مفهوم‌سازی و گونه‌شناسی فضای عمومی شهری معاصر

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی - بنیادی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر دکتری برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکدۀ جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

2 دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکدۀ جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشیار، گروه برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکدۀ جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

4 دانشیار، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکدۀ هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

«فضای عمومی» موضوع در حال رشد دامنة متنوعی از رشته‌های علوم اجتماعی و علوم انسانی است. هر رشته‌ای فضای عمومی را از طریق لنزهای متفاوت و با علایق خاص و نگرانی‌های پیش رو می‌بیند. دانشمندان سیاسی برای نمونه بر دموکراسی و حقوق در فضای عمومی تمرکز دارند. جغرافی‌دانان بر حس مکانی و نامکانی، حقوق‌دانان بر مالکیت و دسترسی در مکان‌های عمومی، جامعه‌شناسان بر تعاملات انسانی و محرومیت اجتماعی تأکید دارند و غیره. بنابراین، برای فهم فضای عمومی باید از مجموعۀ متنوعی از رویکردهای چندرشته‌ای (میان‌رشته‌ای) استفاده کرد. در کنار این، ترکیب اصطلاح «فضای عمومی» با دو کلمۀ «فضا» و «عمومی» و ارتباط آن با کلماتی مانند «مکان» و «مردم» بر ابهام و پیچیدگی این مفهوم افزوده است. با اذعان به این چندگانگی و تفاوت، نخستین هدف این مقاله تلاش برای روشن‌ کردن مفاهیم فضای عمومی با توجه به ماهیتِ پیچیدۀ این اصطلاح و ارائۀ تعریف جدیدی برای آن است. هدف دوم مقاله، معرفی الگویی معاصر برای گونه‌شناسی فضای عمومی با در نظر داشتن گستردگی مفهوم آن و با توجه به تعریف ارائه‌شده از فضای عمومی است. مقالۀ حاضر از نوع مقالات مروری است. نوع تحقیق بنیادی- نظری است که با استفاده از روش خوانش متن، و ارزیابی انتقادی متون مربوط به فضای عمومی، ماهیت پیچیدۀ آن در متون مختلف را بررسی کرده و سپس با یک رویکرد استنتاجی و ترکیب نتایج، به تعریفی جدید و الگویی نظری رسیده است. خروجی اول تحقیق، بیان تعریفی جدید از فضای عمومی شهری است. این تعریف به سه اصل اساسی در فضای عمومی معاصر توجه می‌کند: ماهیت متغیر فضای عمومی؛ چالش عمومیت فضای عمومی؛ و توجه به شرایط تاریخی، سیاسی، سنت‌های فرهنگی، نیروهای اقتصادی و نیز تجربۀ شخصی از فضا در جوامع مختلف.با توجه به این تعریف، الگویی جدید برای گونه‌شناسی فضاهای عمومی معاصر پیشنهاد شده است (خروجی دوم). این الگو از شش معیار تشکیل یافته است، که هر کدام از معیارها در بالاترین سطح (میزان عمومیت)، دارای آنتی‌تز خود در پایین‌ترین سطح (میزان خصوصی بودن) است. به عبارت دیگر، در سطوح پایینی کیفیت فضای عمومی به لحاظ کارکردهای آن کاهش پیدا می‌کند؛ یعنی از میزان «عمومیت» آن کاسته می‌گردد و به میزان «خصوصی‌سازی» فضای عمومی اضافه می‌شود. با وجود این ، هر کدام از این گونه‌های فضای عمومی بسته به شرایطی که در جوامع مختلف حاکم است (اصل سوم در تعریف فضای عمومی)، حدودی از کارکردهای عمومیت فضا را خواهد داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Conceptualization and typology of contemporary urban public space

نویسندگان [English]

  • Yousef Ashrafi 1
  • Ahmad Pourahmad 2
  • Mohammad Taghi Rahnemaie 3
  • Mojtaba Rafieian 4
1 PhD. Candidate in Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Iran
2 Full Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Arts, Tarbiat Modarres University, Iran
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Introduction
“Public space” is the subject of a growing academic literature from the full range of social science and humanities disciplines. Each discipline sees public space through a different lens, and with particular interests and concerns to the fore. Political scientists, for example, focus on democratization and on rights in public space; geographers on sense-of-place and placelessness; legal scholars on the ownership of and access in public places; sociologists on human interactions and social exclusion etc. The result is a diverse array of multi-disciplinary approaches towards understanding public space. Furthermore, the combined term "public space" with the words "space" and “the public" and its association with words like "place" and "people" has added to the uncertainty and complexity of this concept. Acknowledging its diversity and differences, the first aim of this paper is to try to shed some light into the meaning and the complicated nature of public space, and giving a new definition from it. The second aim is to present a model for typology of contemporary public space, with regard to the extent of the concept, and according to the new definition of public space.
 
Methods
The nature of research is fundamental theoretical. Using text reading, the complex nature of public space has been studied in different contexts and then with a deductive approach, a new definition and a theoretical model have been reached.
Results and Discussion
The existence of these various understandings of public space from multidisciplinary perspectives creates much confusion around the meaning of the terms public space and publicness of space. Notion of public space is such a “slippery term” because first, on a theoretical level, there are so many conflicting and confusing multi-disciplinary views and definitions in the matter. Second, on a practical level, the “real”, built public places are complex socio-cultural, political and environmental products of a social group. And third, individual level, public space is also a subjective, personal construct. A space can be public to me in Tehran but not to others in other cities.
Due to different concepts of public space that was discussed and the uncertainty of the constituent words associated with the term, as a public, space, place and people, classification of public space would be too wide and variety. In an overview of the literature on public space the main areas of discussion on that subject can be grouped into 5 categories:

One of the key features of public space is the Spaceownership” issue. Various authors identified ownership as one of the important elements for publicity space. These authors believe growing phenomenon of privatization of urban space lead to restriction of the public realm cities.
Second class on the subject of public space is attention to the physical form of a public place. In several of the definitions and conceptualisations investigated, public space is associated with real physical urban places.
Third class topic comes mainly from the sociological and anthropological public space literature and refers to the use of public space, or in other words, to their “animation”.
A fourth strand of research is related to public space as the arena where the fragile relation between freedom and controlunfolds. Many authors consider the quality of a public place of being a democratic arena for public life as fundamental for its publicness.
A fifth and last common theme is concerned with the sociality of space. In this field, the role of public space in public life, Attention the decline in traditional public spaces, as well as the deterioration and even the loss of public nature will be discussed.

Conclusion
Due to this, in this paper, we present a new definition of public space including a wide range of urban spaces. In other words, the first output of research is a new definition of urban public space. Definition is as follows:
Contemporary public space is a general term including public places, physical public spaces, civic public spaces covering range from traditional public spaces (such as streets and squares) and new public spaces (such as passages, coffee, etc.). These spaces lead to the formation of urban public sphere. The publicness of public space is different given the historical conditions of society, political governance, economic conditions (political and market forces), cultural traditions and personal experience of space. An urban public space as open, positive, inclusive, accessible, sociable and compatible (softer), the amount of publicity it would be more.
In this definition, the three fundamental principles of contemporary public space are taken into consideration: The changing nature of public space; publicness challenges of public space; And to consider historical and political conditions, cultural traditions, economic forces as well as the personal experience of the space in different communities. According to this definition, a new model is proposed for typology of contemporary public spaces (second output). This model is composed from six criteria. Each criterion at the highest level (level of publicness) has its antithesis at lowest level (level of private). At this model, moving down from the upper levels, amount of publicness of public space is reduced and added to the privatization of public space. In other words, at low levels, the quality of public space in terms of its functions is reduced. This means that the level of "publicness" of public space has been reduced, and the level of "privatization" of public space is added. However, each of these types of public space, depending on the situation prevailing in various countries (third principle in public space new definition) will be somewhat a space publicness functions.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • place
  • Public
  • Space
  • Typology
  • urban public space

چرمایف، سرج؛ کریستفر، الکساندر؛ (1353). عرصه‌های زندگی خصوصی و زندگی جمعی: به جانب یک معماری انسانی، ترجمۀ منوچهر مزینی، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، چاپ اول، 325 ص.

عظیمی دوبخشری، ناصر؛ (1384). برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای: شهر و انباشت سرمایه، نشر نیکا، مشهد چاپ اول، 256 ص.

نوربرگ، شولتز؛ (1384). کریستین، مفهوم سکونت: به سوی معماری تمثیلی، ترجمة امیر یاراحمدی، انتشارات آگه، چاپ دوم، تهران، 219 ص.

هاروی، دیوید؛ (1988(. جغرافیای قدرت طبقاتی، در مجموعۀ مقالات: مانیفست پس از 150 سال، ترجمۀ حسن مرتضوی، انتشارات آگه، تهران، چاپ اول.

Altman, I; Zube, E. H. eds.; (1989). Public places and spaces. Human Behaviour and Environment. Volume 10. New York, Plenum Press.

Arendt, H.; (1958). The public realm: the common. In Glazer, N. and Lilla, M. eds. (1987) The Public Face of Architecture. Civic Culture and Public Spaces. New York, The Free Press, pp. 5 – 12.

Atkinson, R.; (2003). Domestication by Cappuccino or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control and empowerment in the management of public spaces, Urban Studies, 40 (9), pp. 1829 – 1843.

Banerjee, T.; (2001). the future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places, APA Journal, 67(1): 9–24.

Brown, A.; (2006). Contested space: street trading, public space, and livelihoods in developing cities. Rugby, ITDG Pub.

Buttimer, A.; Seamon, D. eds.; (1980). The Human Experience of Space and Place. New York, St. Martin’s Press.

Carmona, M.; de Magalhaes C.; Leo H.; (2008). Public Space: The management dimension, Routledge

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. and Tiesdell, S. (2003) Public Spaces Urban Spaces: The dimension of urban design. 1st edn. London, Architectural Press.

Carr, S., M. Francis, L.G., Rivlin; A. M., Stone; (1992). Public Space, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, T. (2004) Place: A Short Introduction. Cornwall, Blackwell.

Dines, N.; V. Cattell; (2006). Public Spaces, Social relations and Wellbeing in East London, Bristol, The Policy Press.

Flusty, S.; (1997). ‘Building paranoia’, in N. Ellin (ed.), Architecture of Fear, New York, Princeton Architectural Press.

Foucault, M.; (1986). Of Other Spaces. Diacritis, 16 (1), pp. 22 – 27.

Franck, K.; Stevens, O.; (2007). Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life, London, Routledge.

Fraser, N.; (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy, Social Text, 25/26, pp. 56 – 80.

Friedmann, J.; (2007). Reflections on place and place-making in the cities of China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31 (2), pp. 257-279.

Gehl, J.; (1996). Life Between Buildings. Using Public Space, Skive, Arkitektens Forlarg.

Gehl, J.; Gemzǿe, L.; (1999). Public Spaces Public Life - Copenhagen 1996. Copenhagen, The Danish Architectural Press and The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture Publishers.

Goodsell, C. T.; (2003). The Concept of Public Space and its Democratic Manifestations, The American Review of Public Administration, Vol 33, pp 361- 383.

Goss, J.; (1993). Magic of the mall: an analysis of form, function and meaning in the retail built environment, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 83, pp 18- 47.

Gulick, J.; (1998). the “disappearance” of public space: an ecological Marxist and Lefebvrian approach’ in A. Light and J. Smith (eds) The Production of Public Space, Oxford, Rowman and Littlefield.

Habermas, J. (1989). the structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hall, E. T.; (1966). The Hidden Dimension: Man’s Use of Space in Public and Private, New York, Doubleday and Co.

Jackson, J. B.; (1984). The American Public Space. in Glazer, N. and Lilla, M. eds. (1987) The Public Face of Architecture. Civic Culture and Public Spaces, New York, The Free Press, pp. 276 – 291.

Kilian, T.; (1998).‘Public and private, power and space’, in A. Light and J.M. Smith (eds) Philosophy and Geography II: The Production of Public Space, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.

Kohn, M.; (2004). Brave New Neighbourhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. London, Routledge.

Koskela, H. (2000). ‘The gaze without eyes’: video-surveillance and the changing nature of urban space, Progress in Human Geography, 24 (2), pp. 243-265.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (trans. by D. Nicholson-Smith). Oxford, Blackwell.

Light, A.; Smith J. M.; (1998). Philosophy and Geography II: The Production of Public Space, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.

Lofland, L.H. (1998). The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. New York, Aldine de Gruyter.

Lopes, M.N. and Camanho, A.S. (2012). Public Green Space Use and Consequences on Urban Vitality: An Assessment of European Cities, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., pp 1-17

Low, S. M. (2000). On the plaza: The politics ofpublic space and culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Low, S. and Neil, S. (2006). The Politics of Public Space, London, Routledge.

Madanipour A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City, Routledge, London and New York

Madanipour, A. (1999). why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, pp. 879 – 891.

Malone, K. (2002). Street life: youth, culture and competing uses of public space, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 14, pp 157- 168

Massey, D. (2005). for space. London, Sage.

Mensch, J. (2007). Public space. Continental Philosophy Review, 40, pp. 31 – 47.

Mitchell, D. (1995). ‘The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of the public and democracy’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1): 108–33

Mitchell, D (2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. New York: Guildford.

Németh J. (2009). Defining a Public: The Management of Privately Owned Public Space, Urban Studies, 46(11) 2463–2490.

 Németh J. (2010). Security in public space: an empirical assessment of three US cities, Environment and Planning A 2010, volume 42, pages 2487-2507.

O’Meara, S. (2007). Space and Muslim Urban Life: At the Limits of the Labyrinth of Fez, First published 2007, by Routledge, Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada, 2007

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. New York, Marlowe & Company.

Orum, M. A. (2010). Introduction. In Orum, M. A. and Neal, P. Z. eds. Common Ground? Readings and Reflections on Public Space. New York, Taylor and Francis, pp. 13 – 17.

Orum, M. A. and Neal, P. Z. eds. (2010). Common Ground?: Readings and Reflections on Public Space. New York, Taylor and Francis.

Relph, E.; (1976). Place and Placelessness. London, Pion.

Rogers, S.; (1999). Performance Management in Local Government: The Route to Best Value, (2nd edn), London, Financial Times/Pitman Publishing.

Schmidt, S.; Nemeth, J.; Botsford, E.; (2011). The evolution of privately owned public spaces in New York City, URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 16, 4, 270–284.

Scruton, R.; (1984). The Public Interest. In Glazer, N. and Lilla, M. eds. (1987) The Public Face of Architecture. Civic Culture and Public Spaces. New York, The Free Press, pp. 13 – 25.

Sennett, R.; (1990). The Conscience of the Eye: the Design and Social Life of Cities. London, Faber & Faber.

Sennett, R.; (1994). Flesh and stone. The body and the city in western civilization. New York: Norton.

Sennett, R.; (1977). THE FALL OF PUBLIC MAN, Published by the Penguin Croup

Sibley, D.; (1995). Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West, First published 1995 by Routledge

Sircus, J.; (2001). Invented places, Prospect, 81(Sept/Oct): 30–5.

Sorkin, M.; (1992). Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, New York, Hill and Wang.

Staeheli, L.; Mitchell, D.; (2008). The People’s Property? Power, Politics, and the Public. New York, Routledge.

Tibbalds, F.; (1992). Making People-Friendly Town: Improving the public environment in towns and cities, First published 1992 by Longman Group UK, Ltd.

Tuan, Yi-Fu; (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

Urban Task Force; (1999). Towards an Urban Renaissance. London, Spon.

Van Melik, R.; Van Aalst, I.; van Weesep, J.; (2007). Fear and fantasy in the public domain: the development of secured and themed urban space. Journal of Urban Design, 12 (1), pp. 25 – 42.

Wallin, L.; (1998). Stranger on the green’ in A. Light and J.M. Smith (eds) Philosophy and Geography II: The Production of Public Space. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.

Whyte, W. H.; (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington DC, Conservation Foundation.

Worpole, K.; K. Knox; (2007). The Social Value of Public Spaces, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Young, I. M.; (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, University Press.

Young, I. M.; (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Zukin, S.; (1995). The Cultures of Cities. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.

Zukin, S.; (2000). whose culture? Whose city? In Orum, M.A. and Neal, Z. P. (2010) eds. Common Ground? Readings and Reflections on Public Space. New York, Taylor and Francis, pp. 110 – 117.