Mapping Everyday Public Spaces in Urban Neighbourhoods The case of Limassol
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Central public spaces in cities have always played an important role in urban experience, and continue to have a city-wide significance, often described as the meeting spaces of cultures, politics, social and individual trajectories. Peripheral and/or neighbourhood public spaces, where the everyday life of citizens unfolds, rarely enjoy any of this significance and may not receive the attention needed from the main stakeholders involved. Many researchers have highlighted the significance of these public spaces in cities, pointing out that the patterns of everyday life in residential neighbourhoods – whether it is the chance encounters in the local market or conversations in the local square– are the essential material of society and may well have integrative social functions, of an individual or collective initiative.
This paper aims at an empirical contribution to a better understanding of the synthesizing mechanisms, which shape public spaces in cities’ neighbourhoods, by addressing the variety of factors involved and their relations and by highlighting the need for manifold perspectives on the localized ‘meaning’ of places, constructed, and shaped by local practices and behaviours. Drawing on the theoretical framework of relational theories, the paper sets out to explore the links between the physical sphere and the social sphere of three different residential public spaces in the city of Limassol, critically exploring the ways in which the boundaries of public space are challenged and negotiated. Both spatial analysis and social sciences methods are employed to map and unveil the essential role residential public spaces play, in bringing together what society divides in contemporary, multicultural cities, where multiplicities of identities, languages, religions and cultures may naturally give rise to tensions and even hostilities. The potential for interaction and meetings between different people backgrounds in the public realm is shown to be a crucial prerequisite for shaping encounters during their everyday life, encouraging tolerance and a feeling of belonging.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The Authors retain copyright for articles published in The Journal of Public Space, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial Licence (CC-BY-NC) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
You are free to:
• Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
• Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
References
Carmona, M. (2010) Contemporary Public Space: Critique and Classification, Part One: Critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), pp. 123–148. doi:10.1080/13574800903435651.
Charalambous, N. and Anaxagorou, G. (2015) Local Identities and Shared Worlds in Nicosia’s Public Space. In Santos Cruz, S., Brandão Alves, F. and Pinho, P. (Ed.), Generative Places Smart Approaches Happy People, pp. 427-439. Porto Portugal: Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto.
De Landa, M. (2006) A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Bloomsbury Academic.
De Landa, M. (2016) Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh University Press.
Gehl, J. (2011) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Island Press.
Franzen, M. (2009) Matters of Urban Segregation. Proceedings of the 7th international Space Syntax Symposium, pp.105:1–105:2.
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B., & Vaughan, L. (2007) The city as one thing. Progress in Planning, 67, 205-230.
Knierbein S. (2014) Public space as relational counter space. Scholarly minefield or epistemological opportunity? In Public Space and Relational Perspectives, Routledge. eBook ISBN9781315750729.
Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neighborhood: The privatization of public space. London and New York: Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) La production de l'espace (Paris: Editions Anthropos, 1974); trans. Donald Nicholson·Smith (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1991).
Legeby, A. (2010) Urban Segregation and Urban Form. Licentiate Thesis in Architecture Stockholm, Sweden 2010.
Madanipour, A. (2004) Marginal public spaces in European cities. Journal of Urban Design, 9:3, 267-286, DOI: 10.1080/1357480042000283869.
Madanipour, A. (2010) “Whose Public Space?” In Madanipour, A. (ed) Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development, Routledge.
Mitchell, W. J. (2003) The Right to the City, Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. THE GUILFORD PRESS. New York London.
Severis, R. C. (2006) Limassol, a town of visionaries. Hellenic Bank.
Sassen, S. (2008). Changes of Paradigms in the basic understanding of architectural research. Architectural Research and the Digital World. EAAE/ARCC conference Copenhagen 2008.
Tornaghi, C. & Knierbein, S. (2015) Public Space and Relational Perspectives: New Challenges for Architecture. Routledge.