SUR 25web V2-Libre PDF

Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Privately Owned Public Spaces
Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01
The International Experience
The University of Tokyo
Public Space by Private Actors? Outlining the Issues

Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background
Sustainable Urban Regeneration (CSUR) and builds
across the world. As the Occupy movement spread
This volume, 'Privately Owned Public Spaces: The
on an earlier collaborative research project that was
around the globe and as other privately owned public
International Perspective', is based on a weeklong
set up by Christian Dimmer (University of Tokyo),
spaces were similarly taken over such as Hong Kongs
workshop and conference that took place in Tokyo
Juliane Pegels (RWTH Aachen), Elke Schlack Fuhrmann
iconic HSBC Plaza, Taipeis 101 Tower, and City Square in
in February 2012. The workshop brought together
(Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago de Chile), as well
Melbourne, so spread the awareness that such hybrid
young international scholars engaging in a variety of
as Marieluise Jonas and Beau Beza (RMIT Melbourne)
spaces at the nexus of the public and private domains
research projects, dealing with the private provision of
in 2008.
also existed in many other countries and continents.
collective space, with leading Japanese public space
Although it has been decades since local governments
administrators, planning practitioners, and researchers
2. Introduction
around the world started rewarding bonus floor area
(Fig.2).
The concurrence of the appropriation of Zuccotti
to private developers if they in turn agree to produce
During the workshop, fieldwork and interviews with
Park by the Occupy Wall Street movement in October
and maintain publicly usable urban spaces, most
urban administrators and scholars were carried out
2011 and the 50th anniversary of New York Citys
research so far has discussed these privately owned
in Yokohama, Kawasaki, Kyoto, Fukuoka, and Osaka
groundbreaking zoning ordinance has drawn renewed
public spaces (hereafter referred to as POPS), as Jerold
in order to provide a deeper understanding of the
and unprecedented attention to a particular mode
Kayden coined them in his seminal book of the same
diverse and differentiated manifestations of the
of urban governance that has not only brought this
title (2000), against the background of North American
related planning policies (Fig.3). This research was
widely televised Lower Manhattan park into being
cities only. This volume seeks to overcome this inherent
kindly funded by The University of Tokyos Center for
but also hundreds of its kind; not only in New York but
Western bias by offering a broad survey of governance
Fig.1 The price for a questionable amenity: Maybe unintentionally, the shift towards the floor area ratio (FAR) system, aiming at the creation of new downtown open spaces, legitimised the proliferation of high-rises in urban Japan
002
Vol. 25_2013_01
systems that have been producing privately owned

public spaces in cities as diverse as Santiago de Chile,
New York, Seattle, Aachen, Bangkok, Taipei, Hong
Kong, Melbourne, Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Sapporo, and
Yoko-hama.
By concentrating on this seemingly simple and
straightforward bargain of additional building height
or other zoning concessions in turn for the provision of
publicly usable space, this comparative study analyses
the influence of different planning and governance
cultures in 13 very different cities and highlights
the role that particular local histories, geographies,
institutions and actor-networks play therein.
3. Signiicance of this Collaborative Research
This collection of essays is not intended as a conclusive
statement but an initial broad survey of this specific
subset of publicly usable spaces that sketches out
common ground and provides the basis for more
systematic future research. Furthermore, it seeks
to make a contribution to three wider, theoretical
discourses.
Fig.2 The POPS Symposium in Tokyo brought together international public space researchers with eminent Japanese planning experts
First, a fresh body of recent scholarship in planning

theory has highlighted global learning processes, the
problems are too disparate to advance a more coherent
At the same time the proliferation of hundreds of high-
multi-directional circulation of planning ideas, and the
comparative agenda.
rises that were predicated by this policy is having a
particular ways these manifest in different cultures and
This collection of essays adds to these international
severe impact on urban spaces and local communities
local contexts (See Edensor and Jayne 2011, Healey
public space discourses by focusing on one single
(Fig.1, 4, 5).
and Upton 2010; Sanyal 2005; Nasr and Volait 2003,
subset of public space, namely privately owned public
Are these new public spaces allowing for democratic
Ward 2002). This collection of essays contributes to
space, and compares related issues systematically in
expression and supporting complex social interaction
these novel planning theoretical discourses. Instead
13 different cities. Quantitatively speaking, these POPS
among various members and groups of the public, or
of discussing very different planning issues on various
are highly significant as they have thrived adjacent
does an ever-growing number of POPS undermine a
spatial scales and cultural contexts, this volume
to hundreds of downtown skyscrapers since the late
buoyant, diverse public life and create more problems
compares 13 international cities by focusing on one
1960s (Fig.1). Moreover, since these privately owned,
than it solves? To which degree can the design and
single set of institutions, actor-networks, and plan-
yet publicly accessible spaces result from a trade-off of
management of a vital public good like collective
ning tools that provide publicly usable spaces through
bonus floor area for open space, involving developers
urban space be given over to profit-oriented interests?
private actors. This reduced analytical framework
and local governments, their design and operation
How much and which kind of control can be tolerated
and the narrow spectrum of spatial archetypes dis-
reflects how both public and private key actors at a
in order to safeguard the evolution of diverse social
cussed allows for a systematic analysis and provides
specific point in time thought about public space. This
activities?
a more solid common ground for further comparative
is a fresh perspective, as until now, most writing on the
planning theory studies.
subject focused mostly on government policies but
Second, until not too long ago, international public
ignored the motivation of private developers (ibid.).
space debates strongly centred on European or North
Third, with the rise of neoliberal policies and the
American cities, or those influenced by European
entrepreneurial city (Brenner and Nik 2003; Harvey
cultures through colonialism (Low 2000) in effect
2005), important urban governance interventions like
underplaying public space in non-western settings
the provision of public spaces need to be critically
(See Dimmer 2012). Only recently has urban collective
interrogated. Indeed, incentive zoning, the mechanism
space been discussed in a cross-cultural perspective
behind the creation of POPS, is credited with being
(Miao 2001; Madanipour 2010; Hou 2010), seeking
a marvelously creative solution for obtaining public
to decentre the dominating Western bias. While
benefits without expenditure of taxpayer money, at
these books offer valuable new insights and identify
a time when public sector budgets are increasingly
important common issues, the discussed spaces and
constrained" (Kayden 2000: 307).
Fig.3 Participants of the international workshop visited POPS across

Japan and entered into a dialogue with local governments
003
Vol. 25_2013_01
4. What is Privately Owned Public Space?
than counteracts whatever negative impacts, such as
Part I
In this volume, the term privately owned public spaces
greater street and sidewalk congestion and loss of light
The first part discusses the standardised production of
(abbreviated as POPS) refers to urban spaces that are
and air, that may be associated with larger buildings.
POPS in various countries and loosely in chronological
the result of some kind of trade-off between local
For the developer, the rationale is still simpler: the
order of the introduction of the planning systems; from
governments and private landowners or developers.
value of the incentive equals or exceeds the cost of
New York, where this trade-off system of bonus floor
Landowners are granted the right to build a bulkier
providing the public space, making the transaction a
area for publicly usable open space was 'invented'
building than allowed by existing planning regulations,
financially desirable one" (2000: 22). This suggests that
via Chile, Melbourne, Taiwan, Hong Kong to Thailand,
receive a tax cut, or are exempted from other building-
alternative methods for securing small public spaces,
where it was introduced only in recent years.
form limiting regulations. Accepting this bonus from
such as buying them with money from the city's capital
The discussion of Aachens Bcherplatz concludes
the public side, the developer is then obliged to
budget, would be less worthwhile or simply unrealistic
the first part by offering a very different, contrasting
provide a publicly usable space, or other stipulated
(ibid. 307). The financial mechanics behind incentive
perspective to the preceding chapters. While in New
amenities. The space remains in private property but
zoning are straightforward: to attract developers,
York, Santiago de Chile, Taipei, Hong Kong, Bangkok,
must be usable in principle by all members of the pub-
cities must provide incentives that convey a financial
and Tokyo, local governments are in a weak position
lic at any time. Incentive zoning, a planning method
benefit sufficient to at least cover the costs incurred in
and hard-pressed to carve out precious public space for
that does not force private developers to produce
providing the POPS (ibid. 23). Floor area bonuses and
rapidly expanding cities, in Germany local governments
a desired public good but induces this through the
other stimuli benefit developers either by increasing
have traditionally had the final say on planning
provision of an incentive, commonly produces POPS.
their income or reducing their costs. FA bonuses
decisions and held far-reaching planning powers. While
Other POPS are not newly created but preserved.
for example increase a building's cash flow or value
general, abstract and place-independent parametric
If a landowner agrees to maintain a piece of inner
through rental or sale of the extra space. Frequently,
rules dictate the form and use of the POPS elsewhere,
city open space instead of building the land up, and
the ability to develop extra space allows the building
in Germany every space is negotiated individually
agrees to open it to the community, he is entitled to
to be taller, and the higher story floors may be rented
between developers, local communities and municipal
tax benefits. No new open space is created here but a
or sold at higher rates because of better views.
governments. Often the property situation is blurred
hitherto inaccessible private open space is opened to
Concessions to setback and building envelope
through overlapping responsibilities and a lack of clear
all members of a community.
regulations may allow for a building design that is
agreements.
As Kayden suggests, the implicit rationale behind
more in keeping with the tastes of the developer, or
incentive zoning is that the public is better off in a
the market, or may reduce construction costs. In return
Part II
physical environment that has more public spaces
for the incentive, the developer agrees to allocate
The second part provides an in-depth discussion of
as well as bigger buildings than in one with fewer
a portion of its lot or building to be used as a POPS,
urban Japan and exemplifies the provision of POPS in
public spaces and smaller buildings. This kind of public
constrict and maintain the space according to the
various cities and different spatial scales. In literature,
space is seen as density ameliorating, in that it more
stipulated design standards, and allow access to and
it is often claimed that until very recently the Japanese
use of the space by members of the public. In effect,
planning system was very uniform and standardised;
the developer 'pays' for its bonus floor area or non-floor-
legislated from above through central government
area incentive by agreeing to these obligations (ibid.).
directives and not allowing for meaningful local
Although the privately owned public space continues,
adaptations.
by definition, to be privately owned, the owner has
However,
legally surrendered significant rights associated with
commonsensical,
its private property, including the right to exclude
manifestation of incentive zoning and the provision
others, and may no longer treat this part of its property
of POPS does differ significantly in Osaka, Kyoto,
any way it wishes. As de facto third-party beneficiaries,
Yokohama, Tokyo, and Sapporo for example. Thus, local
members of the public participate in the exchange by
histories and path-dependencies as well as physical
gaining their own rights to this private property, even
and socio-economic contexts do make a critical
as they endure whatever extra congestion and loss of
difference.
light and air that may result from the grant of extra
Part II discusses how local governments utilise their
floor area or other regulatory concessions (ibid.).
weak planning powers to achieve distinctly different
on
closer
it
sight,
and
becomes
clear
somehow
that
the
outcomes if they have a coherent planning and public
Fig.4 The provision of POPS in urban Japan often leads to conflicts

between large incentive zoning-buildings and fine-grain urban contexts
004
5. Structure of this Volume
space vision (Sapporo, Yokohama), if there has been
This volume offers a variety of empirically grounded
a sustained political commitment (Yokohama), or if
and theoretically informed examinations of privately
long-established collaborative planning practices have
owned public space across the world as well as an
influenced the spatial production until today (Osaka).
in-depth discussion of the implications of the related
Local planning cultures, local histories and actor
planning instruments in urban Japan.
networks do matter.
Vol. 25_2013_01
Part III
[REFERENCES]
The final part of this volume looks beyond the highly
BRENNER, Neil, and Nik THEODORE, eds. 2003. Spaces
LOW, Setha. 2000. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public
standardised provision of corporate plazas that do
of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America
Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
not differ too much in terms of design quality, glossy
and Western Europe. Wiley-Blackwell.
MADANIPOUR, Ali. 2001. Whose Public Space?
materials, and the limited possibilities they offer for
DIMMER, Christian. 2012. Re-imagining Public Space:
International Case Studies in Urban Design and
facilitating public interaction, or the lack thereof.
The Vicissitudes of Japans Privately Owned Public
Development. Abingdon Oxon ; New York: Routledge.
Instead, the chapters on Seattle, Kyoto, and Taipei
Spaces. In Urban Spaces in Japan: Cultural and Social
MIAO, Pu, ed. 2010. Public Places in Asia Pacific Cities:
introduce a different kind of POPS that have been
Perspectives, ed. Christoph Brumann and Evelyn
Current Issues and Strategies. Softcover reprint of
produced and maintained by local communities. These
Schulz, 74105. Routledge.
hardcover 1st ed. 2001. Springer. Reprint, 2010.
spaces are much closer to the everyday lives of the
EDENSOR, Tim, and Mark JAYNE. 2011. Urban Theory
NASR, Joe, and Mercedes VOLAIT, eds. 2003. Urbanism:
citizens and offer more meaningful ways to engage in a
Beyond the West: A World of Cities. Routledge.
Imported or Exported. 1st ed. Academy Press.
wider variety of social activities. They cater to distinctly
HARVEY, David. 2005. Spaces of Neoliberalization:
SANYAL, Bishwapriya. 2005. Comparative Planning
wider strata of society, are far more enabling and
Towards
Cultures. New York: Routledge.
empowering to local communities, and in short, are
Development. Franz Steiner Verlag.
SCRUTON, Roger. 1987. "Public Space and the Classical
more meaningful public spaces.
HEALEY, Patsy, and Robert UPTON, eds. 2010. Crossing
Vernacular." In The Public Face of Architecture: Civic
The example of Taipei is significant in this respect
Borders:
Culture and Public Spaces, edited by Nathan Glazer and
because the local government plays a vital role in
Practices. 1st ed. Routledge.
Mark Lilla, 13-25. New York: Free Press.
the creation of community spaces and takes the lead
HOU, Jeffrey. 2010. Insurgent Public Space : Guerrilla
SHIFFMAN, Ron, Rick BELL, Lance Jay BROWN, and
in activating communities. Furthermore, the city is
Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities.
Lynne ELIZABETH. 2012. Beyond Zuccotti Park:
providing incentives for the creation of temporary
New York: Routledge.
Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Public
community green spaces and urban farms, making use
KAYDEN, Jerold S., The Municipal Art Society of
Spaces. New Village Press.
of otherwise inaccessible inner-city brownfield sites
New York, and The City of New York City Planning
WARD, Stephen V. 2002. Planning the Twentieth-
that are awaiting redevelopment. In short, Taipei is an
Department. 2000. Privately owned public space: the
Century City: The Advanced Capitalist World. 1st ed.
excellent example of a city that is not shying away from
New York City experience. New York: J. Wiley.
Academy Press.
Theory
International
of
Uneven
Exchange
Geographical
and
Planning
experiments and is actively engaging its citizens.
Fig.5 Are these spaces really worth the deal? Nobody in Tokyo monitors the quality and usability of the city's countless POPS; design and management remain mostly in the discretion of the developers
005
Greater Santiago
641 km2 *
5,428,590 people *
84.6 people/ha *
* Santiago de Chiles gure
Seattle City
New York City
Aachen City
Bangkok City
217 km
620,778 people
28.4 people/ha
1,213 km
8,244,910 people
105.2 people/ha
161 km
260,454 people
16.2 people/ha
1,568 km2
8,280,925 people
53.0 people/ha
AACHEN
SEATTLE
NEW YORK
SANTIAGO
50km
Hong Kong Special

Administarative Region
Taipei City
Tokyo Metropolis
Metropolitan Melbourne
1,104 km
7.026,400 people
64.6 people/ha
272 km
2,650,968 people
96.0 people/ha
2,189 km
13,227,730 people
60.4 people/ha
8,806 km2
4,170,000 people
15.7 people/ha
International Experience Part
TOKYO
HONGKONG
BANGKOK
TAIPEI
MELBOURNE
Map by Chie Kodama, The University of Tokyo
Vol. 25_2013_01
Changing Understanding of New York City's Privately Owned Public Spaces

1. Background
building massing and the pubic realm of streets and
to relieve congestion and monotony, exclaims Ennis
Throughout modern history, planning innovations and
sidewalks. Just like parametric planning regulations in
(1960). Instead of building up the complete plot, the
public space policies in New York City have served as
Japan today, the more a building was set back from the
building was set back from the property line and a
templates for other cities worldwide; be it the idea of a
property line, the higher it could rise; the wider a street,
large representative plaza was created.
central park, of Olmsteads park system, the light and
the higher the building part fronting it. If the building
air philosophy of the 1916 zoning ordinance, a trade-
covered no more than 1/4 of the whole plot there was
3. 1961: Trading Floor Area for Public Space
off of bonus floor area for public space, or management
no height restriction at all, as it was assumed that
After over a decade of examination processes, the new
innovations such as the business improvement district
slim, tall buildings would not interfere with light and
zoning ordinance was enacted in 1961. It introduced
around Bryant Park, or the Central Park Conservancy.
air reaching the street or the lower parts of adjacent
a maximum building volume limit and was modeled
buildings (Kayden et al 2000: 9). In the absence of
after the Seagram Building and other innovative
2. Light and Air: The 1916 Zoning Ordinance
ground coverage stipulations and skyrocketing land
precedents. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) defined the total
From the early 1900s on, technical progress had allowed
prices, the majority of buildings covered their plots
floor area that a building could have in a specific
the construction of ever-higher skyscrapers with the
completely and no space was left open. This changed
zoning lot in relation to the area of the building
consequence that congestion increased and less and
only with the completion of Ludwig Mies van der
plot. These more flexible parametric rules in turn
less light and air reached the streets. An aggressive
Rohes iconic Seagram Building in 1958, which the
would encourage more original architectural design
race to build New Yorks tallest building progressed
building industry greeted with enthusiasm, and which
to achieve attractive, efficient and ultimately more
with no regulation limiting a buildings height or
ushered in a new zeitgeist. The owners of several
profitable buildings as well as incentivise the provision
bulk. After years of political struggle, New Yorks first
of Manhattan's newest and largest skyscrapers have
of privately owned public space (POPS). For every
zoning ordinance was introduced in 1916. Height
foregone maximum floor space to provide the open
square meter of plazas, arcades, and later urban plazas,
district rules determined the relationship between
plazas long sought by architects and city planners
residential plazas, sidewalk widenings, concourses,

through-block connections, atriums, and elevated
and sunken plazas (See Fig.5) developers provided,
they would be rewarded with up to 10 square meters
of bonus FA for their office or residential towers. The
total amount of bonus FA would allow an increase of
up to 20% in building size. The bonus proved almost
embarrassingly successful (Whyte 2009: 233) and so
every new building put up in the following decade
used it. While developers earned well from this, with
$48 worth of extra space for every dollar they had put
into the construction of a POPS, the outcome for the
city was mixed. With more and more high buildings, sun
and light decreased, and an additional load of people
strained community facilities and public infrastructure
(ibid.). The logic behind incentive zoning open space
for the public and additional revenues for developers
proved so tempting that other cities across the USA
like Hartford, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco
adopted it subsequently. Also in other countries like
Chile, Hong Kong, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand the
trade-off was implemented.
4. Special Purpose Districts for POPS networks
Between 1967 and 1973 the city not only created five
generic POPS categories that could be applied asof-right everywhere, but also mapped out 5 special
purpose zoning districts: specific geographic areas
where the creation of public spaces would be assigned
to specific building lots prior to construction in order
Fig.1 On the website of the New York City Department of City Planning the map showing the locations of all of the
city's existing POPS is easily accessible; the note "to report suspected violations within a Public Plaza, please call the
City of New York at 311" actively encourages the citizens to become stewards of these urban assets
008
to develop and strengthen pedestrian circulation

networks. Their creation would be either mandated,
Vol. 25_2013_01
leavened with a FA allowance, or voluntary, encouraged
for people. Some are forbidding and downright hostile
15) stressed the high design and amenity value now
by an FA bonus (Kayden et al 2000: 13). In the 5th
(NYCPC 1975: 5). Whyte initiated his Street Life Project
conditional for approving bonus FA.
Avenue District as-of-right plazas were prohibited
in 1970 and began researching which design factors
along the avenue frontage in order to preserve the
made good plazas work and bad plazas fail. For that,
6. Incentive Zoning and Market Pressure
regular, human-scale cityscape (NYCPC 1975: 35) and
he famously employed time-lapse photography, user
During a real estate crisis of the early 1970s, the city
avoid developments like along the nearby 6th Avenue,
interviews, and statistical compilations. His seminal
felt pressure to relax rules and introduce new kinds
where three sterile plazas had developed in a row.
research was published in 1979 under the title The
of bonuses in order to incentivise more downtown
Instead, active retail frontages along the sidewalks
Social Life of Small Urban Spaces together with an
development activity. These new stipulations now
were mandated and bonuses granted for the various
hour-long educational film of the same title. As he was
allowed much higher densities than previously
through-block and interior POPS.
closely cooperating with the New York City planning
possible, to the detriment of the urban environment.
commission, his ground breaking work was influential
Another consequence was the introduction of a new
5. Research-induced Changes
for two official reports titled New Life for Plazas (1975)
discretionary design review process with a special
Although New York City set up an urban design group
and Plazas for People (1976) that led to a critical
permit as a condition for receiving an FA bonus. This
in 1967 that inspired the establishment of a similar
perception and a series of zoning amendments that
path was newly available in addition to the older,
institution in Yokohama City in 1970, there was no
introduced concrete design requirements. The new
quicker, as-of-right approval process that was open to
evaluative unit monitoring the results of the new plaza
zoning regulated the permissible height of plazas
developers who asked for no special exceptions and
bonus. William H. Whyte, an urban sociologist who had
above and below an abutting sidewalk, the amount of
favours. Although design review with discretionary
been assisting the New York City Planning Commission
seating preferably movable chairs and benches , and
power on the side of community boards and municipal
in drafting a comprehensive plan since 1969, and
the minimum number of trees and other amenities. The
planners sounds preferable to the straightforward,
who had been critically involved in the planning of
new stipulations not only promoted better design of
parametric, standardised, and uniform as-of-right
the citys urban spaces, came to wonder how these
new plazas, but also the retrofitting and upgrading of
permit process, William Whyte offers numerous
POPS were actually performing. A lot of the places
older ones, as the popularity of the new spaces became
convincing arguments why the outcomes could often
were awful: sterile, empty spaces not used for much of
obvious. More importantly, wording like accessibility
be worse (See ibid 236-41).
anything except walking across, he notes, but a few
to the public at all times for the use and enjoyment
were excellent. (ibid. 234). Even New Yorks Planning
of a large number of people (cited in Kayden et al
7. Policy Change after Public Controversies
Commission admitted in an official report that plazas
2000: 17), or residential plazas as being living rooms
By the late 1970s more and more big, bulky buildings
can be bleak, forlorn places. Some are hard to get to.
of open space (NYCPC 1976: 20) that are accessible,
were constructed, some of which replaced no-longer-
Some, sliced up by driveways, are more for cars than
inviting, sunlit, safe and beautifully landscaped (ibid:
profitable historical landmarks. Due to sinfully high
Fig.2 Genealogy of New York City's privately owned public spaces from their introduction in 1961 until the latest zoning amendment in 2009
009
Vol. 25_2013_01
zoning bonuses that were now available and compared
8. Inventory of New Yorks POPS
the design standards of privately owned public plazas.
to the huge new buildings, the older ones appeared as
Between 1998 and 1999, a comprehensive survey of
Previous standards for urban and residential plazas
too unprofitable to be preserved. Public discontent
New York Citys complete inventory of POPS was carried
were unified in a new POPS category, called public
mounted and civic groups started to criticise the
out by a unique coalition of academia, government,
plaza. Different design standards were replaced with
planning commissions policies in newspapers and
and civil society. Urban planning professor at
one coherent set of rules and the bonuses for sunken
magazines.
Harvard Jerold Kayden, the New York City Planning
and elevated plazas were terminated.
In 1982, another sweeping review of Midtown zoning
Department, and the Municipal Art Society found that
was therefore necessitated that downzoned FAR,
roughly half of the 503 POPS that they surveyed at
9. Evaluating POPS, Mandating better Design
reduced bonuses for the provision of POPS and, instead
320 office, residential and institutional buildings were
Over the last 50 years, incentive zoning and the
of offering bonuses, mandated the provision of public
out of compliance with legal requirements regarding
design standards for privately owned public spaces
amenities such as retail frontages, large trees, or
public access, private use and provision of amenities
have undergone some dramatic changes. While these
through-block connections if a building was facing two
(Kayden 2005: 125). While the survey found that a total
spaces were producing little more than air and light
streets.
area, equalling 10% of New Yorks Central Park had
during the 1960s, ever stricter and more detailed
been produced and maintained by private developers
quality stipulations were introduced from one zoning
utilising incentive zoning, only 3% of these functioned
amendment to the next. While most spaces were
as true destination spaces that attracted users from
permitted on an as-of-right basis in the beginning, this
outside and inside the neighbourhood.
changed later to discretionary design review processes
13% of the spaces qualified as neighbourhood
and certifications. This transformation has been driven
space, serving as amenities for users from within the
by a constant dialectic between developers and
neighbourhood. 21% were categorised as hiatus spaces
laissez-faire politicians on the one side, and public
that are good for brief stopovers, and 18% as spaces
space advocates, dedicated government planners, civil
only serving pedestrian circulation. Most alarmingly,
society groups and the media on the other. Initially,
41% of all spaces surveyed had to be written off as
planning experts like William Whyte and his associates,
marginal spaces without any measurable public
many of who later became leading public space
use (Kayden et al 2000: 51). Revealingly, the share of
theorists like Fred Kent or Jerold Kayden, perceived the
marginal as-of-right plazas is 63% and that of as-of-
outcome of incentive zoning critically, and convinced
right arcades 72%, having been completed before
the planning department to evaluate their usability.
the stricter design standards and review processes
In the early 1980s, stricter zoning regulations were
introduced in the mid-1970s. In any event, the book
necessitated by a broadening critical public awareness
that documented the survey (ibid.) became an instant
and a growing discontent with the rapid proliferation
success, and instigated a heated public debate about
of ever-bulkier buildings that were predicated by the
the usefulness of incentive zoning and the question of
bonuses generated from POPS. As developers priced
whether the production of public space through the
in future FAR deregulations, the development pressure
private sector is worth the effort. And indeed, the so-
increased on many important historical landmarks that
called Unified Bulk Programme was intended as the
appeared no longer profitable enough comparatively
most sweeping zoning reform since 1961 that would,
speaking, and environmental conditions worsened.
according to Joseph B. Rose, (then Chairperson of the
By the late 1990s, the zoning ordinance had grown so
City Planning Commission) drive a stake through the
complicated that only a few zoning lawyers could fully
heart of tower-in-the-park zoning (cited from Kayden
comprehend it, and the city no longer had a view over
2000:19). It would eliminate the as-of-right bonuses for
which spaces had been created, if they were being
residential plazas and for other public open spaces, not
maintained properly, if they were still open to public
having produced significant public benefits. Bonuses
use, or if the amenities on which basis the FA bonuses
for residential plazas in high-density commercial
had been granted had actually been provided.
districts would only be allowed by special permit.
In this situation it was the Municipal Art Society, a
Bonuses for commercial and community facility plazas,
civic group, and Jerold Kayden, an academic, who
of greater value because of the more public nature
carried out the most comprehensive survey to this day,
of these buildings, would be retained. However, the
together with the citys planning department.
ambitious reform failed due to opposition from the real
A contrasting look at Japan is helpful to appreciate this
estate sector and political struggle.
healthy dialectic of constant contestation of standards
The next reform step was made in 2007, when a new
and use limitations. No less than 183 academic studies
zoning amendment brought significant changes to
have been carried out since the 1980s that scrutinised
Fig.3 Different concepts of POPS in New York (above) and Tokyo (below):
While spaces are explicitly required to be inviting amenities and signs
state this openly at the entrance, Tokyos POPS welcome visitors with a
list of prohibited activities in a jargon not understanable to casual visitors
010
Vol. 25_2013_01
either the effects of incentive planning tools or the
that the visitor is entering a public space and lists all
society that literally cares for these spaces. In 2005,
spaces they had created. Although many of these
the amenities to be found here, most POPS in Tokyo
Jerold Kayden founded the organisation Advocates
studies go into great detail, most of them are purely
welcome visitors with a long list of non-permitted
for Privately Owned Public Space (APOPS) under
academic and dont influence administrative practice or
activities. In many cases it is extremely difficult to find
the auspices of the Municipal Art Society in order to
the practical work of architects or landscape designers.
such signage at all, as developers seek to conceal them.
establish a set of guiding principles for revitalising
To contrast, in New York, academia, civil society and
Even the Japanese term that is equivalent to POPS
these under-leveraged amenities, creating new and
local government have been repeatedly collaborating
kokai kuchi, or public open space is a technical term
renewed public resources, and strengthening the
on improving design and management standards and
that is rarely understood by ordinary citizens. Instead
broader dialogue around public spaces. Students of
keeping the building sector in check. Critical media has
of a list of available public amenities, members of the
Kayden also founded the civic watchdog group Friends
picked up on these issues and provided a public forum
public are greeted by unintelligible planning jargon
of POPS that carries out activities to exercise the right
for discourse.
that describes on which precise zoning stipulations the
to these places and broaden the public awareness.
provision of the space is based. New Yorks unified POPS
They carried out a parade, for example, through a
10. Representing POPS, Inviting the Public
signage with the broccoli mark makes it clear that all
series of midtown POPS in 2011 (Fig.4) and successfully
When accessing the website of the New York City
spaces belong to a larger POPS system, that makes
proposed to connect a string of POPS between the 6th
Planning Department, the casual visitor is initially
up the citys decentralised Central Park. In Tokyo, in
and the 7th avenue into a unified pedestrian realm. The
greeted with easily understandable public plaza design
turn, non-unified and hard-to-find signage as well as
6 1/2 Avenue concept was unanimously supported
principles, before accessing the nitty-gritty of detailed
corporate logos and surveillance, often semantically
by the City and will be implemented. To summarise,
technical zoning standards. POPS have thus to be: a)
code POPS as corporate spaces rather than public ones.
all the above developments together with the 50th
open and inviting at the sidewalk, easily seen and read
year anniversary of the zoning resolution, and the
as open to the public, conveying openness through
11. Conclusion: Activating Civil Society, Curating
occupation of Zuccotti Park, the most famous POPS
low design elements and generous paths leading into
POPS
today, has led to a renewed, broad interest in public
the plaza, visually interesting, and containing seating;
Monitoring the design and management quality
space. Excluding Tokyo, for example, POPS are once
b) accessible and enhancing pedestrian circulation,
of hundreds of publicly usable spaces in private
again focus of heated public debates, increasing their
located at the same elevation as the sidewalk; c)
management is hardly possible for city authorities
potential as truly public spaces.
providing a sense of safety and security, containing
alone. The key to an effective enforcement regime is
easily accessible paths for ingress and egress, being
an active, interested, knowledgeable, and strident civil
[References]
oriented and visually connected to the street, well-lit;
ENNIS, Thomas W. 1960. Find Loss of Revenue Is
and d) providing places to sit and accommodating a
Balanced by a Rise in Prestige; Building Owners
variety of well-designed, comfortable seating for small
Favoring Plazas. The New York Times, July 3.
groups and individuals.
KAYDEN, Jerold S., THE MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY OF
Every citizen can understand these requirements
NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
that are further supplemented with well-presented
OF CITYPLANNING. 2000. Privately Owned Public
graphical examples of good and bad POPS designs.
Space: The New York City Experience. Wiley.
Furthermore, the results of Kayden et als survey (2000)
KAYDEN, Jerold S. 2005. Using and Misusing Law
are presented in the form of a map and database on
to Design the Public Realm. In Regulating Place:
the homepage of the City Planning Department. Every
Standards and the Shaping of Urban America, ed. Eran
citizen can easily use the site to find the good, the bad
Ben-Joseph and Terry S. Szold, 115140.
and the ugly privately owned public spaces.
NYCPC, New York City Planning Commission. 1975.
On the website of the Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau
New life for plazas. New York.
for Urban Development, on the other hand, only
NYCPC, City Planning Commission. 1976. Plazas for
planning experts can find their way. Laypeople and
people: streetscape & residential plazas. New York.
ordinary citizens have no chance to understand the
WHYTE, William H. 2009. City: Rediscovering the
regulations, nor is the public amenity character of the
Center. Reissue. University of Pennsylvania Press.
urban spaces that result from incentive zoning openly

and aggressively stated. In fact, other than abstract,
[Figure References]
technical design standards and a comprehensive list
Fig. 1+3 (top) Website of the New York City Department
of developments utilising incentive zoning, little to no
of City Planning http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/
reference is made to quality of life or the importance
pops/pops_inventory.shtml
of well-designed public spaces. Yet another example

is signage (Fig.3). While in New York, a unified
Fig.4 Raising awareness: The group Friends of Privately Owned Public

Space curate events to challenge established notions of corporate POPS
Fig.4. Permission from Friends of Privately Owned

Public Space (FPOPS)
welcoming signboard design is mandated that states
011
Vol. 25_2013_01
Possibilities of Planning Publicly Usable Space through Incentive Zoning

The Example of Saniago de Chile
Elke Schlack Fuhrmann (CITU/ Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago)

1. Background
additional building rights and the area ceded for public
The reason for that is the public policy oriented towards
Chilean public policies frequently apply incentive
use. Even morphological aspects, i.e. if arcades or inner
a subsidiary state system. At this point, it is important
zoning with the aim of improving publicly usable
passageways should be promoted, and the question
to ask the question if and under which conditions it is
spaces in the city. There has been little research on
about the legal status of these spaces were debated.
legitimate to reward additional floor area to private
the results of these policies so far. However, the broad
Despite the existence of legal easements to defend the
landowners, when at the same time the spaces that
public enthusiasm for such planning instruments
public use of spaces that are part of the public domain
are the condition for the bonus are not available as a
cannot be substantiated by this study that examined
in the Chilean urban tradition, there are comparatively
public accessible space? Incentive zoning is nothing
62 bonus spaces and their development processes in
few regulations for spaces that are intended for public
but a trade-off of more building rights in exchange
Santiagos inner city district Providencia. This study is
use but governed by the rules of private landowners
for making a public good available. In order to shed
based on an analysis of the planning processes, site
(POPS). The municipal regulations do not officially
some light on this difficult question, the following case
observations, interviews with architects, planners and
recognise the publics right of access to these spaces.
study evaluates the privately owned public spaces in
developers, which reveal that most of the resulting
Because of the absence of such requirements, the
Providencia, the district of Santiago where incentive
privately owned public spaces (POPS) do not match
spaces provided by incentive zoning in Santiago do
zoning has been applied most frequently.
the intent of creating meaningful public spaces.
not meet common standards for public space and
Furthermore, the research has found that incentive
only follow the logic of a private right of way between
4. Providencias Public Space and Incentive Zoning
zoning in Santiago de Chile is mainly geared toward
neighbouring
possible
Santiago is Chiles largest city and its capital. It occupies
harvesting the highest possible bonuses for providing
limitations to the public sphere seem very rare in the
an area of more than 600 km2 and has a population
these spaces and not the creation of high-quality
Chilean debate.
of nearly six million. Santiagos inner city districts are
spaces themselves.
Instead, the focus is on the opportunities rather than the
densely populated, but the supply of public space is
lots.
Discussions
about
risks of incentive zoning, which seems understandable
insufficient. Providencia, the central district developed
2. Introduction
given the lack of broader instruments for providing
since 1960, has a density of 9,000 people per km2
Reflections about incentive zoning encapsulate the
public space. In theory, Chilean law sets out two
and a supply of public space of six square metres per
key question of planning itself: How to combine
possible strategies to acquire public land through the
inhabitant (Municipality of Providencia 2011). The area
the forces of development with the demands of the
state or municipalities. The first one, an acquisition
where the incentive zone is concentrated is about 3
common good? Critics of earlier Chilean regulations
strategy, is direct. It consists of the purchase of a private
kilometres long and covers an area of 132 km2. This part
assume that traditional planning practice based
lot by a municipality or a municipal agency. The second
of the city was laid out in an irregular street pattern,
on conventional zoning neither guaranteed the
strategy relies on the legal instrument of expropriation
where Providencia Avenue constitutes a double-arm
achievement of the common good nor sufficiently
that is very difficult to implement because of the lack of
main axis. In this central area with intensive pedestrian
guided the urban development towards quality cities
political will. On the one hand, acquiring land in either
circulation, there are only few public plazas besides the
and neighbourhoods. Numerous authors in Chile find
of these ways is difficult because of the lack of sufficient
street space.
that incentive planning is the right deal for serving the
municipal budget. On the other hand, the municipal
Traditionally, Providencias central district was a
common good by granting more flexibility in planning
resources for designing, planning and maintaining the
residential area, but between 1960 and the early 90s
guidelines and promoting conditioned private urban
public domain have become more and more limited in
this area has evolved into a prospering commercial
development (See for example Bresciani 2012). This
the last decades.
district for all of Santiago. The bonus spaces promoted
research tests the advantages of these incentive

planning mechanisms and evaluates them in one
specific central district of Santiago, Providencia.
3. Deicit of Public Space and the Opportunities of
Incentive Zoning in Chile
In Santiagos public policy debates, the deficit of open
space has become a central concern. In these discourses
the focus is on mechanisms for providing space, instead
of trying to answer fundamental questions about
the nature and qualities of public space. Incentive
zoning is considered a successful way to provide
open spaces in the city, even if they are only partially
public. Much attention has been directed to the precise
mathematical formulas of these mechanisms. For
instance, in several recent zoning amendments the
experts evaluated the exact proportion between the
012
Fig.1 Aerial view of Providencias central district
Vol. 25_2013_01
space 24 hours a day or by the presence of private

security personnel. In fewer spaces, this private
control is complemented by social control, namely
that induced by the eye of the users and tenants of the
shops near the bonus places.
Of course, the particular characteristics of each of
these spaces depend on the design objectives of
each developer and architect. However, this study is
concerned with the way in which the design decisions
were guided and conditioned by the regulations of the
municipality of Providencia.
Fig.2 Pedestrian activity and public spaces in the Providencia district
Fig.3 Physical barriers with symbolic meaning
by the incentive zoning complement many of the high-
show a public character in relation to a clear design of
and 2010. The critical differences between the earlier
rise buildings of the area and consist mostly of outdoor
the entrances, floor continuity, visual connectivity and
and latter phases were the design possibilities given by
patios as well as indoor arcades with through-block
a good integration into the net of pedestrian paths in
the instruments, the way coordinated decisions were
passageways.
the surroundings.
taken between developer and municipality, and the
In most cases, the private character of the spaces
way they agreed about the sense and appearance of
5. Planning Public Space by Incentive Zoning
depends on the following aspects:
POPS.
In a study funded by the Chilean Research Council
Symbolic barriers that exist in these spaces: This
In the first phase, under the planning direction of
(2009-2011), we were able to carry out extensive
is expressed for example by the predominance of
German Bannen, most of the planning stipulations
evaluation research about incentive zoning developed
exclusive shops, pubs and restaurants, opening times
were not clearly spelled out but depended upon the
in Providencia between 1976 and the present. We
that are shorter than the times in which surrounding
detailed negotiation between this visionary planning
looked at 62 resulting spaces with different spatial
public spaces are used, and the use of street furniture,
pioneer and the developers. The framework for the
configurations, built in different periods, and with
lightning and pavements that differ substantially from
negotiation was a master plan, where all the important
different qualities.
those used in traditional public spaces. The obligation
locations of passageways and inner block patios were
The main objective of this study was to find out if the
to pay to stay there and the indoor and exclusive look
pre-defined by the planner. In this phase, most of the
fundamental characteristic of public space, its public
that these places have may repel an important group
developers agreed with the planners vision of public
character, was fulfilled by these 62 analysed spaces.
of users.
space, and both parties accepted without question that
We verified public accessibility of these spaces, as well
Homogeneous groups of users: Only office men and
the privately owned places open for public use had to
as physical aspects of the configuration and symbolic
women that work in the nearby buildings or shoppers
look just like the public sidewalks in order to express
aspects that influence its public character. The kind of
traversing the passageways visit most of the spaces.
full public accessibility.
users that are in the space and the way the space is
Rarely are there other groups such as students, children,
The first phase of incentive zoning in the district
controlled were also topics of the research. The applied
families and elderly people who live in the vicinity and
indicators were based on the categories developed
use these places for their everyday activities.
by Wehrheim (2009) in his comparative study of
Predominance of private control: Half of the spaces
pedestrian streets and shopping malls.
studied are under private surveillance in the form of
The aim of the research was to find out: do the resulting
closed circuit television cameras that supervise the
There was a very important change in the way

regulations were handled in the period between 1970
spaces fulfil the objective of being truly publicly

useable spaces, and which of the following aspects
are fundamental to that. Physical accessibility, the
symbolic promotion of public character, the diversity of
users, and the presence of social control seemed for us
indicators for the public character of space. In contrast,
physical barriers, symbolic barriers, homogeneous
users and private control (CCTV and guards) were
indicators for a more private character of space.
Based on these criteria, our study shows that 96% of
the 62 cases studied have a predominantly private
character. This being said, when looking only at the
physical-morphological aspects, almost all the cases
Fig.4 Homogeneous groups of users: Office people taking a break
Fig.5 Smile, we are watching you!: Private control of space and use
013
Vol. 25_2013_01
of Providencia formally began in 1976, when the

municipalitys zoning amendment included a FAR
incentive in exchange for the production of publicly
accessible space on the ground floor of high buildings.
Because it was modelled after the ideologies of
Doxiadis, the Greek urbanist who led the Ekistics
School, and was strongly influenced by the ideas of
building pedestrian spaces and the human scale in the
city, the new zoning ordinance of 1976 was more than
just a physical-spatial approach. The formal master
plan with the designation of passageways and patios
was accompanied by instruments that allowed the
cession of public space.
Developers and the municipality also negotiated
several symbolic aspects of public space that depended
on physical qualities like materials, pavements and
Fig.7 Passing through and staying in a highly concurred space in Providencia (Each dot representing one person staying for 5 minutes)
urban furniture and that contributed significantly

to forming a public character of space. The bonus
planners was ruled out, and POPS design became
The second phase, from 1989 to the present shows
places that resulted in this early period (1976-1989)
codified and spelt out in generic and quantitative ways,
a very different kind of bonus regime. From 1990
are significant for several reasons. Some of them not
losing the soul of Bannens original vision. The detailed
onwards, and after a series of organisational changes
only capture the ideal of urban design for pedestrians,
design prescribed in the earlier master plan did not
at the national and municipal level, the precise FAR
they were also the first experiment in which private
play an important role anymore.
bonus coefficient per square meter for specific types
developers built public space that gradually combined
In this phase there was no longer an agreement
of POPS was codified and the possibility for municipal
to become a new, alternative grid of pedestrian spaces,
between developers and the municipality about the
governments to negotiate the design of spaces in a
guided by master plan objectives.
sense of public space. While the municipality still
master plan was eliminated. Thus, for each square
Spaces that were designed in the first phase differ from
argued for the public look of places, developers tended
meter of publicly usable space on private property,
those of the latter in two aspects. The heterogeneity
to prefer an indoor look and the use of a repetitive
the building could earn up to 5m2 additional floor
of users and the high presence of users that stay and
recipe, that of the exclusive look, the monitoring by
space. The definition of qualitative aspects was no
not only pass through the spaces is a distinguishing
security experts and the spatial occupation by activities
longer on a case-by-case basis, but was reduced to
characteristic of this period. Data demonstrates that
that have a private character.
one single condition: that of the relationship to the
the security in the spaces built in the early years is
existing streets. The previously mentioned master plan,
managed until today by social control rather than by
a detailed planning policy that defined the location
CCTV cameras and private security personnel.
of each passageway and interior courtyard of a block,
Paradigmatic spaces built in the first phase show the
was no longer respected in all cases. Several decisions
intention to design spaces that look like public space by
about symbolic aspects like materials, urban furniture,
using similar materials, street lighting, and vegetation.
lightning, etc. were transferred to the developer. The
In the second phase, all discretion on the side of
public character was no longer a priority; developers

began to make planning decisions based on their own
private interests and tastes.
The spaces built in the second phase show an
appropriate accessibility, visual clarity, and continuity
of pedestrian patterns. However, in this period the
spaces became thought of as passages for circulation
rather than for staying. Although they remain useful
spaces, they cater more to local businessmen and
women of the surrounding buildings (as shown in Fig.
4 + 5), than to the everyday life of nearby residents.
Fig.6 Passing through and staying in a space from the first phase;
completed in 1980
014
Fig.6 Passing through and staying in a space from the first phase;
completed in 1980
Vol. 25_2013_01
to provide favourable conditions for a public use of
for public space are needed in order to maintain and
privately owned spaces. But to achieve this, there
preserve its public character. In the future, the main
is a need to for a very precise definition of public
motivation for creating POPS should be once again the
conditions.
space itself and not the FAR bonus.
Not only an appropriate accessibility and visual clarity

are needed, but symbolic characteristics like perceived
Acknowledgement
opening times, the choice of the precise architectural
The material presented here is result of the research
program, pavement design, and lighting should also be
project Fondecyt Nr 1104007.
specified to safeguard a public character.

Until now, incentive zoning was perceived as a useful
[References]
instrument in the Chilean planning system, but what
BANNEN, Germn. 1980. Providencia, una calle en la
if the results were not what most experts expected?
ciudad. in C.A. n 27, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
While the incorporation of the private sector in the
BANNEN, Germn. 1989a. Seccional Nueva Providencia.
6. Conclusion
physical construction of public space does reduce the
in C.A. n 57, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
Although two different regulation mechanisms were
need for some government resources, this should not
BANNEN, Germn. 1989b. Providencia, la ciudad entre.
examined, neither of them achieved the optimal result
go hand in hand with a reduction of public regulations.
in C.A. n 58, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
of creating spaces with primarily public character.
On the contrary, more resources are needed in the area
BANNEN, Germn. 1993. El comercio en Providencia. in
From our research we have learned that it is possible
of master planning, and precise planning regulations
C.A. n 72, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
Fig.9 Typical space built in the second period; completed in 2008
BANNEN, Pedro y Chateau, Francisco. 2007. La ciudad

de Providencia en la obra de Germn Bannen. Santiago
de Chile, Ediciones ARQ.
BRESCIANI, Luis Eduardo. 2012. Planificacin urbana
condicionada: respuestas para ciudades ms dinmicas
y ms sustentables. En Schlack. 2012. POPS, uso pblico
en espacio privado. Santiago de Chile. Ed. Did Unab.
Municipality of Providencia. 2011. Statistic Information
District of Providencia. (http://www.providencia.cl/
municipio/datos-de-la-comuna) Access 18.8.2012.
SCHLACK, Elke. 2007. Espacio Pblico in ARQ, Ediciones
ARQ, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Santiago,
Chile.
SCHLACK, Elke. 2011. Frmulas invisibles del espacio
pblico in Revista 180, Ediciones Universidad Diego
Portales, Santiago, Chile.
SCHLACK,
Elke/
Vicua,
Magdalena.
2011.
Componentes normativas de alta incidencia en la

nueva morfologa de Santiago Metropolitano. In EURE,
Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
SCHLACK, Elke. 2012. Produccin privada de espacio
pblico. Espacios privados de uso pblico y la
planificacin por incentivos. Revista de Arquitectura.
Ediciones Universidad de Chile. Santiago. Chile.
WEHRHEIM, Jan. 2007. Shopping Malls. Interdisziplinre
betrachtungen eines neuen Raumtyps. Wiesbaden. VS
Verlag.
WEHRHEIM, Jan. 2009. Der Fremde und die Ordnung
der Mall. Opladen. B. Budrich.
[Figure References]
Fig.10 In spaces created during the first phase social control dominates private control; darker tones indicating a higher degree of social control
Fig.1 Bannen G. 2000

Fig.10 Diagram by Elke Schlack and Raynner Campos
015
Vol. 25_2013_01
Public Private Partnerships in Melbourne

Using Private Investment and Public Accessible Open Space to Transform the CBD
Beau Beza (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology)

1. Introduction
of the city) is about two km2 in area and was laid out in
2. Melbourne and Urban Change
Melbourne is one of Australias oldest and largest
1836 in a 100 x 200 gridded street pattern. Pedestrian
These later comments are remarkable considering
cities. Located on the north side of Port Philip Bay, the
activity can now be found along many of its laneways
central Melbourne was described back in the late
inner city is framed by the Yarra River, which provides
and roads but originally no central or common open
1970s, by The Age newspaper, as an empty useless
a natural element the city and its people regularly
space was designed to be part of the Citys layout.
centre. Remarkably, it is this concept of a useless
engage with. Holding a population of nearly five
Figure 1 shows the intricate pattern of laneways and
centre that was used as the platform to change the
million people and occupying an area of 8,816 km2.
gridded road layout that has provided the building
city and, ultimately resulted in a number of public
Melbournes inner city is one of the most densely
blocks to affect change in the city. The CBD is also made
private partnerships (PPPs) that realised some of the
populated urban environments in the state of Victoria.
up of a number of precincts. Traditionally, there are the
citys most notable publically accessible open spaces.
People from over 140 nations live in this setting and
financial and parliament areas and notably, there are
To take a step back, the situation of Melbournes CBD
this diversity helps make the City of Melbourne one of
also three recognised cultural precincts: Greek, Chinese
was at one point considered so bad that in 1980 the
Australias most contemporary and culturally rich cities.
and Italian, which as previously mentioned provide a
State Government of Victoria fired Melbournes City
It is also Australias fastest growing city with The Age
rich atmosphere for civic life.
Council and removed many of their planning powers
newspaper reporting (in April, 2011) that 1000 people
Unfortunately, and in terms of the CBDs current
(McLoughlin 1992). And so to improve the citys urban
a week come to live in Melbourne.
population, pedestrian capacity has been reached
environment, the renewal of the CBD was argued to
To put this figure into perspective, that equates to
in significant areas of the city (e.g. Swanston St.).
rely on mainly three things:
roughly a 145m long trainload of people arriving
Additionally, crowded and obstructed pedestrian travel
weekly in Melbourne.
along some of the citys laneways and footpaths has
(1) Social policies and programs,
Melbournes Central Business District (CBD) (the heart
resulted in unsafe pedestrian spillage into its roadways.
(2) Economic investment,

(3) Changing Melbournians perception of the city.
Unfortunately, the latter two items were a major
challenge because in the mid-1980s Melbourne began
to feel the effects of globalisation (i.e. international
competition) and by the early 1990s had the highest
unemployment in the country. In essence, the state
and local government did not have the money to invest
in the CBD and by the mid-1990s the state was nearly
bankrupt (Cuthbert 2007). Private investment was
needed to change Melbourne.
Initially, private investment in the city did not
materialise, and the perception of this urban
environment as a dead space prevented large scale
change. The City of Melbourne first needed to
implement a number of measures to affect the needed
perceptual change, which included:
(1) The establishment of a residential population in the
city.
(2) Programs of activities for the citys planned
residential population and the other surrounding
suburban communities.
(3) A vision that establishes a desired direction to guide
Melbournes civic improvements.
(4) Advice on the desired materials that are to be used
in Melbournes spaces and to achieve its vision.
(5) The development of workable planning legislation
to provide structure to the citys development (e.g.
a planning scheme and framework).
(6) A champion to lead works.
Fig. 1 Melbournes CBD and its gridded layout
016
Vol. 25_2013_01
By utilising these tools, Melbourne was (and is) able to
specifically utilising the citys existing north-south
coordinate urban renewal projects (URAV 2003: 1) in
provide a range of mechanisms to help city officials,
laneways (or when designing new spaces within a
Melbourne (and throughout the state). Importantly,
developers and community members structure and
gridded block, an interpretation of them) to provide
Places Victoria can bring together partners (public and
achieve a desired outcome (PM 2012: 39) for the city.
privately owned public spaces. In each case an
private) to realise projects and spaces. The resources
In essence, the above six items provide two streams of
intimate pedestrian environment is meant to be
available to Places Victoria are land and employee
civic improvement: a physical stream, where physical
established through a reduction in the width of a
capital. In terms of land, Places Victoria has the ability
features are realised and built to form results; and
laneway brought about by bringing commercial
to raise capital through selling parcels of land and/or
a cultural stream that endeavours to provide social
related elements into the space - tables and chairs
its commercial assets. They can then apply the raised
attractions and a population base in the city. The end
from restaurants or cafs fill the space and slow
capital as desired. The employee capital within Places
result of these measures was an urban environment
pedestrian traffic, while strategically positioned
Victoria includes community engagement officers,
that in 2011 was recognised as the worlds most
shops (e.g. clothing stores) remove pedestrians
designers, quantity surveyors, project managers and
liveable city, by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and
from the other competing adjacent streets by
development directors. In essence, teams of people
now boasts a residential population of nearly 12,000
drawing people into the laneway environment.
are on staff and available to realise partnerships and
people, which is expected to more than double by 2015
(5) Urban open spaces that are specifically designed as
with the latest population projections estimating over
civic or destination places in the city and provide a
In terms of the state and local government, an annual
40,000 residents by 2025.
setting for the public or public accessible activities/
budget for capital works provides the financial
The end result of this perceptual change to the city is
events. These spaces are designed with much
resources to realise spaces/projects. Grants and
a CBD that has attracted millions of dollars in private
thought and are considered highly important
other financial schemes are also available from the
investment and resulted in over 50 privately owned
civic spaces within Melbourne. Common to these
federal government through an application process.
public spaces. Pegels (2010) in her study of Melbournes
environments is a central open space element with
Both levels of government (state and local) have the
public private partnerships found that five different
adjacent commercial activities placed along the
ability to sell assets to raise funds and have done this
types of POPS exist in the CBD. These are:
spaces edges. At times of, for example, festivals the
on occasion. The motivation for selling these assets
central open space element fills with built features
is rather straightforward - to raise capital to pay for
(1) Forecourts and foregrounds to buildings (e.g. a
(e.g. a fenced marquee, with catwalk, fills the space
the design and construction of highly engaging and
museum) that provide some sort of statement
of Melbournes City Square during the fashion
attractive urban spaces for the public.
in front of the facility but, importantly, provide
festival).
The main private actors involved in PPPs are the large
a venue for passive (e.g. sitting) or active (e.g.
projects.
development organisations (e.g. Grocon Pty. Ltd., Lend
demonstration) public use of the space. These
3. Who is Involved with Melbournes PPPs
spaces are normally designed in some way, adding
Three main actors are involved in the production
Bank). But smaller private actors such as accounting
to their attraction and use.
and,
five
firms, lawyer and barrister firms, design offices, and
(2) Entrance plazas to complexes and/or buildings (e.g.
different publically accessible spaces and mostly
electronic suppliers (McLoughlin 1992) provide
Melbournes Family Law Court) which primarily
work in a tri-organisational partnership to produce
another layer to the realisation of publically accessible
allows for pedestrian circulation and creates [ ] an
appropriate spaces for Melbourne. The first element
spaces.
outside foyer (ibid. 22) to the facility. These spaces
in this partnership is government and its related
The motivations for private organisations entering into
are minimalist in design using mostly paving to
departments. However, depending on the scale of a
these partnerships are remarkably similar to that of the
create distinction and interest, which leads to an
development project the local government authority
government. They too want to develop and establish
entrance door that is normally set far back from the
may be the City of Melbourne or the State of Victoria,
urban places that attract people to their realised
street.
through the Department of Planning and Community
space(s). Obviously, there is a commercial objective
(3) Office plazas provide an integrated open space
Development. In Melbournes CBD the responsible
and agenda to the desired attraction. However, the
element in front of the office complex and three
authority is decided upon by many different variables.
private organisations understand that quality designed
different levels of design are used to influence the
The two most important variables are: is a project
and built publically accessible spaces are a commercial
publics use of these spaces. The first is the office
deemed to be of state significance and/or the does
asset, adding a tremendous amount of value to a
plaza designed to act primarily as a thoroughfare,
the project have a gross floor area of over 25,000 m2?
development. This is why development organisations
which includes minimal seating. The second type
If either is achieved, the State Government becomes
in Melbourne fiercely argue and wish to retain the
of space uses seating, planting and water features
the projects responsible authority and private
management of the publically accessible spaces when
[to] make attractive areas for respite (ibid.). Last is
development organisations must deal with them.
entering into a PPP. They also have come to realise that
a highly thought-out space meant to attract use
Another layer to the government dimension of
by maintaining the managerial rights to spaces they
through the provision of private businesses like
producing any potential publically accessible space
can protect their brand, company name and/or product
cafs and restaurants.
brought about by a PPP is that the state government
by deciding on what activities can be done onsite and
(4) Through-block circulation makes use of and/
has and can utilise its development arm, called Places
who can and can not access the space. Lastly, the
or reference to Melbournes gridded layout by
Victoria. Its specific role is to carry out, manage or
development organisations feel they simply can do
importantly,
management
of
these
Lease) and financial institutions (e.g. National Australia
017
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig. 2 Federation Square is one of Melbournes most prominent publicly usable spaces
a better job than council at maintaining these spaces
most notable public private partnerships (i.e. the
works they meet to discus a desired outcome for
and are therefore more willing to invest in an open
Melbourne City Link, Federation Square (Fig.2), Queen
the City and their varied interests. This approach has
space. The last set of actors involved in partnerships
Victoria (Melbourne), the Carlton United Brewery,
been successful and has led to positive change in
is community and private stakeholders (e.g. Bicycle
Melbournes Docklands and the Swanston Street
Melbournes CBD.
Victoria, Department of Transportation (i.e. VicRoads),
redevelopment) a number of different instruments
train, tram and bus companies) that posses the
that are contained within these mechanisms are used
[References]
political clout to influence the realisation of the public
to confirm partnerships. The instruments, like a 163
CUTHBERT, A. 2007. Urban Design. In S. Thompson
accessible space. The financial capital available to these
agreement (found in the Building Act) or a Corporate
(ed.) Planning Australia: An Overview of Urban and
organisations varies enormously and depends on the
Charter required in corporations law, distinguish
Regional Planning, pp. 263-283. Cambridge University
public or private support backing the organisation. In
each of the partnerships and so when researchers,
Press: Cambridge, UK.
Melbourne, these stakeholders and their influence on
authorities, private developers and so on make
MCLOUGHLIN, J. B. 1992. Shaping Melbournes Future?
the development of publically accessible spaces lack
reference to Melbournes use of PPPs not one typical
Town Planning, the State and Civil Society. Cambridge
serious research, and this provides an opportunity
example can be referred to or is regularly employed.
University Press: Cambridge, UK.
for investigation into another branch of the debate in
Each PPP is an evolution of a previous partnership and
PEGELS, J. 2010. STARSinternational_Melbourne: A
public private partnerships.
is tailored to meet the needs and requirements of the
Document of Post-Doc Research (PT_Materialien 23). A
relative project.
publication made possible by DAAD, Germany.
4. Mechanism Used to Realise Privately Owned
One should note that the concept of an incentive
PM. 2012. Place Making Applied Research: A Places
Public Spaces
zoning framework to affect change in the City and to
Victoria and RMIT University research Collaboration.
In Melbourne, the two mechanisms used to enact
realise privately owned public spaces has not been
Report produced by RMIT University research project
change in the city and allow for PPPs to realise
used in Melbourne. Rather, urban change in Melbourne
team. RMIT University, Melbourne.
publically accessible open spaces is policy and
has been brought about through a dialogue involving
URAV. 2011. Urban Renewal Authority Victoria Act 2003.
legislation. However, upon review of six of Melbournes
the tri-organisational partners in the respective
State Government of Victoria: Melbourne, Australia.
018
Vol. 25_2013_01
Examining Publicly Usable Spaces on Private Property in Bangkok, Thailand

Sakrapat Anurakpradorn (Chulalongkorn University)
1. Introduction
for contemporary urban public space, official planners
public space such as sidewalks, promenades and
Bangkok was founded in 1782 as the new capital of
ignore important social and class differences and other
overpasses. The ministry's regulations state that a
Thailand by King Rama I of the Chakri Dynasty in a
vital activities such as survival strategies, identity
land owner or investor who builds a public sidewalk
flood plain delta of the Chao Phraya River. This location
performances, unofficial economic transactions, and
widening of less than 10 metres width must locate the
served as a natural defence from enemies and the
protest. In an era of energy saving, the focus is on
building at least 6 metres away from the middle of the
richness of water supported the lives of a prospering
pedestrians who are engaged in activities at various
adjacent public sidewalk. If the sidewalk is at least 10
city. Since its establishment, the city has grown
times in the same public space. This latter definition
metres wide, the building must be located away from
steadily in size and importance. Initially, it covered
is interesting and in accord with a constructive idea
the sidewalk by at least 1/10 of the sidewalks width. If
only 4.14 km2 but has swelled today to a megacity that
of turning a vacant space into a social space for towns
the sidewalk is wider than 20 metres, the building must
is comprised of 50 districts, with a total area of 1,569
and communities. In fact, merely beautiful space in
be located at least 2 metres away from the sidewalk.
km2. The population of Bangkok is now close to seven
Bangkok is dispensable for good public space that
This means that open space on private property must
million by registered record or about ten million by
is needed in quality and quantity that is sufficient to
be at least 10% of the total plot area for a commercial
daytime population.
facilitate the social life of most of Bangkok's citizens.
property. If it is a residential building, the open space
Bangkok has always been more cosmopolitan than
ratio must be at least 30%.
other cities of the region. The government sector plays
3. Public Space Under the City Planning Act
Presently, the FAR bonus policy in Bangkoks
a significant role in Bangkok along with the private
Bangkoks city planning regulations have undergone
Comprehensive Plan of 2006 is an incentive to
sector. There are a number of activities in commerce,
constant development for decades. The latest revision
encourage private developers to produce wide, open,
industry, construction, manufacturing and various
was promulgated in 2006 and introduced the floor area
empty spaces. Just only 5% of the standard FAR is
kinds of services including banking and other financial
ratio (FAR) system: a volume ratio that sets the usable
awarded as an additional bonus if the project provides
services. Bangkok's work force includes employees,
building space in relation to the overall building plot.
outside POPS that are located along the sidewalk in
private retailers, street vendors, entrepreneurs,
The highest FAR designation is 10 for commercial high-
front of the building. If developers dont make use of
government officials, etc.
rise buildings. For the first time, planning regulations
the bonus regulation, the conventional FAR system in
Due to the densely packed streets of the city,
provide bonus floor area to developers, who agree to
Thailand tends to produce privately owned, and fully
especially in the Central Business District (CBD), land in
create a publicly usable space on their private property
privately controlled open spaces, not public spaces or
Bangkok has been highly invested-in with offices and
(POPS). This allows the private sector to comply with
POPS. Without claiming the FAR bonus, developers are
commercial building projects. Meanwhile, the amount
the Ministry's regulations on the revised Building
not legally obliged to open these spaces to public use.
of public space has decreased because land prices are
Control Act of 2009, which prescribes the setback of
Design, management and exercise of rigid user control
becoming too expensive to allow for more. To remedy
commercial and residential buildings from adjacent
lies then within their discretion.
this situation, the idea was brought forward of using

some private property as public space or semi-public
space, for which the owners would legally agree to
open up their land to the public. The owner can make
some conditions regarding the purposes and activities
that are allowed in this kind of POPS. It has to be
noted that in the CBD of Bangkok only a small variety
of types of open spaces and activities can be found,
and therefore the semi-public spaces today are not as
useful for the citizens as they could and should be.
2. Deining Good Public Space
At this point it is necessary to reflect about the nature
of good public space. Prominent urban design thinkers
like Jane Jacobs and Donald Appleyard have agreed
that street spaces and sidewalks cater best to the
diverse needs of people living in towns and cities.
A definition of good public space usually involves a
rich user experience, diverse uses, and claims that a
place should be frequented by a variety of people.
However, often planners focus too narrowly on
generic, behaviourist use patterns of public space. By
tending to see leisure as the only appropriate activity
Fig.1 Typology of Bankgok's privately owned public spaces
019
Vol. 25_2013_01
2011, there were only two applications for the FAR
Ganesha Shrine in front of Central World shopping
bonus incentive, adjusting the area in front of a large
centre.
building to have a more clear space and creating a
Case 3: Public spaces in front of buildings with a lawful
walkway ramp to connect with a BTS Skytrain station.
walkway and allowing for public use for a certain
Upon investigation, the two FAR bonus applications
period e.g. walkways along Silom, Sukhumvit and
that have created POPS so far formally complied with
other roads in Bangkok.
the ministry's building control regulation. Although
Case 4: Public spaces in front of buildings with a lawful
the result was a green, beautiful open space in one
walkway and allowed for public use 24 hours a day e.g.
case, the owner did not allow anybody to use it. Some
walkways along Silom, Sukhumvit and other roads in
owners built public space as a plaza without any
Bangkok.
apparent function or with no access from the public
Case 5: Public spaces in front of very large building or
sidewalk. In fact, this space was designed only as a
infrastructure designed by notable architects and city
visual amenity that induces people with a feeling of
planners and allowed to be used 24 hours e.g. Mor Chit
fear to use it. The space does not match the activity,
BTS Skytrain parking lot and public sport recreation
and private security keeps people away.
areas under the Expressway.
This research aimed to find out why the privately

owned public spaces in Bangkok are not successful
6. Discussion and Conclusion
in terms of quality and/or usage. If FAR bonus cannot
The survey found that factors that fostered activities on
bring about good POPS in Bangkok, what else can
the privately owned (semi) public spaces are regularly
be the solution, and should a bonus be awarded for
organised events or permitted special events relating
something that is not really meaningful? What are
to commercial activities, entertainment and other
characteristics of POPS? How are they produced? How
attractive festivities. A legal permit is usually granted for
are they used? How should the system be adapted
religious activities during all hours of the day. However,
Many large buildings have been created in recent years,
to facilitate the production of better usable spaces in
it could be said that most Thai people still seem to lack
using the normal FAR system, thus creating privately
places where they are needed?
an understanding about how to use public space. One
Fig.2 Set-back regulations creating privately owned public spaces
owned, private open spaces. However, no further
reason is city residents nowadays prefer commuting
details were available from the Department of Public
5. Public Space Usage
by vehicles and staying in airconditioned interior
Works and Town & Country Planning as of mid-2012
Many of the surveyed privately owned public spaces
spaces. This is in contrast with a generic, idealised
about the number and the total area and quality of
are located in the highly developed areas along the
pedestrian culture that planners and architects seek
these open spaces. For this reason, this study made a
subway and Skytrain networks, which has stimulated
to implement into new outdoor public spaces. As Hsu
first attempt to categorise and describe those POPS that
developers to link these infrastructure public spaces
also points out in this volume for the example of Taipei,
have been created through large-scale developments
directly to private properties. In the first step, the study
most theories and studies on public space usage are
in recent years. The focus was both on POPS that
evaluated if the developments formally complied with
conducted by Western researchers living in temperate
have been created by using the FAR incentive as well
the ministry's regulation on building control, and in
zones, where the behaviours of people in public
as on spaces that have the same appearance but are
the second step, analysed which role variable factors
space are markedly different from tropic zones like in
completely under private control because of their use
such as users, time, activities in space, special design
Thailand. Furthermore, most urban design theories
of the conventional FAR regulations. The areas studied
features and others factors, such as religious facilities
tend to have a Western bias. The result is a mismatch
are located in commercial land use zones, along the
played for the character of these POPS. Accordingly,
so that many newly built public spaces are unused,
Bangkok Skytrain lines and stations, which are the most
Bangkoks multi-use public spaces can be subdivided
abandoned, damaged and not patronised. Copying the
dynamic development zones of the city. Focus was on
into the following five distinct categories.
Western model of public space without understanding
large-scale development projects because of their
Case 1: Public spaces in front of a building, allowing for
the cultural and climatic context contributes to its
significant impact on the city and everyday life.
24-hour usage, usually involving very large buildings
unpopularity; spaces might be beautiful to look at,
and big events e.g. the boxing event in front of Mah
but are ultimately too hot, or too far away from public
4. Compliance of POPS with Regulations
Boon Krong shopping centre, aerobic exercises in front
transport terminals.
A high building density is inevitable in a city like
of Depot Mall and Tesco Lotus, or cosplay at a public
The FAR bonus policy could potentially create good
Bangkok, especially in the CBD, where very little
space linked to the BTS Skytrain.
public space in Bangkok, but the bonus of 5% appears
public space in the form of promenades, parks and
Case 2: Public spaces in front of very large buildings
too small, and the resulting restrictions are too great
plazas exists. The effect of the new FAR regulation to
designed by notable architects and city planners and
for developers. Furthermore, existing regulations
create more public space has yet to be evaluated in
allowing for a 24 hours use for religious activities or
succeeded to create compulsory public spaces on
central Bangkok. Throughout the five years after the
sacred worship e.g. Erawan Shrine (San Phra Phrom)
private property, without awarding a bonus. For only
introduction of the FAR regulation, between 2006 and
in front of the Grand Hyatt Erawan Hotel, Trimurti and
5% bonus developers dont want to be permanently
020
Vol. 25_2013_01
privately owned (semi) public spaces was constrained

by a rigid control of the time period these could be
used, or the activities that could be performed. It was
often the case that public spaces, especially walkways
that were designed for convenience rather than beauty,
were more popular for Bangkokians, who prefer small,
linked walkways, shaded by surrounding buildings and
connected to several places without being required
to pass through uncovered open space. Another type
of well-used popular public space featured either
permanent or temporary commercial events, such as
meeting markets on the weekends.
Finally, there is still a dominating Thai perception of all
things public, including public space: "If it is public, it
Fig. 3 Case studies 1 (top left), 2 (top right), 3 (centre left), 4 (centre right), and 5 (bottom left)
cannot be mine". This mindset might have contributed

to the private owners' reluctance to fully commit to
committed to opening up their land to the general
factors in creating good social space for Thai people.
creating POPS on their property, as they are not sure
public, which might result in economic disadvantages
Some areas that were elaborately designed by
about public maintenance, usage, security and dont
for them due to insurance risk, surveillance, or crowd
architects and city planners were indeed beautiful
want to surrender the full control over their private
control costs. But these are not the most important
public spaces in the city. However, the utility of these
property.
021
Vol. 25_2013_01
Vanishing Everyday Space: Outdoor POPS in Hong Kong

Na Xing, Kin Wai Michael Siu (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
1. Background: Public Spaces in Hong Kong
Furthermore, due to the limited amount of land
been adopted. At the same time, the transportation
Kai Fong and Street Markets
available in Hong Kong, most of the public spaces in
system has expanded significantly to connect and
Wordie (2007) describes how the spatial form of
these public housing areas are small. Xue and Manuel
integrate the different, formerly independent, towns
Kai Fong (, neighbourhoods) is represented
(2001) refer to such spaces, which have taken over the
and communities. This, in turn, has fostered the
by the combination of streets and squares in a
functions of Kai Fong, as pocket parks. They point out
development of the commercial real estate market. In
local residential area. The term Kai Fong refers to
that an insufficient supply of such parks has caused
recent years, shopping centres have been constructed
community associations that provide various services
local residents to become increasingly dissatisfied with
in place of existing commercial centres. Since 2004,
to local residents, enabling them to build communal
the living conditions in Hong Kong.
the Link Real Estate Investment Trust (Link REIT)
ties and serve their daily lives. In discussing community
At the same time, Hong Kongs street markets, another
has been pursuing a major renovation program
development, Chan (1995) vividly describes the
essential kind of traditional public space, also face the
(The Link 2011) that has seen many old commercial
neighbourhood structure in Hong Kong. The smallest
threat of extinction. As a result of urban development,
centres being reconstructed and chain stores being
neighbourhood unit is the communal area surrounding
the traditional practice of street hawking has been
brought in to revitalise existing shopping centres.
a small-scale housing cluster. This communal area is
increasingly relocated to indoor market buildings
The resulting higher rents have forced many smaller,
believed to provide the essential link in the community
(Kinoshita 2001), leaving only a few individual street
independent mom-and-pop retailers out of business.
life of Hong Kong residents. Kai Fong are one of the
markets in Hong Kong today. The markets at North
Shopping centres now cover almost all of Hong Kongs
most significant forms of traditional communal space
Point on Hong Kong Island and Sham Shui Po or Mong
transportation hubs in business and residential areas.
to have emerged in Hong Kong since the Second World
Kok in the Kowloon district are typical examples of
This development has changed the identity of public
War (Mingpao Weekly 2011). Prior to the launch of the
Hong Kongs traditional street markets. Kinoshitas
space in Hong Kong. Common areas, such as the Kai
New Town Development Program (see also Chan 1995)
study indicates that street markets such as these
Fong, around the old commercial centres have been
in 1973, a large percentage of the daily activities of
provide a community for the local hawkers. Apart
transformed into, or replaced by outdoor POPS above
Hong Kong residents were conducted in Kai Fong. The
from trading and selling goods, the local residents also
Mass Transit Railway (MTR) stations and shopping
New Town program aimed to provide a better living
conduct their everyday practices in the street market.
centres.
environment for Hong Kongs growing population
The street markets were demolished to improve the
(GovHK 2011). The target towns included Tsuen Wan,
sanitary conditions in the old towns and to regulate the
2. POPS in Hong Kong
Tuen Mun and Sha Tin in the New Territories and Kwun
hawkers business. While the Hong Kong government
Introduced to Hong Kong during the 1980s as a new
Tong in Kowloon. The major goal of the program was
has made a huge effort to transform the old urban
type of public space (GovHK 2011; Luk 2009), POPS
to demolish the old residential areas and provide new
layout, the demolition of the traditional street markets
are located on private property that the general public
public housing for lower-income Hong Kong residents.
has been a tremendous loss to Hong Kongs original
has the right to use. A privately owned public space
Chan (1977) states that the spatial layout of the New
culture.
can be regarded as a deed of dedication on the part
Town plan follows the developmental pattern of the
Over the past 25 years, urban redevelopment in
of a private developer in return for additional floor
original neighbourhoods by providing a common
Hong Kong has undoubtedly given rise to the real
space. The public and private parties cooperate in
space with public facilities, commercial centres and
estate industry over the past 25 years, as it has led to
the management of these spaces. Ho (2009) regards
communal utilities. Although the supply of such
increasing supplies of both public and private housing.
shopping centres as one of the main types of privately
facilities improved the living environment, the New
Although it is based on the developmental model set
owned public space in Hong Kong. He also states
Town developments forced large numbers of residents
out in the New Town Plan, the physical environment
that a large percentage of the POPS in Hong Kong
to relocate into high-rise condominiums and thereby
of Hong Kong now appears more advanced, and
are indoor spaces in shopping centres in the central
lose their links with their former neighbourhoods.
a better combination of communal facilities has
business district. However, as shopping centres are

commercially owned and managed, the activities
permitted in these indoor POPS are even more strictly
confined to shopping-related consumer activities than
their outdoor counterparts. For this reason, another
form of POPS unrelated to shopping is urgently needed
in Hong Kong: outdoor POPS.
3. Outdoor POPS in Hong Kong
In contrast to more controlled indoor POPS, outdoor
POPS potentially offer more opportunities for the
general public to engage in social activities other
Fig.1 Early modern public housing buildings provided small courtyards

for residents for gatherings and social interactions. Kai Fong materialised
in these places. The few remaining buildings surviving the New Town
Program were converted to other purposes such as artist ateliers.
022
Fig.2 Street market in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon
than shopping. Outdoor POPS refer to public spaces

that are located on private property and are managed
by the private sector. These spaces are accessible to
Vol. 25_2013_01
the public and attached to different types of private

buildings, such as shopping centres, office buildings
and residential units. The purpose is to provide a
recreational outdoor space where the general public
can relax and participate in leisure activities outdoors
(GovHK, 2012). In 2008, the Hong Kong Buildings
Department issued a statement declaring that private
developers were expected to provide public facilities
(including outdoor POPS) for public usage on private
properties. In addition to guaranteeing public access,
recreational activities were explicitly encouraged
in such dedicated areas (GovHK 2008). The Hong
Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines specify
that the primary purpose of an outdoor open-air
Fig.4 Grand Millennium Plaza, Central Hong Kong
space, provided by either a private or public party, is

recreation (GovHK 2007).
Outdoor POPS in Hong Kong are called rest areas,
open to the public ( in Chinese,
Fig.3). The Chinese characters explain the precise
meaning of the term: Together (gng, public), and
(zhng, people) (gong, common) describe
the range of users as the public and their legal rights
in the space, namely, that although outdoor POPS are
managed by private developers, the general public still
has an equal right to use them. Otherwise, the public
nature of such a space would be meaningless.
(xi q) points to the practices allowed in the space,
including undisturbed relaxation. (kng jin)
Fig.5 Outdoor POPS in Central Hong Kong
Fig.3 Two signs from an outdoor POPS in Hong Kong displaying the
opening hours, property ownership details and regulations. Interestingly,
although the English naming is identical, the Chinese writing differs.
defines the nature of the physical environment and
Kong. Accordingly, outdoor POPS are an additional
the space. Because the English translation public open
form of public space and serve as an important social
space does not accurately explain the term, this paper
amenity.
employs alternatively the phrase outdoor POPS to
With the expansion of the private real estate sector
avoid any misunderstanding about the open and public
in Hong Kong, increasing numbers of high-rise
nature of these spaces. Furthermore, as the majority of
commercial skyscrapers have been constructed in the
shopping centres in Hong Kong are connected to the
central business district. The location and spatial form
transportation system, they serve as major pedestrian
of the different types of outdoor POPS can be divided
thoroughfares. Therefore, the outdoor POPS attached
into three categories:
to these shopping centres are an inescapable part of
The first category comprises spaces located on the
the urban life of Hong Kong. Accordingly, the value of
paths and entranceways to private corporations, such
the outdoor POPS as essential public spaces in Hong
as financial institutions, insurance firms and office
Kong is worth investigating.
buildings.
As noted above, outdoor POPS have replaced the
The second category comprises the plazas and open
traditional communal public spaces in Hong Kong.
spaces adjoining private buildings.
The term outdoor POPS is also used in this paper
The third category is the open-air squares adjacent to
to emphasise the fact that these outdoor spaces are
shopping centres (Cuthbert & Mckinnell, 2001).
located on private property for public usage. They
All of these types of POPS are well-designed and funded
differ from pedestrian streets, public parks and other
by the private sector. However, they tend to arouse a
forms of government-owned public space in Hong
feeling of distance in people (Fig.4+5). The Hong Kong
023
Vol. 25_2013_01
relocation of the local residents and the densification

have eroded the original community spirit.
The pursuit of economic gain underlying the above
described and the massive urban transformation of
Hong Kong have corroded community life of the city.
Traditionally, urban life in Hong Kong has been both
disorderly and dynamic. However, the demolition
of the open street markets has had an inevitable
influence on the patterns of urban life, as formerly
independent shops have come under unified corporate
management, or had to close down altogether.
Relatively spontaneous outdoor trading activities
have been relocated to controlled, indoor commercial
buildings, which have subsequently been renovated
by their private owners to increase profits. This has
Fig.6 Outdoor POPS on the groundfloor of Times Square, Hong Kong: In early 2008 it was reported that citizens had been barred from using this space
effectively cut the connections between people

and their urban environment, as well as between
government stipulates that a property developer may
on Canton Road in Tsim Sha Tsui. Canton Road is one of
people themselves. In short, it can be argued that the
be allowed to add additional floors to a project as an
Hong Kongs most famous pedestrian areas. The area is
increasing restriction of public space in residential
incentive to provide a ground floor public space.
home to a number of flagship stores of luxury brands
areas and commercial districts has limited peoples
However, the percentage of outdoor POPS available to
and attracts a great number of shoppers. According to
capacity to participate in everyday life.
Hong Kong residents is the lowest among high-density
the Apple Daily, security guards working at the Dolce &
cities in Asia (Coorey, 2008; Designing Hong Kong,
Gabbana store were preventing Hong Kong residents
6. Consumer-based Erosion of Public Space
2008). Moreover, the management of outdoor POPS
from taking pictures of the store from Canton Road.
The expansion of shopping centres in Hong Kong has
in Hong Kong limits their utilisation by the public.
However, the guards had been told to allow tourists
promoted the development of Hong Kongs consumer
In particular, most outdoor POPS have insufficient
from the Chinese mainland free rein to do so.
culture. The combination of shopping centres and
seating, are fenced off, and are monitored by security
The store managements attempt to illegally control
guards.
the public space outside the store led to a civic protest

(Fig.8). Hong Kong residents believed that the retailer
4. Commercialisation of Outdoor POPS in Hong
was discriminating against local residents.
Kong
This episode is also evidence of the development of a
The property owner of the Times Square development
business culture that is eroding peoples right to use
had rented out the open plaza to a cafeteria pursuant
public spaces.
to a permit issued by the Hong Kong government.

Citizens other than customers of the caf were strictly
5. Vanishing Everyday Space in Hong Kong
prohibited from bringing along their own food.
Gehl (2010) states that the dynamism of a city can
Security guards had been given extraordinary powers
be evaluated by the extent to which its residents
to disperse non-customers.
participate in different activities.
This abuse of power by the private sector served as
Before urban development took off in Hong Kong in
a catalyst for a public demonstration to fight for the
the 1960s, the original urban layout offered a relatively
publics right to use the space (Fig.7). As a result of
low-quality living environment. Nonetheless, the urban
public protest, this outdoor POPS has played host to
environment provided large areas of public space for
various activities in recent years, including those
the citys inhabitants to interact with their neighbours.
undertaken in everyday life (short breaks, passing by,
As noted earlier, Kai Fong are not only outdoor markets,
etc.), as well as social and commercial activities.
they also serve as a venue for the local residents to go
However, the lesson has not been learned. The
about their everyday life in Hong Kong. Although the
expansion of private owners rights has led to on-going
New Town Program has led to a new phase of urban
disputes concerning the use of public spaces on private
development that has promoted economic growth, it
land. In January 2012, the Apple Daily (2012) reported
has also completely transformed the nature of urban
that members of the public were being inappropriately
life in Hong Kong. Although the new residential
monitored by the staff of the Dolce & Gabbana store
areas included spaces for community interaction, the
024
Fig.7 Public protest against exclusion from the POPS at Times Square,
Hong Kong in 2008
Fig.8 Hong Kong residents protesting against Dolce & Gabbana at Canton
Road, Hong Kong in 2012
Vol. 25_2013_01
public transport terminals has strengthened peoples
[References]
GOVHK. 2012. Public open space in private
daily reliance on such commercial facilities. People
APPLE DAILY. 2012. Trespassing ban passers-by to
developments design and management guidelines
eat, play and meet friends in shopping centres, and
take pictures tarnished shopping paradise Shoppes
development. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://
are attracted by the forms of entertainment they
bullies D & G. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://
www.devb.gov.hk/en/publications_and_press_
provide. For the younger generations, the urban
hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.
releases/publications/index.html
transformation of Hong Kong has changed their urban
php?iss_id=20120105&sec_id=4104&subsec_
HO, S. 2009. Shopping mall as privately owned public
life patterns. Consumer spending has become the
id=11866&art_id=15954668
space. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong
main part of public life. For the older generations,
CHAN, C. K. J. C. 1995. Community development and
Kong. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.arch.
the reduced public participation and interaction
management of private sector housing estates in Hong
cuhk.edu.hk
has left them with little more than memories of the
Kong. Master Dissertation. Hong Kong: University of
KINOSHITA, H. 2001. The street market as an urban
traditional urban life in Hong Kong. However, for
Hong Kong. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://
facility in Hong Kong. In P. Miao (Ed.), Public places in
the younger generations, the growing consumer
hdl.handle.net/10722/29067
Asia Pacific cities: Current issues and strategies (pp. 71-
culture has provided a new reason to participate in
CHAN, Y. K. 1977. The development of new towns in
86). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
public activities, and has become one of their major
Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of
LUK, W. L. 2009. Privately owned public space in Hong
motivations. The accelerating growth of consumer
Hong Kong.
Kong and New York: The urban and spatial influence
spending is significantly reshaping the culture of
CHOW, J. 2012. Dolce & Gabbana photo ban sparks
of the policy. In Proceeding of The 4th International
urban life.
protest. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://blogs.
Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism
In recent years, outdoor POPS in shopping centres have
wsj.com/scene/2012/01/09/dolce-gabbana-photo-
(IFoU): The new urban question - Urbanism beyond neo-
become one of the primary forms of public space for
ban-sparks-protest/
liberalism (pp. 697-706) Delft, Amsterdam. Retrieved
Hong Kong residents. The increasing commercial use
COOREY, S. B. A. 2008. Design of open spaces in high
April 10, 2012, from http://newurbanquestion.ifou.org/
of outdoor public spaces and the restrictions on, and
density zones: Case study of public housing estates in
MINGPAO Weekly. 2011. Neighborhoods. Hong Kong:
monitoring of the public who use them, confirm that
Hong Kong. PhD thesis. Hong Kong: The University of
Mingpao Weekly.
such spaces are now largely profit-driven. Furthermore,
Hong Kong. Retrieved 10 April, 2012, from http://hub.
THE EPOCH TIMES. 2008. The militia called on to open
the recent protests in Times Square and at the Dolce &
hku.hk/handle/10722/50280
up the Times Square open space. Retrieved February 20,
Gabbana store in Canton Road indicate that the publics
CUTHBERT, A. R., & MCKINNELL, K. G. 2001. Public
2012, from http://hk.epochtimes.com/8/3/25/79323.
civil rights are being threatened. Even so, the public
domain, private interest and social space in Hong
htm
continues to actively contest these infringements of
Kong. In P. Miao (Ed.), Public places in Asia Pacific cities:
THE LINK. 2011. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from
their civil rights. However, blindness to the expansion
Current issues and strategies (pp. 191-211). Boston,
http://www.thelinkreit.com/EN/assets/Pages/Aim-
of private power and the disregard for civil rights may
MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Objective.aspx
eventually lead to wider public discontent.
Designing Hong Kong. 2008. Public right over private
WORDIE, J. 2007. Streets: Exploring Kowloon. Hong
property. Retrieved 10 April, 2012, from http://www.
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
7. Conclusion
legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/plw/papers/
XUE, C. Q. L., & MANUEL, K. K. K. 2001. The quest for
Outdoor POPS are now typical forms of publicly usable
dev0531cb1-1752-7-e.pdf
better public space: A critical review of urban Hong
space in Hong Kong. They have largely replaced the
GEHL, J. 2010. Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island
Kong. In P. Miao (Ed.), Public places in Asia Pacific cities:
traditional public spaces following the escalation of
Press.
Current issues and strategies (pp. 171-190). Boston,
urban development in Hong Kong in the 1960s. During
GOVHK. 2007. Recreation, open space and greening.
MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
this time, the majority of the original public spaces
In Hong Kong planning standards and guidelines.
such as the Kai Fong and street markets have been
Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.pland.gov.
[Figure References]
demolished. In their place, outdoor POPS located in
hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch4/ch4_text.
Fig.6
shopping centres have become the dominant form
htm#1.8
timessquare.com.hk)
of public space people use in their day-to-day life.
GOVHK. 2008. Background information on provision of
Fig.7
However, the essential connection between people
public facilities within private developments. Retrieved
b5/8/3/25/n2057595.htm
has been weakened as a result of these changes. Due
10 April, 2012 from http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/
Fig.8 With permission of OTHK
to the increasing pursuit of economic gain and the
dedicated_areas.html
dense urban environment in Hong Kong there are
GOVHK. 2011. New town and new major urban
now insufficient non-consumer-driven outdoor POPS
development. In Hong Kong: the facts. Retrieved
available in the city.
February 20, 2012, from http://www.cedd.gov.hk
Floor
Picture
plan
from
adapted
from:
http://www.
http://www.epochtimes.com/
GOVHK. 2011. Background information on provision of

Acknowledgement
public facilities within private developments. Retrieved
We would like to thank The Hong Kong Polytechnic
12 April, 2012 from http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/
University for the research funding for this study.
legco/pfpd.htm
025
Vol. 25_2013_01
From Capitalising on Public Space to Subjectising Urban Life

A Reflection on POPS in Taipei, Taiwan
Yen-Hsing Hsu (City of Taipei, National Taiwan University)

1. Background: Postcolonial Space in Taipei
States and many urban planning and urban design
the quality of life. Among the most important and
Taiwans modern urban planning and building
mechanisms as well as laws have been borrowed
innovative mechanisms are the institutional systems
regulations were mostly introduced during the
from there, especially from New York. Even though
for the creation of public space, such as the famous
Japanese colonial period (1895 1945). At that time,
much of Taiwans spatial institutions and academic
model of New York City, where the provision of publicly
the urban spatial policies sought to improve public
knowledge have been imported from the USA, the
usable space on private property (POPS, privately
sanitation and reflected universal modernist principles.
Japanese colonial legacy still have a significant impact
owned public space) was first developed in response
In 1953, after becoming independent, and within
on academia and bureaucratic practice. Although
to the dilemmas of capitalising urbanism. With the
a transforming world order, urban spatial policies
the spatial policies have been learned from overseas,
mechanisms of POPS constructed under incentive
were adapted to enhance public infrastructure and
the spatial reality in Taiwans cities is based on and
zoning, the quality of public space was predicated by
to induce new modern economical thinking under
embedded in local culture and politics. Although there
the logic of capital in New York. With POPS expressing
the developmental state model. Meanwhile, Taiwans
has been an intensive exchange of ideas between
the contradiction of capitalist public space, the concept
central government, and in particular the Ministry
Taipei, New York, and urban Japan, Taipei developed a
of the public is still sustained in Western cities in order
of Economics and Infrastructure invited experts and
distinct subjectivity due to a different understanding of
to safeguard a more just urbanism. Paradoxically, the
consultants from the United Nations Development
the relationship between individual and state, the role
essence of the public is different in Asian cities. Here
Programme (UNDP), in order to help establish urban
of private property, and the authority of state organs.
one can explore the complexity of problems that result
governance institutions such as a spatial planning
Similarly, other Asian cities have been confronted with
from learning the formal mechanisms for the provision
system, building regulations, a public housing policy
the challenge of importing foreign knowledge and
of POPS from New York, for example (including
and planning education.
matching it with its social space. This complex process
incentive zoning, POPS design standards and an urban
To this day, the national institutional framework is the
of subjectisation could be called the postcolonial
design review) while socio-economic, cultural and
foundation stone of spatial policies in Taiwan. These
condition.
political contexts dont support these.
by the Western experience at the time of their original
2. Archaeology of POPS in Taiwan
3. The Example of Taipei
development, but also by limiting political conditions
Cities have created urban planning and urban design
The Taiwanese City Planning Act, which is based on
and local academic discourse. Most of the urban
mechanisms in the 20th century to cope with the
the American zoning system, was enacted in 1964 in
planners and designers were educated in the United
problems of rapid urbanisation and to improve
order to safeguard orderly urbanisation. At that time,
kinds of spatial institutions were not only influenced
the role of local governments was seen to be to clean

slum areas and initiate urban renewal. As the planning
systems were established and managed by the central
government, plans were not really suitable for local
needs. On the contrary, the zoning control systems
that were introduced were modelled after the rapidly
growing New York. Ironically, the same mechanisms
for the creation of POPS were implemented in very
different contexts and as a response to different urban
issues in the East and the West. When Taiwans central
government wanted to initiate zoning control, local
governments were in opposition to the mechanisms,
despite the fact that officials of both local governments
and the central government were educated at the
same institutions, and all were under pressure from
local politics. That is the reason why the FAR control in
Taipei was only introduced in 1983; 20 years after the
City Planning Act was promulgated.
Aside from this struggle between the central and
the local governments, another struggle took place:
between government officials with urban planning
and those with civil engineering backgrounds;
between equity and welfare state advocates and
between adepts of scientific rationalism and free
Fig.1 POPS created by the Comprehensive Design System in Taipei until 2010 per every city ward
026
markets. Urban design as a new approach learned from

New York and Tokyo responded to the contradictions of
Vol. 25_2013_01
urban planning and favoured FAR incentives. The Taipei
controlling bigger scale development projects with
became active in this matter. In spite of the citizens
zoning regulations, administered by the Department
sites over 6,000m2 or a floor area of over 30,000m2.
and public starting to take a strong concern in the
of Urban Development, has contained a mechanism of
The urban design review came to play the role of
compliance of POPS with the public interest, incentive
bonus FAR since 1983. Initially, the zoning regulations
gatekeeper for quality of new developments, which
zoning had already become a part of the game of
introduced an incentive zoning instrument called
previously failed to integrate into their wider urban
capital accumulation with the quality of space still
the Comprehensive Design Systems (CDS), which
context. The new pioneering discipline of urban design
disputed in Taipei. The scattered location of POPS was
aimed to incite private developers to provide publicly
advocated an integrated wider urban design with a
predicated by the logic of the real estate market and
usable open space. Accordingly, the first type of POPS
detailed development plan. This new policy was first
urban planning failed to integrate them with adjacent
emerged in Taipei. As in Japan, after the introduction
implemented for the urban planning of the XinYi
public parks and promenades. POPS often remained
of incentive zoning for encouraging open space and
district, where Taipeis iconic 101 Tower is located, and
isolated in the city, with their quality almost entirely
good design, other mechanisms of FAR incentives were
which provided a comprehensive open space structure,
depending on the skills of architects and the good
invented for the creation of other much needed public
an urban design review, and detailed urban design
will of developers. Those POPS that were produced by
amenities. Many government departments began
guidelines.
the Joint Development of Mass Transportation Act are
thinking about using FAR incentives for achieving
At the same time, pioneer urban design officials in
similar to the public spaces in station developments
their own objectives. In 1988, for example, the
the Taipei City Government started to improve the
in Japan; with the design led by the transportation
transportation department of Taipei City introduced a
Comprehensive Design System, and revised the design
department and by civil engineers, the design of the
regulation to encourage additional public car parking
and management standards to preserve the public
POPS followed the functions of safety, convenience
lots. Other FAR incentives were introduced through
interest. The older incentive regulations had usually
and crowd control, but often ignored the qualities of
the Joint Development of Mass Transportation Act by
led to producing gated communities, with POPS not
aesthetics and diversity.
the Ministry of Transportation in 1988, and the urban
open to the general public. Citizen organisations had
In order to cope with these dilemmas of POPS, Taipeis
renewal ordinance by the Ministry of Interior. The
sprung up to contest this unjust phenomenon, and
urban design officials attempted an alternative
different incentive FAR policies, offered by different
as a result, the incentive policy was abandoned for
way in 1995, called community empowerment. The
government authorities and implemented without
residential land use zones. Today, the Comprehensive
policies of community empowerment (in Japanese,
mutual integration led to a loss of integrity of urban
Design System is only applicable in commercial
machizukuri) were not only aiming at improving
planning and local government control. Therefore,
zones. Meanwhile, as of 2010, the number of POPS
public space, but also at managing the privately
the mechanisms of incentive FAR no longer played
has increased to 169 cases under the comprehensive
owned space, which elevates community identity. The
the role of encouraging good quality of design, but
design policy in Taipei. Moreover, as of 2012, the
policies were proposed by the Department of Urban
also to increase the profitability of the investment.
number of car parking lot cases is 9,147, and the
Development. In other Taiwanese cities and counties
The multiple types of POPS and incentives, governed
number of motorcycle parking lots amounts to 2,596,
the departments of culture pushed this policy forward.
by different public reasoning were destroying the
under the regulation for encouraging additional public
Truly, this policy change created a new opportunity for
urban planning system; urban planning became a tiger
car parking. Because most of the incentivised parking
quality public life, with synergies in the production and
without teeth.
lots were underground, they were hardly open to
management of space resulting from a partnership
In order to restore the integrity of urban planning,
the public. For this reason, the public opinion turned
between officialdom and locals. Until 2010, the policy
new urban design mechanisms were introduced. Since
against the policy and citizen protests erupted. In 2010,
completed 121 projects, including parks, streetscapes,
1988, for example, urban design reviews are held for
the national institution of impeachment and audit
or semi-public lands in private ownership.
Fig.2 Large privately owned public space in Taipei's XinYi District
Fig.3 Interior POPS on the fourth floor of the 101 Tower; since the number "4" connotes to death in Chinese
culture, often public facilities are allocated in the fourth floor, which is otherwise difficult to rent out
027
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig.4 Citizen organisations are protesting against additional FAR incentives for public parking lots in Taipei
Unlike all planning policies in Taiwan that came before,
and privates, and enhance the capacity of urban
social disruption, urban issues are no longer only
these new developments had been divorced from
design. We might believe that these efforts have come
solving high growth, facilitating and intensifying
the earlier models of New York and Japan. After three
to fruition, with successful urban regeneration projects
the flow of capital, and expanding urbanised areas.
decades of hard work, the POPS policy seemed to
like Marunouchi, Roppongi Hills, and Nihonbashi in
To respond to the new challenges, policies for the
have missed the original intention to achieve a better
Japan as good examples. Here, the amazing success
provision of POPS need to be more creative.
public urban life, but planning officials still try hard to
is in integrating a complex spectrum of stakeholders,
Since 2010, the Taipei Urban Renewal Office (URO) has
change this by improving the laws, design standards,
coupled with mature design skills, and a perfect
initiated an expansion of a series of policies under an
review mechanisms and management mechanisms.
balance between urban function, social activity,
urban acupuncture approach, confronting these new
Simultaneously, pioneer urban design officials have
ecological issues, and historical preservation.
challenges. The first creative policy is called Urban
started to develop creative mechanisms in order to
However, following the current crisis of globalisation,
Regeneration Station (URS), which began to shift the
avoid isolated POPS, such as FAR incentives that are
uneven development, climate change and growing
focus on soft infrastructure. URSs policy is embedded
granted for the utilisation of idle properties since 2001.

This new incentive mechanism is meant to encourage
a temporary public use of unused buildings or vacant
lands before a new redevelopment takes place. This
type of POPS is highly original and very different from
the original concept imported from New York. These
novel policies were born from the need to respond
to the reality of urban problems in Taiwan and were
developed without borrowing to Western experiences.
They are the beginning of a new paradigm of subjective
public life under the conditions of a capitalist world.
4. Subjectising POPS
If we agree that most formally produced POPS are not
catering to the public life in the city, we should honestly
face the question of: what could their role be in the 21st
century? In the 20th century, issues of urbanisation
were solving density issues, capital accumulation and
creative destruction, which caused urban governance
to facilitate circulation spaces, improve connectivity
through appropriate collaboration between officials
028
Fig.5 The Urban Regeneration Station URS21 was an old warehouse, which is now temporarily used for creative co-working spaces and exhibitions
Vol. 25_2013_01
as a creative, vital activity into the community. The
as well as young creatives with the surrounding
through POPS is miniscule. In order to rethink POPS
establishment of an URS is temporary and designed
community which is maintaining a vegetable farm
and take an alternative route to sustainable urbanism,
in response to local assets and community needs. This
here.
more creativity and critical reflection is needed.
strategy aims at creating prosperity together with
Another important new policy is the temporary green
The concept of temporality is promising in this respect.
the citizens. Traditionally, urban regeneration policies
spot project that was launched in order to beautify the
It would have been entirely possible to create, for
have been based on the expectation that a new
city for the Taipei FLORA EXPO in 2010. As LIEN and
example, a permanent stadium for the 2012 London
development per se would be enough to invigorate
SHIH discuss in PART 3 of this volume, many of these
Olympics. However, in order to allow the public
the wider project area. URS, however, develop a more
kind of temporary POPS were collaboratively planned
more time and a deeper reflection on subjectising
heterogeneous space based the subjectivity of city and
and managed together with the local communities and
urbanism, and not to foreclose future possibilities, a
the diversity of social needs. The policy does not aim
NGOs. (*1)
temporary structure for the main stadium was chosen.
to struggle against capitalism or globalisation, but to
To conclude, in Taipei the formalistic provision of POPS
Like the stadium, the meaning of POPS should also
create a new model.
that has been imported from New York and Japan has
express inclusiveness and shared spaces should create
A special case of POPS provision was URS89-6, where a
failed to address the subjectivity of the city. The URS
synergies with the citizens toward a sustainable city.
private developer allowed an old building to be turned
and the new temporary POPS are more reflexive of
Urbanism is a subjectising process with social inclusion
into an art studio, a public gallery, a lecture hall, and an
the reality of urban public life we face today. These
and a sharing society always being the mandate for
NGO office before the urban renewal began.
alternative approaches to the production of space
urban designers and planners.
The other case was URS21, where the land was owned
aim to transform the capitalist public space into an
by the national government, and where Taipei Citys
integrative social productive one.
urban regeneration office has borrowed it for three
[Notes]
*1 For details refer to see LIEN Chen-Yu and SHIH
years in order to present a new showroom to the
5. Temporary Conclusion for Policy of Temporality
Pei-Yin in this volume: Temporary Privately Owned
public, as well as incubation studios for young creatives
The Taipei experience suggests the possibility of a new
Public Space in Taipei: A Flexible Space Opens the
and NGOs in the field of cultural production.
kind of POPS. In the past, Asian cities that have imported
Social Realm
URS differs from traditional projects because the public
techniques and mechanisms for the production of
office has cooperated with artists and academics in
space from Western civilisations were unable to answer
[Figure References]
order to elaborate a common vision together with
to the challenges of today's complex urbanism issues.
Fig.1 With kind permission of the City of Taipei
the community. This approach was chosen in order to
Nowadays, the techniques for creating POPS are merely
Fig. 4+5 With kind permission of the NGO Organization
prevent visions from elites prevailing. Today, the site
aiming at preventing negative externalities, whereas
of Urban Reform (OUR)
successfully integrates fashion and cultural production
the important goal of creating a better public life
Fig.6 Temporary POPS that serves as a community farm in central Taipei
029
Vol. 25_2013_01
Challenges in Co-Producing Publicly Accessible Spaces

The Example of Bcherplatz in Aachen
Ulrich Berding, Antje Havemann, and Juliane Pegels (RWTH Aachen)

their perception of shared responsibilities, and to find
out what consequences result from co-producing
urban spaces especially for municipal planning.
The STARS project thus opened the way to a more
nuanced understanding of urban spaces. It revealed
the complexity of public-private interdependences,
the variety of interests involved, and the challenges
that result from the co-production of spaces, not only
during the building phase but over the whole life cycle
(see also Berding et al. 2010).
2. Bcherplatz, Aachen: A complex Public-Private
Agreement
Bcherplatz, in the city of Aachen, provides a good
example to illustrate the major findings of the study
(Fig.1+2). It is a small square in the city centre, close
to the historic cathedral, the town hall, and the major
shopping streets. On two sides, the square is framed by
streets with limited vehicular traffic, and the two other
edges are dominated by the Haus der Kohle, an eightstory office building with a rectangular base hosting
stores and a cafe on the ground floor.
Fig.1 Responsibility Proile: Types of actors and their diferent responsibilities regarding public space management
Thanks to its location, the Bcherplatz is a highly

frequented part of Aachens network of open spaces.
1. Background
influence on public space is something we questioned
It provides numerous places for stopping and resting
Plazas, parks, and promenades play an important
in the research project STARS. (*1) It added more
either on public benches or chairs provided by the caf.
role in the identity of a city. With lively and attractive
nuances to this simplistic view and examined what was
The square was built in 1961 as part of the development
public spaces, cities can showcase their social, cultural,
not recognised before: urban spaces in shared public
of the multi-level building Haus der Kohle. Even back
and economic situation. But who is responsible for
and private responsibility. Publicly usable space is
then, control and rights of access were important issues
them? Discourse on urban space in Germany has
rarely only subject to municipal planning and control;
often assumed that publicly accessible open spaces
it is created and maintained by many different public
are always public i.e. owned and regulated by the
as well as private stakeholders.
municipality. Following this understanding, spaces
The STARS-study started with identifying over 100
in private hands cannot be public by definition. The
possible case study spaces in the cities of Aachen,
conception of which roles the different stakeholders
Hanover, and Leipzig of which 29 were chosen for in-
play in the creation of urban spaces also corresponds
depth analysis. In addition to studying the function,
to this dualistic thinking: municipal actors were seen to
spatial context, and design characteristics of each
dominate public spaces, whereas market forces control
space, all actors involved in the design, regulation, and
private spaces. These assumptions have continued to
management were interviewed.
be present in public space debates. For years, several
For each space a responsibility profile (Fig.1) was
German scholars described the state and prospects for
created to summarise and visualise answers to the
public spaces with a skeptical tone (see, for example,
following questions in a standardised representation:
Beiglbck 2008, 34; Hochstadt 2010, 6; Kreye 2007;
Who is the landowner and who has further rights
Matzig 2007; Weilacher 2006, 44) with privatisation
(rights)? Who planned and built the space; who
processes leading to the disappearance of public
maintains and manages it (production)? And who is
space, cities were increasingly characterised by covered
allowed to regulate the use and the users behaviour
shopping malls, private companies were exercising
(regulation)?
their right of exclusion, hence curtailing civil rights,
In addition to these case studies, we interviewed 40
and remaining public spaces were being increasingly
representatives of planning and parks departments in
aligned along commercial and private sector interests.
20 large German cities and conducted 17 interviews
Generally, blaming private actors for having a negative
with private stakeholders in order to understand
030
Fig.2 Bcherplatz in Aachen
Vol. 25_2013_01
negotiated between the municipality and the private

developer. When granting the building permit, the City
of Aachen obtained a right of way in the land register
for guaranteeing public accessibility. The bookstore,
which has rented the ground floor of the building
for years, gave the square its name Bcherplatz (in
English, book plaza).
It is important to note some details about the
responsibilities and rights shared by the owner and
the city: First, since the square belongs to a real estate
company, it is clearly privately owned. The main tenant,
the bookstore, sublets a small portion of its floor space
to a caf, and a bank pays a monthly rent for installing a
cash machine in the middle of the space.
Fig.3 Layer "Rights": Who is property owner? Who has further rights?
The outdoor space is divided into two sections: on

one side the City of Aachen holds a public easement,
which secures the public right of way; the other side
is in the hands of the tenants and the store owners.
This agreement is further complicated as the portion
of the space that is occupied by the caf terrace in the
summer must be quickly vacated for access by fire
trucks in case of an emergency. These complicated
arrangements with different layers of influence are
visualised in figure 3, 4, and 5.
In general, security on the square is provided by the
municipal security personnel, the tenants of the stores,
and the building management of the Haus der Kohle.
Similarly complex and partially overlapping are the
Fig.4 Layer "Regulation": Who regulates use? Who sets rules for users? Who has domestic right?
maintenance and cleaning responsibilities: the stores

and the caf are obligated to clean the areas in front
of their premises. The bookstore, as the main tenant,
cleans the plaza and tends to the flowerpots and
flowerbeds. The sanitation department of the City
of Aachen, however, empties the waste bins, and the
municipal infrastructure department is responsible for
maintaining the playground sculpture.
These agreements are often not even understood
by the tenants themselves, which became apparent
when we interviewed the municipal cleaning staff,
responsible for the space. They did not know precisely
what their duties were.
3. The Limits to Renewal
When building the square in the 1960s, and later
erecting a playground sculpture, the city and the
Fig.5 Layer "Production": Who has produced the space? Who maintains it? Who upgrades it?
private owner cooperated well. But in 1990, the original

owner sold the building and the public square to a real
improvements for the Elisengarten, a historic park and
obligations, but they were also eager to make positive
estate company, and decades of successful cooperation
its surroundings. When the competition for the area was
changes to the square. The suggested design stood
with the City of Aachen came to an end.
announced, the participants were asked to include the
in sharp contrast to the rundown appearance of the
The first conflict arose when the city developed
Bcherplatz in their design concepts. The city saw the
Bcherplatz. Municipal actors elaborated on all these
an inner city concept in 2002, which suggested
competition entries as recommendations rather than
ideas without including the owner which later turned
031
Vol. 25_2013_01
Suddenly, municipal power stopped at the property

line. Even though the city had included the Bcherplatz
in its overall planning concept, its authority remains
limited. The easement could secure public accessibility,
the agreements about cleaning and liability worked
well, but upgrading and redesigning was never
discussed, and accordingly, unexpected disagreements
arose.
The need for municipal and non-municipal actors to
cooperate in planning and producing urban spaces
cannot be ignored; they are part of urban reality now.
The contribution of private actors to urban spaces
becomes more important than ever, as municipal
budgets shrink.
The lessons of the Bcherplatz and other similar cases
are that successful co-productions of publicly accessible
spaces requires all stakeholders to come together
in order to discuss their interests and negotiate
their responsibilities in building, maintaining, and
upgrading a space.
If stakeholders are interested in creating accessible,
attractive, and usable urban spaces, an enduring
partnership can become the basis for key outcomes
in urban space development. In Germany, however,
coproduction is still not acknowledged very much. So
far, public/private relations are negotiated and shaped
on a case-by-case basis with unequal results.
It is now time to optimise these processes. The findings
of the STARS project as well as experiences made in
other countries (see also Dimmer et al. 2010, Pegels
2010, Pegels 2011) can contribute to this debate by
addressing the following questions:
Fig.6 Site plan and model show the function of Bcherplatz in its wider urban context
Which kind of urban spaces can benefit from coproduction, and what role do they play in the network
out to be a mistake. In preliminary conversations, the
4. Lessons from Bcherplatz: Clearer Guidelines
of open spaces of a city?
real estate company showed little interest in investing
for Publicly Accessible Spaces
Which actors have what interests in urban spaces,
to upgrade the space, and even pointed to technical
The example of Bcherplatz teaches us that private
and how can they contribute to the development and
difficulties with the parking garage beneath the
stakeholders are important partners in building and
upkeep of a space? What has to be taken into account
square. The company agreed to a redesign, only if the
maintaining urban spaces in ways challenging to city
when different actors share responsibilities in a space,
city would carry the costs. In their view, the stores and
planning. When building permits are needed as seen
and how can a lasting balance be maintained?
the caf on the plaza were rented out for years even
in the initial phase of the public-private cooperation in
without a visual upgrading. The city could not find
the case of the Bcherplatz the municipality can rely
[Notes]
ways to implement the envisioned integrated design
on its planning sovereignty.
*1 STARS Stadtraume in Spannungsfeldern (= Urban
of the public realm around Elisengarten without the
But later on, its influence on private property shrinks.
Spaces in Between Public and Private Activities).
consensus and participation of the building owner.
In the case of the Haus der Kohle and the adjacent
Plazas, Parks, and Promenades in Fields of Tension.
The relationship between city planning department
Bcherplatz, the initial owner had a personal
The main goal of the four-year study, financed by
and owner worsened to a point where the renewal
attachment to Aachen and felt a sense of responsibility
the German Research Foundation and conducted
plans had to be shelved, with the result clearly today:
in improving the character and appearance of the city
at the RWTH Aachen University, was to improve
the upgraded public realm halts at the property line of
a crucial issue when working to the benefit of the city
the understanding of the role and relevance of
the Bcherplatz (Fig.7).
and the site. When the owner changed, the relationship
non-municipal stakeholders in creating urban
with the city also changed.
spaces.
032
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig.7 Property line: Not to be overlooked
[References]
BERDING U., A. HAVEMANN, J. PEGELS, B. PERENTHALER
HAVEMANN, A.; SELLE, K. 2010. Pltze, Parks und
PEGELS, J. 2011. Stadtrume in Spannungsfeldern
[Ed]. 2010. Stadtrume in Spannungsfeldern. Pltze,
Co. Vorwort. In: dies. (Hrsg.): Pltze, Parks und Co.
anderswo. Insights from Post-doc Research on Privately
Parks und Promenaden im Schnittbereich ffentlicher
Stadtrume im Wandel Analysen, Positionen und
Influenced Public Space in Melbourne in: pnd-online.
und privater Aktivitten. Aachen.
Konzepte. Detmold 2010. S. 12-15
I.2011 www.planung-neu-denken.de
BEIGLBCK, S. 2008. ffentlicher Raum mit exklusiver
HOCHSTADT, S. 2010. ffentlichkeit und Privatheit:
PEGELS, J. 2010. Privately Influenced Public Spaces.
Nutzung. In: RAUM 72/2008: 3436.
Wem gehrt die Stadt? In: RaumPlanung 148, Februar
Die Koproduktion von Stadtrumen in Melbourne,
DIMMER C., Ju. PEGELS, E. SCHLACK FUHRMANN. 2010.
2010: 510.
New York City, Tokio und Santiago de Chile in: Forum
Systematisierte (Ko)Produktion ffentlich nutzbarer
KREYE, A. .2007. Deutschland privat. Wenn der
Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung. Verbandsorgan des
Stadtrume in auereuropischen Kontexten. Privately
stdtische Raum von der Wirtschaft gestaltet wird,
vhw. Heft 2. March-April 2010
Owned Public Space in New York, Tokio und Santiago
verliert er seinen demokratischen Charakter. In:
WEILACHER, U. 2006. Die Zukunft des ffentlichen
de Chile in: Berding, Havemann, Pegels, Perenthaler
Sddeutsche Zeitung, 02.11.2007: 15.
Raumes Traum oder Alptraum? In: Europisches
[Ed]. Stadtrume in Spannungsfeldern. Pltze, Parks
MATZIG, G. 2007. Event, Event, ein Lichtlein brennt.
Haus der Stadtbaukultur (ed.): 5 Jahre Landesinitiative
und Promenaden im Schnittbereich ffentlicher und
Weihnachtsmarkt, Loveparade, Stadtmarathon oder
Stadtbaukultur NRW. Dsseldorf: authors edition,
privater Aktivitten. Aachen.
Bladenight: Wie die Stdte ihre Straen und Pltze
4245.
verramschen. In: Sddeutsche Zeitung, 02.11.2007: 15.
033
Japanese Experience Part
II
Vol. 25_2013_01
Standardised Diversity: Privately Produced Public Space in Japan

Fig.1 Mostly unplanned urban growth led to extreme densities in large Japanese cities and a quantitative lack of public spaces such as sidewalks, parks, promenades, or squares
1. Introduction Part II
This is especially the case with incentive zoning, where
and corporate headquarters and high-grade office
The following part of this magazine details the
the most prominent, available planning tools are based
functions concentrating in central Tokyo, there is little
discussion of the private production of public spaces
on unified central government standards.
demand for extra bonus floor area. The old trade-off of
(POPS) on various spatial scales and in different
On closer sight, however, one notices that local
bonus floor area for public space is no longer working
cities in Japan in order to develop a more nuanced
conditions vary significantly and that even the
properly even in huge cities like Yokohama, Osaka,
understanding of the variegated and differentiated
outcome of centralised planning tools are surprisingly
Nagoya, or Sapporo.
implications of this planning tool. As noted earlier,
predicated by local geographies, socio-economic
In Sapporo, a planned city with sufficient public
public space means different things to different people
conditions, particular actor-networks, local problem
space such as parks, wide promenades and sidewalks,
in different places at different times. Part 1 showed
perceptions and planning cultures as well as
planners are more critical of incentive zoning. In this
that although there are many commonalities in POPS
established path dependencies.
city with long and snowy winters, in the central area
design, production and maintenance, there are also
In the city of Yokohama, for example, already in the early
POPS are used to complement a newly developed
marked differences between the discussed countries.
1970s a more collaborative planning culture evolved,
underground mall with ample amenity spaces. They
This is owed to distinctive national planning and
where a financially strained local government sought
are employed to connect the underground level with
governance cultures, each with their own institutional
to mobilise private capital for the complementation
the street level and their design and allocation is strictly
frameworks, shared perceptions of problems and
of much needed public infrastructure. Available
controlled by district plans. Furthermore, planners are
probable resources, and means that the respective
planning tools were comprehensively combined in
keenly aware of the shortcomings of conventional
actors utilise in order to achieve their objectives.
order to realise a detailed public space conception.
incentive zoning and use their discretionary powers
Part 2 shows that the same holds true on a local level.
A progressive, long-term mayor politically backed
and negotiation skills in order to claim better design
As Christian Dimmer and Takefumi Kurose demonstrate
visionary planners in order to set up a unique
quality.
with their chapters on Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka and
institutional framework, not to be found elsewhere in
In Osaka, again, from the 1930s on city and private
Sapporo, unique local histories and specific spatial,
Japan. Today, Yokohama stands next to Sapporo and
landowners began to produce publicly usable spaces
socio-economic, and political conditions do make a
Kanazawa as a showcase example of urban design
in close cooperation in the densely built-up Semba
significant difference. Many observers have remarked
in Japan. In recent years, however, incentive zoning
central business district. This created a unique local
that the planning system in Japan is too rigid and
seems no longer to function well in most Japanese
planning culture and a collaborative climate between
centralised, in practice leaving little institutional space
cities. As many cities are confronted with shrinking
city authorities and private developers. It established
for tailoring plans and projects to local conditions.
populations, a hollowing-out of the local economy,
a path dependency that produces distinctly different
036
Vol. 25_2013_01
spatial outcomes in the Semba area to this day. Tokyo,

contrary to all these other cities, is marked by the
absence of a clear centre. Whereas many secondary
Japanese cities have developed fairly detailed spatial
visions for key areas, in Tokyo this is only weakly
developed due to the sheer size of the metropolis and
the overlap between different, sometimes competing,
layers of local government and state authorities. Also,
deregulating planning in Tokyo has often been seen
as a means to boost the national economy. Under
these circumstances, long-term vision making and farreaching design control couldnt fully develop.
After contrasting the provision of privately owned
public spaces in these four Japanese cities, Dimmer
discusses the example of SIO Site Shiodome, one of
Tokyos largest recent redevelopment schemes, where
a far-reaching public-private partnership and a close
collaboration between the landowners lead to an
unprecedented integration of the private and public
provision of public spaces and a unified management
scheme, which is often cited as Japans first business
improvement district.
Ayane Maekawa shows then from a user perspective,
how different kinds of third places in large-scale urban
development projects are used and that POPS tend to
be less conducive to user appropriation than totally
Fig.2 LeCorbusier's modernist logic of the "Tower in the Park" applied to Japan: Instead of a dense network of vernacular street spaces, planning
regulations came to incentivise the production of large open spaces and slender high-rise buildings
private lounge settings, because of management,

design and maintenance constraints.
2. Background
could lead to an unpredictable densification of
It is also a unique feature of public space in Japan
It is important to point out that contrary to the
squeezing ever more buildings floors under a fixed
that little deviation in user behaviour takes place, and
modern West, most Japanese cities developed mostly
height cap. As the FAR only states building volume, it
that prohibited activities are far more tolerated by the
in an unplanned, haphazard fashion, with only
encourages slimmer, less deep, higher buildings that
public space management if no serious conflicts erupt.
incomplete public facilities such as sidewalks, parks, or
capitalise on better views and capture as much light
There is a marked gap between prohibiting activities
promenades. Incentive zoning in Japan was therefore
as possible for interior office spaces. With buildings
and actually enforcing these rules. Although privately
seen as a viable tool to utilise private capital for
now no longer required to make use of the entire plot,
owned, many lounge spaces allow for a broader
overcoming this severe infrastructure shortage, while
valuable open space could be freed on site. With a
spectrum of public activities, or, put differently, self
public funding was critically short and planning lacked
FAR designation of 5, or alternatively 500%, a building
policing and a strong "common sense" regarding
authority to enforce more ambitious schemes (Fig.1).
filling up a plot completely could be 5 stories high, one

that leaves half of the plot vacant 10 stories high and
appropriate behaviours in public space reduce the

scope of activities and along with it, the potential for
3. Floor Area Ratio and Incentive Zoning
one that covers only 1/4 of the site 20 stories tall. Open
contestations of space.
The foundation for the private production of public
spaces created through FAR massing wouldnt need to
Finally, Mireille Tchapi examines how one specific
space was laid with the gradual shift from a system of
be publicly accessible though, and wouldnt necessarily
local community in Tokyo is conceiving the gradual
absolute building height restrictions with maximum
contribute to a better urban environment. It was under
replacement of its vernacular urban fabric of narrow,
of 31 meters outside of residential areas to a more
the discretion of landowners to fence off these spaces,
micro-scale community spaces by the alien typology of
parametric one, stipulating a maximum permissible
pave them and turn them into parking lots. One year
tower condominiums and empty, unused POPS. With
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) during the early-1960s. In
later, a mechanism was added that allowed local
numerous interviews she shows that many residents
1963 an exceptional Special Urban Block designation
governments to grant a bonus of additional floor area
in this densely built-up, disaster-prone neighbourhood
allowed for abolishing absolute height limits in
if certain portions of the block were opened to public
appreciate POPS and the high-rise developments
specifically designated districts and the stipulation of
use. For the POPS that predicated the bonus FA, certain
that predicate them, because they convey an image
building volumes instead (Ishida 1988: 60). Stipulating
minimum design standards regarding shape, visibility,
of safety, while fine-grain, human-scale, vernacular
a maximum density through FAR, would make the city
elevation, and relation of perimeter to contact surface
spaces are feared as dangerous in times of disaster.
more plannable, whereas absolute heights restrictions
to sidewalk were mandated by generic planning
037
Vol. 25_2013_01
finally abolished in 1969, after it had been scaled
Sg Sekkei Seido) was created through a revision of
down 29 times since 1949 (2001: 263-4). Fragmented
the Building Standard Act "in order to effectively utilise
landownership, lack of funds for land acquisition, as
private energies for the urgent redevelopment of
well as weak planning powers vis--vis rigid private
inner cities" (Tateishi 1973: 16). As indicated in Figure
property rights further frustrated the authorities'
4, this is the most frequently used incentive planning
efforts to create new open spaces. Publications of the
tool for the private production of public space. The
time show that much hope and enthusiasm went into
initial three objectives of the system were as follows:
the new FAR system and incentive zoning (See for
First, creation of publicly usable open spaces. Second,
example Tateishi 1973; Yanagisawa 1973).
allowing for freer, more innovative building designs

through deregulation of building form restrictions.
5. Highly Systematised Production POPS
Third, promotion of large scale development by
What followed this pioneering period was a
merging fragmented plots and to contribute to a
systematisation of incentive zoning and its codification
more efficient land utilisation. In the following year,
in an ever-growing number of planning tools for
MoC issued nation-wide application standards for
achieving widely different objectives and used on
the system, based on the work of an external expert
diverse scales. Where the creation of superior design
commission. Local government could now adapt the
quality of building and public space was once a
system in response to their unique local conditions,
condition for receiving bonus FA or waivers from
within this rough guiding framework, prescribed by
Fig.3 Example for POPS bonus coefficients in Yokohama City: One square
meter of these respective kinds of POPS generates different FAR bonuses
building envelop regulations, gradually the production
the national government. Initially the system was
of POPS became abstracted and automated. Whereas
intended as an exceptional incentive and as a means
manuals. Spaces adjacent to the sidewalk level would
developers initially had to demonstrate that their
for local governments to bargain for better building
earn higher bonuses than lesser usable space below or
public spaces would lead to a significant environmental
design. It was explicitly pointed out that this trade-
above the flow of pedestrians. Furthermore, different
improvement, in later years POPS became only a
off was not meant as an automatism, which would
types of POPS would earn developers higher or lower
pretext to cash up additional valuable FA that could be
automatically entitle a floor area bonus (Yanagisawa
bonuses (Fig.3).
sold or rented out at premium prices.
1973:19). A project, making use of the CDS and most
As seen from 1964 onward, the specified block allowed
other incentive planning tools is judged in three steps:
4. Innovating Technology, Importing Ideas
for the production of Japan's first POPS. Based on
First, does the development meet the minimum
This fundamental change in urban planning was
a MoC directive, cities with own building authority
stipulations, entitling its use? Is the building plot big
facilitated by technological progress, permitting
(tokutei gysei ch) and a population greater than
enough in accordance with above objectives? Is the
earthquake-proof high-rise buildings in this disaster-
250,000 were encouraged to offer FA bonuses and
fronting street broad enough to handle the extra traffic
prone country for the first time, and by the potent
other zoning concessions to builders if they in turn
caused by the building?
lobbying of the real estate and construction industry.
agreed to provide plazas, arcades, atriums, through-
Second, how is the use comfort of the provided public
A young bureaucrat from the Ministry of Construction
block connections, elevated plazas, or sunken gardens,
spaces? Is it a large coherent chunk of open space, or
(MoC) who studied at the University of Philadelphia
governed by explicit, yet minimal, design standards. To
only a narrow, deep strip, north of a building? Is it fully
between 1962 and 63 under Paul Davidoff, father of
adapt the system to local conditions, bonuses could be
visible from the public street so that users are aware of
New Yorks ground breaking 1961 zoning ordinance,
adjusted to favour the creation of certain spaces over
its existence and make use of it, or is the access hidden
brought this know-know to Japan. Subsequently, he
others. In reality, such adaptations would not differ
by building parts? Is it at ground level and easily
helped to craft Japans own version of incentive zoning
much from city to city. Generally, indoor spaces like
accessible, or is it elevated or depressed, which would
in order to facilitate the construction of the countrys
atriums, appearing more private, generate less bonus
make it difficult to use in daily practice? Is it a truly open
first skyscraper, the Kasumigaseki Building (completed
FA than open air spaces like sidewalk widenings or
space, or do building parts cover it and obstruct views to
in 1968). Furthermore, at a time when the ideas of
plazas (Fig.3).
the open sky, creating a sense of claustrophobia? Every
the Metabolists were in high currency, it was broad
In 1969 the Intensive Land Utilisation Area (Kdo Riy
kind of POPS is then weighed with a specific coefficient,
consensus among planners that Le Corbusier's Towers
Chiku) designation followed. This system that is applied
through which the bonus floor area is calculated in step
in the Park concept was the superior city model (Fig.2).
for whole districts incentivises the production of mostly
three. The highest coefficients were originally assigned
The abolition of the absolute height limits, and with
pedestrian circulation spaces through FA bonuses
to square-type POPS, which are fully open. Less bonus
it, the implicit rejection of the low-rise vernacular
in areas where more densification and efficient land
floor area is generated through the creation of atriums,
city, was therefore uncontested. The environmental
utilisation is desired. It would be mostly applied around
arcades and narrow sidewalk widenings (Fig.3). In the
degradation after a decade of rampant, unchecked
crowded station fronts but also in other areas where FA
permission standards, local governments would be
urban growth with a rapid loss of open space was also
bonuses appeared useful as incentive to induce private
able to create additional POPS and weigh them in a
decisive. Ishikawa details for instance the persistent
development activities. Modelled after the Specified
way so that they better responded to local conditions.
encroachment on Tokyo's greenbelt, which was
Block, in 1970 the Comprehensive Design System (CDS,
However, Kuniyoshi and Senda (2000) point out that
038
Vol. 25_2013_01
only few cities nationwide using the CDS have really

customised it. Instead, most municipalities have stuck
to the uniform national standards. Only Yokohama
and Sagamihara offered bonuses for the protection
of natural green spaces and, prior to a recent zoning
amendment in Tokyo, Yokohama was the only city
explicitly promoting the creation of POPS along rivers
and the waterfront (ibid). After the establishment of
the system it has been subsequently changed in order
to utilise it for the alleviation of other pressing urban
problems, by incentivising the injection of private
capital.
After a first revision in 1983 the CDS no longer only
encouraged the production of POPS but also of inner
city housing and high-quality residential space. The
background was the increasing hollowing out of
residential downtown functions and the rampant
suburbanisation. The next revision in 1986 created
higher floor area bonuses if projects complied
with district plan provisions, or accorded with the
redevelopment principles and comprehensive urban
redevelopment plans.
The next revision in 1990 introduced FA bonuses for
publicly usable underground, or mechanised parking
facilities in order to counter on-street parking. In 1995,
yet more bonuses were added for the promotion
of residential space in central Tokyo, Nagoya and
Osaka that had been depopulated due to a land price
rally during the 1980s, during the so-called bubble
economy. Finally in 1997, an additional bonus was
Fig.4 Overview of planning tools that incentivise the private production of public spaces in Japan, exemplified for Tokyo:
Although these numbers differ between cities in Japan, the ratio between the use of the different tools is similar elsewhere
granted for the redevelopment of very large plots.
concrete quality requirements spelled out, comparable
or simply Tokku) have been designated in central
This served not only to create giant POPS but also to
to those of New York City. In essence, the actual design
areas of large Japanese cities, where many planning
reanimate the collapsed real estate market.
quality of POPS lies in the discretion of builders and
regulations are temporarily waived and projects
A careful analysis of the permission standards for the
architects. Strained, understaffed city administrations
are freely negotiated between local governments
CDS shows that different priorities for the creation
are overburdened with the task of monitoring the post-
and developers. All these discussed systems equally
of POPS are given in different cities. Yokohama City
occupancy design as well as the maintenance quality.
encourage the creation of POPS and other amenities
grants bonuses for the creation of natural green spaces
In 1988 the 'Redevelopment-type District Plan
but differ in scale and planning process.
and waterfront POPS, whose production has only
(Saikaihatsu Chikukeikaku, in 2002 renamed into
Specified blocks, areas of intensive land utilisation and
recently been explicitly rewarded in Tokyo. In Tokyo,
Saikaihtasu to Sokushin-ku) was introduced. It sought
in turn, artificial decks and pedestrian overpasses are
to mobilise private capital for the redevelopment
bonusable as a response to countless station front
of large brownfield sites, vacated through the de-
developments and infrastructure projects, which are
industrualisation of Japan and a transformation to
less of an issue in other Japanese cities. The highest
a service economy. Because a larger area is tackled,
bonuses are granted in both cities for open air
an integrated public realm can be mandated that
sidewalk-type POPS (Fig.5). With increasing length, the
transcends public/private property lines. As a condition
magnitude of the bonus also increases in Tokyo, which
for higher bonuses, developers provide parks and
is not the case elsewhere. Despite these variations,
sidewalks in the area, which are transferred into
most basic quality requirements such as coherency
municipal property after completion. Additionally
and form of POPS, minimum frontage with other
POPS are provided on private plots as parts of a
public spaces, or height differences in the elevation, are
larger concept. Finally, since 2002, so-called Urban
everywhere the same and nowhere in Japan are more
Renaissance Special Districts (Toshisaisei Tokku,
Fig.5 Many neighbourhood streets in Tokyo are lacking sidewalks: Bonus

floor area is rewarded if private developers choose to provide these kinds
of public space that often remain isolated and don't connect
039
Vol. 25_2013_01
redevelopment-type district plans, or Tokku are used
on the actual building plot, but separated by a canal
A second innovative example is the housing project
for larger areas and require a city planning procedure
and a wide street. The POPS is close to Nishioji station
Garden Hills Forest in Shiki, a suburban community
and design review process with public participation.
and forms a privately owned station front square.
north of Tokyo in Saitama prefecture. On the site
These plans create a more integrated public realm;
In late 1998, the company invited the surrounding
of a former Keio University dormitory a major real-
harmonising privately and publicly owned public
residents to take part in four citizen workshops in order
estate developer planned to build a large housing
spaces within the urban context.
to develop a more responsive design. The globally
estate. Because the new building would be out of
In contrast, the CDS applies to smaller developments
active company, which is originally based in the area,
scale in comparison with the otherwise low-rise
on single plots. A building permit is to be granted as-
emphasised its corporate social responsibility and
neighbourhood and because the large number of
of-right, if plans comply with building regulations. As
provided a free bicycle parking facility in order to solve
old trees that would have had to be sacrificed for
a time-consuming urban design review is not required,
the severe illicit parking problems near the station (See
the development, a citizen movement formed in
the CDS is the most popular planning tool among
also Kurose in his chapter on bicycle parking problems
opposition to the project.
developers.
in Osaka).
Between 2002 and 2005, after 10,000 signatures
Additionally, privately owned public spaces are also
The park-like station front square was named You You
had been collected against the project, eight design
produced by tax incentives if landowners agree to
Park by the students of the nearby Shoho elementary
workshops were hosted that brought together city
preserve valuable green space and open it to public
school and has become an important event space for
officials, advocate planners, the developer, and local
access for a fixed period of time (Fig.9).
the local community and the school. Wacoal in turn
citizens. At the end of the process, 65% of the valuable
benefited from this scheme because the company
greens were preserved. On private property a 1,200m2
6. POPS with Community Participation
was able to build a big and cost-efficient headquarter
POPS was created and another 450m2 of open space
In recent years, a few significant model projects have
building on the western plot, without sacrificing land
became a public park (Fig.8). For the provision of the
materialised which demonstrate that it is possible
for a POPS on site (Fig.6). Instead, the POPS could be
POPS the developer was granted a waiver of fixed
to design more meaningful privately owned public
allocated to a piece of land that was cut off by a big road
asset tax and the city guaranteed the maintenance of
spaces in close cooperation with the surrounding local
and couldnt have been utilised for the development
the space. A park adoption agreement was set up in
community.
otherwise. Furthermore, the community agreed to take
which the community committed itself to maintain the
One example is the headquarters building of the
on maintenance work for the new park, which reduced
green, located on the POPS and to use it for community
Wacoal Corporation in the south of Kyoto. This is a
costs for Wacoal (Fig.7).
events. The city pledged to provide tools and funds for
rare case where POPS is not completely allocated
capital improvement.
Fig.6 A significant part of the POPS at the Wacoal headquarters building has been designed and managed as community garden, bicycle parking facility,
disaster prevention and evacuation area and civic plaza; elementary school students have chosen the name 'You You Park' for it
Fig.7 Within the frame of corporate social responsibility Wacoal

employees help maintaining the park (above), while students of the
Shoho elementary school use the space for environmental education
040
Vol. 25_2013_01
7. Discussion
As seen above, incentive zoning in Japan started as a
system that would reward exceptional design quality
of buildings and open spaces.
The burden was on the developer to prove that his
plans would contribute to a betterment of grave
environmental conditions in urban Japan. Only then
would he be rewarded with a FA bonus or waivers of
building form regulations.
In subsequent years the menu of bonusable amenities
grew ever bigger, now including disaster prevention
(storage of disaster prevention gear or fire water), social
(community or day care centres), cultural (theatres,
museums) and parking facilities, historical landmark
preservation, access to subway stations and downtown
housing. The underlying philosophy was thus diluted.
Additionally the operation of incentive zoning
became standardised and design-criteria abstracted in
quantitative parameters. In essence an inversion of the
initial ideas occurred. Whereas only design excellence
of POPS entitled to exceptional planning benefits, later
Fig.9 Citizen Green Space 'Sendagi Community Forest': While Bunkyo ward pays for the maintenance costs, the surrounding community engages in the
actual upkeep of this patch of dense urban forest in the middle of Tokyo; between 9:00 and 17:00 the space is open to the general public
POPS degenerated into a useful tool for generating
more coherent, attractive public space networks
TCDSR Tokyo Comprehensive Design System Research
more, valuable floor area.
for sensitive area. Also, more and more landowners
Group.
On the other hand, conscious local governments
recognise the value of attractive public space, and
Comprehensive Design System Permit Principles.
like Yokohama, Sapporo and others came to use
support the establishment of informal district design
Tokyo: Tokyo Society of Architects & Building Engineers.
redevelopment-type district plans in order to provide
guidelines that coordinate the evolution of integrated
YANAGISAWA, Atsushi. 1973. "Explanation of the
networks of publicly- and privately owned public
Permission Standards for Comprehensive Designs." In
spaces.
Urban Redevelopment and the Comprehensive Design
2002.
Tokyo
Metropolitan
Commented
System, edited by Zenkoku Shigaichi Saikaihatsu

Kyokai, 19-30. Tokyo.
[References]
ISHIDA, Yorifusa. 1988. "Chronology on Urban Planning
in Tokyo 1868 - 1988." In Tokyo: Urban Growth and
[Figure References]
Planning 1868 - 1988, edited by Hiromichi; Ishida
Fig.2 Mori Building. 1999. Urban New Deal Policy
Ishizuka, Yorifusa, 37-68. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan
- Striving to Recover from the Largest Crisis of the
University Press.
Postwar Era. Tokyo: Mori Building.
ISHIKAWA, Mikiko. 2001. Cities and Green Space:
Fig.3 YOKOHAMA, Yokohama-Shi Machizukuri Chosei-
Moving Towards the Creation of a New Environment.
Kyoku Kenchiku Takuchi Shido-Senta Kenchiku
Tokyo: Iwanami Shouten. Original edition, Toshi to
Kankyo-Ka Shigaichi Kenchiku-Kakari. 2006. Urban
Ryokuchi: Atarashii Toshi Kankyou no Souzou ni
Environmental Design System Yokohama: Yokohama
mukete.
City.
KUNIYOSHI, Sanechika, and Mitsuru SENDA. 2000.
Fig.4 Diagram by Christian Dimmer, data from
"Image of the Urban Consolidation and Improvement
Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau for Urban
Emerging from the Regulations for the Comprehensive
Development: http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp
Design
Special
Fig.5 Adapted from Google Maps
Administrative Agency. Nihon Toshi Keikaku Gakkai
System
established
by
the
Gakujutsu Kenky Ronbun Sh no. 35:925-930.

TATEISHI, Makoto. 1973. "New Land Use Zoning
and the Comprehensive Design System." In Urban
Redevelopment and the Comprehensive Design
Fig.8 When plans for a large condominium block surfaced, a vocal
opposition movement evolved; to diffuse the conflict citizen participation
was carried out during the planning phase and for the management
System, edited by Zenkoku Shigaichi Saikaihatsu

Kyokai, 15-18. Tokyo.
041
Vol. 25_2013_01
Tokyos Uncontested Corporate Commons

1. Background
2. Introduction
decade and require special skills and experience. Much
As described in the preceeding introductory chapter
It is not fair to compare New York Citys 3,467 pages
of the permission standards in urban planning and
to Part II, various incentive mechanisms have been
strong zoning ordinance, which contains POPS
construction are spelled out generically in manuals.
developed in order to encourage the production of
provisions only among many other stipulations,
Every officer can follow such a checklist-like as-of-
public space on various spatial levels by private actors
with Tokyos 36-pages short Permission Standards
right permission procedure for a project using the
in Japan: from a single building lot to the scale of a full
for the CDS; including definitions and terminology.
CDS, without much expert knowledge. The lack of
urban district. This chapter discusses the development
This somewhat odd comparison, however, gives
discretionary planning control is exacerbated by the
of one particular planning system, namely the
an indication how urban planning in general, and
sheer size of Tokyo Tokyo Metropolis as administrative
Comprehensive Design System (hereafter CDS) and its
incentive zoning in particular, works. Many planning
unit has a population of 13.2 million and the Tokyo
application in Tokyo. Interestingly, in contrast to the
instruments are strictly parametric and generic. It is
metropolitan region 35.7 million and its rapid, (during
earlier example of New York City, discussed in Part I,
worth noting in this respect that despite all neoliberal
most of its modern history) largely unplanned growth.
where constant monitoring from academics and civil
rhetoric in political debates, Japan has the leanest
society organisations in cooperation with the New
public sector among all OECD countries. In most
3. Urban Japans Speciic Planning Issues
York City Planning Department led to refinement of
government offices, job rotation is exercised to keep
Against this background, one has to understand the
regulations and tighter planning control, in Tokyo
employees flexible, constantly learning, and effective.
variegated, extensive catalogue of objectives that
the actual text of the regulations has changed only
What sounds good in theory is bad when it comes to
incentive zoning and the creation of POPS came to be
insignificantly since its introduction to Tokyo in 1976.
urban planning where large projects easily run over a
burdened with (TCDSR 2002: 8-11):
Fig.1 Every dot represents one POPS: The comparison shows that POPS in Manhattan are much more concentrated than in Tokyo, where they have materialised over a far wider area
042
Vol. 25_2013_01
1) Improving the urban environment, where basic

infrastructure such as sidewalks and parks are critically
lacking: just as in New York, securing light and air
through the provision of plazas and open spaces;
complementing pedestrian networks in mostly
irregularly shaped urban environments; providing
additional greenery in a time when many parks were
encroached upon and densification led to the gradual
loss of private green; opening access to waterfronts
through through-block connections.
2) Aside from creating open space, promoting the
dispersion of high-quality, earthquake-proof buildings
and a good quality housing stock; encouraging
mergers of fragmented land holdings for more
efficient, intensive, and profitable land utilisation; in
essence promoting the transformation of a low-rise
vernacular city to one resembling Corbusiers Charter
of Athens and his Tower in the Park model; preserving
historical landmarks.
3) Complementing public facilities and infrastructure;
allocating POPS in station front areas to strengthen
pedestrian circulation; creating access to railway
concourses and subway stations on private property;
offering
off-street
parking;
encouraging
the
development of cultural, community, welfare, and

educational facilities; alleviating pollution and saving
energy through encouraging joint heating and cooling
facilities, rainwater infiltration, solid waste and waste
water treatment facilities.
4)
Strengthening
disaster
resilience;
providing
evacuation spaces; using sidewalk-widenings and

through-block connections to complement evacuation
corridors; providing disaster prevention facilities and
emergency stocks of food and water.
5) Promoting the development of welfare facilities,
barrier-free buildings, and open spaces for the elderly
and handicapped.
6) Promoting downtown living and countering the
atrophy of inner-city communities, thus establishing
once again a proper balance between work and
residential urban functions, and eliminating the need
for time-consuming commuting.
4. Development of the Comprehensive Design
Not only objectives but also rationalisations for
incentive zoning in Tokyo grew complex and manifold.
Its evolution wasnt straightforward and neat, but
contingent on Tokyos development and its urban
problems. Put into effect in August 1976, the CDS
Fig.2 Historical evolution of Tokyo's 694 privately owned public spaces
that were created through the Comprehensive Design System alone
043
Vol. 25_2013_01
went through several major revisions. In 1983, the
was changed to 1/6, now allowing the utilisation of
land required urgent redevelopment within the next
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) felt the need
narrower, deeper plots. As a consequence, this meant
five years. According to Hohn (2000: 203) in 1996 as
to react to the dwindling nighttime population in the
that the provision of urban housing was valued
much as 16.3% of Tokyos central 23 ward area was
citys central 23 wards. Skyrocketing land prices had
more highly than legible, easily accessible, well-
zoned as category II area, totalling 297 redevelopment
led to a massive displacement of population from the
proportioned POPS, which now shifted farther away
promotion zones. Two new types of CDS were created
centre to the suburbs, increasingly putting stress on
from the pedestrian flows.
in order to induce private investment in these zones
commuters and the public transit system. Additionally
In 1988, a second major revision took place. Its
as well as in the category I areas inside Ring Road 7.
to the provision of POPS, a floor area bonus was added
background was the perceived urgent need for
Through large-scale POPS of more than 2,000m the
if developers agreed to build inner city housing and
redevelopment in central Tokyo and the necessity to
permissible standard FAR could be further increased
indeed, since then around 80,000 flats have been
provide for more numerous and larger downtown
by 50%, or at most by an FAR of 2. By conforming to
created through this and other housing bonuses. In
POPS, especially in the densely populated areas of the
the provisions of the redevelopment master plan the
order to make the bonus applicable to more cases in
so-called wooden apartment belt and on the numerous
permissible standard FAR could also be increased by
typically strongly fragmented residential areas, the
brownfield sites which were opening up because of a
50%, or a maximum bonus of FAR 2.5.
minimum POPS size necessary for the generation
tertiarisation of the economy and the relocation of the
Based on a report of the Tokyo metropolitan housing
of bonus FA was reduced from 500m to 300m.
production sector to neighbouring countries.
policy conference, which dealt with the hollowing-out
The minimum required width of the fronting road
Based
of residential functions in the downtown area, the so-
was reduced from 9 to 8 meters to promote further
redevelopment master plan was introduced in 1986.
called doughnut phenomenon, the third metropolitan
diffusion. Furthermore, while originally 1/4 of the
Most areas of the 23 wards were zoned as category I
long-term plan and the metropolitan housing master
total perimeter of the plot had to border upon roads
which principally requires redevelopment. Within this
plan were issued which sought to address this problem.
in order to safeguard a shallow, legible public space,
area, priority areas were mapped out where a significant
The CDS was identified as an appropriate tool to
closely connected to street and sidewalk, this ratio
shortage of infrastructure and underutilisation of
actively tackle this and therefore, an urban mixed-use-
on
the
1969
Redevelopment
Act,
housing-type was newly created and the older urbanhousing-type was revised in order to further induce
the provision of rental residential space in central city
locations through conditional bonus FAR.
As a consequence of a growing accumulation of office
functions in the central area, another bonus was
introduced for creating mixed-use developments,
containing housing and non-office related business
and retail functions. Since a revision in 1991, this bonus
that would add up to 75% of the standard FAR but
at most to an extra FAR of 3, could be utilised within
the Ring Road 6 and Arakawa River as well as within
designated downtown housing restoration zones.
Since 1996, further FAR bonuses are being granted for
developments with over 75% housing and housing
support facilities. This could double the zoning standard
FAR as bonus, with a maximum extra FAR of 4, if plots
are larger than 1,000m and developments located
within Ring Road 6. Along with these new standards,
the bonuses for several POPS types were also amended.
While one square meter of sidewalk/ sidewalk
widening-type POPS earned for example 1.3m bonus
FA, this was changed to 2.0m if the sidewalk was
longer than 100 meters and the development located
within the 530 hectare designated central city and
sub-centre zone. Within the wider central area, marked
by Ring Road 6, the bonus would be 1.8m and in all
other areas of Tokyo 1.7m. Shorter sidewalks would
Fig.3 Distribution of POPS in Tokyo central 23 wards: The darker the shade of the underlying map, the higher the disaster risk of the area, and the lower
the ratio of public park area per capita, sidewalks and other open spaces
044
generate lesser bonuses. Also, additional underground

parking in public housing developments, contributing
Vol. 25_2013_01
to an improvement of the cityscape and off-street
borough of Manhattan. The area within Ring Road 6
parking were bonusable now. In exclusive housing
still measures 18,200 hectares twice the size of all
zones, where no buildings higher than 10 to 12 meters
of Manhattan. Within these zones almost any kind of
was allowed, 20 meter high developments became
urban context can be found, from two-story wooden
possible if the CDS was used.
apartment areas (See Mireille Tchapis chapter in
With the central Tokyo nighttime population rising
this volume) with minimum public infrastructure to
again, on the one hand, and further proliferation of
state of the art, world-class business centres. Large-
monocultural, exclusive office areas, a new bonus was
scale developments, stimulated through all these
introduced in 1998 that would reward the provision
bonuses, can thus materialise in contexts where they
of housing support and commercial functions. For
are significantly bulkier than their vicinity, if minimal
development in the central core and the sub-centres
stipulations are met. This can cause severe conflicts and
75% of the standard FAR could be added as bonus
massive breaks in the urban fabric.
with a maximum cap of FAR 3. Within Ring Road 6 the
By 1998, the metropolitan government could no longer
minimum plot size was set at 5,000m and for plot-sizes
ignore the so-called heat island effect. Where there
over 30,000m the bonuses, generated through large
were zero to five tropical nights with temperatures
POPS, could be doubled.
over 25 degrees a century ago, now there were 30 to
Although it appears as if the different kinds of
40 such nights and therefore bonus FA was granted
incentives granted for the provision of public housing
for the provision of cooling roof greening. One year
and larger POPS are somewhat context sensitive, it
later, bonuses were given to encourage the renewal
has to be noted that the area encircled by Ring Road
of aging public housing estates through private
7 is still 37,400 hectares - 4.3 times larger than the
capital. Higher bonuses were now also awarded for
Fig.4 Since 2007 a small collection of best and worst practice examples
is offered to developers of projects who will create POPS; compared to
New York City where comparable guidelines have been offered since the
mid-1970s, Tokyo's collection is only 13-pages thin and hard to find on
website of the metropolitan planning department
Fig.5 Since 2007 developers of large-scale projects "have to consider" the surrounding network of public spaces; as much as this is a step in the right direction, the map is too macroscopic in scale to achieve more meaningful results
045
Vol. 25_2013_01
POPS developments materialising within more strictly
the results are remarkable. As of 2011, the CDS alone
the highest in the world. Conversely, few POPS were
regulated areas, covered by district plans. After several
produced privately owned public spaces at 697 offices,
created in the disaster-prone areas where many old
minor revisions, in 2010, the first quality stipulations
residential, and community buildings, totalling 1.9
wooden apartment buildings cluster, and where open
were mandated for the design of POPS; namely
million m; amounting to an area equal in size to
space ratios remain extremely low despite all planning
encouraging the connection to adjacent parks and
11.6 times Hibiya Park, or 55% of New Yorks Central
efforts. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that many of
waterfront areas, planting a diversity of trees of greater
Park. The total open space area created through the
the objectives havent been achieved. Most POPS were
height and size as well as greenery spots. Since 2007,
provision of POPS is three times larger in Tokyo than
created where infrastructure had been most complete
a citywide green map exists that, while macroscopic
in New York. A closer look reveals, however, that over
and where the fewest people live, while very few POPS
in scale (1:10,000), shows important urban green that
half of Tokyos POPS concentrate in the three central
materialised in the most disaster-prone, dense, mostly
developers have to take into consideration for their
wards Minato (24%), Chiyoda (14%) and Chuo (13.5%)
residential areas(Fig.3).
projects (Fig.5). Also since 2007, a guideline exists for
and that more than 75% are located outside residential
the greenery provision in POPS. On 13 short pages it
areas. Revisiting the initially-discussed rationale of
6. What About Design Quality and Liveability?
shows for the irst time examples of good and bad
incentive zoning provision of much-needed public
Interestingly, quality standards for POPS do exist.
design features (Fig.4). In contrast, government reports
spaces and infrastructure, improvement of the
To avoid strangely shaped spaces with unrelated
in New York City already discussed in great detail which
residential environment it becomes clear that these
pieces, shape rules mandate that the majority of POPS
design features would contribute to more user-friendly
downtown areas were already best supplied with
should be visible from adjacent sidewalks, parks,
POPS 35 years ago (NYCPC 1975; 1976).
sidewalks and parks, and also per-capita park space
or from within. Rules also regulate the relationship
supply is relatively higher because of low residential
between frontage, circumference and depth, in
5. Geography of Tokyos POPS
densities. This clustering also does not come as a
order to safeguard that plazas are comfortable.
After discussing the history and the logic behind
surprise because it follows the market logic inherent
Elevation changes below and above grade, as well as
Tokyos incentive zoning and the CDS in particular,
in incentive zoning. For developers, it is of course
interior spaces are discouraged by lower FA bonuses.
lets examine its effects. What kind of spaces have
most profitable to capture valuable FA bonuses in
Recently, standards for universal design and greenery
been produced and where? By quantitative measures,
central areas, where land prices have been among
have also been added. What is clear, however, is that

these standards are geared towards experts and the
underlying philosophy is implicit but never spelled
out in official documents. Government reports like
New York Citys New Life for Plazas (NYCPC 1975),
or Plazas for People (NYCPC 1976) that address the
usability of POPS in detail have rarely been published
in Japan. Interestingly, planners in Japan did always
have intimate knowledge of new developments in New
York but different mindsets and the absence of public
contestations and critical discourses didnt lead to
more far-reaching changes to the system. Maybe, mere
empty expanses were considered a sufficient amenity
in a country as vulnerable to disaster as Japan.
Be it as it may, any change to the planning system so
far came as a response to new concrete planning issues
in Tokyo and was rarely driven by a desire to create
high-quality environments. The example of Yokohama,
discussed in this volume, is an exception here. While
the creation of POPS was initially central in the design
philosophy, the menu of bonusable amenities grew
ever wider while the buildings that the CDS produced
grew ever taller.
7. Competition and Changing Awareness
This having been said, the casual visitor cannot help but
to notice that the newest Tokyo POPS are of outstanding
Fig.6 One of the city's most spectacular recent developments is Tokyo Midtown, where a big park-like POPS (front, right) forms an integrated open space
together with the municipally owned and managed Hinokicho Park; this unified design was mandated by a redevelopment-type district plan that was
legislated before the previously public land was auctioned off to the private development consortium
046
design quality. Spaces in Shiodome (see Shiodome

chapter in this volume), Roppongi Hills, Tokyo Midtown
Vol. 25_2013_01
(Fig.6) and Marunouchi (Fig.7+8) play an important role

for area branding. As Tokyo decentralised over the last
three decades and as ever more high quality business
areas developed, so increased the competition on
the real estate market (See Dimmer 2012). After the
beginning of Japans lingering economic crisis in the
early 1990s, tenants have become more price sensitive
and expect higher quality amenity spaces. Attractive
public spaces have become recognised as important
tools for successful urban regeneration since the late
1990s and developers have noticed that with "great
public spaces" more money can be made and the area
image improved. In order to strengthen the area image
within a more competitive environment, quality urban
environments have now become common sense and
area management schemes have been established in
many places. SIO SITE Shiodome and Marunouchi are
prominent examples, which not only provide a unified
public space management, but landowners have also
agreed that their future developments will contribute
to the formation of an integrated public realm,
Fig.7 Similar to North American BID schemes, area management associations are curating events that take place across property boundaries: On the
roadway of Naka avenue in Marunouchi and on the adjacent public sidewalks temporary events are frequently carried out
transcending property distinctions.

8. Conclusion
Most changes in the design of Tokyos POPS didnt
come from contestations of civil society, as described in
the chapters on New York, Hong Hong, or Taipei in this
volume, or from a new quality-of-life approach of the
government. In contrary, POPS have come to be seen as
generators of bonus floor area, or a panacea to remedy
multifarious urban problems. The majority of design
and management innovations were introduced by the
private side and are attributable to the fact that, to
put it simply, better public spaces make more money.
Tokyos corporate commons remain uncontested and
largely undiscovered by the citizens, who are rarely
aware of their rights to them. The goal of this volume
is to contribute to a growing awareness and a greater
public use.
[References]
DIMMER, Christian. 2012. Re-imagining Public Space:
The Vicissitudes of Japans Privately Owned Public
Spaces. In Urban Spaces in Japan: Cultural and Social
Fig.8 Marunouchi Park Building marks the apex of recent POPS design in Tokyo: framed by a replica of the historical Mitsubishi No.1 building that
contains a museums, on one side, and, restaurants on the other, this space offers ample green, public art, as well as movable chairs and tables
Perspectives, ed. Christoph Brumann and Evelyn
[Figure References]
Schulz, 74105. Routledge
Plazas for people : streetscape & residential plazas.
Fig.1,2,3 Jan Lindenberg, IIDJ & Christian Dimmer
HOHN, Uta. 2000. Stadtplanung in Japan. Geschichte
New York.
Fig.4 Adapted from Tokyo Metropolitan Guideline for
- Recht - Praxis - Theorie. Dortmunder Vertrieb fr Bau-
TCDSR Tokyo Comprehensive Design System Research
the provision of Greenery in POPS, 2007
und Planungsliteratur, Dortmund.
Group.
Commented
Fig.5 Courtesy of Tokyo Metropolitan Government
Comprehensive Design System Permission Principles.
Fig. 6 Adapted from Mitsui Real Estate PR brochure
New life for plazas. New York.
Tokyo: Tokyo Society of Architects & Building Engineers.
2002.
Tokyo
Metropolitan
047
Vol. 25_2013_01
The Yokohama Formula

Collaborative Planning Culture and Comprehensive Public Space Vision

1. Background
2. Changing the Rules of the Game
city to this day. Already the title of the plan was a
With a population of 3.5 million, Yokohama is Japans
Asukata, who would serve as mayor for 15 years,
strong statement against the established top-down
second largest city. After the opening of the country in
assembled a multi-disciplinary team of young
governance principles of the time, as it called for
the 19th Century, it became Tokyos port and Japans
professionals from within and outside of the public
the citizen to design future Yokohama. Despite its
gateway to the West. The city has therefore always
administration, whom he entrusted with the
importance, the document was pleasant to look at and
taken pride in its distinctly local culture. This identity
development of a comprehensive renewal strategy. As
easy to understand for every citizen (Fig.1).
was threatened by the rapid urban growth that set
head of the restructured urban planning administration
For a seamless realisation of the showcase projects and
in during the 1960s, and the massive concentration
he won Tamura Akira over, who had previously worked
to facilitate lateral coordination, Asukata and Tamura
of heavy industries between the cities Yokohama
in the private sector. In 1965, the team around Tamura
reorganised Japans typical vertically segmented
and Kawasaki. Furthermore, the allied occupation
presented an integrated, long-term revitalisation
municipal
of Yokohamas historic Kannai centre delayed war
programme that centred on the famous 6 Big Projects.
political support by the mayor, Tamura established a
reconstruction until the late 1950s, depriving the city
Symbolically most significant was the initial restoration
planning and coordination office in 1968 that aligned
of its traditional centre and funnelling the main thrust
of the historical Kannai area and its integration with the
the agendas of all related departments and promoted
of urban growth to the fringes. In only two decades, the
new city centre around Yokohama station, from which
internal teamwork.
population doubled from 1.5 million in 1963 to three
it had been cut-off by a Mitsubishi shipyard (Fig.2.)
Two years later, Japans first municipal urban design
million in 1983, and the sprawling suburbanisation led
Together with the other projects, 2) land reclamation
bureau was set up to ensure that all major projects
to the morphological absorption of Yokohama into the
for relocating factories from residential areas to a new
would comply with the stated objective of pursuing
greater Tokyo metropolitan region. Political pressure
landfill; 3) Kohoku New Town as a new sub-centre
publicness in all new urban design projects and create
increased with this relegation to a bed town of Tokyo as
to curb uncontrolled sprawl; 4) a subway system as
places where people can come in contact with each
well as worsening environmental conditions. In 1963,
public transit backbone; 5) a highway system to drain
other and communicate (Nishiwaki et al. 1992: 25).
the progressive Asukata Ichio was elected as mayor on
traffic from the city centre; and 6) a bay bridge as a
The backbone of this public space strategy was
the promise to promote sustainable urban growth and
link to Tokyo (Yokohama 1965: 4867), these 6 Big
the vision of a densely woven pedestrian network,
grass-roots democracy.
Projects formed a comprehensive urban regeneration
linking the citys major parks, historical and cultural
strategy that would inform the development of the
assets, shopping streets, as well as the waterfront.
Fig.1 Mayor Asukata's 1965 blueprint for a new Yokohama also formally marked a fresh beginning: clean visuals and easy explanations
invited ordinary citizens into the planning process, and, by that, broadened the public sphere
048
administration.
With
unprecedented
Fig.2 The symbolically most signiicant irst project sought to connect

the new central city around Yokohama station with the old Kannai core; a
comprehensive public spaces network would connect important areas
Vol. 25_2013_01
Furthermore, by actively involving the citizens and the

business community in its planning and management,
not only would physical public space be created, but
the formation of a vital public sphere would also be
encouraged. Incrementally, this network would be
complemented through a few strategically placed
public projects like promenades, greenways, squares,
and cultural facilities as well as through carefully
guided private developments.
3. Yokohamas Independent Incentive Zoning
In order to implement this vision and to provide for a
development in-line with the urban design principles,
the city produced its own variant of incentive zoning.
Fig.3 Section of privately created open spaces along the Yamashita Park promenade, with the white dotted line showing the property boundary; the
open spaces created on the private building plots are part of an integrated public realm that spans across property lines; for a uniied appearance the
city provided the paving materials to the private landowners
The name Urban Environmental Design System

(UEDS) stresses this unique character but it was only
one component of Tamuras strategy to combine all
available tools into a far-reaching, comprehensive,
unique local planning regime that became known as
the Yokohama formula.
As the rapid population influx of the 1960s caused
unchecked,
haphazard
development,
municipal
planning could no longer keep up with providing basic

infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and parks.
At the same time, the first disputes over access to
sunlight had erupted as a consequence of the abolition
of the system of absolute height limitations in 1970,
now permitting the construction of buildings higher
than 31 meters almost everywhere.
Worse, the tense budgetary situation did not allow
countering
these
conditions
through
internal
financing, and mayor Asukatas objective to curb the

influence of the central government allowed him
only minimal utilisation of national subsidies. The city
therefore embraced the new incentive planning tools,
Fig.4 Machizukuri Council District (MCD) in the vicinity of Yamashita Park and Nihon dori; informal administrative guidance by the city commenced
here in the early 1970s in order to convince landowners to provide much needed pedestrian circulation space near this park of citywide importance
which were rolled out concurrently with other planning

innovations such as the senbiki growth control system,
height control areas and re-established in effect height
4. An Additional Planning Layer
new land use zoning, and height control areas, from
caps that the national government had just abolished.
Another singularity of Yokohama is an additional,
the late 1960s on.
These were combined with the lowest permissible FAR
informal planning layer, into which incentive zoning
The coordinated utilisation of these planning tools
designations under the Building Standard Act.
is embedded. Within so-called Machizukuri (or
combined with guided private development would help
Exemptions thereof were only granted if in turn POPS
Community Development) Council Districts (MCD),
to secure scarce public funds and shield the city from
or other bonusable public amenities were created, or
detailed urban design visions were initially developed
the influence of the conservative national government.
historical landmarks preserved.
in public deliberations between the urban design
The UEDS would also add to the citys open space stock,
Height caps and low FAR values meant also that more
bureau, local residents, and the business community
provide greenery and, through exceptional waivers
buildings than elsewhere became subject of a design
(Fig.4). Informal district guidelines were then legislated
from building form restrictions, reward building design
review process, in which urban designers could exert
to facilitate the incremental realisation, and in sensitive
excellence. Without building height caps, however,
influence.
areas, these were further backed by the stricter district
the system allowed for unpredictably high buildings,
To preserve the citys character as a port town,
plans.
depending on how much land developers assembled
additional incentives were offered for the provision
This extra-legal administrative guidance addressed
thus inevitably compromising other public goods.
of POPS facing river promenades or the sea, or natural
both adjacent buildings and public open space, as
Unparalleled, Tamuras team designated citywide
green space preservation in the hilly woodlands.
it stipulated wall setbacks on private land, vitalising
049
Vol. 25_2013_01
building functions and storefronts along the sidewalk,

allocation of parking lots off important pedestrian
areas, massing of buildings in order to maintain a sense
of human scale in public space and reduce shadow fall,
promotion of greenery as visual amenity, and control
of advertisement signboards around dignified civic
spaces.
In general, these MCD rules seek to complement
scarce public space around important parks, symbolic
buildings, and important road intersections.
The vicinity of Yamashita Park is an early example,
where multiple landowners contributed significant
parts of their property for the widening of the adjacent
park promenade (Fig.3+4). Significantly for incentive
zoning, within MCD an additional design review takes
place.
Before projects enter into the building permit process,
proposals must comply with district rules and respect
the local character. Unlike Tokyo, this system enhances
the probability that POPS do not materialise out of
context, but contribute to the citys long-term public
space vision.
5. POPS in Yokohama
With the exception of the Senba district in Osaka, and
Sapporos station front underground mall concept,
Fig.5 Dots with item numbers mark 133 POPS that have been surveyed in central Yokohama; dark lines are designated urban promenades, dark patches
are major public parks, and hatched, grey areas mark MCDs; most POPS are located in city areas with an additional layer of design control
discussed in other chapters of this volume, there has

been no bolder municipal attempt to embed the private
production of public space into a comprehensive
planning framework.
Available instruments such as lowest possible FAR
designations, citywide height control areas, MCDs
backed by district plans, specified block, and UEDS
were used to restrict incentive zoning.
The Asukata administration politically prioritised good
urban form, developed a precise spatial vision around
an integrated public space system and readjusted the
planning administration to assist its realisation.
More importantly, the citizens were actively invited
into the planning processes from early on. Compared
to other Japanese cities, the results of the last 40 years
are encouraging. Some 524 POPS were produced
citywide at office, residential, and community facility
buildings untill 2011, equalling 47% of the total area
of New Yorks Central Park. In the vicinity of Yokohama
station alone, the UEDS created a cluster of 48 spaces
that complement the public space system, while it
helped to preserve historical assets in the Kannai area
and widen main intersections and the park promenade
Fig.6 Detailed study of an MCD north-west of Yokohama Station, where 29 POPS materialised in close proximity and contribute to a widening of the otherwise narrow public sidewalks; beyond facilitating circulation, these spaces contribute little to invite more meaningful public activities
050
around Yamashita Park (Fig.3+4).
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig.7 Many downtown POPS are small and good for little more but pedestrian circulation
Fig.8 In the Minato Mirai 21 redevelopment area many large and spectacular POPS can be found: This indoor through-block connection passes
through the corporate showroom of the Nissan headquarters building
like substitute sidewalks, sidewalk widenings, through-
[References]
[Figure References]
block connections or arcades (Fig.7+8). Since their size
DIMMER, C. (2008). Renegotiating Public Space:
Fig.1+2 Yokohama City. (1965). Yokohamas City
correlates with that of the overall development, the
A Historical Critique of Modern Public Space in
Planning Yokohamas Future Made by Its Citizens,
biggest spaces are located in large suburban housing
Metropolitan Japan. Department of Urban Engineering,
Yokohama-Shi Somu Kyoku
estates, where residential densities are relatively low
The University of Tokyo.
Fig.3 adapted from YOKOHAMA CITY PLANNING AND
and natural green spaces and big parks are found.
NISHIWAKI, T., Kitazawa, T. and Kuniyoshi, N. (1992).
COORDINATION BUREAU. (1981). Development Process
Downtown POPS in turn tend to be much smaller
Possibilities in Urban Design 20 Years of Urban
of Port City Yokohama, Yokohama, p.101-2
(Fig.9). Consequently, the best design quality, network
Design in Yokohama and Prospects for the Future. SD
Fig.4 Adapted from MCD guideline http://www.city.
integration, and maintenance were found in districts
Space Design, 22 (Extra Issue), 2532.
yokohama.lg.jp/toshi/machi-kyogi/ (accessed 9/2007)
where local business and landowners were keenly
YOKOHAMA CITY. (1965). Yokohamas City Planning
Fig.9 Adapted from YOKOHAMA-SHI KIKAKY-KYOKU
interested in high-quality environments, or showcase
Yokohamas Future Made by Its Citizens, Yokohama-Shi
SEISAKU-BU TOKEIKEISEIKI-KA. (2003). Yokohama
spaces of citywide importance like Nihon-Odori and
Somu Kyoku
Mesh Statistics, Yokohama City, Yokohama.
However, even within this sophisticated framework,

certain problems remain. An own survey of 133
downtown spaces in 2004 (Fig.5) found that many
POPS were unsatisfactorily maintained, or did not
invite public activities due to small size, adverse layout,
hidden location, missing amenities or encroachment by
shops and parking (Dimmer 2008: 301). Only one fifth
offered a pleasant stay and encouraged more diverse
social activities. Four fifths were pure circulation spaces
Yamashita Park (Fig.3+4). In Minato Mirai 21, large

projects produced some of Yokohamas biggest and
most spectacular POPS (Fig.8). Here, the landowners
among them Mitsubishi Real Estate as owner of
the former shipyard developed a detailed design
guideline in cooperation with the authorities and
concluded a development agreement.
6. Afterthought
The quality of POPS aside, incentive zoning is a
planning tool that only works when there is a demand
for a bonus of additional floor area on the real estate
market. However, Japanese cities outside of Tokyo
are confronted with eroding land prices and bearish
markets. In these cities, the trade-off of additional
floor area as exchange for the creation of public space
no longer works, if it ever has. Here, there is a need to
think of new, creative strategies if governments want
to continue pursuing the provision of privately owned
public spaces.
Acknowledgement
Parts of this essay appeared in: Dimmer, Christian.
2012. Re-imagining Public Space: The Vicissitudes of
Japans Privately Owned Public Spaces. In Urban Spaces
in Japan: Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. Christoph
Brumann and Evelyn Schulz, 74105. Routledge
Fig.9 Distribution of public parks (left columns) and POPS (right columns) across Yokohama city wards in relation to population density: most POPS are
located in the densely populated downtown but their median size is very small compared to those, produced in large suburban housing estates, where
the supply with public parks is already suicient
051
Vol. 25_2013_01
Creation of POPS and Cooperative Planning Culture in Osaka

Takefumi Kurose (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background
the new Building Standards Act and all POPS were still
utilising the CDS. For each street, it shows detailed
After the construction of Osaka Castle in the 16th
maintained and expanded in the area. A second layer
design principles for both sidewalk-type and plaza-
century, the city became the political and economic
of POPS in the area was later added through the CDS
type POPS, such as preferable width, connection to
capital of Japan for a short while. Although the
and other contemporary incentive zoning systems
subway exits and landscape details, such as the kind
government functions were taken over by Edo
such as the District Plan or the Urban Regeneration
and size of street trees.
(todays Tokyo) at the beginning of the 17th Century,
Special District. In most cases, new POPS and old ones
Additionally, unofficial administrative guidance is
Osaka remained the central market place for rice
are treated in an integrated fashion and it is difficult to
carried out by the building control department in
and kept its position in the Japanese economy. After
notice the different boundaries (Fig.1+2).
order to improve the connectivity between POPS and
Tokyo and Yokohama, it is the third largest city of the
other adjacent public spaces. Building owners, for
country, with a night time population of 2.67 million.
3. Detailed Design Guidelines for POPS in Semba
example, often erect walls between their POPS and the
The much higher daytime population of 3.69 million
Very few cities in Japan seek to harmonise new large-
neighbouring plot in order to hide the unsightly side
shows its importance as the business center of West
scale developments within the specific urban context.
face of the next building. These walls are inevitable as
Japan. Considering the high density and land values
Osaka is different. Based on the above-discussed
long as there is a building right next to a POPS. However,
in central Osaka, it is not surprising that developers
historical precedent, most streets in Semba have
once another open space develops here, usually these,
secured an additional floor area bonus, beyond what
their own detailed design guidelines for new projects
now useless, separation walls tend to remain and
is allowed by the zoning, for 908 office and residential
obstruct the pedestrian circulation between POPS.
buildings as of December 2011. A condition for
City officials in Osaka are very aware of this problem
receiving this extra floor area is the provision of POPS.
and have begun negotiating with property owners.
Although Tokyo is the far larger city, Osaka has more
In some cases, they have succeeded in removing the
POPS that have been created by utilisation of the laxer
wall, while in other cases long boundary walls have
Comprehensive Design System (CDS). According to the
to remain because of structural reasons. Recently, the
data of Osaka City, more than 600 cases are designated
city government has begun asking developers to build
for condominium towers across the city and more than
two separated boundary walls; one for permanent
200 cases for office highrises, mostly in the central area.
structures and another for temporary structures along

sidewalk-type POPS, which can be removed when
future POPS emerge on adjacent sites.
2. Historic POPS in the Semba Area

Osakas history as mercantile capital and the presence
of a close-knit business community becomes clear in
Semba, one of the oldest business districts in the city.
Unlike anywhere else in Japan, POPS have been
systematically created in Semba since the 1930s. As
the Semba area has been urbanised for centuries and
was already densified to its limits, landowners suffered
from the limitation of building height under the former
Building Standard Act. Under the act, in commercial
land use zones the building height was limited to up to
1.5 times of the width of the fronting street and to an
Fig.2 Two types of POPS in the Semba area (Semba Center Building)
absolute maximum of 31m.

In Semba at that time, most streets were 8m or 6m wide
and therefore the building height limit was 12m or 9m.
In 1939, landowners and the Osaka city government
agreed to set buildings 2m back from the property
line. The space between the property line and the
building line became one of the first privately owned
public spaces in Japan, officially stated under the law.
While landowners were now allowed to assume a
wider street for the computation of their maximum
building height, and enjoyed additional floor area, the
city could introduce wider streets in this dense area
without buying any plots from private owners. This
so-called Semba Building Line has been kept under
052
Fig.1 The Semba Building Line designates different wall setbacks from
the property line and mandates the creation of street corner squares
Fig.3 Continous sidewalk-type POPS doubles the width of the public

sidewalk along Mido-Suji, Osakas most important business street
Vol. 25_2013_01
4. POPS at Tower Condominium Projects
In numbers, the policy may have been successful as the
building setback from the property line was agreed
Osaka, like many big Japanese cities, has an additional
population of Chuo ward in central Osaka increased
on in each block. To ensure liveliness, plans also
FAR incentive program for residential developments
by 42.4% between 2000 and 2010; from 55,324 to
required the allocation of shops, exhibition spaces,
in order to promote the repopulation of once
78,790. However, the POPS created at the foot of new
and hotel lobbies on the ground floor along the
hollowed-out downtowns. The difference between
high-rise condominiums, developed under this new
central boulevard. In this way, an integrated network
ordinary incentives and residential development extra
incentive, tend to be very small compared to others,
of privately and publicly owned public spaces has
incentives is shown in figure 4. Compared to non-
created at office developments. Also, these spaces are
been created in Nishi-Umeda in cooperation with the
residential developments (1), residential developments
not really used by citizens other than those living in the
landowners(Fig.7+8).
(2, 3 and 4) receive higher FAR bonus for the same
respective building in many cases, because of stricter
amount of POPS created.
security policies by each housing operator and designs
Like in Tokyo, the population in central districts of
that discourage use or make it difficult to find these
Osaka has decreased rapidly from the 1960s to the
spaces.
1980s. New planning policies, aiming to increase

the nighttime population in the central areas, were
5. Interconnecting POPS with District Plans
introduced by the national government in the early
Osaka Station is the citys central transit node, located
1990s and most of the large cities revised their local
in the Umeda district. As the station is connected to
ordinances and regulations in order to comply. The
various subway and communter lines, more than 2.5
additional incentive program was created at that time
million people are using the hub every day. Comparable
and has been enhanced under the Urban Renaissance
to central stations in other big Japanese cities, the
policy of the early 2000s.
surroundings of Osaka station are the most dense

urban areas in the Kansai region and several POPS play
an important role in supporting huge pedestrian traffic
flows in the area.
The Nishi-Umeda area, west of the station, is one
example for an extensive pedestrian network that has
Fig.6 Signboad showing the extensive underground pedestrian network

into which the Nishi Umeda development had to be integrated
been created by a combination of land readjustment

and the strategical allocation of POPS based on a
comprehensive redevelopment-type district plan. In
the past, the area was a container yard of the Umeda
freight station. The development plan was prepared
after the container yard was abandoned and the nearby
Hanshin commuter line that ran through the site
was put underground. Between 1984 and 1992, land
readjustment was carried out and a redevelopment
master plan drawn up in cooperation between city
government, landowners and other stakeholders.
Fig.4 Comparison of different FAR incentives based on ratio of POPS area
to size of total building plot
As a public contribution from landowners, whose

land values increased tremendously through the
Fig.7 Nishi-Umeda redevelopment district plan mandates an integrated

network of privately- as well as publicly-owned public spaces
redevelopment project, one park, four streets, one

bus stop, five sidewalks along a central east-west
boulevard, and two plazas have been negotiated
into the district plan. One plaza complements an
underground pedestrian concourse, and the other
one widens the boulevard. These public spaces that
were paid for by the private sector were transferred
into public property after the completion of the
development. They are thus similar to conventional
POPS as they were previously owned and planned for
public use by private landowners.
Fig.5 Square-type POPS at a high-rise condominium in Chuo ward
In order to further widen the public realm, and to

handle the additional pedestrian traffic, a minimum
Fig.8 POPS-like public spaces and POPS in Nishi-Umeda district
053
Vol. 25_2013_01
6. Public Space and the Bicycle Problem

According to city officials, major conflicts involving
POPS are complaints about noise by people gathering
there at night, garbage, dog waste, and illicit bicycle
parking.
Bicycle parking is an especially serious issue in the
narrow, densely populated public spaces near railway
and subway stations in most Japanese cities.
Fig.9 shows how the public sidewalk is choked with
illegally parked bicycles. As the adjacent POPS is
available to the right, people assume that the sidewalk
can be completely (ab)used for parking their bikes.
Fig.10+11 In order to preserve the important visual access to the Tsuyu no Ten Shrine in Kita ward the developer designed a throughblock-type POPS
Usually POPS are more strictly managed by private
7. New Challenge: Planning POPS with the
8. POPS and Historical Landmarks
property owners than public sidewalks.
Community
Teki-Juku is an important historic landmark in Osaka. It
In Osaka, however, the city government requests
A through-block-type POPS (Fig.10+11) was created in
was opened as a private school in 1838 by Koan Ogata,
private owners to create temporary bicycle parking for
front of a shinto shrine in Sonezaki, Kita-ward, in order
a physician and scholar of Dutch studies, and became
all members of the public within POPS in order to solve
to open up a vista from the main street. In general,
the origin of Osaka University. It is located in the centre
this problem. The city also rents POPS from landowners
there are special regulations on how to deal with POPS
of the Kitahama business district, Chuo-ward.
to build public bicycle parking, or permits landowners
adjacent to religious facilities which are not designated
The site has been designated as national historic site
to create bike parking therein. As POPS were originally
important cultural properties.
and the building became recognised as an important
evaluated as green spaces, sidewalks, or plazas, such
However, as shrines and their approaches are still today
cultural heritage site in 1964. Still, the surrounding
a temporary occupation for a public purpose can be
important elements in the life of the surrounding
plots were owned by private owners and it was
tolerated on an exceptional basis. This policy might
community and often key urban structures, in most
sandwiched between office buildings at both sides.
be an important step for a post-occupancy adaptation
cases, POPS designers and landowners respect
Osaka City and Osaka University have tried to create
of POPS after their completion. In some other cities,
religious facilities.
open spaces around Teki-Juku since then and one
projects located near central stations that were
In some cases, a shrine even utilises its unusable
adjacent plot was turned into a public park in 1981.
permitted under Urban Renaissance Special District
development rights and sells them to a adjacent
The land on the other side became a POPS of the
designation, public bicycle parking is evaluated as one
high-rise development, like Hikawa Shrine in Tameike-
Nissay Imabashi Building project in 1986, using the
of the public contributions during the planning stage.
Sanno, Tokyo.
Comprehensive Design System (Fig.12+13). The new

building that was built together with this POPS is
14-storeys high and designed with simple warm color
tiles. Considering that the project was completed in
1986, at the beginning of the Japanese asset price
bubble, it is clear that the project must have been
challenging for the city and the developer.
Fig.9 Illegal bicycle parking on sidewalks and privately owned public spaces is one of the gravest public space management problems in
metropolian Japan
054
Fig.12 Aearial photo of Nissay Imabashi Building and Teki-juku
Vol. 25_2013_01
actors in Osaka. Since the 1930s, the Semba Building

line has created important sidewalk spaces in one
of the citys densest areas, and since then a unique
planning culture has evolved.
Although the city is troubled with some common
issues such as uninspired design, lack of maintenance,
and illegal bicycle parking, some private stakeholders
have tried new, innovative ideas to enhance the value
of their POPS for the surrounding community.
Also, the city government is keenly aware of
management and design problems and has made
great efforts to react to these challenges by constantly
adapting their local ordinances and regulations for
POPS.
The institutional framework for the provision of POPS
in Osaka has developed into a distinct form and differs
in many ways from regulations in other cities, or the
guiding principles of the national government.
[Figure References]
Fig.1+3 adapted from Website of Osaka city
Fig.13 The park-like POPS next to the historical Teki-Juku landmark offers a wide spectrum of amenities to its visitors in this busy part of central Osaka
government: http://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/
9. POPS and Urban Agriculture
and water flows were also created, and characteristic
Fig.2 Based on the administrative guideline for
Another innovative example of POPS management
fauna and flora such as fireflies and medaka fish were
Comprehensive Design System by Osaka city
is its partial use for urban agriculture at the Shin-
introduced into the biotope.
government
Fig.7+8 Based on Nishi-Umeda Redevelopment District
Umeda City development, north of Osaka Station. The

10. Matured Treatment of POPS in Osaka
Plan and existing situation
of 26,400m (Fig.14). It includes various types of open
As shown in this article, there has been a long tradition
Fig.12 Based on aerial photo by Google maps and the
spaces in the site, like plazas, green spaces, sidewalks
of creating publicly usable spaces together with private
signboard of Nissay Imabashi Building
41,800m2 project site features a giant designated POPS

2
and an urban farm.

Although the project was based on the citys official
incentive zoning regulations, the amount of POPS
exceeds the necessary amount of open space required
for the claimed FAR bonus by far. The agricultural
area was created based on the concept of traditional
Japanese satoyama landscapes: nature and human
culture in harmony (Fig.15).
Children from nearby elementary schools and
kindergartens enjoy rice paddies and vegetable
farming here. In this satoyama area, a small forest
Fig.14 More than half of the building plot of Shin-Umeda City is occupied
by privately owned public spaces that offer a rich program to visitors
Fig.15 A large chunk of Shin-Umeda City's privately owned public space is occupied by an urban farm that was inspired by Japanese satoyama
landscapes and is cultivated by students of nearby elementary schools and kindergardens
055
Vol. 25_2013_01
POPS in Sapporo: A City with a Vision and a Masterplan

Takefumi Kurose (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background
2. Construction of a New Public Underground
3. Small-scale Through-Block Connections for a
Sapporo is a regional centre in Japans northernmost
Concourse
Large-Meshed Grid City
main island, Hokkaido. The city has a population of
Sapporo has two city centres; one is the traditional
POPS have been proactively used in Sapporo, and not
over 1.9 million that has nearly doubled between 1970
commercial centre Odori with its famous parkway,
only for major urban structures like Odori Park Avenue
and 2010 and is host to the regional government of
where three municipal subway lines cross. The city hall
or the underground walkway to Sapporo Station.
Hokkaido. As the city was planned from scratch in the
and headquarters of major banks in Hokkaido are all
Several through-block connections have been created
early-modern Meiji Era, it developed for the most part
located here.
by interconnecting and combining POPS on abutting
in an orderly grid structure like Kyoto or Nagoya.
The other centre developed around Sapporo Station,
plots. The urban grid of Sapporo is larger than in other
Different from most other major cities in Japan, there is
with numerous large office buildings and hotels. Here
Japanese cities and therefore pedestrians have to walk
thus sufficient public infrastructure such as roads, parks
several JR lines and one subway station intersect. In
long detours where through connections are absent.
and other public spaces in the central area.
2003, a part of the central station was redeveloped into
Through two adjacent blocks near Sapporo Station,
Another peculiarity is that the city is located in the
a gigantic complex of department store, hotel, cinema
the POPS of the Asty45 and the Nissay Kitamon-guchi
subarctic climate zone, just as Chicago or Toronto. The
and office facilities. With several other redevelopments
Building were connected to form a shortcut from the
city therefore spends over 190 million US$ per year for
taking place in the area, Sapporo station evolved as the
station to the Hokkaido Government Hall (Fig.5).
snow clearance of roads and other public spaces and
citys new central business district.
also the operators of POPS are required to keep them
After long discussions between city, citizens, the
4. POPS in Suburban Housing Developments
accessible in winter. This duty is even stipulated in the
business community, and all adjacent landowners,
Sapporo experienced rapid urban growth between
local technical standards for the CDS.
the city decided to connect the two centres around
the 1960s and the 1990s and expanded massively into
Sapporo station and the Odori area through a public
the suburban area. Some large housing developments
underground concourse. Extensive underground
have provided POPS in order to receive additional FA
station
already
or relaxed height limitation. Most problematic in these
been developed in both areas, yet they remained
housing developments is accessibility and openness of
disconnected from each another. During the long and
courtyard-type POPS. In most cases, huge green spaces
snowy winters people were thus still required to walk
are surrounded by these buildings and even with a
over slippery sidewalks in order to reach the other
POPS sign it is difficult for non-residents to access
centre. By establishing a new underground link, the
these. Entrances to these courtyards are often small
city is seeking now to connect the two nodal areas and
and appear like entrances to private gardens. This is
combine them into one strong, unitary, easily walkable
not an issue unique to Sapporo, but common to large
city centre (Fig.4). The city prepared two district plans
residential developments, permitted under the CDS, in
shown in figure 1 and 2 to promote redevelopment and
other cities and in downtown as well as in suburban
better connectivity to the walkway.
settings (Fig.6).
For example, the Odori Central Interchange District
Another example is Hiraoka central district, permitted
Plan for the crossing point of Sapporo Ekimae Avenue
in 1993. The project site is located in Kiyota ward, 10km
and Odori Parkway set several requirements with an
southeast of the city centre and about 2 km from the
FA incentive of 2.5 (the maximum FAR permitted by
nearest subway station. The area was planned based
zoning is 8.0).
on a district plan for intensive land use utilisation in
Fig.1 Sapporo Ekimaedori North Block district plan seeks to facilitate

the integration of the new city centre that is eveloving around Sapporo
Station with the old core around Odori Park
shopping
networks
had
under
residential areas. More than 10-storey high apartments
consideration of redevelopment and this district plan
with POPS and parks emerged in this suburban, almost
clearly influenced these projects. Its requirements were
exclusively residential area with low-rise detached
very detailed, such as mandating the building use of
houses. The open spaces that have been created are
the ground floor and the underground level, or a direct
hardly used by anybody but the residents. The project
connection to the underground walkway with more
is partly undeveloped, leaving large vacant lots open.
than 2/3 of the property line (abutting the concourse),
The district plan envisions a public open space network
being opened up for entrances to the walkway.
after completion that is welcoming to people from
Hokuyo Odori centre at the northeastern corner of the
outside of the neighbourhood. However, the POPS
crossing, completed in 2012, is one of these projects.
within the housing blocks have the same accessibility
Shops, a three-storey atrium, and an underground
issues although it is well planned and maintained.
plaza-type POPS are widely connected with the
The quality of POPS and their usability will improve
walkway and many citizens enjoy sitting here on
through design review in the planning stage. The
movable chairs and tables (Fig.3).
fundamental question, however, remains. Are these
At
Fig.2 Odori Central Interchange district plan
and
that
time,
several
buildings
were
POPS and FAR incentives necessary and effective, and
056
Vol. 25_2013_01
who profits from them? Looking at the planned but
population increased by more than 200% from 2000
6. Strong Public Projects and Coordinated POPS
unfinished urban infrastructure in the suburbs in a time
to 2012. Land use conversion itself from industrial
Provision
of demographic change, traditional POPS like plazas or
to residential was in line with the Citys compact city
Compared to other major cities in Japan, officials in
amenity green spaces might not really be useful. What
concept. Also, the integration of the Odori Centre and
Sapporo seem to have a more concrete spatial vision
is needed here are community centres, kiosks, nursery
the eastern fringe along with the revitalisation of Sosei
especially for the city centre. Several district plans with
facilities, and community gardens.
River followed this policy. Even car lanes were buried to
detailed stipulations that are conditional for granting
make the river park more accessible.
FA bonuses indicate their skills and good relations to
5. New Initiative at the Edge of the City Centre
However, as it was an industrial area, basic
the private sectors. The city also utilises huge public
Like other large cities in Japan, Sapporo experienced
infrastructures for residential uses such as sidewalks,
projects to realise this vision, such as the underground
a construction boom of condominium towers at the
parks and green, retail or community facilities, and
walkway or the Sosei River revitalisation.
fringe of the city centre during the 2000s; especially
clinics were lacking. Because height restrictions were
Although these public projects and guided private
between Sousei and Toyohira river. This was originally
lacking, several super-high-rises grew almost as tall as
developments proved effective in the city centre,
an industrial area, thought to be outside of the city
the landmark, Sapporo TV Tower.
new solutions need to be found for the shrinking and
centre.
As a response, the city government designated a
ageing urban periphery. To respond to these issues,
Sapporo Factory, an historical beer factory made of
district plan. It promoted POPS along sidewalks as
POPS regulations and the planning system need to
bricks and converted into a shopping and cinema
well as designated land uses such as retail, medical or
change.
complex in 1993, was the first redevelopment project
welfare facilities on street level (Fig.7). The city also set
Every single new project will need to prove that it
in the area. The development introduced a new type
a basic design guideline for all projects here, including
contributes to the strengthening of urban functions
of shopping complex to Sapporo and attracted many
minimum setbacks from the property line of 0.5m, or
and the realisation of the vision.
people on weekends. However, as the location is
maximum height limitations of 45m.
far from Sapporo Station as well as Odori Park, it is
Not all projects have created POPS based on the plan
[Figure Reference]
difficult to attract customers here during the week. No
though. Those that came before 2006 lack public
Fig.1+2 Website of Sapporo City: http://www.
other shopping facilities followed. Instead, high- and
amenities that the latter are mandated to provide
city.sapporo.jp/keikaku/toshikei/chikukeiichiran/
middle-rise apartment complexes were built here. The
(Fig.8).
chikuichiran.html
Fig.3 Underground plaza at the Northeastern corner of Odori crossing,

created through a district plan; atrium and escalator connect under- and
above ground POPS
Fig.5 Through-block-type POPS at Nissay Kitamon-guchi Building
Fig.7 Mid-rise apartment with sidewalk-type and plaza-type POPS and a

clinic along the street; completed after 2006 and based on a district plan
Fig.4 Wide shop frontage along underground walkway and smooth

transition between public space, POPS and private shop space, created
under Special Urban Renaissance District
Fig.6 S-Town Project near Shin-Kotoni Station is a typical block-type

residential development, created through the CDS
Fig.8 One of the highest residential towers in Sapporo provides limited

setbacks and the blank wall of the machine room faces the sidewalk;
construction of the development started before 2006
057
Vol. 25_2013_01
Branding the Corporate Image City: Public Space in Shiodome, Tokyo

1. Background
Beyond the quality of the public realm, the SIO Site
1923 destroyed the old station building and gradually
POPS are often cited as a key witness for the current
Shiodome is significant for the following reasons. First,
the vicinity turned into a freight distribution centre
rampant privatisation of public space in contemporary
an integrated, cooperative, partnership-type planning
for the nearby Tsukiji fish market. However, because
cities. Semantically, the term privatisation suggests a
process evolved, setting a striking example for a new,
of the motorisation of the 1960s and 70s, the role of
process in which public assets are reduced and handed
more inclusive planning culture in Japan. Second,
the railway in freight distribution declined increasingly.
over to private actors, thus somehow diminishing the
a far-reaching town management and branding
Consequently, railway operations were suspended
public realm. This is, however, rarely the case with
strategy was devised in which a coordinated design
here in 1987 after the Japan National Railway Company
reference to incentive zoning: a planning tool that
and management of the public and private realms
(JNR) was privatised and the land was auctioned off
creates new publicly usable spaces on private land
are central. Third, one of Japans first BID schemes was
in order to pay off the companys debt. In 1991, the
that was not necessarily accessible before. Clearly, no
developed in order to manage the soft aspects of
creation of a new cosmopolitan multi-functional
existing public space is taken away here or privatised,
urban space such as policing, cleaning, upkeep, event
business city along the following objectives was
but instead a new specific kind of admittedly privately
management and area promotion. Fourth, similarly to
proposed. First, the creation of a new, state-of-the-art
controlled yet publicly usable space is added to the
the role Kanna ascribes to his Starchictects (2011: 77-
international business centre for the world city Tokyo.
citys public realm. In Tokyo alone far more than 800
104) in the making of Dubai, the City as a Corporation,
Second, the provision of downtown housing in order
POPS were newly added to the citys public realm; an
Shiodomes area management made intensive use of
to recover residential population in central Tokyo.
area equal in size to 55% of New Yorks Central Park.
the brand value of star architects. By commissioning
Third, integration of various transport modes and the
Lord Richard Rogers, Kevin Roche & John Dinkloo, Jean
provision of attractive urban amenities (Nishikawa
2. Public Private Partnership at SIO Site Shiodome
Nouvel, and the Jon Jerde Partnership, building owners
2003: 49).
The 31-hectare central Tokyo redevelopment project
sought to capitalise on the image value of these
SIO Site Shiodome is a good example in this respect.
famous names. Their contributions were literally little
4. Designing a Uniied Public Realm
It represents a redevelopment of a previously
more than superficial. While Japanese architectural
It was further proposed to divide the overall site into
inaccessible brownfield site. Beyond that it is also
firms were responsible for all the actual realisation
four zones with varying graded functions: Closest to
an example for an advanced, cooperative planning
plans, only the faade designs and the overall concepts
Shimbashi station the zones A, B, C would form the
process that evolved during the redevelopment of a
were contributed by starchitects.
so-called Ginza-Shimbashi block, where international
former railway freight yard. In the western section 80
business functions would be allocated. The zones D
individual landowners jointly redeveloped an existing
3. Planning Process
(north) and E would take up cultural facilities and
mixed-use neighbourhood into a human-scale, Italy-
The location of SIO Site Shiodome looks back on a long
hotels (Fig.1).
themed quarter (G+F block in Fig.1). In the adjacent
and turbulent history. Here in Shimbashi, Japan's first
Block D (south) and H would be used for residential
tower block section, to the east, some of Japan's
railway station was built in the early Meiji period to
developments and the Hamamatsucho Block I, at
biggest corporations have erected their representative
connect Tokyo with its harbour Yokohama. For nearly
the southern perimeter, would include business,
headquarters as part of a unified development
half a century it assumed the role of the capital's
commerce and residential functions in proximity to
concept. Importantly, privately- and publicly-owned
central passenger terminal, which it lost with the
the Hamamatsucho Station. The POPS of the Blocks
public spaces are part of an integrated overall design.
opening of Tokyo Station in 1914. The earthquake of
A, B and C (Block A 1,500m2; B 1,800m2; C 1,400m2)
Fig.1 The area development council, made-up of all landowners, public authorities and the urban design coordinator, drew up a comprehensive scheme in which POPS are complementing an integrated public space network
058
Vol. 25_2013_01
(Fig.1: circle right) cluster around the central public
pedestrian decks, underground malls and people
While TMG has been trying to transfer responsibilities
underground pedestrian concourse, where they form a
movers would be necessary to facilitate a smooth
and costs to the private actors and lower its existing
large subterranean open space of 5,200m2; mediating
pedestrian circulation. Parks would be developed both
maintenance standards, landowners in Shiodome
between pedestrian spaces above and below ground
in the east and the west that would be expanded in size
have been trying to raise the standards in order
spaces. The respective landowners decided the detailed
through the allocation of bordering privately owned
to adequately maintain their sophisticated public
design of these spaces, whereas the master plan only
public spaces (Fig.2); and the 3 northernmost office
spaces. From an international perspective, however,
applied to the public realm. Between Block D-south
blocks would be connected below ground through a
TMG's minimum design and maintenance standards
and H (Fig.1: ellipse left) a public park was allocated on
giant sunken-garden- type POPS of 5,200m .
for public facilities are still significantly higher than
a narrow strip of land, which was too unfavourable to
in most comparable large cities worldwide, especially
allow building there, and which was squeezed between
6. Managing Publicly- and Privately-Owned Public
New York. Here standards are often lower and therefore
an elevated expressway and the main railway artery.
Spaces
business communities are urged to react and to take
The POPS of the residential developments, adjacent
In order to provide a high quality, unified management
the initiative for area management into their own
to the north and the south would double the size of a
for the public realm, the landowners established an area
hands. In Japan, the situation is different. Following
then joint public-private open space (Fig.2).
management organisation. Normally, the design and
its traditional line of redistributive welfare politics,the
Complementing much needed urban infrastructure of
management differs in adjacent publicly- or privately-
public side still takes up the lion's share in the public
city-wide importance lend further impetus and urgency
owned public spaces. No design coordination usually
realm and, until now, there has been little need for local
to the project. The elevated Yurikamome monorail
takes place to harmonise spaces and contribute to the
business communities to engage more actively in such
was to serve a planned World City Expo in Tokyo Bay
creation of an integrated public realm, transcending
management affairs of public amenities.
that was later cancelled. Later, Ring Road 2 was also
property lines. At SIO Site, on the other hand, design
complemented by running through the northern part
and management of POPS were harmonised with
[References]
of the district. This massive concentration of transport
one and another in terms of allocation, connectivity,
KANNA, Ahmed. (2011). Dubai, The City As Corporation.
infrastructure above ground (monorail), on and below
and materials. Nearby, publicly owned public spaces
University of Minnesota Press.
ground made it necessary to design a complex system
like sidewalks, decks, underground concourses and
NISHIKAWA, Y. (2003) Redevelopment of Shiodome.
of public underpasses as well as decks and bridges,
parks were jointly planned and later managed in a
Japan Railway & Transportation Review, 35, 48-55.
which would connect the different junctions.
unified fashion. For the first time in Japan, the public

sector and the local landowners shared the costs for
[Figure References]
5. Public Space to Showcase World City Tokyo
the production and maintenance of the public realm
Fig.1 Adapted from TOKYO-TO KENSETSU-KYOKU
The objective for the Shiodome development to create
as a whole. While in the POPS on the private building
SHIGAICHISEIBI-BU.
a state of the art international business centre in the
plots, the property owners bear the costs, and in the
Readjustment Project, 3-4.
heart of the world city Tokyo, necessitated also high-
public realm the public side covers the maintenance
quality public infrastructure such as parks, promenades
costs up to certain stipulated minimum standards
and plazas. This included for example the creation of
and covers the construction cost almost completely.
Japan's widest underground pedestrian mall, which
Public services, which exceed the minimum standards
would help to smoothly feed over 60,000 employees
of Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG), are then
every day from Shimbashi station into the new shiny
borne by the property owners. This solution is in
office towers of the corporate headquarters. For this
essence comparable to the business improvement
purpose, a close integration of publicly managed
district (BID) schemes in the USA and in fact SIO
underground mall and adjacent sunken-garden-type
Site Shiodome is often cited as Japans first BID. In
POPS was taken care of.
Shiodome there are for example 40 different kinds of
Tokyos new Ring Road 2 would cut through the area,
trees which need to be adequately maintained. TMG
and serve the new districts as an arterial road. To
expressed to the landowners that two kinds of trees
handle all the required traffic functions, a complex five
are enough and rejected covering any costs beyond
storied transport infrastructure core had to be above
that standard. The underground passage is 40 metres
and below ground: the Yurikamome line, connecting
wide instead of the 10 metres for comparable standard
to the waterfront sub-centre Odaiba, would run on
underground concourses. For this reason TMG only
elevated tracks on top of a ground level road. Under the
provides maintenance costs for 10-metre width while
road would be a 40-meter wide underground walkway,
the landowners finance the upkeep of the remaining
below which an underground road would connect
30 metres width. TMG maintains that five times
the parking facilities throughout the district. Finally,
cleaning per week is sufficient, whereas the corporate
three storeys below ground level the Oedo subway
landowners insisted on daily cleaning; also on the
line would run. Consequently a labyrinth of elevated
weekends.
(2002).
Shiodome
Land
Fig.2 Adjacent POPS complement a park and form a unified public realm
059
Vol. 25_2013_01
Usability of Privately Owned Publicly Usable Interior Spaces

Ayane Maekawa (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background
4. Types of Staying Spaces
In the centres of large Japanese cities, especially in
In Minato ward, a total of 189 of these staying spaces
Tokyo, many urbanites spend the daylight hours away
existed in 2010. They are located within 31 big
from their homes.
redevelopment projects of over 1 hectare size. Three
Is it possible for city dwellers to feel that they belong to
types of staying space in such mixed-use developments
some sort of community in a public space, while being
can be distinguished:
away from home?
(1) Extended restaurants are open-air cafes that have
To explore this question my masters thesis focused on
been created by the Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance
daily user activities in some selected spaces in Tokyo.
for Creating an Elegant Cityscape (2003, Tky no
My hypothesis was that in the city centre, urbanites
Shareta Machinamizukuri Suishin Jrei).
not only need public spaces for festivity and events,
(2) Event spaces that have been provided based on the
but also for inhabiting them as their own spaces; for
same above regulation. Category 1 and 2 spaces
making them their temporary home.
are run by a management organisation that is
In this respect, it is interesting to see that many city
set up by landowners and shopkeeper of the
dwellers in Tokyo find their own spaces not in public
development.
spaces such as parks, but in privately owned spaces
(3) Others spaces are fully privately provided and
such as lounge settings.
managed, without any legal obligation. They differ
The objectives of this research was to examine staying
from POPS in that they are conditioned by zoning.
spaces that are located in privately owned settings

in Tokyo, comparable to Oldenburgs third spaces; to
5. Urban Living Space
understand the actual use of these spaces; and based
Among these three types of staying spaces, category 3
on this, give an account of how these spaces can be
has the greatest potential to be inhabited as own space,
temporally used by city dwellers as their own.
because people feel more free here than in the more
To make this point clear, the study did not look at POPS
strictly regulated other two types. Furthermore, there
that are officially created through incentive zoning but
are indoor, semi-outdoor & outdoor spaces, of which
at settings that are fully privately controlled but that
fully indoor spaces have the highest performance as
nevertheless allow for public interaction.
staying spaces. I have labelled these interior spaces as

urban living space (ULS). In the following part two of
2. Current State of POPS & Private Spaces
these urban living spaces will be discussed exemplarily.
As most articles in this magazine suggest, POPS are not

necessarily intended as comfortable spaces for people
6. User Activities in Urban Living Spaces
to stay. On the contrary, many activities that conflict
The pictures in figure 1 show two urban living spaces,
with the commercial nature of the development are
where user behaviour has been examined in depth:
prohibited.
Building S and Building M. An urban living space
In Tokyo, some private interior spaces are opened to
in Building S is located on the 2nd floor, next to an
the public by the private sector, without being legally
entrance for office workers working on the upper
obliged to do so. Opened private interior spaces
floors of this building. Another urban living space in
have become a popular tool for area management
Building M is located on the ground level floor, next
and image branding. Prominent examples are the
to an outdoor POPS. Like in the other case, this space
Marunouchi Cafe in Marunouchi, or the Shibaura
is close to an entrance for office workers working on
House near Tamachi Station.
upper floors of this building. In Building S, many office

workers use the ULS on weekdays, and on weekends
Fig.1 Urban Living Spaces are offered as an amenity by many developers;

in appearance they are similar to indoor POPS, but are fully privately
controlled without any stipulations to safeguard their publicness
060
3. Research Object
there are fewer workers, but it is still used by some.
From among the different kinds of third-space-type
Most of the users are in their 30s, and most of them
settings in Tokyo, I focused on such spaces that were
are alone, both on weekdays and weekends. In both
both equipped with movable chairs and tables that
ULS the most frequent activities are eating, chatting,
anybody could freely use as staying spaces. The case
business meetings, shop staff breaks, working and/
studies are located within massive urban development
or studying, reading books, using mobile phones,
projects with offices and mixed urban functions in
sleeping, and some people are just sitting without
Minato ward, Tokyo.
doing other activities. The most frequent activities

in each space during weekdays and weekends are
Vol. 25_2013_01
working and/or studying, reading, using mobile

phones, sleeping, and just sitting. These activities
could be called personal activities. It becomes clear
that such ULS allow a variety of activities.
Although these activities themselves are not so original
and interesting, there are always some users around
and they spend their time for personal activities in ULS.
7. Management of Urban Living Spaces
In the following section, I will highlight some
management issues of staying spaces. In addition to
Building S and Building M, Building I is included which
is part of the same project as Building M (Fig.2). This
is based on interviews with the building management.
In Building S, the purpose of setting up staying spaces
Fig.2 Overview of major activities in Urban Living Spaces in the buildings S and M during weekdays (WD) as well
as on Saturdays (WE1) and Sundays (WE2)
is to increase the total number of sitting for the

delicatessen section on the first floor. The targeted
users are office workers of the same building. ULS are
seen therefore as an amenity for the workers of this
building. Rather than yielding direct benefits for the
building management, their availability improves the
overall attractiveness for tenants, workers and clients.
When asked about problems with undesirables,
lingering around and causing a nuisance to others, the
management replied that the security personnel urges
such persons to leave, citing the announcements on
the tables.
In Building M, staying spaces were provided for similar
reasons. This ULS was created because of a dead area
next to the emergency exit, which couldnt be used for
stores. In order to utilise this otherwise commercially
unusable space, tables and chairs were set up here.
Like in Building S, undesirables are shown out with
Fig.3 Location of case study Urban Living Spaces in relation to large outdoor POPS
reference to the stated site rules. The management

suggested, however, that between 19:00 and 23:00 it
discard and to jointly maintain, causing additional
The instability and ephemerality of urban living spaces
is difficult to judge only by their appearance whether
management costs.
is noteworthy. Activities in ULS show some degree of
a user is a homeless person or not. In general, the
diversity of usage, and each individual can get their
management wants to maintain the staying place as
8. Usability in Urban Living Spaces
small temporary own space in the city. On the other
long as users dont cause problems. Often the word
As a conclusion, urban living spaces are mostly seen as
hand, the management can easily clear out undesirable
hospitality is cited. It is difficult, however, to put
amenities for workers in the building, without direct
users. Thus, there is an asymmetrical relationship
chairs and tables outdoors, because in this case the
benefits for the building management. Often, they are
between users and controllers.
rules of formal POPS would apply and time-consuming
located in places open to the general public. Although
Urban living spaces can legally tolerate some city-
permission processes would be necessary.
the management provides for only a few things to
dwellers, but others can and will be excluded from
Building I has also similar purpose of for provision.
happen here, users are allowed to use them freely, but
here, because the spaces are under private control.
No problems were reported to this day, although the
within fixed rules.
Finally, the Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance for Creating
management had been putting chairs and tables
It became also clear that many managers find it difficult
an Elegant Cityscape is aiming to turn POPS into
out since 2010. Here too, it is difficult for them to put
to make use of POPS as meaningful staying spaces.
venues for festivities and events. Although it is good
furniture on formal POPS, because these are jointly-
Private spaces are much easier to manage and are
to create an attractive city, this festivalisation of public
owned by all the landowners within a project and it is
not limited by red tape. The management can change
space should not overlook that high-quality urban
difficult to reach a unanimous agreement.
the setting and the site rules easily, according to their
living spaces that individuals can freely inhabit and
Once put in POPS, chairs and tables are difficult to
needs.
appropriate are also needed.
061
Vol. 25_2013_01
Residents Perception of POPS and Vernacular Outdoors in Shinjuku, Tokyo

Mireille Tchapi (The University of Tokyo)
more global outdoors features eliminates distinct
fences) and the decoration with objects and vegetation
urban singularities of old neighbourhoods and a
(trees, potted plants, and little gardens). The result is a
the particular way, these had formed social life; thus,
micro landscape shaped by countless, unaware local
affecting irretrievably the identity and spatial memory
designers, displaying a high level of appropriation and
of these local communities.
attachment by the residents.
This paper looks at one particular old, dense
With Japans aging society and modernisation, the
neighbourhood called Wakaba and contrasts the
area saw the disappearance of child play from the
perception of residents, between the production of
everyday landscape in the countless alleys as well as
local-style outdoors along small lanes and alleys on
the neighbourly chat around the 3 remaining wells.
private land (vernacular POPS) with the typology of
With technical progress, the necessary activities
homogenised (global-style POPS) that have newly
disappeared from public space. Around Wakaba,
penetrated the fine-grained neighbourhood. This is
parks are the preferred venue for leisure and the new
a first attempt to better understand the residents
POPS at the foot high-rises are often empty. They have
perception,
expectations;
brought along a visible new form of seclusion, by the
expanding from the private plot to the public realm of
contrasting scale and the poor esthetical language of
the street, and their opinion on the conflict between
their landscape design.
their
attitudes
and
the different outdoor typologies. It does not claim to

be representative, but tries to shed light on the often-
3. Wakaba through the Eyes of its Residents
underplayed grassroots perspective on the spatial
An interview survey was conducted among 22 long-
transformation that comes along with the proliferation
term residents of Wakaba in May 2011. Questions
of global-style POPS.
mainly addressed the residents views regarding global

versus vernacular open spaces, their perception of
2. The Wakaba District
the different outdoors, and the spatial elements that
The Wakaba district developed during the pre-modern
catch their attention. Interviewees also commented
Edo era into three spatial units, filled with numerous
on the deep spatial transformations that the district
shrines, temples, and their cemeteries. The district
had undergone, and how the identity of their place
1. Background
became thus associated with death and evolved as one
has changed. One major turning point in this respect,
Shinjuku ward today is a central district in Tokyo, but
of the three slums of the city. The hollow of the deep
was the earthquake of March 11th 2011 and the
it was at the edge in pre-modern times. With its rough
valley created a spatial constraint to any development,
renewed recognition that natural disasters pose a
topography in a narrow valley, the area encapsulated a
and as a result small houses on introverted plots
imminent threat to this dense, highly disaster-prone
number of traditional urban villages that transformed
developed in extreme densities along small lanes,
neighbourhood. Around 30% of residents appreciate
over time into complex spatial configurations, created
perpendicular to the main street (Fig.1).
global POPS for their orderly design and for the
by cramped plot arrangements, mixed property
This urban frame has undergone many deep social,
security that the connected high-rise building offers
patterns, high building densities, scarce empty spaces
functional and spatial transformations since WWII,
to the vulnerable community. 20% emphasised the
and diverse forms of spatial appropriation by the
and is now marked by an aging population and small
necessity for a balance between vernacular and
inhabitants. Different periods of pre- and post-war
manufacturing activities. Over time, the district identity
newly designed POPS as both spaces bring positive
construction activity can be read on top of a persistent
has changed. A new, larger supermarket caused the
characteristics: different kinds of greeneries (bigger
original Edo urban footprint.
gradual death of small local retailers. Condominium
trees in global POPS and pot-plants in vernacular
The multiple juxtaposed outdoors and greeneries
towers, their POPS, and asphalted, private parking lots
spaces), more safety with global POPS (wider open
shaped by each resident on their plots, and the
have replaced some of the most vibrant urban spaces
areas, where residents from denser parts can evacuate
combinations of new and old features at the
between small houses and along lively lanes.This has
in case of disaster), as well as social factors (high-rise
boundaries between private and public realms
changed the atmosphere of the area and the patterns
condominiums bring young families with their kids
create distinct vernacular landscapes. These peculiar
of social interaction. A variety of different types and
into the district with mostly elderly residents living in
spatial configurations that developed over hundreds
uses of the outdoors can be found here: car and bike
the lanes). Vernacular POPS are preferred as venues
of years along a blurred boundary between private
parking, greenery, representative entrance spaces for
for the everyday by 20% of the residents. The opinions
properties and public space are today confronted
condominiums, outdoor storage, a sunbathing spot,a
regarding residents attachment to the green spaces
with new types of outdoors that follow more global,
garbage disposal area, dead spaces with no apparent
of their alleys are divided: Some inhabitants were very
widely interchangeable design trends, and that
use, and urban wastelands awaiting development. In
sensitive to the beauty of the vegetation, the cooling
develop as privately owned public spaces (POPS) at
these vernacular open spaces each owners personality
effect of alleys during summers (wind and plants), and
the foot of condominium and offices towers. A gradual
and a tacit agreement with the respective neighbours
the conviviality created by the narrowness of the lanes,
transformation process of vernacular urban forms into
are manifested through chosen materials (pavements,
where you can even hear your neighbours cooking
Fig.1 Spatial structure of Wakaba and system of open spaces
062
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig.2 Global-style, generic POPS at the bottom of condominium towers remain unused despite high density area
Fig.3 Vernacular POPS along narrow alleys are more responsive to the needs of the local community
while walking by. This isnt the case with the wider
within vernacular POPS. One could conclude that the
earthquake of 2011: You could hear everyone (in the
global-style POPS, and the hermetically closed-off
value of vernacular POPS isnt properly recognised as
alley). People would also ask and shout to everyone
first floors of the adjacent condominiums. However,
criteria for sustainable regeneration, and that this is
from their house to check if there were any troubles,
more than half of the respondents dont pay attention
owed to lacking awareness of its positive impacts on
while holding their furniture inside or hiding under the
to these kinds of issues and prefer global POPS for
their everyday life. Furthermore, contrary to the mere
table. We used to laugh about that after, because the
their tidy and organised designs. Condominiums
openness requirement of global POPS, such properties
alley became very noisy.
come with sufficient parking places, which improves
are hard to measure and to quantify.
the car traffic in the often congested street. They
5. Discussion
offer larger space for pedestrians. It is also safer and
4. Disaster Risk and Open Space
It is interesting to note that only few people associate
better for business on the street. POPS are needed to
Due to its density, the lack of open space and a high
the spatial transformation and the replacement of
keep community linkages alive by attracting young
share of wooden buildings, the authorities have
dense urban fabric with condominium towers and
new families with children, said the president of a
categorised Wakaba as one of the areas with the
global POPS, with the loss of place identity.
Wakaba district association. For locals, POPS and the
highest disaster risk in Tokyo. Although Wakaba
The most valuable element for the residents is the
condominiums they come with are the only option to
resisted past earthquakes well, the president of one
community linkages, which can be maintained despite
solve all these issues at once. Asking which elements of
district association strongly agrees with the authorities
the radical physical transformation according to them.
the outdoor spaces catch their attention while walking
objective to widen streets and alleys and to replace
The landscape of vernacular POPS, perpetually
23% responded seasonal change of plants, flowers
vernacular wooden buildings with safer ferro-concrete
regenerated by their inhabitants, isnt acknowledged
and greeneries or other elements of vernacular POPS
condominiums. He accepts that such measures would
by most.
while only 13% find design elements of global POPS
completely change the spatial structure and the
However, I would argue that such elements do play
somehow remarkable. 13% are not paying attention to
districts identity.
an underplayed, yet significant role in the daily
any outdoor spaces at all, while 30% of the residents
Condos and their open spaces appear to assume a safe
appropriation, compared to the supposedly more
are concerned with unsecured elements that can pose
and secure image for most residents. Alternatively,
attractive image of global POPS, which create a new
a risk in case of disaster. Examples are not properly
the dense web of alleys generates anxiety among
emptiness and separation. A place should be more than
parked bikes or outside storages. 10% of the people
the interviewees. The president of another district
merely defined by disaster vulnerability indicators.
take joy in cultivating and looking at outdoor elements
association remarks that 80% of the people are very
Also peculiar atmospheres and spatial factors that are
within their own plot. All people interviewed were
scared of disaster (). For safety, the place has to be
conductive for social life in a community should be
enjoying living in the Wakaba area. Consciously or not,
reconfigured. Despite all spatial change through ever
evaluated for urban regeneration.
what seems to contribute to the joy in their everyday
more new condo projects, the community linkages
The contrast between global and vernacular POPS
lives, while shopping, or having a walk, is directly
could be kept stable, so far. Somewhat contradictorily,
makes this point very clear. A focus on transportation,
related to the design elements within vernacular POPS
there is the hope to preserve the present spatial
security, fire fighting and sanitation, and the promotion
more than global POPS - no matter if visible or invisible,
framework. There is the danger of losing this balance
of redevelopment along with global POPS is harming
positive or negative.
but currently Tokyo Metropolitan Government and
the local identity, but the community is not aware
It is somehow contradictory that nearly half of the
Shinjuku ward are promoting fireproof high-rises only.
of this. Increasing awareness and appreciation for
residents prefer the septic, orderly outdoors of
However, the virtues of narrow, close-knit community
vernacular POPS and the traditional urban landscape is
condominium towers, while at the same time 70%
spaces are nicely summed up by an elderly lady
of great importance to preserve this unique urban and
of the elements that attract the attention are located
who explains her experience during the March 11th
social landscape.
063
Community Involvement Part
III
Vol. 25_2013_01
Temporary Privately Owned Public Space in Taipei

A Flexible Space Opens the Social Realm
Chen-Yu Lien (National Taiwan University) + Pei-Yin Shih (Classic Landscape Design and Environmental Planning)
owners who agreed to beautify their properties, and
three synthetic plans that targeted a comprehensive
redesign of important public spaces.
The eight series of strategic interventions sought to:
(1) create more open public spaces around landmark
buildings;
(2) regenerate the urban environment and reduce the
number of dilapidated buildings and waste;
(3) create a good location with a new look: cleaning
and decorating external blind walls;
(4) create attractive shops with beautifully designed
signboards;
(5) create friendly school campuses with bright and
welcoming fencing;
Fig.1 Citizens claimed more publicly usable greenery spots for Taipei City in 2010
(6) utilise unused urban land for gardening and

forestation;
1. Background: FAR Bonus-oriented Development
the assent of 1/10 of the landowners living within the
of Taipei City
redevelopment area. In stage two, an urban renewal
Floor area ratio (FAR) plays a key role in the urban
business plan is presented which has to garner the
development history of Taipei City. The outline of
assent of either 2/3 of the total number of landowners,
urban planning and the zoning system in Taiwan
or, alternatively, that of those who hold over 3/4 of the
Three complimentary synthetic plans were aimed to
were introduced from the United States and Japan.
total area to be redeveloped. In the third stage, the
(1) create new roads and street scenes with unifying
With rapid population growth and urban expansion,
transfer of property titles takes place, and after that,
Taipei city government started to offer FAR bonuses
actual construction can begin. Every stage needs to
in exchange if private developers would offer much
go through extensive explanation sessions. In order
needed public facilities on private land, such as open
to speed up such time consuming redevelopment
spaces, parking lots, social facilities, etc. Moreover,
processes, the city has begun to reward additional
there are various ways to grant FAR bonuses through
FAR bonuses as an incentive instrument in urban
urban renewal programs in order to deal with illegally
governance. According to official statistics, between
The government basically took the exhibition as
built houses, to incentivise the construction of green
2005 and 2010 only 119 of 152 urban redevelopment
an opportunity to strategically promote urban
buildings, to keep the renewal period on schedule and
projects were completed, while the remainder of the
beautification and enhance the citizens understanding
reward the provision of much needed public amenities.
projects were behind schedule.
of and identification with urban regeneration. Among
However, land values are deeply rooted in Chinese
In 2005, the national government identified urban
the Series Policy, Taipei Beautiful Series (2) created
culture and inextricably linked to peoples ideas of
regeneration as a driving factor for revitalising the
the most remarkable achievement by granting those
wealth. As an old proverb goes, along with land
local economy, and indeed, the rising real estate prices
landowners an additional FAR bonus if they agreed
comes about wealth and therefore landowners often
bespeak of an economic boom. However, this land
to tear down old buildings and temporarily open the
adhere to their private property and resist selling off
price hike led to difficulties integrating the objectives
land as greenery spots for citizens. These green spaces
their land for redevelopment projects. The inheritance
of the different landowners and the private project
make, thus, use of those lands which could not meet
system leads to a further fragmentation of property
developers. More and more landowners came to
the urban planning requirements, and which had lain
structures and land holdings. If heirs want to make
take the house as an object of real estate speculation
dormant; waiting for their integration in an urban
money out of an inherited piece of land, all of them
and clung to their property. Accordingly, the average
renewal project. As the government is granting a FAR
have to agree. Since this is often not the case, the
planning and implementation process of an integrated
incentive to open these brownfields to the public, and
land gets subdivided, with chunks evenly distributed
urban renewal project rose to 3.3 years, with many
as they remain in private property, we call these spaces
among the different heirs. Owing to these and other
even taking 10 to 20 years to complete.
temporary privately owned public spaces in this article.
reasons, carrying out urban renewal projects is never
In order to improve its international competitiveness,
easy, even under capitalist market logic. Every urban
the city decided to host the Taipei International Flora
2. Time, Space and Community Renewal
renewal project needs to go through three stages,
Exhibition in 2010. In order to prepare the urban area
Land does not only have an exchange value but also a
and the process usually takes longer than expected.
for the event, in 2009 the Taipei Beautiful Series
use value. Examining from both time and space axes,
In stage one, a project developer proposes an outline
Project was launched, which consisted of eight so-
we can find different benefits at different times for
of an urban renewal project, which needs to acquire
called series that gave incentives to building or land
different types of spaces.
066
(7) provide a lighting design that brightens up Taipeis

night; and
(8) display public art at public buildings.
design concepts and themes;

(2) provide elegant riverside sceneries by integrating
waterfront resources; and
(3) demonstrate the government's administrative
vigour by integrating public assets and resources.
Vol. 25_2013_01
Prior to this new FAR bonus for temporary open space

policy, the mechanisms for land utilisation were rigid.
Previously, land seemed to only be used for either
new buildings or public parks. There was no policy on
how to deal with vacant land or old buildings, which
remained idle until the urban renewal process was
completed. Legally, there was no other way to force
landowners to tear down dilapidated buildings before
a renewal project was approved. As a result, many
vacant plots and unused buildings were fenced off,
awaiting reconstruction for an undetermined period
of time. These fencings not only caused harm to the
urban landscape but also caused local environmental,
health, and public safety issues. Thus, the community
environment and the city landscape relied on the
government sector, carrying out redevelopment, and
the public consciousness was weak.
However, in terms of land use, and under consideration
of the factor of time, these vacant plots can play
different roles as abandoned wasteland, community
gardens, or parking spaces, before being developed
into new buildings at a later point in time. Compared
with the land used for planned public parks, these
vacant lots have been serving diverse community
needs before a new building or a formal public park is
developed.
These
flexible
open
spaces
serve
complex
demands such as visual green amenity, a means for

environmental regeneration and cleaning, a useful
outdoor space for neighbours, or even as a sink for
Fig.2 Taipei Beautiful Series (2) created 74 temporary green spots during the run-up to the International Flora Exposition in 2010; dark markers represent
temporary green spaces on public land; lighter markers represent those located on private property
carbon dioxide. Many of these diverse spaces are

beneficial for societal minorities such as kids, elderly
3. The Experience of Taipei City
In total, 74 green spots were created through the
people, handicapped people, gays and lesbians, or
The Taipei Beautiful Series (2), awarded landowners an
special incentives that were only offered in the run-up
NGOs like the Independent Bookstore Alliance. Many
incentive of bonus floor area in two steps (See Tab.1
to the flora expo; showcasing a new way of utilising
different activities occur here at different times of the
and Fig.2). In the first step they gained 5% incentive
precious urban land more flexibly and creatively.
day morning, noon, afternoon, evening, and night
for removing old buildings. The temporary POPS that
Although most spaces are only covered with grass,
depending on their specific location. These new
resulted from this were required to be well maintained
a few paths, and chairs, some of them were created
types of spaces respond to the complex needs of the
for at least 18 months, and kept open to the public
through participatory design processes, such as the
public everyday life of adjacent communities.
until the construction for the new building started.
Rain Water Garden, the Reading Garden and the Happy
The Taipei City Government considers temporary POPS
Once the landowners and the developer submitted
Farm. This new flexible land use was developed out of
to be an alternative urban design process that offers
the urban renewal plan to the city government,
the urban renewal experience of Taipei City, providing
new results in the field of community regeneration.
the council evaluated the environmental benefits
the citizens with a different understanding of time and
Temporary POPS were created as novel forms of
of each of the temporary POPS that were offered in
space.
participatory design processes. The neighbours and
the redevelopment area, and then granted another
NGOs got together to elaborate community visions
incentive of maximum 5% if standards were met. Thus,
4. Case Study Green Life Axis, Roosevelt Road
with one another in open planning workshops.
depending on the particular location, construction
Green Life Axis along Roosevelt Road was a project
Responding to the policy goal of making Taipei more
costs of temporary POPS, the length of time the POPS
carried out by the Taipei Urban Redevelopment
beautiful, moreover, many communities' visions have
was open to the public, and other public benefits,
Office, and can be seen as model case for temporary
materialised on temporary POPS, turning many of
developers would gain a maximum of 10% bonus FAR
POPS design (Fig.5). During the participatory design
these privately owned lands temporarily into truly
through this two phased process permanent benefits
process, some NGOs that are involved in grassroots
public spaces.
for a temporary public amenity.
environmental initiatives were also invited into the
067
Vol. 25_2013_01
public space. The alliance manages this spot by holding

creative cultural events once per month, such as the
Reading at Starry Night. Citizens can enjoy the visual
landscape, learn new ideas and share life experience
there. On the other hand, small minorities like union
activities or gays and lesbians, who are promoted by
the Willow Den Independent Bookstore Alliance, get
a better chance to become visible in public space. The
green temporary POPS refills the city with multiple
imageries.
Another site, Happy Farm (Fig.7, 10, 12) offers a bridge
for citizens to connect with natural life and past
countryside memories. Many elderly people in Taipei
came from different rural regions in Taiwan and kept
a close relationship and a high awareness with the
countryside. They wished to have a city farm and recultivate the vegetables for their daily lives, which is
Tab.1 The Taipei Beautiful Series (2) awarded landowners an incentive of bonus floor area in two steps
not allowed in the public parks. Now these city farmers

have become friends and share experiences, and know-
decision-making sessions. Through the workshops, the
renewal project. The project management applied
how of cultivating with passers-by, who walk along the
idea of public space in temporary use was identified,
for the new temporary POPS designation. Since its
temporary POPS. This space shows, thus, how we can
and a connection was made between the design and
creation, Rain Water Garden has been used as site
live a more ecologically aware life in crowded cities and
the maintenance stage. After the construction, the
for outdoor environmental education because of its
the multiple roles urban land can play therein.
collaborating NGOs Green Citizens Action Alliance,
rainwater collecting installation. Neighbours, nearby
These temporary POPS under the new incentive policy
Willow Den Independent Bookstore Alliance and others
office staff, passers-by and even school teachers and
encourage people to reimagine a green city. More
held events in the temporary POPS in order to spread
students use this garden at different times and for
and more neighbourhood leaders have learned from
their ideals, and the local communities assisted with
different purposes. Since people could not be made
these cases and started to apply for temporary POPS
the daily maintenance. These co-produced temporary
aware of water conservation ideas in most of the
designations in their own communities. Local groups
POPS opened up new imaginations of urban life in
general public parks, this central site offered a novel
adopt national public lands to promote farming
public spaces.
educational function.
activities in the city, or hold farmers markets or ecology
One of the private plots on which Rain Water Garden
Another temporary POPS named Reading Garden
observation activities. Additionally, developers open
(Fig.6+8) came to be located is in a neighbourhood
(Fig.9+11) was designed together with the Willow Den
their lands or buildings as theme centres or temporary
without any public parks. A real estate company had
Independent Bookstore Alliance. The design concept
showrooms to the public. People can have a cup of
begun to integrate nearby lands for a wider urban
reflects the demand for alternative reading activities in
coffee here, or go to exhibitions in these kinds of

temporary POPS. Obviously, urban life is performed
here in many new, unprecedented expressions. We can
understand this type of temporary POPS as a creative,
alternative way to promote communication among the
stakeholders of future urban regeneration projects and
the general public.
5. Conclusion
Long before the Taipei Beautiful Project was launched,
there has been a public clamour of non-government
sectors and community activists for idle, unused
spaces to be released for diverse public uses. Taipei
Beautiful Series (2) now makes use of a FAR bonus to
create temporary urban POPS. Besides offering the city
a green visual landscape, some of them also exhibit
Fig.3+4 Before (above) and after (below) urban renewal: This old house
from the Japanese colonial period had long laid dormant before the site
was turned into the Rain Water Garden green spot
068
Fig.5 Map of the Green Life Axis along Taipeis Roosevelt Road, where
numous temporary POPS have been created
accessible, useful, educational functions, which benefit

their surroundings, and stimulate social discussions.
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig.6 Citizens gathered to have tea in the "Rain Water Garden"
Fig.7 Happy Farm is adopted by local residents, who cultivate vegetables here
Because these temporary POPS will be replaced by

higher buildings some day, after a minimum lifetime
of 18 months, some citizens argue that useful public
spaces are only temporary, whereas the benefits of
bonus FAR in new buildings are permanent and might
create long-term burdens for the public. They dont
agree that this policy, specifically created for the Flora
Expo 2010, should become a regular municipal law
for offering more urban temporary POPS. Also, some
researchers have begun to find better ways for creating
temporary POPS than offering an FAR bonus to private
Fig.8 An environmental NGO held educational activities in "Rain Water

Garden" in order to teach citizens the installation of rainwater collectors
Fig.9 Reading at Starry Night was a creative idea from the Willow Den
Independent Bookstore Alliance
Fig.10 Kids enjoy interacting with the greenery cart art installations
Fig.11 The left-wing independent bookstore Tan-Shan invited the Black

Hand Nakasi-Workers band to perform live music in "Reading Garden"
landowners. An academic study suggested that the

Taipei city government set up a Space Sharing Centre in
order to match the supply and demand for land. Such a
sharing platform for urban space would allow the city
to create POPS to respond to the communities' real
demand. The database could identify and match plots,
landowners, future public space users and neighbours.
The City of Taipei is supportive of this idea and intends
to run a model project in the near future.
This aside, temporary POPS make the rigid zoning
regulations in urban planning more flexible and
offer new, unprecedented opportunities. Urban
renewal has been hitherto known as a program to
consolidate building sites into a profitable, economic
redevelopment project. Now a new aspect has been
added, as the process of community participation
additionally improves the urban social realm.
[Figure References]
Fig.1 With kind permission of the NGO Organization of
Urban Reform (OUR)
Fig.2 Google Map, created by Taipei Metropolitan
Development Research Centre (TMD): http://goo.gl/
maps/Iwrv
Fig.12 Also Korean government officials visited Happy Farm in order to

learn from Taipei's temporary POPS experience
069
Vol. 25_2013_01
Beyond POPS: Kyoto's Community-dominated Public Spaces

Yoshihiko Baba (Ritsumeikan University)
Fig.1 Since 1968, 310 "kids squares" have been created in Kyoto: 66 of these were created on the premises of privately owned temples or shrines, 91 were on other privately owned plots, 153 were located on publicly owned land
1. Background
to early 17th Century), when the city was threatened
the more recent history of policies and practices that
The city of Kyoto was founded as early as 794 and has
by frequent battles and a decaying public order, the
have sought to induce the production of privately
undergone constant transformation since then. When
residents gathered at the halls of temples like the
owned public spaces through incentive zoning (POPS)
looking at the original plan of Heiankyo, the medieval
Gyoganji, Chohoji, and others in order to discuss local
and, more significantly for Kyoto, community owned
Kyoto, one notices that there was only one major park,
public matters. In the more peaceful, subsequent
public spaces (COPS) and community-dominated
called Shinsenen, and otherwise a grave lack of inner
Tokugawa Period (1603 - 1868), the temples and
public spaces (CDPS). It will then address the question
urban open spaces. Instead, aristocrats, temples, and
shrines opened their gardens regularly to the public.
if POPS can be an appropriate public contribution
shrines developed gardens on their premises. For
Meanwhile, many local communities have also built
and compensation for building new high-rises in an
ordinary people, there used to be communal space
their own neighbourhood houses (cho-ie or cho-
otherwise low-rise, height controlled, historical city.
inside the city blocks, which however gradually began
kaisho). These communally owned buildings hold
filling up with buildings in the late medieval period.
important cultural properties of neighbourhoods, such
2. Temple Gardens and Chibikko Hiroba
Although the nearby Kamo River, outside of the city,
as the floats of the famous Gion Matsuri Festival, with
In Kyoto, there are more than 1,500 privately owned
also provided vast open spaces, the city itself lacked
precious decorations. Some of these houses remain
temples and shrines. Some of them are small in scale
small neighbourhood open spaces like Italian piazzas
and have been designated as historical landmarks by
and open only to their parishioners. However, many
or squares in English towns.
the city.
of them have large plots with gardens and childrens
Instead, the residents often used gardens and other
To this day, some legacies of these historical open
playgrounds so that local residents can visit them and
open spaces in privately owned temples, and shrines.
spaces and community owned spaces still remain.
spend meaningful time there. After the Urban Park Act
During the Warring States Period (mid-15th Century
The aim of this article is to shed some more light on
was legislated in 1956, local authorities were required
070
Vol. 25_2013_01
to provide a sufficient number of urban parks for their

citizens, prescribed in square meters per capita. These
quantitative open space stipulations were very severe
and hard to fulfil for already fully developed cities like
Kyoto.
Thus, in the absence of sufficient public space, the
City sought a way to utilise privately owned lands and
legislated the Kyoto City Subsidy Guideline for Kids
Squares (Kyoto-shi Chibikko Hiroba Josei Yoko) in 1967
to support landowners who offered and maintained
open spaces for children on their private property
(Fig.1). According to Narumi (1968), among the 310
kids squares that were created, 66 (21%) were on the
premises of temples or shrines, 91 (28%) were on other
privately owned plots, while 153 (51%) were located on
publicly owned land.
Today, some 250 kids squares remain and have been
maintained by the local neighbourhoods.
Many cities throughout Japan have adopted similar
policies subsequently, following the example of Kyoto
decades before Western urbanists began to diagnose
the threat of privatisation of public space.
Fig.2 During the Gion festival public streets in front of community-owned neighbourhood houses turn into temporary common spaces
3. Renovation of Kids Squares

There are, however, problems with these kids squares.
Due to the decreasing number of children, many of the
squares are disappearing and the remaining squares
are poorly maintained and used.
Between 1998 and 2001, Kyoto City refurbished
14 squares, with the support of Tetsuya Yoshida, a
professor at Kyoto University. He organised planning
workshops for redesigning and refurbishing these
spaces together with the local residents.
Reflecting Japans overall demographic development,
the former Kids Squares were relabelled into
Community Squares; in effect, redefining their social
role. For many years the number of children had long
been decreasing while at the same time the ratio of the
elderly was increasing (Sato and Yoshida 2000).
4. Neighbourhood Houses
While kids squares are one prominent kind of
community space, the neighbourhood houses and the
fronting streets also provide valuable common spaces.
Fig.3 During the Jizo-bon festival many old communities in Kyoto decorate neighbourhood streets with lanterns and gifts for children
Historically, the street communities had erected gates

at access points during the Warring State Period for
August, when in many parts of Kyoto the streets are
Jizo-bon and Gion Matsuri are both prominent
protection. Naturally, within these gated communities
decorated with lanterns and gifts for children (Fig.3).
neighbourhood festivals. It is clear that although
grew a sense of close association.
The Gion Festival is another interesting showcase of
the streets are still public, the local communities
Although these gates were removed long ago, todays
communal spaces. Some 33 neighbourhoods build
temporarily dominate them. To this day, streets are
street festivals make reference to that older period. This
their own floats in front of the neighbourhood houses
thus tightly integrated into the traditional community
may be most prominent during the Jizo-bon festival in
and link them by a wooden bridge (Fig.2).
structure in Kyoto.
071
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig.4-7 Design ideas for the renovation of Shutoku Park: Partents and kids group (top, left), elderly group (top, right), neighbourhood association (bottom, left), and other citizens living in the administrative district (bottom, right)
5. Community Node Primary School
when the school districts were defined in the 1870s,
newsletters the community publications.In workshops
When moving to the city and joining a local sport club,
the City had very similar ideas to Perry. As the number
residents were separated into four groups: parents with
one is sometimes asked for the school district in which
of children has been decreasing in recent years, several
young children, elderly, adjacent residents and other
the residence is located, even if one did not go to that
primary schools have been closed. The City has begun
interested people. The four groups made their own
school. Schools are another important community
discussing the future use of these former primary
plans and discussed alternatives (Shutoku 2000) (Fig.4-
space, or community-dominated public space (CDPS)
schools and their land with local residents, and in some
7). In a later stage, the different plans were harmonised
for people in Kyoto. While neighbourhood associations
cases, collaborates with them on the plan making.
into one overall concept.
(chonaikai) are traditional community units, school
The former Shutoku Primary School is one such case.
Today, the park boasts diverse local activities: office
districts (gakku) are wider and a more modern form of
After becoming disused as a school, it was planned
workers having lunch, elderly people resting and
community.
as a complex with a library, elderly care facilities, and
children playing around. Those who participated in the
suggested
space for young children, combined with a park. The
design process are today taking care of the flowers and
that elementary schools should be the centre of
local residents intensively participated in the design
greenery in the garden and the district has become one
communities, and indeed, decades earlier in Kyoto,
of the park, and the process has been detailed in local
of the most active ones in all of Kyoto.
Clarence
072
Perry
(1929=1998)
once
Vol. 25_2013_01
6. Trading Skyscrapers for Open Space?

Other, much more common and systematic ways of
producing privately owned public spaces in Japan are
standardised bargaining mechanisms under incentive
zoning, known as Comprehensive Design System
(sogo sekkei seido), and Specified Block (tokutei
gaiku). Like the instrument of the Kids Square, the city
government deemed this tool a viable way of creating
much needed urban public spaces in Kyoto. However,
as this deal is predicated by a trade-off of additional
floor area as compensation for the provision of a
privately-owned, yet publicly accessible open space,
the result of this policy is a proliferation of higher
than average buildings. High-rise buildings are, in
fact, one of the major causes for landscape disputes
and citizen movements in Kyoto. One of the first, and
most prominent, cases is the example of Kyoto Hotel.
As a condition for waiving the 45 metre building height
limit stipulated by zoning, and for allowing a 60m high
tower structure, the developer provided a pocket park,
sidewalk widenings, a sunken garden, benches, and
public art objects (Fig.8-9). Similarly, the new Kyoto
Station building was granted the same height waiver,
where previously 31 metres were set as maximum
height. However, given that a great number of other
privately- or publicly owned open spaces have already
been provided, and that the design quality of most
POPS, created through incentive zoning, is very modest,
there seems little justification in such bargain planning.
On the contrary, incentive zoning has opened the door
for higher buildings and set a harmful precedent that
has caused severe conflicts between developers and
Fig.8-9 As a condition for waiving the 45m building-height limit stipulated by zoning, and for allowing a 60m high tower structure, the
developer of Kyoto Hotel provided a pocket park (below), sidewalk widenings, a sunken garden (above), benches, and public art objects
local communities in recent years. Le Corbusiers idea
is also an effective tool to use public streets as open
Chibikko Hiroba Secchi Undo ni tsuite, AIJ Conference
of Towers in a Park may be appropriate for cities like
space for a limited period, for example during festivals.
Proceedings, 647-648.
Tokyo and Osaka that are extremely dense and short
They all serve to strengthen the sense of community.
PERRY, C. 1998. The Neighbourhood Unit (1929)
of public infrastructure. However, Paris was never
Also, it is important to note that many activities held in
Reprinted Routledge, London, 1998, p.25-44.
reconfigured following Le Corbusiers visions and Kyoto
these spaces are for children. In either case, community
SATO, S. and YOSHIDA, T. 2000. A Case Study on Relation
also does not need open spaces that will legitimise
involvement seems the key to the successful open space
between Design and Residents' attitudes toward
further high-rise construction and spoil the sensitive
management and the design of public spaces should
Management and Maintenance Activities and in Re-
historic cityscape.
be negotiated in concert with the local community and
pairing Small Playgrounds: A Case of the Participatory
the future users. Meaningful public space can hardly be
Project for Repairing Community Playgrounds by Kyoto
7. Conclusion
created through normalised, nationally uniform design
City, AIJ Conference Proceedings, 273-274.
In this article, I briefly introduced privately owned
standards and bureaucratic manuals, as is the case with
public spaces (POPS), community owned public spaces
incentive zoning and POPS.
(COPS) and community-dominated public spaces
[Figure References]
Fig.4-7 Adapted fromSHUTOKU. 2000. The Park
(CDPS) in Kyoto. In fully built up, fully developed cities
[References]
Images is Completed. In: Hana to Midori no Machi
like Kyoto, POPS and COPS are useful tools to create
MIZUTANI, K., TAKEDA, S., and OIKAWA, K. 2010.
Shutoku. community paper. Issue 6/19/2000. available
open spaces. However, it is important to note that the
Classification of Chibikko-Hiroba as Small Openspaces
online
creation of POPS and COPS do not require any planning
for Disaster Mitigation by Geographical Conditions,
syutoku_HP/syutoku_image/koho/koho/koho42.pdf
bargain like Comprehensive Design or Specified Blocks.
Rekishi Toshi Bosai Ronbun Shu, Vol. 4, 333-338.
(accessed September 1 2012)
These policies can be, and should be, separated. CDPS
NARUMI, K. 1968. Toshi Kinrin Kuukan Kaizen Undo:
Fig.8-9 Photograph by Christian Dimmer
from:
http://kyoto-machisen.jp/chiiki_hp/
073
Vol. 25_2013_01
Community Owned Public Space: Seattles Alternatives to POPS

Jeffrey Hou (University of Washington)
1. Background
eventually evicted from the park a privately owned
resolution in New York City in 1961 as a mechanism
With camping of protestors in Zuccotti Park in New York
public space (POPS) , the movement also brought
for incentivizing public access to private properties
in 2011, the Occupy Wall Street Movement has helped
attention to a system of spatial production that
(Kayden 2000).
transform the public discourse in the United States
has permeated the making of contemporary urban
Today, POPS has become a subset of a broader practice
concerning the social and economic inequity under
landscapes in cities not only in North American but
of so-called public-private partnership, a prevalent
our present political and financial system. As protestors
also increasingly around the world. The term "privately
and seemingly indispensible mechanism for producing
negotiated their occupation of Zuccotti Park and were
owned public space" first emerged in a zoning
publicly accessible amenities in contemporary cities.

In New York City where the term POPS first emerged,
not only has POPS become a prominent feature of
its cityscape, but public amenities such as parks
and playgrounds are also increasingly funded and
managed by private or not-for-profit entities. For
example, in Central Park, the continuing maintenance,
public programming, and capital restoration has
been supported and operated by the Central Park
Conservancy, a not-for-profit entity. (*1)
Recent projects such as the High Line and Brooklyn
Bridge Park have followed a similar model. Even
small-scale projects in the City have been supported
through private philanthropy as well, such as the Trust
for Public Land and New York Restoration Project that
preserved the citys many community garden sites. The
phenomenon is not limited to New York City.
Across North America, many large-scale public space
projects could not have been realised without private
funding or revenues from private development. These
include the Millennium Park in Chicago, Centennial
Olympic Park in Atlanta, Downsview Park in Toronto, and
the Orange County Great Park in Southern California,
just to name a few. Similar to the Brooklyn Bridge Park,
development (including design, construction, and
maintenance) of parks like the Orange County Great
Park and Downsview Park has been led and managed
by an independent corporation. The predominant
trend as evident in these projects begs the question
is private support the only tool for creating significant
public open space in todays city in the midst of a
declining municipal resources?
In this article, I would like to suggest otherwise.
Specifically, I will highlight a few counter examples
from Seattle that suggests a different model for the
co-production of public realm in todays city. As a
counter point to POPS, I call these examples a form of
Community-Owned Public Spaces.
Contrary to the proprietary notion of ownership, the
community ownership here emphasises community
participation and specifically use value, vis--vis
exchange value commonly associated with the
common form of property ownership, private or public.
Fig.1 The High Line in New York City was developed and operated by the nonprofit Friends of High Line
The notion of community ownership here dwells on

the degree of participation and engagement. And as
074
Vol. 25_2013_01
such, community-owned public spaces represent a

kind of public space in which the notion of public is
fully mobilised in form of actively engaged citizens.
2. Community Owned Green Spaces in Seattle
Located in the Pacific Northwest region of the United
States, the City of Seattle currently has a population
of 612,100, in a metropolitan area of about 3.3 million
residents. (*2) The city is bound by the Elliott Bay to the
west and Lake Washington to the east, and is abutted
by the City of Shoreline to the North and the cities of
Burien to the South. As such, the city itself has been
fully developed with no additional land for significant
growth or expansion a factor that might have
contributed to the creative ways of expanding green
open spaces in the city. Similar to most U.S. cities, Seattle
has faced challenges in supporting development
of parks and open spaces to meet the demand of its
residents. The lack of state income tax in particular has
limited the revenue base for local governments. In the
following, I will highlight four mechanisms in Seattle
that support the notion of community owned public
Fig.3 The Fremont Troll is a beloved landmark in Seattles Fremont neighborhood
spaces and how they are distinct from the predominant

pattern of public-private partnership as found in most
in recent decades. Gardening provides locally grown
lands, including parks, utility corridors, street right-
other cities.
food, reduces dependency on imports, supports
of-way, and lands owned by different city agencies,
community building, promotes active living, and
these sites amount to approximately 23 acres, serving
A. Community Gardens
empowers marginalised communities.
4,400 gardeners. (*3) Through the P-Patch Program,
Starting with the Picardo P-Patch founded in the early
Community gardens in Seattle exist in a wide variety
city staff provides administrative support, coordination
1970s, community gardens have been an important
of locations, from well-to-do neighborhoods to
with other city agencies, and public outreach. Besides
feature of community-based placemaking in Seattle
impoverished communities, from utility corridors to
the City-supported P-Patches, there are also gardens
residential areas, and from dense urban neighborhoods
operated and supported by non-profit organisations,
to wide-open park grounds (Hou, Johnson and Lawson
such as local food banks, youth organisations, and
2009). Gardeners include urban dweller as well as
community-based organisations. The Seattle Housing
suburban residents. They include long-time residents as
Authority, with help of the Friends of P-Patch (now
well as immigrants and refugees.A typical community
P-Patch Trust) also developed a neighborhood
garden in Seattle consists plots of about equal sizes
gardening program called "Cultivating Communities"
that citizens can use by signing up and paying a
that provides garden plots to low-income communities
modest annual fee. Some gardens are incorporated
and immigrant populations. Non-profit organisations
into existing parks and open spaces; others are next
such as Seattle Tilth also provide critical support to
to private houses as well as commercial spaces, on
various gardens in the city. Beyond the support of city
properties owned by the city, nonprofit organisations,
agencies and non-profit organisations, however, most
or private entities. Some are almost exclusively used
of the day-to-day work in the gardens is performed
for gardening, while others incorporate additional
by gardeners and volunteers. It is precisely through
program elements such as social spaces, communal
the day-to-day maintenance of the gardens that
kitchens, tool sheds and storage space. Community
community ownership is engendered.
gardens are not only used by gardens but also enjoyed
Fig.2 The Danny Woo International Community Garden in Seattles

International District provides local residents with opportunities to grow
food in a dense urban neighborhood
by non-gardeners. To support the development of
B. Neighborhood Matching Fund
community gardens, the City of Seattle established
Neighborhood Matching Fund is a program of the
the P-Patch Program in 1973. Since then, about 80
Seattle Department of Neighborhood, developed
sites have been created around the city and more
under the leadership of its founding director Jim Diers
are being added. Located on both private and public
back in 1988. Each year, community groups around
075
Vol. 25_2013_01
Fig.4 With support from the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, local residents led the renovation of the International Childrens Park in Seattle and continued to organise events to activate the space
the city submit proposals to the Department that in
citys many neighborhoods, but also strengthen the
private support, however, park advocates and citizen
turn provide matching support for implementing
social networks and capacity of community groups to
groups worked with the city staff to put new tax levies
selected projects. Different types and levels of grants
become more engaged in the citys planning process.
on the election ballot twice in the past decade. In 2000,
are available: Small Sparks Fund (up to $1,000
A number of landmarks in Seattle are in fact outcomes
voters in Seattle passed the Pro Parks Levy ($198.2
per project) provides support for activities such as
of community efforts supported by the Neighborhood
million over eight years) to fund parks acquisition,
organizing and membership expansion; Small and
Matching Fund program. These include the Danny Woo
development,
Simple Projects Fund (up to $20,000 per project) can
International Community Garden, Cistern Steps (part
maintenance, and programming. (*4)
be used for design and planning. Communities can
of the Growing Vines Street project), and the Fremont
In 2008, even in the midst of the economic recession,
also apply for Large Projects Fund (up to $100,000
Trolla sculpture of a car-eating troll crawling from the
Seattles voters approved overwhelmingly the Parks
per project) for implementation. To receive the equal
bottom of a bridge produced through a community-
and Green Spaces Levy, a $146 million fund over six
match by the City, a community group can either
initiated arts competition. Because all of the projects
years to continue to support the expansion of public
raise cash donations or mobilise volunteers whose
have been by nature initiated by the communities, the
opens spaces in the city, including $2 millions for
work hours can be translated into cash matcha
citizen-driven process has fostered strong community
developing more community gardens. These levies
mechanism that incentivises community building,
ownership of these places, which contributes to their
have supported acquisition and/or development of
social mobilisation, and volunteerism. Since its
popularity. Furthermore, the community volunteerism
a wide range of open spaces, including parks, sport
inception in 1989, thousands of projects have received
has ensured continued ownership and maintenance of
fields, playgrounds, as well as community centers.
supported from the City in forms of neighborhood
those places.
They include large neighborhood parks as well as small
parks, playgrounds, public art, youth programs, and
and
environmental
stewardship,
pocket parks.
cultural events and activities. In return, from 1989 to
C. Parks Levy
The projects are located throughout the city, partly to
2001, the communities have generated more than $30
In the face of diminishing public resources similar to
generate broad support from communities. Aside from
million in matching resources for projects (Diers 2004).
many other municipalities, support for parks has been
projects listed in the levy proposals, the two levies also
The funds not only support the improvement of the
a concern for Seattle residents. Instead of seeking
included so-called Opportunity Fund ($10 millions in
076
Vol. 25_2013_01
the 2000 Levy and increased to $15 millions in the 2008
3. Three Lessons: Returning to the Common
ownership suggests a return to the Common as a shared
Levy), supporting projects that could be proposed by
The examples that I highlighted above are not
resource, a notion that has been around historically in
citizens and community groups.
exclusive or unique to Seattle. In fact, similar efforts
human settlements and needs to be rediscovered and
In some cases, the citizen groups also help fundraise
can be found in other cities in North America, such as
recognised and perhaps given new meanings and roles
or mobilise resources to help implement the projects.
the Village Building Convergence in Portland and the
in the contemporary city.
Through the levies, the citizens of Seattle have been
Parklet movement in San Francisco.
able to support creation of more public open spaces
Increasingly, one can find examples of new ways
The making of public green spaces in todays city
without ceding control and priority to private entities.
through which citizens in cities around the world are
reflects a broader struggle in our social and political
engaged to change how urban spaces are used and
system against privatisation, neoliberalism, and
D. Independent Projects
produced (Hou 2010). Nevertheless, the experiences
dominance of corporate interests. To counter these
In addition to the above, there have been other
in Seattle as highlighted here do offer a few lessons
hegemonic forces, a more actively engaged public
individual citizen efforts or initiatives to transform
that may inform the continuing making and remaking
is necessary. The making of Community-Owned
public spaces in Seattle, with or without institutional
of urban public open spaces in North America and
Public Space is a step toward building a more actively
support. These included intersection painting in the
beyond.
engaged public through collective actions and broader

and more meaningful public participation in the spatial
Wallingford neighborhood (inspired by Intersection
production of the contemporary city.
Repair in Portland, Oregon), alleyway activation efforts
First, the Seattle alternatives suggest a broader set of
in the Pioneer Square neighborhood (including public
possibilities and processes in which citizens can play
art installations and public gathering), the University
a stronger and more meaningful role in the making of
[Notes]
District and International District, and a growing
public space. Specifically, they do not have to be just
*1 See http://www.centralparknyc.org/about/inside-
number of pop-up events throughout the city.
passive participants in public meetings, responding to
the-conservancy/ (accessed April 29, 2012)
Many of these projects primarily involve modifications
only proposals presented by officials and professionals.
*2 See http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/
of existing spaces and are often temporary and
With modest support from city agencies and non-profit
Population_Demographics/Overview/default.asp
ephemeral in nature. Nevertheless, they have given
organisations, citizens and community groups can be
(accessed April 29, 2012)
new meanings and engendered new possibilities in
empowered to initiate and even implement projects
the citys public realm.
on their own, which in turn strengthens community
Each of these projects also builds or reinforces social
support in long-term programming and caretaking
networks as well as ownership of public space in
of the places. While many citizen-initiated projects
different parts of the city.
may be modest in scale and design, they can be just
*3 See http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/
ppatch/ (accessed April 29, 2012).
*4 See http://www.seattle.gov/parks/proparks/
default.htm (accessed March 15, 2012).
as powerful and in many ways more meaningful than
[References]
spaces produced through typical, institutionalised
DIERS, Jim. 2004. Neighbor Power: Building Community
planning process.
the Seattle Way. Seattle: University of Washington

Press.
Second, while modest projects can be equally powerful
HOU, Jeffrey, ed. 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla
and effective, community-driven projects do not
Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities.
have to be only small or modest in scale. Through
London and New York: Routledge.
programs such as the Parks Levy, contribution of
HOU, Jeffrey, Julie M. JOHNSON, and Laura J. LAWSON.
individual citizens can add up to significant funds for
2009. Greening Cities, Growing Communities: Learning
major initiatives. The successful passage of the levies
from Seattles Urban Community Gardens. Seattle and
indicates the strong support for open space in the
London: University of Washington Press.
city if planning can be done in a fair and just way. The
KAYDEN, Jerold S. 2000. Privately Owned Public Space:
experience also suggests an alternative to the heavy
the New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley &
reliance on private support that often results in the
Sons, Inc.
erosion of public ownership and encroachment by

private interest.
Third and perhaps most importantly, the experiences
from Seattle in the making of community-owned public
spaces challenges effectively the notion of ownership
in a society increasingly being dominated by narrowly
Fig.5 Alley Party in the University District transformed the underutilised
space into a place of social gathering
defined legal systems and private enterprises. Rather

than a proprietary notion of ownership, community
077
Providing Common Ground Part
IV
Vol. 25_2013_01
Critical Differences and Common Ground: Towards an International Research Agenda

1.Summary
collective spaces. Although a variety of empirically
are presented unsystematically and many that are
Privately Owned Public Space: The International
grounded examinations of privately owned public
equally valid could and should be added as the project
Perspective has shown that the provision of publicly
spaces (POPS) across the world are offered, as well as
expands and develops.
usable spaces by private actors is neither a mere
in-depth discussions of diverse Japanese cities, this
phenomenon of great American cities like New York,
volume does not intend to provide final answers or make
2. Transfer of Ideas, No Clear Centre
Los Angeles or San Francisco, nor a recent development,
definite statements. On the contrary, it is meant as a
The fact that cities around the world have adopted
as might be suggested by the rich public debates
conscientious first step towards a more nuanced, flexible,
policies to systematically encourage private actors
blossoming in the aftermath of the Zuccotti Park
and context-sensitive understanding of public space
to create public space is only superficially the result
occupation (See e.g. Shiffman et al 2012). Instead, the
and towards developing a common ground for future
of clear-cut copy-and-paste-style implantations and
different chapters have demonstrated that since the
intercultural public space research and action. Despite
borrowings from New York City the first City to
1970s, cities around the world from Santiago de Chile,
this qualification, the following broad observations can
systematically draw up such policies. No doubt, New
Seattle, Taipei, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, to
be offered in order to visualise common ground and
York served as model case for other cities world-wide
Melbourne have systematically given incentives to
mark critical differences in the planning, management,
and planners have been keenly aware of developments
private actors in order to stimulate them to produce
control and use of POPS and public space. These issues
there, yet local histories, planning cultures, actornetworks and spatial conditions have played a crucial
role for the ways these abstract, imported planning
ideas materialised in space and how they were received
by local societies. This volume contributed therefore to
de-centring dominating planning theory debates by
emphasising mutual learning processes with no clear
centre in North America or Europe. Taipei planners
have been equally inspired by incentive zoning in
New York and Tokyo. Santiagos system developed
independently from New York and was only influenced
by it in later years. Cities like Yokohama and Sapporo
drew up distinctly local public space policies and
Osaka has incentivised the production of public space
through private actors since the 1930s. Interestingly,
the new affordances of social media now allow the
instant exchange of ideas between public space
advocates worldwide as well.
3. Public Space Visions and the Role of Planners
Furthermore, we have seen that in Santiago de Chile
and Yokohama, strong planner personalities were
central. Committed individuals like German Bannen in
Santiago, Akira Tamura in Yokohama, or Robert Adams
in Melbourne played a crucial role in developing
comprehensive and far-reaching public space visions.
Private developers would only be rewarded with
additional floor area if they agreed to provide public
urban spaces of superior design quality that would
complement these envisioned public space networks.
The example of Osaka has also shown that as early as
the 1930s the city collaborated with local landowners
in order to create an elaborate system of sidewalks,
promenades and corner squares in the Semba area.
In many other of the cities discussed here, no such
visions for integrated pedestrian-friendly public spaces
Fig.1 Discretionary urban design review, a strong planning vision, as well as the adjacency of a public park: all these important factors contributed to the
successful design of Tokyo Midtown's well integrated privately owned public space
080
networks existed. POPS frequently materialised in

places where municipal planners had no clear idea
Vol. 25_2013_01
what these spaces should do for the local community

and how they should function within a city-wide open
space network. Jerold Kayden points out that public
spaces must be designed in advance as the primary
object, and not treated as an afterthought or add-on to
private development (2000: 132) they thus have to
integrate and enhance their urban context.
4. Discretionary Review vs. "Manual-isation" and
As-of-Right Permission
Another issue that is treated differently from country
to country and over time is the relationship between
municipal planning departments and property owners
as well as developers. At the beginning of incentive
zoning in New York, developers were entitled to receive
a building permit if project plans complied with the
relevant regulations and if the amount and shape of
the respective POPS was computed correctly. In this
as-of-right process, planners could carry out no design
Fig.2 The negotiation processes near Yamashita Park in Yokohama in the early 1970 marked the beginning of the citys collaborative planning culture
review; they had no discretion. During the 1970s

William H. Wrights seminal research on user behaviour
spaces of the fine-grained city that is replaced is
the problem is that after countless rounds of planning
in POPS showed that most of these spaces were hardly
dissolved into one single ownership. Most residents and
deregulations, the granting of extra floor area almost
usable and suggested stricter design control. Planners
neighbours no longer feel a stake or any attachment to
came to be seen as customary right. There was a
would now have discretion, allowing them to claim
these corporately managed open spaces. Furthermore,
temptation to introduce ever more far-reaching FAR
better context integration and usability of spaces
if we understand open space in dense urban settings
bonuses, with markets pricing in the relaxation and
from developers. In Japanese cities and in Santiago
as a common good, the creation of this one common
asking for more deregulation. Even without the
this went in a contrary direction. After German
good is compromising the integrity of other, equally
provision of POPS, very high and bulky buildings could
Bannen, the mastermind of the public space network
important common goods. High, bulky buildings in
thus materialise. One has to be almost happy therefore
in Santiagos Providencia district and the man with
fine-grained urban settings often cause an increased
if any POPS are created, even if they dont measure up
the big vision retired, abstract and strictly parametric
traffic load, strain public infrastructure, or bring large
to the standards to be mandated in other advanced
design rules were introduced that superseded the
numbers of new residents into an existing community
cities, like in New York.
older discretionary design review. Similarly, in the
that can harm the neighbourhood spirit. Large
urban Japan of the 1980s, discretionary powers of
buildings create shadow, cause strong winds, and
7. Local Histories and Planning Cultures
planners were constantly weakened with the rollout
so forth. All these complex factors need to be taken
Particular
of neoliberal governance principles. Instead, planners
into account when assessing the quality and value of
dependencies that in turn have an impact on public
came to rely on simple, checkliststyle permission
POPS. It is clearly not enough just to look at the design
space policies and management to this very day.
manuals. Both in Santiago and in Japanese cities, the
quality of a POPS but the whole, big picture needs to
Interviews with POPS administrators across Japan
impact of this "manual-isation" and codification of
be assessed. More research is thus needed in order to
have revealed that municipal planners in Osaka and
public space planning is reflected in the often-inferior
explore ways to valuate the different common goods
Sapporo are among those most aware of the problems
context integration and design quality of as-of-right
one against another.
associated with these planning systems and how the
POPS.
local
histories
have
created
path
resulting corporate plazas actually look and perform in

6. Arms Race of Deregulation, Greater Bonuses,
everyday use. This can be partly explained by the long-
5. Beneits and Externalities
Lower Expectations
term experience with the Semba Building Line and a
One important question to use when evaluating
The preliminary findings in the discussed international
specific collaborative planning culture that has evolved
incentive zoning and POPS is who benefits? Often the
cities as well as field surveys in Fukuoka, Osaka, Kyoto,
here, and this influences planning processes in other
results amount to a zero sum game. Large corporate
Yokohama, Sendai and Tokyo suggest that the majority
parts of the city. In Sapporo, this can be attributed to the
commons, products of mega-developments that
of POPS are hardly usable as more than a mere space
relative youth of the city that was planned in the late
replace vernacular urban fabric, create undeniably
for pedestrian circulation. As discussed above, these
nineteenth century around a central public open space
urban spaces that are open, and often also expansive.
inferior spaces are predicated on huge, bulky buildings
Odori Park. The city of Yokohama was cashstripped
Yet the multiple stakes and the community attachment
that often conflict with the neighbourhoods where
during the 1960s and creatively developed its own
that were once embedded in the countless common
they are created. Especially in the Japanese context,
unique planning framework in which collaboration
081
Vol. 25_2013_01
appropriation. Similarly, in New York City, conscious

civic organisations like the Advocates for POPS (*1),
Friends of POPS(*2), or the #whOWNSpace project
(*3) are active to keep commercial interests in check
and seek to raise the awareness for these important
public assets. Conversely, in most Japanese cities there
is a rather weak consciousness regarding the rights of
citizens to public space, and to POPS in particular. Most
users dont question that these spaces are privately
owned, often highly controlled and programmed, and
consequently should be privately managed.
Interestingly, in Japan there is an enforcement gap
between often strict, prominently displayed use
limitations and the actual application of these rules.
This gap is creating a sense of inclusion and open use
that seems to preempt open contestations of space
(Fig.3).
Fig.3 Not only planning and governance cultures are important for the character of POPS but also cultures of appropriation and contestation of space:
While use regulations are strict in Japan, they are often not rigidly enforced, as is shown by this example of a homeless man in Shinjuku
9. Mapping, Monitoring, Raising Awareness,

Curating
with the private sector played a crucial role in creating a
without clear agreements having been spelled out. The
In many cities around the world such as in San
comprehensive public space system that centred on the
example of Bcherplatz showed that even privately
Francisco, New York, and Taipei, civic groups have
human scale. The effects of these policies can be seen
owned public spaces appeared fully public in nature;
taken on the task of broadening the public awareness
to this day. The example of Aachen in Germany served
not coded as a corporate common. Like in Melbourne
of these spaces in order to make them better usable, to
as a critical test case in the volume; contrasting the
and unlike all the other cities, discussed in this
create transparency and accountability and to activate
more dynamic, negotiation-based governance cultures
volume no systematic institutional arrangements are
civil society. An alert civil society can then act as a
in the other cities discussed. Until very recently, in old
provided to encourage the production of public spaces
watchdog for a proper design and maintenance, and
European cities such as Aachen no clear distinction
through private actors. Instead, cities have far-reaching
open access to these spaces for public use.
was felt between privately owned and publicly
planning and control powers and enter into different
Furthermore, only if citizens are aware of their rights to
owned public spaces. Often, both private and public
agreements with private actors, depending on the
the city; if they know that they have a right to claim
administrators shared maintenance responsibilities
particular cases.
these spaces and make them their own for a limited

time, can these POPS become more meaningful, truly
Fig.4 Not only lacking design vision contribute to the failure of many
POPS but also a lack of proper post-occupancy monitoring that ensures
that spaces remain usable and accessible
082
8. Civil Society and Discursive Context
public resources.
The evaluation of POPS and how they are perceived
In San Francisco, for example, a guide reveals one
and used depends on the state of civil society and
of the "best kept secrets: a rich network of privately
cultural patterns of spatial appropriation in the
owned public open spaces scattered through the
respective societies and cities. The examples of Hong
city's downtown area." It encourages the urbanites "to
Kong, Taipei, Melbourne, and New York have shown
scope out a new spot to eat lunch, hold an informal
that citizens are making more active and intensive
meeting, or simply soak in some nature" (SPUR 2009:
use of POPS also for explicitly political agendas.
1). The international comparison shows that planners
The Occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York, the
in cities like New York, Taipei, Melbourne, or Aachen
HSBC plaza in Hong Kong, and the Taipei 101 clearly
understood themselves explicitly as advocates of the
demonstrated the potential of these spaces for a
public good, and in that function, pressed private
political public life and democratic expression (see e.g.
developers for better public spaces.
Shiffman et al 2012). Moreover, the chapters on Hong
In Japan, on the other hand, municipal planners in
Kong and Taipei illustrated that an alert civil society
numerous interviews expressed no real interest in
plays an important role in contesting the enclosure of
establishing monitoring systems, or raising the public
these corporate commons. In both cases, conscious
awareness for POPS. The implication was often that
citizens who urged city governments to intervene
more awareness would encourage more complaints,
on behalf of the public good and reproach private
and in turn would lead to a greater workload and
landowners challenged commercial encroachment and
trouble with the development community.
Vol. 25_2013_01
10. Outlook: Global Challenges require
Assembly and the Occupation of Public Spaces. New
[Figure References]
International Collaboration
Village Press.
Fig.5 From SPUR 2009
A large number of POPS exists in many cities around
SPUR, San Francisco Planning + Urban Research
Fig.6 With kind permission of F-POPS
the world whose provision was induced by local
Association. 2009. A Guide to San Franciscos
Fig.7+8 With kind permission of #whOWNSpace project
governments incentives and, ultimately, the tax
Privately-owned Public Open Spaces. San Francisco.
payers money. It is therefore time, as Jerold Kayden
http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/
suggests, commencing a public conversation on
secretsofsanfrancisco_010109.
how best to utilise these remarkable archipelagos

of plazas, arcades, and indoor spaces scattered
throughout central cities around the world (Kayden
2000). An effective enforcement regime for privately
owned public space requires five elements: reliable
documentation,
public
knowledge,
periodic
inspections, meaningful remedies, and promotion

of public use. In order to find the best methods
to achieve these objectives, the exchange of local
knowledge and the sharing of international experience
is helpful. However, as we have seen, culture, local
planning histories, institutions and actor-networks
are all responsible for the individual manifestations
of POPS in different cities and countries. Although it
is tempting to compare these developments directly,
the initial survey presented in the volume suggests
that more work needs to be done in order to better
understand the workings of these cultural factors and
local manifestations.
We hope that this volume serves as a first step
towards a more systematic, comparative research
Fig.5 The guide map of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
Association (SPUR) shows where the citys 68 POPS can be found and in
which activities citizens can engage there
Fig.6 Friends of Privately Owned Public Space (F-POPS) is an organisation

dedicated to the celebration and improvement of New York Citys 82
acres of POPS; parades through the corporate commons serve to raise
awareness
project, yielding deeper insights into the underlying

mechanisms. This volume hopes to stimulate a broad
discussion of the presented ideas and to expand the
project further, to include collaborating research in
other cities worldwide.
[Notes]
*1 Website of Advocates for Privately Owned Public
Space APOPS: http://mas.org/urbanplanning/
apops/
*2 Website of Friends of Privately Owned Public Space
F-POPS: http://f-pops.org
*3 Website of whOWNSpace project: http://
whownspace.blogspot.tw/2011/10/whownspacemapping-nyc.html
[References]
Kayden, Jerold S., The Municipal Art Society of
New York, and The City of New York City Planning
Department. 2000. Privately owned public space: the
New York City experience. New York: J. Wiley.
Shiffman, Ron, Rick Bell, Lance Jay Brown, and Lynne
Elizabeth. 2012. Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of
Fig.7+8 The printable, double sided map of the #whOWNSpace project serves as a spatial visualisation tool that helps citizens to locate privately owned
open spaces in New York and to compare governing bodies of public and private control.
083
Vol. 25_2013_01
Editorial Team
Christian Dimmer, Urban Conversation Unit, RCAST Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo (contact: chr.dimmer@gmail.com)
with
Takefumi Kurose, Laboratory of Urban Design, Department of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo (contact: kurose@ud.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Chie Kodama (assistant editor and mapping) Laboratory of Urban Design, Dept. of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo (contact: kodama@ud.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Contributors
Sakrapat Anurakpradorn, Urban Conservation & Regeneration Lab, Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning, Chulalongkorn University (contact: josh2859@gmail.com)
Yoshihiko Baba, Ritsumeikan University (contact: babayoshihiko@mac.com)
Ulrich Berding, Planning Theory and Urban Development Unit, Faculty of Architecture, RWTH Aachen University (contact: berding@pt.rwth-aachen.de)
Beau Beza, Planning and Sustainability Discipline, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, (contact: beau.beza@rmit.edu.au)
Antje Havemann, Co-founder planning consultancy stadtforschen.de Aachen/Essen (contact: havemann@stadtforschen.de)
Jefrey Hou, Chair in Landscape Architecture, University of Washington, Seattle (contact: jhou@u.washington.edu)
Yen-hsing Hsu, Deputy Chief Engineer of Urban Regeneration Office, Taipei City Government; National Taiwan Normal University (contact: hsu.yenhsing@gmail.com)
Chen-yu Lien, Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University; Classical Landscape Architecture Consultants (contact: chenyu.lien@gmail.com)
Ayane Maekawa, City & Regional Planning Division, Nihon Sekkei Inc. (contact: maekawa-a@nihonsekkei.co.jp)
Juliane Pegels, Co-founder planning consultancy stadtforschen.de Aachen/Essen (contact: pegels@stadtforschen.de)
Elke Schlack Fuhrmann, CITU - Centro de Investigaciones Territoriales y Urbana, Facultad de Arquitectura, Arte y Diseo (contact: eschlack@unab.cl)
Pei-yin Shih, Project Executive at Classical Landscape Architecture Consultants (contact: classicdesign015@gmail.com)
Mireille Tchapi, The University of Tokyo, Laboratory of Urban Design, Department of Urban Engineering (contact: mireille.tchapi@gmail.com)
Natalie Xing, School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (contact: Natalie.Xing@connect.polyu.hk)
084
Vol. 25_2013_01
085
Vol. 25_2013_01
S_25
SUR Vol. 25_2013_01

2013131
sur@csur.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2013 Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration, The University of Tokyo
Christian Dimmer

086
PRINT BANK, Inc.

SUR 25web V2-Libre PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SUR 25web V2-Libre PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sustainable Urban Regeneration

Privately Owned Public Spaces

Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration

The International Experience

The University of Tokyo

Public Space by Private Actors? Outlining the Issues

Sustainable Urban Regeneration (CSUR) and builds

across the world. As the Occupy movement spread

This volume, 'Privately Owned Public Spaces: The

on an earlier collaborative research project that was

around the globe and as other privately owned public

International Perspective', is based on a weeklong

set up by Christian Dimmer (University of Tokyo),

spaces were similarly taken over such as Hong Kongs

workshop and conference that took place in Tokyo

Juliane Pegels (RWTH Aachen), Elke Schlack Fuhrmann

iconic HSBC Plaza, Taipeis 101 Tower, and City Square in

in February 2012. The workshop brought together

(Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago de Chile), as well

Melbourne, so spread the awareness that such hybrid

young international scholars engaging in a variety of

as Marieluise Jonas and Beau Beza (RMIT Melbourne)

spaces at the nexus of the public and private domains

research projects, dealing with the private provision of

also existed in many other countries and continents.

collective space, with leading Japanese public space

Although it has been decades since local governments

administrators, planning practitioners, and researchers

around the world started rewarding bonus floor area

The concurrence of the appropriation of Zuccotti

to private developers if they in turn agree to produce

During the workshop, fieldwork and interviews with

Park by the Occupy Wall Street movement in October

and maintain publicly usable urban spaces, most

urban administrators and scholars were carried out

2011 and the 50th anniversary of New York Citys

research so far has discussed these privately owned

in Yokohama, Kawasaki, Kyoto, Fukuoka, and Osaka

groundbreaking zoning ordinance has drawn renewed

public spaces (hereafter referred to as POPS), as Jerold

in order to provide a deeper understanding of the

and unprecedented attention to a particular mode

Kayden coined them in his seminal book of the same

diverse and differentiated manifestations of the

of urban governance that has not only brought this

title (2000), against the background of North American

related planning policies (Fig.3). This research was

widely televised Lower Manhattan park into being

cities only. This volume seeks to overcome this inherent

kindly funded by The University of Tokyos Center for

Western bias by offering a broad survey of governance

Sustainable Urban Regeneration

Privately Owned Public Spaces

Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration

The International Experience

The University of Tokyo

systems that have been producing privately owned

First, a fresh body of recent scholarship in planning

problems are too disparate to advance a more coherent

At the same time the proliferation of hundreds of high-

multi-directional circulation of planning ideas, and the

rises that were predicated by this policy is having a