Seminar 4: Defining Public Space

Lewis Dijkstra suggests that there is a definition of ‘true’ public space, and critiques various typology based on whether it meets this criteria. This idea is problematic on various levels. While it recognizes various differences in the ‘public’ it fails to recognize that those differences may need to be accommodated by entirely different spaces. While Ruth Glass notes that urban spaces defy definition and cannot be defined by the analysis of poorly and subjectively defined qualities. However, while this understanding of urban analysis identifies the difficulties in defining or analyzing urban space, it does not offer an effective alternative direction.

Kelly Shannon arrives at several conclusions and offers evidence of projects that successfully address contemporary urban conditions. It suggests, counter to the Dijkstra piece, that homogenous, one size fits all approaches to space is neither possible nor desirable. This is true on multiple levels, not just from cultural or social perspectives. To be successful, integration is paramount, but an acceptable integration is not counter to flexibility, but on the contrary is dependent on it.