«نظریۀ شکل خوب فضای عمومی» مروری انتقادی بر معیارهای شکل‌گیری فضای عمومی کارآمد

نوع مقاله : مقالۀ پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری معماری منظر، دانشکدۀ معماری، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه معماری، دانشکدة معماری، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار دانشکدۀ معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

چکیده
بیان مسئله: علی‌رغم توافق کلی دربارة ضرورت وجود فضاهای عمومی کارآمد برای بهبود ابعاد مختلف زندگی در شهر، در زمینة معیارهای شکل‌گیری فضای عمومی کارآمد به‌عنوان مفهومی همواره در حال تکامل یکپارچگی وجود ندارد. به نظر می‌رسد برخی از معیارهای برشمرده‌شده بنابر جزء‌نگری و بخشی‌نگری فلسفی، با سیر تحول این مفهوم از فضای شهری بر اساس تقابل توده و تهی به فضای ایده‌آل برای تحقق دموکراسی و شکوفایی حیات اجتماعی و موجودیتی فرایندی و رابطه‌ای همگام نیست. این مسئله نیاز به بازبینی تعاریف هنجاری «شکل خوب فضای عمومی» را با اتخاذ دیدگاهی کل‌نگر و دربردارندة ابعاد انسانی-معنایی فضا و اثرگذاری عاملیت‌های دیگر نظیر ویژگی‌های زمینه و نهادهای قدرت روشن می‌سازد.
هدف پژوهش: هدف از نگارش این پژوهش، ارزیابی نظریات موجود دربارة «فضای عمومی کارآمد» و ارتباط آن با سیر تحول معنایی و عملکردی فضا در حوزة عمومی شهر است. به‌گونه‌ای که ضمن ارائة تصویر کلی از روند تحول مفهوم میان‌رشته‌ای «فضای عمومی»، شکاف دانش در ادبیات نظری پیشین مشخص شده و با ارائة رویکرد مناسب‌تر، امکان پیشرفت و توسعة تئوری در این زمینه مهیا شود.
روش پژوهش: به منظور ترکیب و نقد دیدگاه‌های پیشین و زمینه‌سازی برای مفهوم‌سازی مجدد در زمینة «فضا در حوزة عمومی شهر» از روش تحقیق مرور یکپارچه بهره گرفته شده است. اطلاعات به روش مطالعة کتابخانه‌ای براساس ساختار مفهومی مرور گردآوری شده و به روش تحلیل انتقادی و طبقه‌بندی مفهومی، تجزیه و تحلیل شده است.
نتیجه‌گیری: تعاریف هنجاری-تجویزی فضای عمومی کارآمد با روند تحول تعریف محتوایی-توصیفی فضای عمومی همگام نیست. درنتیجه جهت‌گیری معرفت‌شناسانة نادرست به مفهوم فضا، معیارهای جزءنگرانه تنها به یکی از وجوه کالبدی و معنایی فضا یا جمع جبری این دو مورد توجه کرده و تصویری جامع از مفهوم چنددیالکتیکی و مورد مناقشة فضا در حوزة عمومی شهر ارائه نمی‌دهند. به‌گونه‌ای که علی‌رغم اشکال جدید ارتباط درهم‌تنیدة انسان و شهر در لوای مفاهیم «مکان عمومی» و «فرایند شهری عمومی»، شاهد نوعی عقبگرد تاریخی به مفاهیم «فضای شهری» یا بازنمایی و تصویری گزینش‌شده از مفاهیم «فضای عمومی» و «مکان عمومی» هستیم. تعریف شکل خوب فضای عمومی بنابر ماهیت پیوسته در حال تحول و چندعاملیتی فضا، باید فراتر از دستورالعمل‌هایی دربارة شکل‌دهی به فضا بوده و با تکیه بر رویکردی کل‌نگر و تدوین مجموعه راهبردها و قواعد منعطف و پارادیمی کل‌نگر، چندبعدی و چندمقیاسی و معادله‌ای چندمجهولی، فرایندهای پویای شکل‌گیری فضای عمومی را دربرگیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A theory of Good Form of Public Space» A Critical Review of the Criteria for the Formation of Efficient Public Space

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamideh Abarghouei Fard 1
  • Ghasem Motalebi 2
  • Seyed Amir Mansouri 3
1 Ph.D. in Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, School of Architecture, University College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Problem statement: Regardless of the consensus about the necessity of efficient public spaces to improve various dimensions of life in the city, there is no agreement in terms of the criteria for the formation of efficient public spaces as an ever-evolving concept. It seems that some of the listed criteria, according to philosophical partialism, are not in line with the evolution of this concept from an urban space based on the opposition of mass and emptiness to an ideal space for the realization of democracy, the flourishing of social life, and a processual and relational existence. This issue clarifies the need to revise the normative definitions of “good form of public space” by adopting a holistic perspective that includes the human-meaning dimensions of the space and the effect of other agencies such as the characteristics of the context and power institutions.
Research objectives: The purpose of the current research is to evaluate the existing theories about “efficient public space” and its relationship with the process of the semantic and functional evolution of space in the public domain of the city. While providing a general picture of the development process of the interdisciplinary concept of “public space”, this study attempts to present the knowledge gap in the previous theoretical literature, and provide a more appropriate approach, to the possibility of progress and development of theory in this field.
Research method: This study used an integrative approach to combine and critique the previous views and lay the groundwork for the re-conceptualization of “space in the public sphere of the city.” The data was collected using the library method based on the conceptual structure of the review and analyzed using the methods of critical analysis and conceptual classification.
Conclusion: Normative-prescriptive definitions of efficient public space are not in sync with the evolution process of the content-descriptive definition of public space. As a result of the incorrect epistemological orientation to the concept of space, partial criteria only consider one of the physical and semantic aspects of space or the algebraic sum of the two and do not provide a comprehensive picture of the multi-dialectical and disputed concept of space in the public domain of the city. In such a way that, despite the new forms of interwoven communication between man and the city under the concepts of “public space” and “public urban process”, we witness a kind of historical regression to the concepts of “urban space” or a selected representation and image of the concepts of “public space” and “public space.” The definition of the good form of the public space, according to the continuously evolving and multi-factorial nature of the space, should go beyond the instructions about shaping the space and rely on a holistic approach and formulating a set of flexible and paradigmatic holistic, multi-dimensional, multi-scale, and multi-dimensional equations and dynamic processes. It includes the formation of public space.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban space
  • Public space
  • Social space
  • Pathology
  • Critical review
Abarghouei Fard, H., Saboonchi, P. & Farzin, A. A. (2018). An Investigation into the Role of Ritual Landscapes in the Identity of Iranian Cities. Bagh-e Nazar, 15(65), 5-12. doi: 10.22034/BAGH.2018.74072.
Abarghouei Fard, H., Boroumand, H., Tayefeh Hosseinlou, A., Latifi, S. M. M., Nabaei, S. & Nickzad, G. (2020). Collective Space, A Declining Concept Assessing the Social Quality of Urban Spaces in the Historic District of Gorgan. Art and Civilization of the Orient, 8(28), 23-32. doi:10.22034/JACO.2020.217608.1139
Abarghouei Fard, H., Mansouri, S. A. & Motalebi, G. (2023). Narrative Review of Pertinent Theories on ‘Public Space’ in Cities.  Bagh-e Nazar, 19(116), 85-102.
Alexander, C., Neis, H., Anninou, A. & King, I. (1987). A New Theory of Urban Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mansouri, M. (2014). Forgotten Dimension. MANZAR, 5(24), 32-35.
Jacobs, M. (1989). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Tehran: University of Tehran press.
Allen, J. (2006). Ambient power: Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz and the seductive logic of public spaces. Urban studies, 43(2), 441-455.
Amin, A. (2008). Collective culture and urban public space. City, 12(1), 5-24.
Amin, A. (2010). Cities and the ethic of care for the stranger, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1885532/cities-and-the-ethic-of-care-for-the-stranger/2634848/ on 25 May 2023. CID: 20.500.12592/qvzsvt.
Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Assche, K.V., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M. & Jong, H. De. (2013).Co-Evolutions of Planning and Design: Risks and Benefits of Design Perspectives in Planning Systems. Planning Theory, 12(2), 177–198.
Atkinson, R. (2003). Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on urban space? Control and empowerment in the management of public spaces. Urban studies, 40(9), 1829-1843.
Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London: New Left Books.
Avritzer, L. & Costa, S. (2004) Teoria Crítica, Democracia e Esfera Pública: Concepções e Usos na América Latina. DADOS-Revista de Ciencias Sociais, Rio de Janeiro, 47(4), 703–728.
Banerjee, T. & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1992). Private production of downtown public open space: Experiences of Los Angeles and San Francisco. California: School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Southern California.
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological Psychology. California: Stanford University Press.
Blöbaum, A. & Hunecke, M. (2005). Perceived danger in urban public space: The impacts of physical features and personal factors. Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 465-486.
Bodnar, J. (2015). Reclaiming public space. Urban Studies, 52(12), 1-15.
Bosselmann, P., J. Flores, W. Gray, T. Priestley, R. Anderson, E. Arens, P. Dowty, S. So & Kim, J. (1984). Sun, Wind and Comfort: A Study of Open Spaces and Sidewalks in Four Downtown Areas. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, College of Environmental Design, University of California.
Boyarin, J. (1994). Remapping Memory: The Politics of TimeSpace. London: University of Minnesota Press.
Boyer, M. C. (1994). The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Bridge, G. (2008). City senses: On the radical possibilities of pragmatism in geography. Geoforum, 39(4), 1570-1584.
Brower, S. (1996). Good neighborhoods. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Carmona, M. (2014b). The place-shaping continuum: A theory of urban design process. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 2–36.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (Eds). (2003). Public places, urban spaces. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Carnwell, R. & Daly, W. (2001). Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature. Nurse education in practice, 1(2), 57-63.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. & Stone, A. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise ofthe Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell
Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The aNNalS of the american academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78-93.
Colquhoun, A. (1989). Modernity and the Classical Tradition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Corcoran, M. P. (2012). Society, space and the public realm: beyond gated individualism. Irish Journal of sociology, 20(1), 1-18.
Cresswell, T. (1992). The crucial `where’ of graffiti: a geographical analysis of reactions to graffiti in New York. Society and Space, (10), 329±44.
Crestani, A. M. & Irazábal, C. (2020). Public Space Challenges and Possibilities in Latin America. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to Public Space. London: Routledge.
Crestani, A.M.Z. (2017). In-Between Zones: Other Possibilities of Investigation of the Contemporary Public Space (Unpublishe PhD Thesis). University ofSão Paulo, São Carlos.
Crestani, A.M.Z. & Brandão, B. (2018). The Public Space (In)visible to the Eyes of Jane Jacobs. In Rocco, R. (Ed.), Jacobs Is Still Here: Jane Jacobs 100, Her Legacy and Relevance in the 21st Century. Retreived April 10, 2022, from https://books.bk.tudelft.nl/index.php/press/catalog/view/isbn.9789461869005/ 742/586-3.
Crouch, D. (2006). Geographies of leisure. In C. Rojek, S. M. Shaw & A. J. Veal (Eds.), A handbook ofleisure studies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cullen, G. (1960). Cityscape. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Dovey, K. (2011). Uprooting critical urbanism. City, 15(3-4), 347-354.
Eley, G. (1992). Nations, publics, and political cultures: placing Habermas in the nineteenth century. In Calhoun, C, J. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ethington, P. J. (1994). The public city. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Franck, K. & Stevens, Q. (2006). Loose space: possibility and diversity in urban life. London: Routledge.
Fraser, N. (1991). What’s critical about theory? The case of Habermas and gender. In Shanley, M. M. & Pateman, C. (Eds.), Feminist interpretations and political theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gaver, W. W. (1996). Situating action II: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111-129.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: using public space. Washington: Island press.
Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Washington: Island press.
Gehl, J. & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Washington: Island press.
Gieryn, T.F. (2000) A Space for Place in Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 463–496.
Glover, T.D. (2015). Animating Public Space. In S. Gammon & S. Elkington, (Eds.), Landscapes of Leisure: Space, Place, and Identities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goheen, P. G. (1998). Public space and the geography of the modern city. Progress in Human Geography, 22(4), 479-496.
Goodsell, C. T. (2003). The concept of public space and its democratic manifestations. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(4), 361-383.
Gotham, K. F. (2003). Toward an Understanding of the Spatiality of Urban Poverty: The Urban Poor as Spatial Actors. International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research, 27(3), 723–733.
Gould, M. R. & Silverman, R. E. (2013). Stumbling upon history: collective memory and the urban landscape. GeoJournal, 78(5), 791-801.
Graham, S. & Thrift, N. (2007). Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance. Theory, culture & society, 24(3), 1-25.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. In Bronner, S. E. & Kellner, D. (Eds.), Critical theory and society: A reader. Cambridge: Psychology Press.
Hackney, R. (1990). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. London: Routledge.
Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hancock, D. R., Algozzine, B. & Lim, J. H. (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. United States: Teachers College Press.
Hartley, J. (1992). The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media. London: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.
Hatuka, T. (2012). Civilian Consciousness of the Mutable Nature of Power: Dissent Practices Along a Fragmented Border in Israel/Palestine. Political Geography, 31(6), 347–357.
Hatuka, T. (2010). Violent Acts and Urban Space in Contemporary Tel Aviv: Revisioning Moments. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Hatuka, T. (2020). Alternating narratives: The dynamic between public spaces, protests, and meanings. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to Public Space. London: Routledge.
Hemmati, M., Mansouri, S. A., & Barati, N. (2022). Media as a Tool to Transform the Urban Landscape Developing a Conceptual Model to Influence the Urban Landscape with No Physical Intervention. MANZAR, 14(58), 66-77. doi:10.22034/MANZAR.2021.285737.2129
Hester, R. (1984). Planning Neighborhood Space with People. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hester, R. (1993). Sacred Structures and Everyday Life: A Return to Manteo, North Carolina. In Seamon, D. (Ed.), Dwelling Seeing and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. New York: State University of New York Press.
Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T. (1992). The invention of traditions. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Hou, J. (2020). Public space as a space of resistance and democratic resilience. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to Public Space. London: Routledge.
Iveson, K. (1998). Putting the public back into public space. Urban policy and Research, 16(1), 21-33.
Jalaladdini, S. & Oktay, D. (2012). Urban public spaces and vitality: a socio-spatial analysis in the streets of Cypriot towns. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, (35), 664-674.
Johnson, A. J. & Glover, T. D. (2013). Understanding urban public space in a leisure context. Leisure Sciences, 35(2), 190-197.
Johnson, N. C. (2002). Mapping monuments: the shaping of public space and cultural identities. Visual communication, 1(3), 293-298.
Kallus, R. (2001). From abstract to concrete: Subjective reading of urban space. Journal of Urban Design, 6(2), 129-150.
Karimnia, E. & Haas, T. (2020). Appropriation of public space: A dialectical approach in designing publicness. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to public space. Routledge.
Kärrholm, M. (2007) The Materiality ofTerritorial Production. Space and Culture, 10(4), 437–453
Knierbein, S. Tornaghi, C. (2015) Relational Public Space: New Challenges for Architecture and Planning Education. In Tornaghi, C. & Knierbein, S. (Eds.), Public Space and Relational Perspectives: New Challenges for Architecture and Plan- ning. London: Routledge.
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), 1-15.
Koch, R. & Latham, A.  (2013). On the Hard Work of Domesticating a Public Space. Urban Studies, 50(1), 6–21.
Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. NewYork: Routledge.
Krier, R. & Rowe, C. (1979). Urban space. London: Academy editions.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Langstraat, F. & Van Melik, R. (2013). Challenging the ‘end of public space’: A comparative analysis of publicness in British and Dutch urban spaces. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 429-448.
Lashua, B.D. (2013) Pop-Up Cinema and Place-Shaping: Urban Cultural Heritage at Marshall’s Mill. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 5(2), 123–138.
Leclercq, E. & Pojani, D. (2020). Private, Hybrid, And Public Spaces Urban design assessment, comparisons, and recommendations. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to Public Space. Routledge.
Leclercq, E., Pojani, D. & Van Bueren, E. (2020). Is public space privatization always bad for the public? Mixed evidence from the United Kingdom. Cities, (100), 102649.
Lees, L. (1998). Urban renaissance and the street. In Fyfe, N. R (Ed.), Images of the street: Planning, identity and control in public space. London: Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Liebermann, E. (1984). People’s needs and preferences as the basis of San Francisco’s downtown open space plan. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of People and Their Physical Surroundings. Berlin, Germany.
Low, S. M., Taplin, D. & Scheld, S. (2009). Rethinking urban parks: Public space and cultural diversity. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Luger, J. & Lees, L. (2020). Planetary Public Space Scale, context, and politics. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to public space. London:Routledge.
Majidi, M., Mansouri, S. A., Saber Nejad, J. & Barati, N. (2021). Landscape Capacities in Realizing the Concept of Participation in Urban Projects. MANZAR, 13(54), 18-27.
Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and challenges of urban design. Journal of urban design, 11(2), 173-193.
Madanipour, A. (2020). A Critique Of Public Space: Between interaction and attraction. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to Public Space. Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (2021). Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. In Public Space Reader. Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (Ed.). (2010). Whose public space?: International case studies in urban design and development. Routledge.
Madden, D. J. (2010). Revisiting the end of public space: Assembling the public in an urban park. City & Community, 9(2), 187-207.
Malone, K. (2002). Street life: youth, culture and competing uses of public space. Environment and urbanization, 14(2), 157-168.
Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage.
Matthews, G. (1992). The rise of public woman. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban design, 19(1), 53-88.
Mehta, V. (2019). Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability. Urban Design International, 24(1), 16-37.
Mehta, V. & Bosson, J. K. (2009). Third Places and the Social Life of Streets. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 779–805.
Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.). (2020). Companion to Public Space. Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the association of american geographers, 85(1), 108-133.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York and London: Guilford Press.
Moudon, A. V. (1992). A Catholic Approach to Organizing What Urban Designers Should Know. Journal of Planning Literature, 6(4), 331–349.
Németh, J. (2012). Controlling the commons: how public is public space?. Urban Affairs Review, 48(6), 811-835.
Németh, J. & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5-23.
Neal, Z. (2009). Locating Public Space. In A. M. Orum & Z, Neal. (Eds), Common ground?: readings and reflections on public space. Routledge.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, Space, and Architecture. Londn: Studio Vista, London.
Oldenburg, R. (2009). The Character of Third Places. In A. M. Orum & Z. Neal (Ed.), Common ground?: readings and reflections on public space. London: Routledge.
Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place. Berkeley: University of California Press
Ong, A. (1997). A Better Tomorrow? The Struggle for Global Visibility. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 2(12), 192-225.
Paay, J. & Kjeldskov, J. (2008). Understanding situated social interactions: a case study of public places in the city. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(2-3), 275-290.
Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J. W. & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The Physical Environment of Street Blocks and Resident Perceptions of Crime and Disorder: Implications for Theory and Measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 (1), 21– 34.
Peterson, S. & Row, K. (1979). Urban design tactics. Architectural Design, 49(3-4), 76-81.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Urban design and dilemmas of space. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 14(3), 331-355.
Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The Right to the City and Its Urban Politics of the Inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58(2–3), 99–108.
Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs. CA: Prentice Hall.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Relph, E. (1981). Rational Landscapes and Humanistic Geography. London: Croom Helm.
Rishbeth, C. (2020). The collective outdoors: Memories, desires and becoming local in an era of mobility. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to public space. Routledge.
Rokem, J. & Boano, C. (2017). Introduction: Towards Contested Urban Geopolitics on a Global Scale. In Jonathan, R. & Camillo, B. (Eds.), Urban Geopolitics. London: Routledge.
Ryan, M. (1990). Women in public. Baltimore. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Salama, H. H. (2013). Tahrir Square: A narrative of a public space. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 7(1), 128.
Sert, J. L. (1944). Can Our Cities Survive?, An ABC of urban problems, their analysis, their solution. MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, B. (2000). Abraham Lincoln and the forge of national memory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Seamon, D. (1980). Body-subject, time-space routines, and place- ballets, In Buttimer, A,. and Seamon,D (Eds), The human experience of space and place (pp. 148-165). Routledge.
Sendra, P. (2015). Rethinking urban public space: assemblage thinking and the uses of disorder. City, 19(6), 820-836.
Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man: on the social psychology of capitalism. New York: Alfred A Knopf,.
Sennett, R. (1992). The uses of disorder: Personal identity and city life. Newyork:WW Norton & Company.
Sennett, R. & Sendra, P. (2020). Designing disorder: Experiments and disruptions in the city. London: Verso Books.
Sezer, C. (2020). Visibility in Public Space and Socially Inclusive Cities. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.), Companion to Public Space. London: Routledge.
Shaftoe, H. (2012). Convivial urban spaces: Creating effective public places. London; Routledge.
Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006). The New Mobilities Paradigm. Environment and Planning A (38), 207–26.
Silberberg, S., Lorah, K., Disbrow, R. & Muessig, A. (2013). Places in the Making: How Placemaking Builds Places and Communities. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Simões, Aelbrecht, P. (2016). Fourth Places: The Contemporary Public Settings for Informal Social Interaction among Strangers. Journal of Urban Design, 21(1), 124–152.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, (104), 333-339.
Spierings, B. (2009). Travelling an Urban Puzzle: The Construction, Experience and Communication of Multi(pli)cities. Liminalities, 5(4), 1–8.
Spierings, B. (2006). Cities, Consumption and Competition: The Image of Consumerism and the Making of City Centres. Nijmegen: Faculteit Managementwetenschappen, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Stewart, A. (2001). Theories of power and domination: The politics of empowerment in late modernity. London: Sage.
Stewart, W. P., Liebert, D. & Larkin, K. W. (2004). Community identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape and urban planning, 69(2-3), 315-334.
Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal ofLeisure Research, 34(4), 368–382.
Swaffield, S. R. (2006). Theory and critique in landscape architecture: Making connections. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 1(1), 22-29.
Tajbakhsh, K. (2000). The promise of the city: space, identity, and politics in contemporary social thought. California: Univ of California Press.
Taylor, Ch. (1995). Liberal politics and the public sphere. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, virtues, institutions and communities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human resource development review, 4(3), 356-367.
UN Habitat, PPS and Ax: son Johnson Foundation. (2015). Key Messages from the Future of Places. Retrieved Apr 25, 2017, from https://unhabitat.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/Key-Messages-from-the-Future-of- Places.pdf.
UN-Habitat. (2013). Streets as Public Spaces and Drivers ofUrban Prosperity. New York: United Nations.
UN-Habitat. (2015a). Global Public Space Toolkit from Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice. New York: United Nations.
UN-Habitat. (2015b). Using Minecraft for Youth Participation in Urban Design and Governance. New York: United Nations.
UN-Habitat. (2016). Measurement of City Prosperity. Methodology and Metadata. New York: United Nations.
UN-Habitat. (2019a). The Silent Revolution ofPublic Spaces in Afghanistan. New York: United Nations.
UN-Habitat. (2019b). Mixed Reality for Public Participation in Urban and Public Space Design: Towards a New Way of Crowdsourcing More Inclusive Smart Cities. New York: United Nations
Van Deusen, R. (2002). Public space design as class warfare: Urban design, theright to the city’and the production of Clinton Square, Syracuse, NY. GeoJournal, 58(2-3), 149-158.
Van Melik, R. & Spierings, B. (2020). Researching public space: From place-based to process-oriented approaches and methods. In Mehta, V. & Palazzo, D. (Eds.). Companion to Public Space. London: Routledge.
Varna, G. & S. Tiesdell. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The Star Model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, (15), 575-98.
Walzer, M. (1986). Pleasures and cost of urbanity. Dissent, (33), 470–484.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 14(4), 490-495.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Newyork: Project for Public Spaces.
Wilkinson, K. (1986). In search of the community in the changing countryside. Rural Socio, (51), 1–17.
Young, M. I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Zamanifard, H., Alizadeh, T. & Bosman, C. (2018). Towards a framework of public space governance. Cities, (78), 155-165.
Zevi, B. (1957). Architecture as Space: How to Look at Architect. New York: Horizon press.
Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. Urban Studies, 35(5/6), 825–839.
Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford: Oxford University Press.