Name: Ismail M Qaznili

Student ID: 4089241

Course: Urban Design and Regeneration K1DIUD

The Thread of Distinguishing between

Private and Public Spaces

Dec 2008
Contents
Contents................................................................................................................................................2
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................3
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
Open space Design Criteria..................................................................................................................2
The Perception of Open Spaces............................................................................................................7
The Physical Perception of Open Space...........................................................................................8
The Mental Perception of Open Space.............................................................................................9
The Distinguishing Thread.................................................................................................................12
Case Study..........................................................................................................................................15
Site Information..............................................................................................................................15
............................................................................................................................................................15
The Trip of Perception....................................................................................................................15
............................................................................................................................................................17
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................19
List of Figures
Figure 1 Soft Space Layout..................................................................................................................3
Figure 2 Hard Space Layout.................................................................................................................4
Figure 3 Courtyard and Terrace Forms.................................................................................................5
Figure 4 Courtyard and Terrace Proportions........................................................................................6
Figure 5Deffinition Vocabulary............................................................................................................9
Figure 6 Broadgate Park - Beeston, UK.............................................................................................15
Figure 7 Rooms and Studios Complex...............................................................................................17
Introduction

Open spaces in urban environments play a major role in driving and

generating the daily life beat of a city. It is scattered all around a city, different

in shape and size, function and role, lastly users’ characteristics. Based on the

level of influence of each property spaces can be divided into Public and

Private. Although the term private is still argued to be used to describe open

space, since these spaces is used by a numerous people but according to

Cambridge Dictionary, the word Private means “only for one person or group

and not for everyone”.

What define a spaces being public or private are the perception of space

and the level of control exerted over it.

The aim of the essay is to define how to distinguish between Private and

Public Spaces by: First, Looking into open spaces design criteria and standards.

Then, Identifying the elements of distinguishing by looking into the literature of

space design. Then, Examining an urban area as case study to identify the

interaction of the distinguishing elements. Then, Clarifying the thread of

distinguishing in the case at hand. Finally, concluding the findings.

1
Open space Design Criteria

Open spaces, indoor and outdoor consist of three main elements which

are floor, wall and ceiling to define it. The vocabulary of the elements used is

different yet they serve the same purpose, which is enclosure.

Enclosure is a relative sense between the proportion of mass and void

which created from the arrangement of space definition elements. The sense is

controllable according to the purpose desired to achieve by the designer to

meet the needs of the users. It can create an extreme sense of claustrophobia

to an extreme sense of exhilaration.

Tremlett (1983) defined the developed senses of space based on a

gradient of enclosure proportion to three: Little sense of enclosure that gives

the feeling of wandering ‘where am I?’, Partial sense of enclosure that could

give a slight feeling of familiarity and Strong sense of enclosure that gives a

feeling of belonging and clarity of surroundings. He stated that the advantage

of strong enclosure is privacy, which is translates into the strong sense of

location and encourages social interaction thus reducing the events of social

harm.

The elements that can be utilised to create enclosure – walls, floors and

ceilings – are able to develop a basic hierarchy of primary and secondary

space. This hierarchy is based relatively on the physical properties of these

elements. Primary spaces elements properties majorly rough and rigid, and

strong in character with great influence over the space, such as building walls,

mature green landscape and grand paving texture, while secondary spaces

elements properties basically soft and smooth, and has a supportive character

to the primary space, such as screening walls, shrubs and minor paving texture

2
(Tremlett. 1983).

It is possible to classify space according to its components properties to

soft and hard spaces, which gradient to create different sensations to the

users.

According to Tremlett (1983), soft spaces (Fig. 1) create feelings of

nature, informality, life, season and relaxation.

Figure 1 Soft Space Layout

As for hard space (Fig 2), they create the feelings of structure, urbanity,

security, warmth and order.

3
 Figure 2 Hard Space Layout

Tremlett (1983) believes that designers’ choice for a level of enclosure

will be affected by the layout of the space. He asserted that the basic forms of

space are the courtyard and terrace in housing areas (Fig. 3).

4
 Figure 3 Courtyard and Terrace Forms
He concluded the advantages of the courtyard form in social contact

promotion, outsider exclusion and controlling microclimate, also it has the

disadvantage of isolation from outer public activity. Also he concluded the

advantages of the terrace form in ease of vehicular access and the

disadvantage of lacking different layout possibility.

The allocation of space definition elements and the proportions of their

heights affect the sense of enclosure of spaces.

Courtyard spaces has the proportion ratio of 1:2.5 height to width as

maximum – greater ratio will lead to exhilaration sense – as for the terrace the

proportion of 1:1 height to width as minimum – lesser ratio will create a sense

of claustrophobia – in housing areas (Fig. 4) (Tremlett. 1983).

5
 Figure 4 Courtyard and Terrace Proportions
These are the basic criteria to create open spaces physically within the

housing areas. It may take different criteria and consider different concepts to

create open spaces within different urban pattern.

6
The Perception of Open Spaces

The nature of both functions and users beside the physical criteria of

spaces plays a critical role in setting the level of freedom and control to

determine the publicity and privacy of a designated open space.

Freedom and control are driven by how the users percept the elements of

an open space hence a judgment is formed for which behaviour should be

followed. Users’ behaviour judgement differs according to the natural, social

and economical background of each individual or group that will effect the

perception of the elements.

Carr, Francis, Rivlin and Stone (1992) discussed the point of “rights in

public space” in their book ‘Public Space’ (1992). They questioned does the

users of the open space have full privileges to express all their behaviours

without restrains.

Or one can think do designers have the right to force law over the users’

behaviour, since far known that designer serve the needs of the people by

design.

It’s agreed that the issue of space and users is the equation of the

expressed behaviour freedom and the enforced control limitations. The fact is

that the rights of space are to be questioned. Carr and others (1992) have

highlighted five main rights based on Lynch’s dimensions of spatial rights and

freedom. They interpreted into: access, freedom of action, claim, change and

ownership.

The freedom of access; physically, visually and symbolically are elements

which can precept by the five senses of the users. Usually facilitate in physical

design vocabulary of masses – soft and/or hard scape – and void – different

7
type of space layout and forms – to achieve regulation of expressions and

control.

The Physical Perception of Open Space

Tremlett (1983) believes that users express their movement within

spaces according to a logical pattern based on pleasantry, change, excitement

and entrances. Also he believes that users avoid and discouraged by obstacles,

unpleasantness, disorder, monotonous and lack of inspiration.

He believes that the reason for people to express relaxation in spaces is

created by comfort of place, privacy, view admiration, resting, objects and

desired function.

As for Carr and et al (1992), the freedom of access is “the ability to enter

a space”, it is controlled by physical, visual and symbolic characteristics. The

physical characteristics of an access is generated by the layout and formation

of the masses the serve as entrances for the space.

Different formations create possibilities which drive the users. Tremlett

(1983) exhibited examples of it by studying the urban pattern and found that;

narrows of walkways, key-hole formation of gates that create contrast of light

and dark areas, picture frame entrances, path deflection of an angle of 30 to

45, and folding screens of masses plays significant role in influencing the

behaviour of users. Thus creating control and giving an opportunity for users to

express their actions.

Different combinations can aid in defining the entrance which control the

transaction between different territories. The territory follows a hierarchy of

public to semi public/private to private according to Tremlett (1983). The

setting of territory and ownership – privacy – is enforced by user(s) which

8
belong to that space either spatially or aspatially.

According to Tremlett (1983) a territory is a physical domain for user(s)

that delivers sense of pride and self-esteem, delivers the freedom of expression

without interference and delivers clarity of ownership. Giving a sample of how

territory can be achieved by defining the entrance of the space. By applying

some vocabulary of walls with/out gates, staggering walls, building bridging

gap, vegetation, and stairs and turning corner between the masses (Fig. 5).

Figure 5Deffinition Vocabulary

The Mental Perception of Open Space

Mentality of the users which drives the perception of the open space is

afflicted by the social and economical background. With different combinations

of their characteristics, users’ behaviour and interaction with their surroundings

will vary.

9
 When examining the mental perception of the physical elements which

define space – which has been mentioned earlier – the results shows that these

elements actually serve active and passive effect on the users’ perception

which drives their “freedom of action” (Carr and et al, 1993:151).

He defined this freedom as “the ability to carry out the activities the one

desires, to use a place as one wishes but with the recognition that a public

space is a shared space”. Such situation to certain extent is a utopia. The

different needs and desires are vying to dominate over each other. The

dominance is relative to qualitative and quantitative aspects which is not

simply determined in an open space.

Carr (1993) discussed the freedom of action and how it is manipulated by

the laws and restrictions enforced in open spaces. These restrictions were mere

regulations set and enforced by the local authorities in order to ensure the

safety of the users and to protect the public property in some cases he

discussed the case of privatised open space and how it can affect the freedom

of action of the users.

Also he discussed the physical characteristics of open space and how it

can affect the behaviour of users, mentioning the idea of Wurman, Levy and

Katz of the “specificity” of open spaces questioning the capability of space to

house single specific use or a variety of uses. He demonstrates a study done by

Madden and Bussard in 1977 on two open spaces within the Riis Park. The

findings stated that a large clear meadow area where used to serve different

purposes of sports and picnicking. While another area of the same size was

fully equipped and furnished as ball fields but were only used rarely.

This contradiction of preparation and performance of space to meet

needs of the user is a result of the mental perception for the physical
10
characteristics of the site. Some elements when used to serve an active

function sought by the designer designating a group of users in return their

passive effect will repel the neglected group.

The presence of the open space' basic elements -walls, floors and

ceilings- act as polar that emits a signal which will be interpreted by the users

mentality that creates a sense of draw or repels. Designers should understand

active and passive effect of the elements and learn how to facilitate it to create

open spaces that help their users to express their desires and feelings freely

without disturbing the public atmosphere.

11
The Distinguishing Thread

As mentioned before, the elements that create space have a mental

impact on the users’ mentality which drives certain behaviours accordingly

either by encouragement or discouragement. It is the role of the designer to

utilise this impact to facilitate open space to serve its designated users and

help them to claim rights of action and access.

To make things simpler, it all about the pull and push factors of how these

elements invite a specific users to express their needs and how they repel the

rest. Space basically exercises containment on the users, by giving access,

screening, providing furniture and creating atmosphere mechanisms.

Access provided to open spaces control the number and type of the

users. By using different vocabulary of gates design it is possible to enforce

control over how many users could enter the open space relatively to its size or

within certain periods of time. It can control the nature and characteristics of

the users by creating a theme based on the function that it serves. In a relative

degree the perception of it as pull factor will bloom in the users familiar to the

place or it is theirs’ destination.

Screening elements wither natural or man-made control the level of

privacy. The density of the screening textures grades from soft to rough alters

privacy accordingly. The greater the level it delivers the less likely for the place

to uphold many users. Relatively hard and dens texture emphasis a high level

of privacy that repels outsiders from entering or gaining vision toward the

space and invite insiders to express their feelings broadly without restrain.

Misapplication of such of level could generate a detrimental effect though.

Maximum concealing from direct vision could cause a sense of uneasiness or

12
victimisation.

Provided furniture essentially is what the users interacts with within the

open space. Various types of seating, walkways and activity facilities wither

made by nature or man-made contribute in the process of pulling and pushing

users. The variety of seating based on the used material – natural or man-

made – or design standards, targets the users’ characteristics’ of gender, age,

tastes, and physical attributes to give them an opportunity to enjoy their stay.

Walkways provide manoeuvrability within the open space which is affected by

the formation – organic or geometric -, length, foundation material – natural or

man-made – and allocation, in relation with the users’ characteristics’. In cases

of natural long organic pathway could prove a hindrance for the elderly while in

the same time provide adventure to the young, lastly could pose danger for the

children.

Lastly, the atmosphere generated within the space using the natural and

man-made elements of constructions could enhance the users experience

within the open space. Providing on-site elements that reduce the excessive

sun exposure by creating shading in the summer, and to provide shelter from

undesired wind flow – cold, hot, or dusty – and from respiration elements. The

enhancement of weather to various levels regulate users activities in space in

different weather conditions.

These mechanisms work integrally with each other in fluctuated manner

to deliver the sense of space.

13
14
Case Study

By examining an urban fabric, it easier to understand how the pervious

mechanisms function and how they serve theirs’ purpose.

The Student accommodation of UPP Broadgate Park, Beeston,

Nottingham is chosen as a case study to help understand how the perception of

open spaces works in real life.

Site Information

The Student accommodation of UPP Broadgate Park, Beeston in the UK is

chosen as a case study to help understand the perception of open spaces.

Figure 6 Broadgate Park - Beeston, UK

The Trip of Perception

Breaking down the site into small part to ease the process of perception

and to exhibit the elements of open space more accurately and how do they

15
percept.

16
 Figure 7 Rooms and Studios Complex
The area shown in the picture is for a part of the accommodation which

has a large studios complex to east in L shape, opposite to it a single en-suit

complex to the west. In between there is a space which is divided into two

pavement and grass. To the south west there is a complex of single room

complex enclosing the space from the west.

Considering the open space elements and its impact on the users, two

subjects were tested. The first is a resident of the accommodation within this

part; the other is a visitor to site. The criterion which is adapted to this test is

the belonging to site.

The resident subject expresses this space as where he feels more familiar

and less alienated among the other users of the same space. The layout of the
17
mass is providing a gentle embracement that protects him from the outside

surroundings. The material or the theme is new to him and delivers a feeling of

change from his previous environment. The persisting vegetation in the space

is soothing and tranquilizing his emotions giving him peace. The access is

defined clearly and it regulating outsiders movement.

The visitor however was mostly quite the opposite. Although he didn’t

belong to the accommodation he was local while the resident was an

international.

18
Conclusion

To conclude, stating or creating an open space to be either public or

private is a mere mirage since their principles are all based on relativity

between the physical elements and the different behaviours of the users

generated from the diversity of their background.

This relativity also is handled differently by the designer on a hand and

the users on the other hand. This creates mismatch between them that create

unwanted behaviours by the users and deficiency of open space function to

meet the targeted needs.

Also to note out, an open space is originally public serving a group of

users to a certain level until it starts to decrease the size of the served group,

and the state of private space doesn’t exist in reality, actually it is a virtual

expression. When the open space becomes less public grading on a scale until

it serve a single user it could be expressed as if this open space is getting more

private. This virtual expression is driven by the mentality of the user as gaining

more freedom to express his action without any disturbance from or to the

surroundings.

Finally, it appears that the thread to distinguish between public and

private open space doesn’t exist physically, it is a virtual concept that differs

from an individual to another.

Considering that, the finding of this study and the examination of the

case study should not be taken as definite conclusion or statement rather it

should be taken as an opinion.

19
References
• Carr, S. Francis, M. Rivlin, L. and Stone, A. (1992) Public Space. USA:
Cambridge University Press 1992
• Google Maps. http://maps.google.co.uk/
• Tremlett, G. (1983) Housing Layout. London: The Architectural Press 1983

20