METHODS FOR STUDYING PUBLIC SPACES' IMPACT ON THEIR LIFE : How to understand and improve them for their purpose

• Main Author: Westlund, Kristin
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: Luleå tekniska universitet, Arkitektur och vatten 2018
• Subjects: urban planning; methods; public space; public life; public spaces' impact on public life; Civil Engineering; Samhällsbyggnadsteknik; Infrastructure Engineering; Infrastrukturteknik
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-70441

The great impact urbanized cities have on its people has been studied since the 1960s. This has created new methods to measure this impact. However, because of lack of knowledge on how to use these methods they are rarely used in the planning process of new spaces in practice. By concluding what each method provides to our understanding of public spaces, and how they can be further developed, we can create a more holistic and efficient planning-process regarding public spaces, while aiming for the important goal “To create cities fit for people”. In this study the focus will be on two existing methods: Space syntax and Jan Gehl’s method of observation. The motivation for these particular methods is their differences in their approach. The purpose of this study is “to get a deeper understanding of already existing urban planning methods in order to improve them for their purposes”. The purpose has been divided into three questions that will be answered: What are the differences between Space syntax and Jan Gehl’s method of observation? What can they provide in the study of public spaces’ effect on public life? If, then how can they contribute to each other in order to improve the methods separately for their purposes in the study of public spaces? To answer these questions, the objective will be to measure the impact of two public spaces on their public life by using the two methods. The results will be interpreted, compared and discussed for potential further development. Regarding what is the difference between the methods, it can be described as space syntax using the perspective of space and Jan Gehl the perspective of life. This leads to space syntax being concerned about how much the space encourages usage of it while Jan Gehl’s method of observation is focusing on the behaviour of the people using the space, for example who they are and what they do. Different representations for the methods become a result of this. When discussing what each method can provide to the study of public spaces, space syntax usefulness for comparing spaces to each other and making prognosis makes it adapted to choose an appropriate location for a new project. Jan Gehl method with its high amount of details can show the success of a space in practice.  Regarding what the methods can provide to each other in order to improve them: Space syntax is not entirely accurate to the observed flow of people, mostly derived from lack of input about important destinations. Therefore, one suggestion for improvement is to introduce important destinations as a variable.  The efficiency of space syntax can be integrated to the quality measurements of Jan Gehl’s method. By using computer programs to measure people’s behaviours, the time spending to observe and catalogue can decrease. However, surveillance has in history been used without people’s knowledge by the government and therefore it is very important for ethical reasons to get the general public’s approval before using these strategies.