 12. Accessibility 5 Smart planning 3.75
13. Transit usage 5 Pedestrian counts 3.72
14. Transportation 5 Visual observation and 3.85
modes diversity users’ survey
15. Maintenance and 5 Visual observation + 5
perceived clean users’ surveys
Subtotal 25 20.92 = 83.68%
Sociability and 16. Groups of people 5 Users’ surveys and 4.5
livability 17. Interactive space 5 visual observation 4
18. Stickiness of 5 Users’ surveys 3
places
19. Mixture of uses 5 Key informants’ 4
and a variety of interviews
activities
(continued)

Quality measured Variables observed Weighting* Measurement tool Scoring
20. Space 5 Users’ surveys 4
attractiveness
Subtotal 25 19.5 = 78%
Total 17.2 + 21.75 + 20.92 + 19.5 = 79.37/100
*Weighing Scores explanation The researcher used the Data Cracker tool to analyse the weight of
different variables in the surveys forms. In the implemented methodology the weighing is based on
the perceived importance of the criteria of the quality in question, hence its mathematical value
• Age is weighed on a standard deviation of 11.3 and a median of 31 while the

average is 35.6. the weighing scores.
• Gender weighed on the variation between the two with a P correlation of 0.9 for
the two genders counts of sample size (N = 70)–female = 5.4, male = 2.52
• Safety and security were perceived from surveys then analysed from video camera
of surveillance at the corner of Hanover Street. 42/70 = 0.6*5 = 3
• Publicness and opening hours are measured with time accessibility. The park is
open 24/7 with no restrictions, however, seats and tables and chairs get locked at
mid-night summertime or 10 pm wintertime. 24–6 = 18/24 = 0.75 = 3.75
• Community engagement had a score of 5 divided by 3 from interviews and 2 from
smart planning tools = 1. Interviews = 2,
• Surrounding services were perceived from surveys then analysed on infographic
tool 45/70 = 3.25
• Physical design flexibility = visual observation 2/2.5 + users 1.5 = 3.5
• 9. 10. Were all given the highest ranking in conjunction with data measured from
visual observations and pedestrian counting.
• walkability surveys 51/70 = 1.85 + pedestrian count from observations = 793/291
= 2.75 =
• accessibility from smart planning liveable calculator 6.55 across 10 points scales.
• Transit points 2 = 1.35, 8 = 3.2, 10 = 2.9. sum = 3.72
• Transit modes, sample 54/70 = 0.78*5 = 3.85
• Maintenance visual observation = 2.5 +
• groups of people were divided between surveys and visual observation weighing
2.5
• Interactive Space: 44/70 = 0.62*5 = 3.15 + 0.85 of correlation.
• Stickiness averaged on 3 based on survey frequency and time spent categorial
measures.
• Mixture of uses was given an average score of 4 in all key informants’ interviews
(out of 6)
• Attractiveness sample 56/70 = 0.8*5 = 4
8.5 Limitations 167
8.4 General Findings
8.4.1 A Vibrant Open Space Network
With 95 per cent of the population living within a five-minute walk of open space,
Boston’s existing parks network connects many residents to a diversity of places
for recreation. As Boston grows, the city will collaborate with partners to improve
the quality and connectivity of its open spaces. The city will also direct strategic
investment into existing and new parks that support its increased population and
enhance the quality of life for all residents. In some expanded neighbourhoods,
Boston will guide the development of new open spaces, funded in part by revenues
from development in these areas (City of Boston 2016). At its core, Boston will
strengthen existing parks like the Boston Common and support a vibrant public
realm along the waterfront. In existing neighbourhoods, Boston will invest in parks,
from local pocket parks to signature parks such as Franklin Park and enhance paths
and greenways that connect neighbourhoods to open spaces and to the waterfront
(Fig. 8.1).
8.4.2 Create a Complementary Urban District
The North End Park is part of the Rose Kennedy Greenway, which continues to
improve and plan the Greenway Urban District as part of the overall city (BRA
2010) (Fig. 8.2).
8.5 Limitations
Due to the nature of the research as a case study and the consistency consigned with
these types of implementation techniques, the researcher had to stop the surveys and
visual observations during the time frames between winter 2016 and before spring
2017, in order not to influence private opinions on the fairness of the case study.
Check (Gehl Institute 2016, 47) drawbacks for more information on this issue.
Mehta (2014) evaluation of the public space framework is dependable for the case
study. However, the convenience of having a research team behind observations and
weighing activities was not convenient due to the individual case research. Hence, the
evaluation is solely subjective to the researcher’s opinion and previous experience.
The topic of sociability of public spaces has been fully in motion over the last few
years from 2015 onwards. The reason for that is the UN-Habitat—Future of Places
Conference, at which the concerns about regenerated public spaces in downtown
areas of cities, need to be aired in order to avoid empty spaces in the hearts of the
cities as well as overcome homelessness levels.
Fig. 8.1 Open space network as the overall plan in the city of Boston
The latest trends in the sociability of public spaces introduced the Benchmark
Project, see (Civic Data Design Lab and Gehl Institute 2017). This is an advanced
data-oriented research method used to digitally measure public life after placemaking
activities have been put in action. A case study was done in MIT north court as
recently as summer 2019, after the researcher had developed her in-situ case study.
That required a research team and advanced technology was used for some benches
to measure how many people used a bench to sit, how long they sat, and what they did
while sitting. In addition, a go-pro camera digitally recorded and encoded 4 angles on
the park using designated software tools to analyse people flows and the occurrence
of sociability in the park and its aspects.
8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations 169
Fig. 8.2 The overall Greenway District
8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Fulton (1996) discussed the hope among American Communities that there would be
a drive to fix the suburbs by introducing “bite-size pieces” solutions. He stressed the
role of the New Urbanism movement as a set of so-called “neotraditional planning”
methods to restore both the physical design and social values of American neigh-
bourhoods, with an emphasis on walking and community life. Moving forward, the
spark of human-oriented urban design extended to all kinds of social movements.
Fulton was not wrong. The increased concern that our cities should be more
human-oriented, more enjoyable, and more social, paves the way to similar studies.
Tactical Urbanism, DIY urbanism, and other implementation strategies emerged
in the field later. Yet, keeping the methodological frameworks within a realisable
attainment range is the challenge that sociability lacked in the main steps moving
forward.
As a concept sociability is also an organising theorem to guide the expected results
whenever questioned in implementing case studies. It might be on the forefront of
the priorities or in the backdrop, nonetheless, people crave places where they can
meet with no concerns or judgement as to their social status and demographic data.
That is when the sociability is at its peak. Some guiding steps for placemaking and
sociability measures would be useful on many sides, and the following points are the
takeaway from a practice approach.
8.6.1 Meet with the Community and Identify Stakeholders
Selecting the right stakeholders is also crucial to turning a place around. It starts
with a meeting to engage community representatives from both public and private
sectors, to identify the range of issues that various groups face, regarding a particular
place. This conversation will lead to hypotheses about issues that merit further data
collection, as well as a workplan. A rule of thumb: Stakeholders should have some
direct connection, as well as a personal stake in the space. This will usually include
residents; businesses adjacent to the space; and cultural, religious, or educational
organisations. Another rule is that the role of government officials should be to
support and implement the stakeholders’ vision. The end result is that people around
the space who have a personal stake in its success not only have an active voice in
the process, but also become strong and sustained partners in the project.
Then, it is important to answer a few questions, including (1) Are locals inter-
ested in having things change? (2) Are they willing to participate in some way
using their talents or funds? (3) Are there any existing funds that could be used to
make improvements or programme the space? (4) Are there organisations that could
provide long-term management services for the space?
8.6.2 Evaluate Space and Identify Issues
In this step, the focus remains on the space, with participants taking stock of how
a space is used, and how it can be improved. The Placemaking Workshop is one
of the most effective tools for using stake-holders’ knowledge, intuition, common
sense, and input. The heart of this workshop is the Place Game, in which PPS are
developed to be used in evaluating a space and which can be used by anyone, ranging
from children to highly trained professionals. The goal of the Placemaking Workshop
is to get an understanding of the challenges faced by a space.
To kick off the Placemaking Workshop, it is usually most effective for a local
group—a non-profit or neighbourhood association—to coordinate the planning. Such
an organising strategy ensures community participation in greater numbers than if
the event were organised by local government. Nonetheless, including local officials
in the workshop is vital to the project’s success.
Successful workshops begin with a review of the goals, followed by a trip to the
space, during which the stakeholders split into groups to play the Place Game and
further familiarise themselves with the site. Then, each group reports back to the rest
of the stakeholders, leading to a discussion of a preliminary vision for the space and
a brainstorming session for potential partners. Topical focus groups may also emerge
during this process.
8.6 Conclusions and Recommendations 171
8.6.3 Place Vision and Management Strategy
It is important to formulate a place vision based on the issues and insights that come
out of the Placemaking Workshop. This differs from an architect’s design for a site,
it is a vision for the future use of the space. This document includes several parts:
• Aims for the place, goals to achieve.
• Refine or modify the goals, based on the results of the Place Game.
• Clearly define how the space could be used and how adjacent stakeholders would
be involved.
• Describe the “character” of the space (i.e., a space that is busy at all times of the
day and week versus a space that is calm and restful).
• Identify potential anchors of activity in the space (i.e., café, garden, or game area).
• Develop a conceptual plan for the layout of activities.
Just as important as the Place Vision document is the subsequent plan for manage-
ment. A management organisation is necessary to keep a space active and well-
maintained. While it is not so much a matter of “if,” as of “when” such a managing
organisation is formed, not having one to start with is no reason to delay action on a
space.
8.6.4 Short-Term Experiments
The most crucial step in the placemaking process is implementation—putting the

vision into action. Also referred to as “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper,” or LQC, there
are short-term changes that can be implemented very quickly and that do not cost a
lot of money. These ideas will often come as a result of the Placemaking Workshop.
The duration of these projects can vary, from a few days in the case of a street festival,
to months in the case of transforming an alley into a square.
LQC can take many forms, requiring varying degrees of time, money, and effort.
This range of investments can be used as an iterative means to build lasting change.
Amenities: Moveable seating, landscaping and horticultural displays, games like
ping pong or bocce, seasonal swimming pools, temporary restrooms, innovative
signage, dog parks that integrate into the other activities of the space, interactive
fountains, and outposts for civic and cultural institutions like library or museum
kiosks.
Programming: Continuous seasonal markets of all types, outdoor film series,
sports tournaments, concert series featuring local talent, food festivals, yoga classes,
bicycle repair clinics, and ice sculpture competitions.
Light Development: Cafés and stage sets built with shipping containers, sheds
for retail or food vendors, beer gardens, temporary sports equipment lending kiosks,
ice skating rinks, and shade structures of diverse sizes.
8.6.5 Ongoing Re-Evaluation and Long-Term Improvements
It is easy to forget that a public space project will never be finished! Whereas
“Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” experiments can jump-start the placemaking process,
they never truly finish the job on their own. Creating great places is an ongoing
process: It is important to check in on early projects, with an ongoing evaluation
of the space giving insight into how it is being used at various times of the day and
year. The best parks have staff members complete evaluations on a regular basis, as
part of their long-term plan—some as often as once a day! Beyond looking for things
that are “broken,” it focuses on how parts of the space are used over time. With this
information, spaces can continue to re-invent themselves. But at the same time, more
long-term decisions can be made about the space and its management.
Keeping stakeholders involved can make or break a project. Ensuring that the
vision for the space always mirrors the goals of the community is the most crucial
part of the process. Adapting the management plan in accordance with changing
circumstances and needs also ensures that the space is well-loved and well-used over
time. When needed, additional experts and consultants can be helpful in addressing
specific, remaining challenges, but most important is the input of maintenance and
programming staff. But, bringing in new partners and experimenting with new
“Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper” projects can bring in the needed creativity and local
know-how to tackle obstacles before outside expertise becomes necessary.
8.7 Further Studies
Implementation of the PSI in different case studies, relatively in the same North
American contexts to keep the results comparable.
Place the results in the hands of governmental authorities and community
stakeholders to better plan and achieve sociability along the greenway.
References
Agrawal, A. W. (2013). Literature review of Sociability of Public Places: A Study for Creating and
Designing an Urban Public Space Under a Downtown San Jose Freeway (Vol. 4, Issue 1). https://
doi.org/10.1080/14616680010034711
Baker, M. R. (2017, February). The Evolution of Boston’s North End How the neighborhood has
changed—but thankfully also stayed the same. Boston Magazine. http://www.bostonmagazine.
com/restaurants/article/2017/01/27/north-end-history-big-dig/. Accessed 5 Apr 2017
Boros, J., Mahmoud, I. (2021). Urban design and the role of placemaking in mainstreaming nature-
based solutions. Learning from the Biblioteca Degli Alberi case study in Milan. Frontiers in
Sustainable Cities 3635610. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.635610
Boston Planning; Development Agency Research Division. (2017). Neighborhood Profiles (Issue
August). http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/7987d9b4-193b-4749-8594-e41f1ae27719
References 173
BRA. (2010). Rose Kennedy Greenway: Creating Long - Term Value (Issue March).
Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., &; OC, T. (2010). The Social Dimension. In Public Places,
Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design (2nd ed., pp. 133–166). Routledge.
City of Boston. (2016). Imagine Boston 2030: A Plan for the Future of Boston. In Boston
redevelopment Authority. https://www.boston.gov/civic-engagement/imagine-boston-2030
Civic Data Design Lab, & Gehl Institute. (2017). Digitally Measuring Public Life: Benchmark
Project. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802915.ch1
Conti M (2012) Pilates on the North end greenway attracts hundreds. In: NorthEnd Water-
front. https://northendwaterfront.com/2012/09/hundreds-turn-out-for-pilates-on-the-north-end-
greenway/ Accessed 1 May 2017
Cowan, B. (2012). Public Spaces, Knowledge, and Sociability. The Oxford Handbook of the History
of Consumption, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199561216.013.0013
Du TL, Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N (2007) Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local
sociability? Urban Studies 44:1677–1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665
Evans G (2009) Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Stud 46:1003–1040. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0042098009103853
Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it is transforming work, leisure, community,
and everyday life. Basic Books, New York
Frantzeskaki N, Mahmoud IH, Morello E (2022). Nature-based solutions for resilient and thriving
cities: opportunities and challenges for planning future cities. In: Nature-based solutions for
sustainable urban planning, contemporary urban design thinking, 1st ed, pp 3–17. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-89525-9_1
Fulton WB (1996) The new urbanism: hope or hype for American communities? Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA
Gehl Institute. (2016). The Public Life Diversity Toolkit 2.0. https://issuu.com/gehlinstitute/docs/
20160128_toolkit_2.0. Accessed 21 Mar 2017
Gehl Institute, Seemann, M., Tsay, S., & Andersen, C. S. (2017). Public life data Protocol: Version
BETA. http://www.hobartcity.com.au/files/405a908f-94e1-4495-8097-9e3e00bcac2a/04_Final_
report_-_Public_Life_Data.pdf
Madanipour A (2003) Interpersonal space of sociability. Public and private spaces of the city, 2nd
edn. Routledge, London and New York, pp 95–118
Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2017) From a highway to a greenway: a land use
dilemma or a rebirth of a place? The case of Northend Park, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Green
Way: Boston, MA, USA. Urban Inf 272:388–392. ISSN 0392–5005
Mahmoud IH, Appleyard BS, Bevilacqua C (2019) From ‘Highway into Greenway’: how public
spaces change zoning regulations. Smart Innov Syst Technol 2:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-92102-0
Mehta, V. (2013). The street: A quintessential social public space. In The Street: A Quintessential
Social Public Space. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203067635
Mehta V (2014) Evaluating public space. J Urban Des 19:53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.
2013.854698.
Moayedi, M. (2014). Planning to enhance sociability of urban public spaces in order to manage
creative social relations. Kuwait Chapter Arab J Bus Manag Rev, 3(12a): 78–89.
Nikitin C (2013) All placemaking is creative: how a shared focus on place builds vibrant destinations
- project for public spaces. Proj Public Spaces 1–10
Pollock, S. (2014). Production, Use, and Barriers to Access in Public Space: A Comparative Case
Study in Metro Atlanta, GA, USA (Issue June)
Simões Aelbrecht P (2016) ‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social
interaction among strangers. J Urban Des 21:124–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.
1106920
Smets P, Watt P (2013) Exclusion and belonging in urban public and quasi-public space. Open
Urban Stud J 6:27–29
UN-HABITAT. (2016). Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies
and Practice. https://unhabitat.org/books/global-public-space-toolkit-from-global-principles-to-
local-policies-and-practice/
UN-HABITAT. (2013). Turning Spaces into places. http://www.unhabitat-kosovo.org/repository/
docs/Turning_Spaces_ENG_web1_164105.pdf
UN-HABITAT (2015) Habitat III issue papers - public space. United Nation Conf Hous Sustain
Urban Dev 2015:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v5i0.19065
Williams, K., & Green, S. (2001). Literature review of public space and local environments for the
cross cutting review: final report (Issue November).
Appendix 1
Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies1
Interviews have been conducted with the followings:

1. Katerina Zimmerman—urban planner—http://thinkurban.org/projects/about
Katrina Johnston-Zimmerman is an urban anthropologist based in Philadelphia.
Founder of http://thinkurban.org/ a consulting firm working to create better cities
by observing and understanding where she specialises in research and analysis of
behaviours in public space. After graduating from Arizona State University with a
Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, she took part in a multidisciplinary research project
investigating open space (public and private) in cities through space and time. She
holds a master’s degree in urban studies about “ethnography of place” from Portland
State University. Coming to New York City, she worked as the Communications
and Outreach Manager at Project for Public Spaces leading the biannual training
workshops and managing all communications and social media. Most recently, she
was an Urban Anthropologist at City ID where she conducted user testing and user
behaviours analysis and applied small-scale ethnographic research to public spaces
ahead of wayfinding projects. Her experience in both contexts led her back to an
emphasis on the human element and the need to continue observational research in
our public spaces—especially in this era of “smart city” data-centric thinking. As a
“professional people-watcher” she can tell the story of a place—be it a street, park,
or plaza—in order to better inform the built environment. It is her belief that through
applied anthropology, we can create happier and healthier cities for humans.
2. Nidhi Gulati Biography—Emerald Network Programme Manager. http://
www.livablestreets.info/staff
1 Biographies are updated as the time of the physical interview conducted, the researcher kept
contact on interviewees tracks. However, between July 2017 till the time of thesis deliverance,
biographies might have changed following the dynamics of interviewees personal careers. Links
provided accessed: January 20, 2018.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 175
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9
176 Appendix 1: Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies
Nidhi is the Programme Manager for the Emerald Network, an initiative of

LivableStreets Alliance. The Emerald Network is a vision for two hundred miles
of seamless greenways across the Metro Boston area, creating an urban recreation
and transportation system that is safe and convenient for all. She provides manage-
ment, technical assistance, and advocacy support to all embedded greenways in the
network and supports LivableStreets staff with other initiatives to continually advance
the vision for a walkable, bikeable, and liveable Boston.
Previously, Nidhi worked as a project associate and manager at Project for Public
Spaces (PPS) in New York City. During her three years at PPS, she worked in over
fifteen states and five countries on community-based placemaking projects and partic-
ipated in several national and international conferences. She received her bachelor’s
degree in Architecture from Malaviya National Institute of Technology in Jaipur and
a master’s in Park and Community Planning from Texas A&M University in College
Station. Born and raised in India, Nidhi has also been involved with several advocacy
organisations and initiatives in the global south, and has made contributions related
to developmental challenges, ban issues, as well as safety and equity in the public
realm.
3. Michael Nicholas: Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, Chief of Staff.
http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/about-us/conservancy/staff/
Michael joined the Conservancy in October 2014. He is responsible for the Conser-
vancy’s community and government affairs, as well as advancing strategic Greenway
priorities. He also manages the Conservancy’s outreach efforts including social media
and public relations. Michael formerly served as Chief of Staff & Legal Counsel at the
Massachusetts House of Representatives, Research & Policy Director at the Boston
City Council, and was a 2013 candidate for election to the Boston City Council. He
is an admitted attorney with a BA and JD from UConn. Outside of the Greenway,
Michael serves as President of the Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association in
Boston.
4. Laura Jasinski: Associate Director of the Boston trustees of Land trust
reservation
Former director of the Programs and Planning department on the
Greenway Conservancy 2010–2017. https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-jasinski-
ba28777 Laura Jasinski (Conservancy Director of Programs & Planning, 2010–2017)
was instrumental to instaling the Janet Echelman aerial sculpture and to coordinating
our many programmatic efforts. She is now the Associate Director of the Boston
Waterfront Initiative for The Trustees of Reservations. Laura is working to identify
and create a network of waterfront open spaces that will provide a climate resilience
benefit, serve community needs, and become a world-class destination.
5. John (Tad) Read, (Senior Deputy Director for Transportation & Infrastruc-
ture Planning—Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA). http://
www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail?id=820
Appendix 1: Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies 177
Deputy Director for the infrastructure and transportation planning. Main principal
in Imagine Boston 2030, in all aspects of planning development. Under the direction
of the Director of Planning, Tad serves as manager for the formulation, execution, and
completion of the Planning Divisions’ various planning studies and initiatives. Tad
reads, manages, and conducts planning research and studies; engages community and
other constituencies to solicit input and feedback; represents the agency in planning
activities. He leads and participates as a member of an interdepartmental project team
charged with conducting various planning studies. He creates successful strategies,
coordinates activities of all participants; manages consultants/consulting teams.
6. Natalia Urtubey—Director of Engagement, Imagine Boston 2030—Depart-
ment Planning—Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA). http://
www.bostonplans.org/about-us/staff/staff-detail?id=1367
Under the direction of Executive Director of Imagine Boston 2030, Natalia Urtubey will
be responsible for engaging external entities, such as community-based organisations, busi-
nesses, and residents to elicit insights and refinements, gauge buy-in, ensure support, and
incorporate feedback into IB2030 plan. She will also serve as a bridge to and from the
IB2030 office, both for clarity and implementation. She will navigate city systems to ensure
efficiency, communication, and implementation of IB2030.
Appendix 2
Surveys Data
Chart Title
Series1
21:36
13
12 48
47
19:12 45 11
40
39
123 678910 3378 442434456
33 36 68
32 41 67
16:48 27 31 62 66
1178 22
16 30
29 5523 57
51 65
64
14:24 21 28 56 63
15
14 26 50
49 61
20 25
19 55 60
54
12:00 24
23 59
58
35 70
34 69
9:36
7:12
4:48
2:24
0:00
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9
180 Appendix 2: Surveys Data
Count of time_spent
1 hour or more 15 minutes 30 minutes hours through
rarely
than 2 walk
Occasionally
Weekly
more
Daily
Weekly
rarely
Daily
Weekly
m onthly
Daily
Weekly
Occasionally
m onthly
Daily
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
40
38
36
34
32
30
Couple Group walking Alone
Appendix 2: Surveys Data 181
Count of time_spent
4 1 hour or more
6 24 15 minutes
30 minutes
more than 2 hours
28 8
walk through
Count of education
walking Alone
PhD
Group
walking Alone
NA
Group
Couple
walking Alone
Msc
Group
Couple
walking Alone
bachelor oma school
dipl high
Group
walking Alone
walking Alone
Group
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Appendix 3
Liveability Calculator Matrix
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9
Livability Calculator - Northend Park -
184
A B C D E F G H
1 S TEP 2 : EX P LO RE METRIC S CO RES
2 This worksheet displays the characteristics of your study corridor as a set of scores, based on the census block group IDs you inserted into the C o lo r Leg end
3 Inputs worksheet. The black diamonds in the graphs below represent the performance of your corridor as “z-score” values (see Handbook for z- Int eg r at ed C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean
4 score calculation method). A z-score between 0 and 1 includes 33% of all the 250+ corridors in the TCRP Report 187 study; a z-score between 1 and T r ansit io ning C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean
2 includes an additional 16%; and a z-score above 2 includes the remaining 1%. All together, these account for half of the TCRP Report 187 study
5 Emer g ing C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean
corridors (i.e.; the ones that score above the study’s average). The same is true of z-scores that are negative; they include the other 50%. The graphs
6 Inp ut s C o r r id o r M et r ic M ean
also show, for reference, the average scores for corridors of all three types studied in this research project—red for Emerging, yellow for
7 Transitioning, and green for Integrated corridors.
8
9 5 .0 0 9 .0 0 1 .0 0 0 .6 0 2 0 .0 0 0 .6 0
10 4 .6 0 8 .5 0 0 .8 7 0 .4 0 0.35 1 7 .9 2 0 .5 4
11 4 .0 0 8 .0 0 0 .8 0 0 .2 0 1 5 .0 0 0 .5 0
12 3 .0 0 7 .0 0 0 .6 0 0.00 0 .0 4 1 0 .0 0 0 .4 0
13 2 .0 0 6 .0 0 0 .4 0 -0 .1 1 5 .0 0 0 .3 0
14 1 .8 0 5 .0 0 0 .3 5 -0 .2 0 2 .0 0 0 .2 0
15 Z - Sco r e 1 .0 0 4 .0 0 0 .2 0 -0 .4 0 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 . 4 18 0 .1 5
16 C o mp ar iso n 0 .2 9 3 .0 0 0 .1 6 -0 .6 0 -5 .0 0 0 .1 0
17 C har t s 0 .0 0 2 .0 0 1 .85 0 .0 0 -0 .8 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0
18 -0 .6 3 1 .0 0 -0 . 1 9 -1 .0 0 -0 .0 4
-0 .2 0
19 -1 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 2 -1 . 2 0 -0 .1 0
-0 .4 0 -1 .2 1
20 -0 .4 5 -1 .4 0
21 -1 .0 0
22
23
Hig h- q ualit y t r ansit , walking , and b icycling M ixed inco me ho using near t r ansit T r ansit - accessib le eco no mic o p p o r t unit ies
24
o p p o r t unit ies
25 M easur e Transit jobs accessibility Transit service coverage Housing unaffordability Income diversity Jobs density Retail jobs density
26 Sco r e 9 4 3 9 4 .6 2 2 770 5.2 0 3 0 .3 6 0 .2 7 19 5.71 6 .51
27 Z - Sco r e 4 .6 0 8 .50 0 .8 7 -1.2 1 17.9 2 0 .54
28
29 Pr incip le Sco r e 6 .55 -0 .17 9 .2 3
N OT E: B alance o f f lo w d at a must
30
N OT E: Ped est r ian co llisio n d at a is
31 b e ent er ed manually.
32 o nly availab le f o r C alif o r nia.
`
Appendix 3: Liveability Calculator Matrix
Is r aa Hanaf i M ahm o ud
I J K L M N
0 .4 0 6 .0 0 4 .0 0 1 0 .0 0 7 .0 0 0 .8 0
0 .3 3 5 .3 0 3.50 3 .6 3 8 .7 4 6.00 6 .1 3 0.60 0 .6 4
0 .3 0 5 .0 0 3 .0 0 8 .0 0 5 .0 0 0 .4 0
0 .2 0 4 .0 0 2 .5 0 6 .0 0 4 .0 0 0 .2 0
0 .1 0 3 .0 0 2 .0 0 4 .0 0 3 .0 0
No 2 .0 0 1 .7 9 2.00 2 .0 0
0 .0 0 1 .9 9
1 .3 9 1 .5 0 0.00 1 .4 0 No 0.02
dat a. -0 .0 3 0 .0 0
-0 . 1 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 dat a.
-0 .1 0 -0 .4 5
Appendix 3: Liveability Calculator Matrix
-0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .5 0 -2 .0 0 0.00 0 .1 8 -0 .2 0
-0 .2 6 0 .0 0 0 .2 4 -0 .5 5 -0 .4 0
-0 .3 0 -0 .5 1 0 .0 0 -1 .0 0 -0 .6 0
-1 .0 0 -0 .5 0 -0 . 5 9 -0 .8 0
-1 .0 0 -1 .0 0 -0 .9 9
-1 .2 0
A ccessib le so cial & g o ver nment ser vices V ib r ant & accessib le co mmunit y, cult ur al & r ecr eat io nal Healt hy, saf e & walkab le t r ansit co r r id o r
o p p o r t unit ies neig hb o r ho o d s
Pedestrian collisions per 100,000
Ridership balance Health care opportunities Population density Access to culture and arts Pedestrian environment
pedestrians
N o t av ailab le. 11.4 7 6 2 .9 7 17.10 3 6 7.9 3 N o t av ailab le.
N o t av ailab le. 5.3 0 3 .6 3 8 .74 6 .13 N o t av ailab le.
5.3 0 6 .18 6 .13

185
Index
B P
Boston, 47, 81, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 97–100, Perception, 7–9, 12–14, 21, 64, 70, 71, 77,
104, 108, 148, 149, 154, 155, 167, 79, 80, 139, 142, 145, 156
176, 177 Placemaking, 4, 6, 9, 14–22, 24, 25, 46, 50,
52–54, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 79, 81,
104, 135, 148, 156, 157, 162, 163,
C 168, 169, 172, 176
Cultural-based, 3, 9 Plaza, 4, 10, 12, 14, 37, 52, 54–56, 70, 71,
79, 81, 110, 175
Public life, 4, 7, 24, 30, 36–38, 68–70, 73,
G 80, 81, 107, 133, 140, 161–163, 168
Green, 4, 13, 24, 58, 60, 61, 99, 103 Public realm, 4, 11, 15, 16, 37, 70, 73, 88,
Green space, 7, 10, 12, 13, 58, 60 167, 176
Greenway, 7, 64, 88, 90, 97, 99–101, 104, Public spaces, 3, 4, 6–14, 16–18, 21–25,
141, 147, 154, 155, 161, 163, 167, 29, 30, 32–39, 52, 53, 58, 60, 63, 64,
172, 176 69–71, 73, 76, 77, 80–82, 98, 99,
133, 147, 154, 161–164, 167, 175
H
Human social dimension, 7 S
Sociability, 3, 4, 6, 7, 30–34, 36–39, 45, 63,
68, 73, 76, 78, 80, 82, 107, 108,
L 141–144, 147, 148, 156, 157, 161,
Liveability, 22, 30–32, 36, 38, 82, 148–151 162, 164, 167–169, 172
N U
Northend (or North end), 6, 70, 71, 73, Urban design, 4, 7–9, 12–16, 18, 22, 25,
79–81, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97–101, 103, 29–33, 38, 52, 67, 98, 99, 107, 149,
104, 107, 108, 111, 112, 114–116, 161, 162, 169
118, 121, 130, 137–139, 141–150, Urban regeneration, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 23, 33,
154–157, 162–165, 167 45, 63, 64, 68, 104, 147, 162
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15408-9

Placemaking For Green Urban Regeneration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Placemaking For Green Urban Regeneration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Placemaking For Green Urban Regeneration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Urban Book Series

Israa Hanafi Mahmoud

Placemaking for Green

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic)

Processes of green urban regeneration have to embed an intrinsic, measurable sense

Milan, Italy Israa Hanafi Mahmoud

implementation strategies. That is followed by the definition of sociability, its role as

Chapter 2: Public Spaces and Placemaking Approach: The

Chapter 3: Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration

Chapter 4: Empirical Analysis of Similar Cases Studies:

Chapter 5: Sociability and Placemaking Methodological

Chapter 6: Learning Case Study: North End Park, Rose

Chapter 7: The North End Park as a Liveable Destination,

Chapter 8: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

sociability is discussed as a fundamental dimension of urban design as the gener-

Part I Introduction to Placemaking Theory and Implementation

3 Sociability in Cultural-Based Urban Regeneration Projects . . . . . . . . 29

Part II An Organizational Framework to Assess Sociability of

5 Sociability and Placemaking Methodological Framework

6.4 The North End Park’s Role as a “Front Porch” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Part IV General Discussions and Conclusions

Appendix 1: Key Informants’ Interviews—Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Abstract Placemaking of public spaces is a phenomenon that has arisen in contem-

Keywords Placemaking · Urban design · Public spaces

1.1 A Possible Framework for Placemaking in Cities

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 3

Placemaking & Sociability EVALUATION FRAMEWORK fill-in the gap

NORTHEND PARK IMPLEMENTATION

Fig. 1.1 Book parts and chapter’s structure

1.2 Research Approach and Methodology

1.3 Research Hypothesis and Problem Statement

1.4 Aims and Objectives

• To acknowledge the role of urban design enterprises and local economic

Keywords Public spaces · Placemaking · Urban regeneration

2.1 Why Public Space?

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 9

2.2 Definitions of Public Spaces

There are various definitions of public space distinguished by issues of ownership,

2.3 Taxonomy, Uses, and Performance of Public Space

Table 2.1 Urban space types classification

2.4 Rethinking “Public Spaces” or When a Space Becomes

The distinction between “Public Space” and a “Place” is a slippery concept. In

2.5 What Is Contemporary or Creative Placemaking?

In literature, placemaking refers to “a collaborative process of shaping the public

Hence, placemaking is both a philosophy and a practical process for transforming

2.5.1 Placemaking and Climate Change Approach

2.5.2 Key Principles of Placemaking

While creative placemaking goes beyond community development as a concept,

2.6 Creative Placemaking Implementation Strategies

Table 2.2 Placemaking key

Fig. 2.4 Creative placemaking project—Downtown Memphis Murals (Source http://www.downto

2.6.1 Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper4 Strategy

2.6.2 The Power of 10+: Applying Placemaking at Every

Fig. 2.5 Power of 10+ as a placemaking strategy on a place scale

9. Experimenting with the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper approach.

2.6.3 Cultural Programming of Public Spaces

In a debatable article by Southworth (2014) the argument extends to the cultural

2.7 Social Public Spaces? A Role, a Concept,

Fig. 2.6 The city we need model (Source UN-Habitat 2015)