Introduction

Definitions of public space vary depending on which stakeholders are writing the definition. One way to define public spaces is as ‘places publicly owned, freely accessed and enjoyable by all citizens’...’that are designed and managed to serve the needs of their users’ (Carr et al., 1992). Gehl (2010) considers public spaces as places where ordinary situations and everyday life takes place. But consider this quite different definition of urban spaces, as:

...containers to accommodate, separate, structure and organize, facilitate, heighten, and even celebrate human spatial behaviour. (Lawson 2001, pg 4)

This implies a production of space by architects and planners. Bryan Lawson’s work (2001) provides evidence that urban designers use certain visual elements to bring a building into the foreground of our attention. These are verticality, symmetry, colour, number (windows, doors, etc), meaning and context. The last two are socially constructed and may be affected by individuals and their position and the meaning that society attaches to these buildings (Hunter, 2009). Lawson uses the hill up to Prague castle as an example of a space where power is clearly demonstrated by the larger size of the buildings at the top (the palace) and the small buildings near the river where the working class live (Lawson, 2001). However, Lawson’s book should not be viewed as a guide for visual design alongside city planning elements like Kevin Lynch’s paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks (Lynch, 1960). Rather, his research attempts to understand the psychology and behaviour that result from these visual elements and calls for a change in existing design practice (Lawson, 2001). His experimental work links materialities with human behaviour and these data inform future design. For example, it was observed that people would sit alone on a convex-shaped bench while groups prefer concave shapes because they can face each other and interact (Lawson, 2001), suggesting that a variety of users could be accommodated through better design.

Many authors have challenged the idea that space is only produced by planners and argue that production of space has a social component. For example, Lefebvre states that a space is not a thing, but it is made up of relations between things (Lefebvre, 1991). Space in this sense is dynamic and would change depending on the relations between things, or assemblages, occurring at the given point in time (McFarlane, 2011). Hunter (2009) discusses Michel de Certeau in this context, where de Certeau proposes that a place is a positional reference point and through interaction with users it becomes a space because of this interaction (e.g. a person that walks through a square creates a walking space). When space is viewed in this way, evaluations of public space must include an analysis of human behaviour, but also interactions with the environment itself. Henri Lefebvre’s The Production of Space (translated 1991), includes this aspect by stating that:

each living body is space and has its space; it produces itself in space and also it produces that space. (Lefebvre 1991, pg 170) 

Hunter interprets this as an acknowledgement that humans consist of an ‘internal’ mental space and an ‘external’ physical space (Hunter, 2009). Simonsen argues that this statement is a key part of Lefebvre’s ‘lived experience’ through which the body perceives space through senses like smell, touch, sound and sight (Simonsen, 2005). A more neuroscientific definition of this experience of space would include the sensing of environmental stimuli and integration of these (perception) into some type of understanding. This is an active process but it is also very individual (Hunter, 2009). Clearly there is a need to include the individual experience of space in urban studies research.

In this context, a theoretical framework is needed to understand the interactions between planners and the individual. Lefebvre proposes a triad of social space including the dimensions; spatial practice, representations of space, and spaces of representation (Lefebvre, 1991). Kirsten Simonsen (2005) discusses each of these at length. Spatial practice includes the creation of zones for everyday human activities. This also includes a general understanding of what is acceptable according to routines and institutional rules. Representations of space are connected to the order, codes and ideology of society and are the product of planners, developers and politicians. This often determines what, physically, is built in the city. Spaces of representation embodies our personal struggle to become ‘complete persons’ and includes the idea of ‘lived experience’ previously discussed. (Simonsen, 2005). By using the term triad, Lefebvre is suggesting a struggle between these three dimensions. For example, large-scale neoliberal development projects clearly demonstrate the strength of representations of space and strongly affect spatial practice through accessibility and surveillance. The loser in this struggle would appear to be spaces of representation, in that many are excluded. Simonsen (2005) argues that spaces of representation and the associated ‘lived experience’ is the central component of Lefebvre’s project.

With the idea that space is dynamic and created by interaction and the triad of social space to understand the forces behind these interactions, Lefebvre continued on his quest for a theory of everyday life. Rhythmanalysis: space, time and everyday life was the last book written by Lefebvre (2004). It does not start in a very modest way, as illustrated by this quote:

This little book does not conceal its ambition. It proposes nothing less than to found a science, a new field of knowledge: the analysis of rhythms; with practical consequences. (Lefebvre 2004, pg 4)

Lefebvre’s earlier work was criticized for its exclusion of time and the relationship between space and time (Simonsen, 2005). However, rhythmanalysis is presented as a way to conceptualize social activities and life in a space over time. Lefebvre describes the ideal rhythmanalyst as someone that observes using all senses and in many respects becomes a part of the rhythms they are sensing. This implies the need for a considerable amount of observation as suggested by Perec (1974), especially given examples of rhythmanalysis research which last for several years (Wunderlich, 2013; Prieto de la Fuente, 2018). Time in rhythmanalysis is often cyclical time (e.g. seasonal repetitions of seasons)(Simonsen, 2005) but the linear time of modernism (e.g. regulated working days based on factory production)(Harvey, 1990) also plays a role in rhythmanalysis, at least in the form proposed by Wunderlich (2013). The use of all senses once again emphasizes the need to explore non-visual methods when studying the experience of space. In separate studies, Paget and Tuan discuss the kinaesthetic sense in which an internal sense of motion is created while the individual interacts with space (Hunter, 2009). This proprioception is thought to contribute to our reaction to the scale of buildings, a factor which is often discussed when developing quality public spaces.

Next...