Title: Rethinking Urban Design for a changing Public Life. Patricia Simes Aelbrecht, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL.

Name of author: Patricia Simes Aelbrecht. Affiliation: Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London. Contact details: Bartlett School, Wates House, 22 Gordon Street, room 5.13, London WC1H 0QB England. E-mail address: p.simoes@ucl.ac.uk

Biographical information: Patricia is an independent architect and urban designer and since 2007 a PhD researcher at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College of London. Her PhD research is focused on the role of Urban Design in framing Public Social Life in the contemporary European city. Previously, Patricia had the opportunity to work as an architect and urban designer at a European scale in cities like: Rotterdam (2000-03), Barcelona (2003), Lisbon (2004), Ghent and Brussels (2004-2007). As background education, Patricia holds a diploma in Architecture from the Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa (FAUTL) in Portugal and a Master in International/ Comparative Planning from the Bartlett School, (UCL) in London. Her work has been presented in several conferences and published in important Journals of Urban Design.

Abstract:
The nature and conceptualizations of public space and public life have been always associated with collective participation and socialization, in other words, with the capacity to live together among strangers. Today these associations seem to have become challenged and problematic, and often end in questioning whether public space still matters for our public life? This uncertainty has become somehow evident in the rising scholarly interest in the last two decades debates on the future of our cities public life and public spaces. However, most of the research produced has been extremely limited and narrow in its scope and often taken disparate positions especially between academics and practitioners, above all it has been dominated by narratives of profound loss and lament. Thus, it has failed to provide an understanding of the new context of social change we are in at the moment. It is precisely this search for a new understanding of public life and public space that provides the impetus for this paper. There is an urge to go beyond these narratives of loss and to support more optimistic views on the purpose of public space and public life. To achieve that, I argue we need to provide more microsociological research to study in detail the how and where of our socialization in public. Just then, we can begin to understand in which conditions public spaces can work well for our public life. Thus, through a review of literature and supported by fieldwork, I will first develop a research design for reading and mapping our contemporary public life in new designed public spaces, and then discuss its implications on the urban design practice. Hence, with this paper I expect not only to bring into a new light the understanding and reading of our public life and public spaces but also to contribute for the rethinking of the role of Urban Design today within this context of changing public life.

Keywords: Public life, Public space, Public Space Sociology, Microsociology, Social encounters, Urban Design.

1. Introduction: In search for an understanding of Public Life and Public Space.

The nature and conceptualizations of public life and public space have been always associated with collective participation and socialization, in other words, with the capacity to live together among strangers. Today these associations seem to have become challenged and problematic, and often end in questioning whether public space still matters for our public life? This uncertainty has become somehow evident in the rising scholarly interest in the last two decades of debates on the future of our cities public life and public spaces. While at the same time, it has been followed by an increasing investment in the architecture and urban design of public spaces. Both seem to be part of a current belief that making new clean, safe and stylish public spaces will cure our public life. However, most of the research produced has been extremely limited and narrow in its scope and often taken disparate positions. As a result, it fails to provide an understanding of the new context of social change we are in at the moment.

The existing researches have been limited in two ways. First, it has been mainly macro in its scope, not giving us more than facts and figures about the uses or the socio-economic conditions of public spaces (The Urban Age Project, 2007). Secondly, it has often studied the public life or the public spaces as independent and dissociated realities and thus it has not offered any understanding whether there is a direct relation between the two debates, or more in particular how far the problem of public life might be interrelated with a problem of place (Low, 2005). In addition, it has taken completely disparate positions especially between academics and practitioners. On one hand, the academic literature takes a markedly negativist point of view dominated by narratives of profound loss and lament. Two common arguments are regularly brought to the fore. The first is about the decline of the existing public spaces, as the public spaces no longer provide the basis for a significant public life (Sorkin, 1992, Flusty, 1997).1 The second is about the emptying of our public life. Accordingly, public life matters less and takes new forms, more individual and privatized as we are facing alternative new ways, non-material, electronic, to socialize and communicate with one another (Sennett, 1977, Graham, 1996, Castells, 2001). One the other hand, the architectural and urban design practices adopt a more positivist approach, considering change in contemporary public life not as lamentable but as inevitable, and above all as offering new challenges and meanings to be work with (Crawford, 1995, Avermaete & Teerds, 2007). It is precisely this positivist approach and search for a new understanding of public life and public space that provides the impetus of this paper. There is an urge to go beyond these narratives of loss and to support more optimistic views on the purposes of public life and public space. Therefore, I propose three research directions. The first is to study in detail the how and where of our socialization in public. This requires to provide more micro-sociological research. The second is to connect the public life and public space debates, in other words, to interrelate the social and spatial conditions of the city. And the third, and most important of all, is to acknowledge the role of urban design within these debates and to understand whether urban design can contribute and challenge these changes and problematics. Just then, we can understand the conditions in which public spaces can work well for our public life.

Thus, through a review of literature and supported by fieldwork, I will first develop a research design for reading and mapping our contemporary public life. As a case study, new designed public spaces are selected. The method for researching is based on the observation of peoples social

Several authors argue about the increasing tendency of contemporary design trends to make public spaces only for movement, not to be in, and just for observation and passive participation, spaces for consumption in which the right to use means the ability to pay, and spaces of fear in which prevails a massive surveillance, hard and military architecture.

encounters in public spaces. Secondly, in order to understand which are the favourable social and spatial conditions in public spaces that can support our public life, I will discuss the findings of my research and their possible implications on the urban design practice. Hence, with this paper I expect not only to bring into a new light the understanding and reading of our public life and public spaces but also to contribute for the rethinking of the role of Urban Design today within our changing public life.

2. A research design for reading and mapping our contemporary Public Life in Public Spaces.

In the introduction, I proposed three possible research directions for the present paper. The first was to study in detail the how and where of our socialization in public. Methodologically, this requires a more micro-sociological approach, i.e., empirical and behavioral centered, in other words, to use direct participant-observation to observe public behavior in public spaces. Of course, this raises immediately one difficulty, which public behavior could be a suitable object of study? As a starting point, it seems appropriate to focus on the dominant public behavior in the city, the social encounters among strangers. According to Sennett (1977) and Madanipour (2003), they constitute the key layer of the public ream to understand social life of the city. Yet, the study of social encounters poses special problems. First, social encounters are by definition social interactions among strangers, characterized for being unexpected, unplanned and casual meetings, for that reason strangers have little or no information about one another except that information readily accessible as face information. As a result, they involve a great risk, and this is what makes people very critical in their social encounters, in what to do and in where to go and how to meet. Second, social encounters are in essence very subjective experiences, so in order to make it operative to be analysed and observed, they must be considered as a class or type of spatial action, i.e. as a physical form of behaviour, which can be read through its body language. Notwithstanding the complexity of this type of behavior, it seems that with the observation of social encounters in public spaces, we can gain new insights on the behavioral potential of public spaces and provide a critical understanding and evaluation on how those public spaces work.

The second point is to interrelate the public life and public space debates. This implies to do a study that can interrelate simultaneously the social and spatial conditions of the city. The question that emerges is how to bridge these two distinct realities, one that is an abstraction and the other a concrete physical reality? 4

Here, I propose to interrelate the social and spatial conditions of the city by introducing a third perspective for analysis: the experiential condition of the user. This provides a three-part structure social-experiential-spatial to read and map public life and it will require a literature review on the three theoretical sources to formulate more clear hypothesis on the favourable social, experiential and spatial conditions for public social life to be observed.

The third point is to acknowledge the role of urban design within the public life and public space debates. Here we are prompted to ask: which kind of public spaces could we study? New or old designed public spaces? And from those, what settings or locations are today sociologically more interesting to be analysed? Here, I propose to study new designed public spaces, because only the new can enable to isolate the factors of time and history and to focus solely on their design. At the same time, the new public spaces are often the most criticized for being too designed, bland, safe, clean, and for not leaving space for unplanned situations. In terms of settings or locations to be analysed, it has often been argued that the ones that are sociologically more interesting are at the scale of public-private interface, because it is at the transition between public and private that public life is being made (Bobic, 2004). These locations and their conditions are worthy to be further explored during fieldwork.

In sum, with the three given conditions, it is possible to reformulate more clearly the focus of this study on the relation between urban design of new public spaces at the scale of public-private interface and unplanned social encounters among strangers, more in particular on the spatial mechanics between interpersonal relations or bodies and public spaces.

2.1. The state of research of Public Space Sociology today.

The first question that emerges when making a research design for this study is how to read and map public life in the city, which is by nature often made of spontaneous and unplanned behaviors and activities? What sort of activities, behaviors and places better characterize or describe public social life, and in particular social encounters? And from those, which ones could constitute the focus of this research?

In this section, I will provide a brief account of the state of research today. This implies to review the most relevant empirical studies which have studied public life and behavior in public spaces 5

along the three theoretical perspectives - social, experiential and spatial and which share a common ground on the microsociology, as they look to small effects: actions, interactions and emphasize empirical knowledge over theoretical conventional determinisms, by using observation as the primary tool. This is an important task because it will help to formulate more clear hypothesis on the favourable social, experiential and spatial conditions for reading and mapping public social life. But first, it is important to give a short historical overview and introduction on the research area. The public realm behaviour is a research area that still remains today rather unknown and unexplored. Until recently, most social sciences conventional wisdom was that the public realm was inhabited and asocial. (Simmel, 1903, Wirth, 1938).2 In addition, there was a tendency of some scholars to grant the social character of public realm but to think of it as irrelevant and uninteresting. It was just in the late 1950s that a group of authors came to challenge this social sciences conventional wisdom. They were Gregory Stone, Jane Jacobs, Ervin Goffman and William Whyte. Although they were not all concerned with the public realm per se, they were crucial to recognize the public realm as a social theory and to demonstrate its significance as well. Among these authors, Goffman and Whyte were the first to immerse into its study although their focus differed substantially. Goffman was the first to study it in a social-centred perspective with the focus on the organization of observable, everyday behavior, more in particular with the study of interaction order, the everyday social interaction among the unacquainted in urban settings. He demonstrated that what occurs between strangers passing on the street is as social as what occurs in a conversation between two lovers.3 Later, it was Whyte to make a study but in a spatial-centred perspective with a focus on the use of public spaces of cities, confirming not only the existence of a significant public realm social life but also how indispensable are public spaces for the vitality of the city.4 Since then, there have been very few but significant contributions which have came to reassert once again the importance of the field of public-space sociology and to broaden its theoretical and analytical scope. As such, I will discuss the findings of some of these studies while trying to organize them along the three conditions, although, as we shall see, the borders between the three conditions are relatively blurry, and often difficult to be separated.

I will start this literature discussion by describing how these authors analysed and described the social conditions of the public settings, namely the structuring elements of public social
2 Their essential argument was always that public spaces of the city were densely filled with visual and sounds stimulus overload and as a result our public realm was populated by an asocial human behaviour. 3 See books: Behavior in public places (1963) and Relations in Public (1971). 4 See books: The social life of small urban spaces (1980) and City: rediscovering the center (1988).

interactions, the behavioral potential of public places and the favorable social conditions that can ease social encounters.5 Goffman was the first to provide a very robust conceptual map to uncover interaction among strangers in public space, with the classication of the different elements of each and every occasion of interaction in the most varied public places. His main argument was that to study social encounters we have to focus on the expressions given off, i.e., the body language, because strangers have little information about one another, therefore when dealing with each other they rely more on them than on the expression given or the verbal communication. More in particular, he added, relations with strangers depend heavily on facial information and expression, dress, demeanour, which are readily accessible, hence we have to give particular attention to the focused encounters, the ones that involve facework. Most importantly, however, was the concept of tiesigns he introduced to mean that social relationships are signalled by various types of ties between people, therefore they provide the necessary information to know how to conduct while in each others presence, and hence they are the key to analyse the degree of involvement of social relations. Later, Sherry Cavan (1966) provided a more empirical study based on the interaction order to understand the behavioral potential of a public place, by focusing in one particular type of public setting, the public drinking establishments, typically expected to be unserious settings or associated with informal behaviors and set apart from the consequentialities of everyday life. She identified the variations of use such as the happening of extraordinary events, the expectancy of informality, non-instrumentality and time-out, to be the key qualities that can change the character of a place and the denition of behaviours, and thus can ease the contact between strangers.6 In the 1990s, Lofland carried more in-depth research to identify the key favorable conditions that can produce active public interaction. She identified three conditions to be the most significant: the presence in the public realm of open persons, more available for an encounter than others, such as children and elderly people; the existence of open regions or locales as for e.g. thirdplaces, drinking establishments, in which all the inhabitants are mutually accessible to one another; and the existence of possibilities for triangulation', which defines a process by which some external stimulus create opportunities for strangers to talk to each other as though they were not strangers

To avoid to extend too much the scope of this paper, it was not included a discussion on the forms of social interactions, namely the users involvement, conducts, and postures which can be read through body language. To know more, see paper: Aelbrecht, P. How can urban design bring strangers together?, Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp.191-206, 2009. 6 See book: Cavan, S., Liquor License: An ethnography of Bar Behavior, Chicago: Aldine, 1966.

(for e.g. public art, furniture).7 More recently, other authors identified other favourable conditions less obvious but of increasing importance today that can be created or enacted in special situations of social and spatial negotiation. Theses are for example: the situations, referred by Bobic (2004), created by the types of spatial and social interface typologies between private and public domains, such as the boundary relations between the city block and public space, or the situations, referred by Whyte (1980), created by the type of management (informal or formal) existing in those settings. Both of these situations are of great importance to divide as well to connect, keep and regulate the building domain.

Now, I will turn to the studies that have described the experiential conditions of the public settings. Because this stream of work is made mainly of pure experiential data i.e., the real users experience, following the phenomenological tradition, it has often resulted in very subjective and disparate interpretations. For that reason, here, I will discuss only the studies that tried to relate more directly environment with experience, and that reected upon it conceptually in order to provide an underlying structure for its analysis. One is the geographers perspective, in particular of Tuan (1977) and Seamon (1979), whose concern was to have a theoretical grasp of the essential experiences or behaviours that better describe our involvement with the everyday life, which they resumed into the following three: movement, encounter and rest. The other is the architects perspective, whose interest was more directed on the spatial elements that structure this urban experience. One of the most well-known model of the structure of urban experience was developed by Lynch (1960). Although limited in experiential terms since it dealt solely with the visual properties, based on peoples perception, it brought valuable ndings that peoples urban perception is composed of ve spatial elements: paths, nodes, edges, landmarks and districts. More recently, Stevens (2001, 2006) came to revaluate and to challenge Lynchs model, revealing that urban perception is a more encompassing sensorial experience and often involving non-instrumental behaviors. As a result, he totally reframed those ve spatial elements within different kinds of spatial contexts and elements, for e.g. including new elements such as thresholds and props.

A term introduced by Ray Oldenburg in: The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee shops, Community centres, Beauty Parlors, General stores, Bars, Hangouts and how they get you through the day, New York: Paragon House, 1989.

Finally, to complete this third-part literature review, I will discuss the spatial conditions. For that, I selected three authors work stands as the basis for the understanding of the favourable spatial conditions and locations that support public social life. Christopher Alexander book pattern language (1977) is perhaps the most encompassing investigation, up to now, of spatial patterns and good design practices of gathering places that can support the social life in cities. This study resulted in a useful list of social places and hypothesis to be further explored namely: individually owned shops, street caf, corner grocery, beer hall, travelers inn, bus stop, food stands, and sleeping in public. In addition, Gehl (1971) and Whyte (1980) seminal works provided as well a comprehensive study but of design principles that can enhance outdoor activities namely, they considered the most important to be: the existence of optional activities (for e.g. more leisure), stationary areas (for e.g. the maximization of opportunities for sitting), and soft edges, i.e., the uidity or relationship of outdoor activities.8

To summarize, it was possible to see that all the studies taken together, in one way or another, provided valuable insights and hypothesis into the different opportunities offered by the urban environment for perception, action or interaction. Yet, they presented several limitations. Not only often they did so by using one singular approach: spatial, social or experiential, but they also just looked to simple categories of behaviour and general features of design. After all, public socialization is a much more complex and encompassing behavior. It is a multi-relational and embodied urban experience, and thus jointly determined by all the three conditions. Hence, to study it we have to provide a more robust research design, which can interrelate the three conditions, while at the same time, to offer more detailed empirical descriptions of these conditions. To do that, this paper will move on to observe, explore and test some of the hypothesis outlined above and focus on the fieldwork of a detailed case study. Because it is through the study of a concrete case that we can engage more productively in the debates on public life and public space and that we can emerge in this complex urban relational web and explore in a particular context all the kinds of public spaces, locations and conditions that are meaningful to our changing public life.

See books: Gehl, J., Life between buildings: using public space, Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 1971 and Whyte, W. H., The social life of small urban spaces, Washington D.C: Conservation Foundation, 1980.

2.2 Introducing the Case Study: The New neighbourhood of Parque das Naes in Lisbon.

Figure 1. Urban situation of Parque das Naes in Lisbon (source: Google Earth, 2009).

For the present study, it was selected as a case study a recently built and already considered successful new neighbourhood, the Parque das Naes, more known as Parque Expo, in Lisbon, Portugal. This case study is seen appropriate because it follows not only the previous considerations, of being a new design urban space with no past, history or time, but also and most importantly for being praised for many of its achievements, for the quality of design of its public spaces and buildings and the making of a modern thriving, stylish and safe life style. Hence, understanding its success can give us new insights about our changing public life and the public spaces that can make it work.

This neighbourhood has a particular story, it was built out of several challenges which are perhaps the reasons for its success. First, it was meant to be the site for the event of the World Exposition in Portugal, the Expo 98, to commemorate the 500 years of Portuguese discoveries. As result, it not only had to be a self-sustained event so that every building or vacant parcel lot was sold for office or living space to offset the Expos costs. But also, all its buildings and public spaces had to be

10

designed with an idea of duality between two moments during and after the Expo, this was a lesson from the failures of previous expos.9 Secondly, it was to be fully built from scratch in a postindustrial site in the harbour of Lisbon. And third, it was to become permanent residency for up to 25,000 people and one of Lisbons premier business centres, with many multinational corporations basing their headquarters in its main avenues. In sum, with the Parque das Naes we have not only witnessed the making of a new centrality in Lisbon, but also to the biggest urban regeneration and re-invention of Lisbon at the turn of the twentieth century.10

2.3 The fieldwork: the method and the locations selected for observation.

As the present research only deals with public socialization, the fieldwork observations had to be limited to the area that confines its public realm territory, which corresponds to the city centre and where the main public and semi-public spaces, buildings, commerce and services are located (see fig.2).11

Figure 2. Definition of the area of study (source: map from Parque Expo, SA and scheme from the author).

In terms of urban fabric, this site is structured along four main axis. One is the central axis running from west to east that connects the most important buildings of Gare do Oriente transportation hub, which includes the train and metro stations and the bus interface, the Vasco da Gama

Its main rationale was to ensure that after the Expo closed, the site would not be left semi-abandoned as had happened with previous expos, in particular with the Seville Expo 92. 10 Today because of its success, its developer, the Parque Expo, SA, is selling its advertising and consultancy services to other cities around the world. 11 According to Lofland (1998), a precise definition of the public realm is to contrast it to the private realm (private households) and with the parochial realm (neighbourhoods). Yet unlike small towns and villages, cities contain in its public realms also private and parochial realms.

11

shopping centre, the urban park Parque das Naes and the riverfront. Then the other three axis are all north-south. One axis is the main avenue Av. D. Joao II, a car and business street, another is the main boulevard with trees Alameda dos Oceanos, a pedestrian street that connects important cultural buildings such as the multi-uses pavilion Pavilhao Atlantico, the Portuguese pavilion, the Casino, the Science Pavilion, the acquarium oceanario, and the last is the riverfront cais (see fig.3). However, the selection of the locations for observation was not made according to the function or meaning of these places but according to the existing main spatial elements that structure our experience, as proposed by Lynch and Stevens. This resulted in a total of 24 potential sites to start the observations while at the same time, it was seen a good strategy to relate more directly the spaces and spatial properties with social use and to cover a wide range of different types of spaces (see figs. 3, 4).12

Figure 3. Spatial elements and locations selected for observation (source: map from Parque Expo, SA and scheme from the author).

12

The list of locations for observation consists of: Edges 1 (of boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), Edges 2 (of riverfront), Edges 3 (of Portuguese pavilion), Node 1 (station atrium), Node 2 (station waiting rooms), Node 3 (bus stops), Path 1 (promenade Rossio dos olivais), Path 2 (Avenue D. Joao II), Path 3 (boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), Path 4 (riverfront), Prop 1 (public art homen sol), Prop 2 (pavement calada in promenada Rossio dos Olivais), Prop 3 (Portuguese pavilion), Prop 4 (public art Rizoma), Prop 5 (acquarium (Oceanario), Prop 6 (garden jardim das ondas), Prop 7 (garden jardim Garcia da Orta, Prop 8 (fountains along the boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), Threshold 1 (metro entrance), Threshold 2 (Vasco da Gama shopping front entrance), Threshold 3 (Vasco da Gama shopping back entrance), Threshold 4 (Pavilion Atlantico), Intersection 1 (Avenue D. Joao II), Intersection 2 (boulevard Alamedas dos Oceanos).

12

In terms of observation methods, it was used participant-observation, both direct and indirect, respectively, I as an observer to take notes and map the relevant events and the video camera to register the evidences of those same events.13 In addition, it was adopted a time-frame that would not to impose a pre-established pattern of uses consisting of observations of only the hours of more frequence of people like early mornings when people go to work or evenings when people go home. Instead, it was spent one day per location, during working days and weekends from 8 am to 8pm and during a six-month period with the best time-out conditions for observation, namely during seasons of good weather and holidays. This strategy was meant to allow a good cross comparison of uses and behaviours and to have a real picture of the making of public life of this neighbourhood.14

For an efficient way of recording, the camera was not on constantly, but every 5 min to record 30s, to allow to record per day 72 min, a short version of reality. 14 The fieldwork was conducted over a six-month period during the two main conditions of time-out namely when the weather was good, i.e. warm and sunny, and during national holidays because in these moments there is a bigger number and diversity of people present in outdoor public spaces and people have more time to linger in public spaces. Hence, it started in December of 2008 with the Christmas holidays and New Years Eve and then followed in 2009 in Easter and in spring, from April, May, and then during the summer in June, July and August.

13

13

Figure 4. Some of the locations selected for observation from top to lower rows: Paths, Nodes, Edges, Thresholds and Props (source: from the author).15

2.4. Discussion of the findings: The locations and conditions that facilitate Informal Public Socialization.

During the six-month fieldwork, a number of important findings were observed. In the present section, however, I focus only on the findings that are more significant to our reading of public life and public spaces today, such as the favourable locations and the conditions that attract and enact social encounters. The first finding on the favourable locations, offers a rather different perspective on what we generally think that makes a public space work. It defies the conventional wisdom that peoples selection of the areas of the built environment for social use is only determined by the spatial characteristics of the environment and the social structure associated with the place and of those using it.16 Instead, what was observed was that people often chose places and locations that are not purposefully designed, or are not socially conventional, and that have as a main feature being spaces of high social, spatial and experiential negotiation, such as: the thresholds of public buildings, the props at the entrances, the edges of busy paths, among others. This finding raises important questions. Why do people choose these locations and not others more purposefully designed? What are the special spatial characteristics of these locations? In addition, it also helps to reformulate what the problem with the new designed public spaces might be. New public spaces seem to be deliberated designed to avoid people to appropriate, change and congregate. The evidences are the lack of facilities, amenities and social comfort. The second finding on the conditions that attract and enact social encounters, questions our understanding on what constitutes an active informal public social life. It shows that, although the social conditions seem to be the main attractors that stimulate people to come to public spaces, such as for example informality or time-out behaviours; in reality, it is the combination of the three conditions - social, experiential and spatial - that together can exert greater influence on people to stay during a longer time and can enact more active and unplanned social interactions. For a clear understanding of what I now discussed, I resumed these findings in the list below of Favourable
The images from top to down and from left to right from represent: the Paths (riverfront, promenade Rossio dos olivais, boulevard Alameda dos Oceanos), the Nodes (the station atrium, the main street intersection inAv. D. Joao II, the bus stops); the boundaries or Edges (the edges of the promenade, the edges of the boulevard , the edges of the portuguese pavilion); the thresholds (the metro entrance, the shopping centre back entrance and front entrance); the Props (main sculpture homem sol, Portuguese pavilion, sculpture rizoma). 16 In other words, people select spaces according to their desired level of involvement or if these places have the right social conditions in place.
15

14

Conditions that attract and enact Public Socialization, and in the next sections, I will explain some of them with more detail.

Figure 5. The Favourable Conditions that attract and enact Informal Public Socialization.

Thresholds + Steps + Transition

Figure 6. Threshold of pavilion Atlantico (source: from the author).

In this first case, it was observed that the steps leading to the thresholds of the main public and semi-public buildings were often chosen for optional and social activities during the breaks or timeout of the workers and visitors in the area (fig.6). This spatial arrangement of threshold and steps deserves attention. On the one hand, it has special social qualities, it provides not only a physical but also a strong experiential transition from private to public domains, and thus, from tight to loose behaviour. On the other, it has favourable spatial properties, it offers people enough space and freedom for a variation of uses, to improvise sitting

15

spaces, to rest, to chat with friends or to have lunch. In sum, these spaces are spatial triggers for mixing up people and for chance encounters.

Thresholds + Props + Triangulation

Figure 7. Thresholds of metro station (left) and Vasco da Gama shopping centre lower entrance (right) (source: from the author).

In this second case, it was observed the triangulation of several social encounters among strangers, in particular of smokers, around the ashtrays located at the thresholds of public or semi-public buildings (fig.7). In all cases, it was noted that two factors were the enactors of these interactions: first the ashtrays condition as props because of their round or square configuration and second their location at the thresholds right at the middle or adjacent to these busy entrances.17

Thresholds + Congestion

Figure 8. Thresholds of Vasco da Gama shopping centre lower entrance (source: from the author).

17

The amount of cigarettes left in the ashtrays serve as proves of the highly frequency of longer stays.

16

Here it is illustrated another favourable condition at the threshold, a situation of congestion, which if done in a positive way, can be a facilitator of public socialization. In this case, the workers of the shopping centre wait for the opening hour (9 am) and are brought together into close contact with one another (fig.8). The spatial condition that propitiates this situation is the existence of a tight and narrow entrance.

Nodes: Bus Stops + Time-out

Figure 9. Bus stops in Gare do Oriente station (source: from the author).

Bus stops are important urban nodes and places where people spend great part of their day for their necessary activities namely to go to work (fig.9). Yet, this condition of urban node is not sufficient to facilitate interaction, there must be also in place other conditions such as: the availability of timeout, especially after work, and the maximization of opportunities for optional and stationary activities (sitting and standing).

17

Nodes: Street Intersections + Negotiation + pauses

Figure 10. Main avenue intersection Av. D. Joao II (source: from the author).

Street crossings constitute also important urban nodes of connection and of high negotiation and decision. This one has two particular spatial properties (fig.10). One is to give access to the main entrance of the shopping centre, the second is having several pauses that enable people to have more moments for standing and therefore for meeting, chatting and mixing while crossing. As a result, it is a strong point for chance encounters.

Boundaries or Edges + Busy paths + Triangulation

Figure 11. From left to right, riverfront and arcades of Pavilion of Portugal (source: from the author).

The boundaries or edges of busy paths are often chosen by people to watch the urban scenery or to watch other people passing by (fig.11). These are spaces of high spatial-social-experiential triangulation in which the experience of movement triggers other experiences of rest and encounter. As a result, they become places of high confluence and mixing of strangers.

In sum, all these findings taken together bring strong evidences that informal public socialization today is no longer dependent on or limited to the provision of the social places or thirdplaces, as

18

cafes, drinking places or theatres. Instead, it is taking place in spaces, locations or conditions that are the result of less control and order in physical terms and more publicness and less familiarity in social terms, and thus of the suspension of public order norms.18 In addition, these conditions often are enacted in special situations of transition, negotiation, contestation, congestion, triangulation, and preferably, when people are doing stationary and optional activities rather than when in motion or doing necessary activities (fig.12).

Figure 12. Active and Passive Informal Public Socialization in public spaces (source: from the author).

3. Implications and challenges for the Urban design practice and theory.

To conclude, as I have pointed out in the beginning, the aim of this paper is to emphasize to rethink the nature and purposes of public life and public space today, and most importantly, to acknowledge the role of urban design within a different social context. What I do not want to advocate is a new
With the concept of third places, Oldenburg (1989) was able to identify a set of essential characteristics that make a sociable place: departure of daily routine, neutrality and levelling, conversation as primary activity, physical low profile, accessibility in time and location, character defined by regular clientele and playful mood and finally a homely psychological comfort. See book: Oldenburg, R., The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee shops, Community centres, Beauty Parlors, General stores, Bars, Hangouts and how they get you through the day, New York: Paragon House, 1989.
18

19

type of sociable architecture or urban design. Hence, during the development of this research design, a number of possible outcomes and implications for reading public life in public spaces were discussed. From these outcomes, we can advent new challenges for the practice and theory of urban design. The need to rethink and adapt urban design practices to an increasing changing public life is probably the most important. That is to say, urban design needs to be much more sensitive to all locations and favourable spatial, experiential and social conditions people make use of and can provoke positive interactions. It is in those locations and with those elements, that public life is being made, negotiated and contested.

References:

-Aelbrecht, P., (2009,) How can urban design bring strangers together?, Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.191-206. -Alexander C, & al, (1977), A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford University Press: New York. -Avermaete, T., Teerds, H., (2007), Architecture positions on the public sphere, The 2007 Delft lecture series [Dispatch], Places: Vol. 19: No. 2, Article, available (accessed at: 15

http://repositories.cdlib.org/ced/places/vol19/iss2/Avermaete_Teerds_pg36/ November 15 2008). -Bobic M., (2004), Between the edges,T hoth publishers: The Netherlands.

-Burdett, R., Sudjic, D., (2007), The endless city: the Urban Age project by the London School of Economics and Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen Society, Phaidon: London. -Flusty, S., (1997), Building paranoia, Ellin, N. (Ed.) Architecture of Fear, Princeton Architectural Press: New York, pp. 47-59. -Graham, S., Marvin S., (1996), Telecommunications and the city: electronic spaces, urban places, Routledge: New York, London. -Cavan, S., (1966), Liquor License: An ethnography of Bar Behavior, Aldine: Chicago. -Crawford, M., (1995), Contesting the Public Realm: Struggles over Public Space in Los Angeles, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 49, No.1, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc, pp. 4-9. - Castells, M., (2001), the space of flows, Susser, I (Ed.), The Castells reader on cities and social theory, Blackwell: Oxford.

20

-Gehl, J., (1971), Life between buildings: using public space, Danish Architectural Press: Copenhagen. -Goffman, E., (1963), Behaviour in public places: notes on the social organization of gatherings, Free Press New: York. -Latham, A., (2003), Urbanity, Lifestyle and Making Sense of the New Urban Cultural Economy: Notes from Auckland, New Zealand, Urban Studies, vol. 40, No. 9, pp.1699-1724. -Loand, L. H., (1998) The Public Realm: Exploring the Citys Quintessential Social Territory, Aldine de Gruyter: New York. -Low, S. & Smith, N., (2005), Introduction: the imperative of public spaces, Low, Smith (Ed.), The politics of public space, New York: Routledge, pp: 1-16. -Lynch K., (1960), The Image of the City, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. -Madanipour, A., (2003), Public and private spaces of the city, Routledge: London. -Oldenburg, R., (1989), The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee shops, Community centres, Beauty Parlors, General stores, Bars, Hangouts and how they get you through the day, Paragon House: New York. -Seamon D., (1979), A geography of the lifeworld: movement, rest and encounter, Croom Helm: London. -Sennett, R., (1977), The Fall of the Public Man, Penguin books: London. -Somer, R., (1974), Tight spaces: hard architecture and how to humanize it, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J. -Sorkin, M., (1992), Variations on a theme park: the new American city and the end of public space, Hill and Wang: New York. -Stevens, Q., (2006), The shape of urban experience: a reevaluation of Lynchs five elements, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 33, pp. 803-823. -Tuan, Y., (1977), Space and place: the perspective of experience, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. -Trancik R., (1986), Finding lost space: theories of urban design, Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York. -Whyte, W. H., (1980), The social life of small urban spaces, Conservation Foundation: Washington D.C.

21