Recent decades have brought about an increased focus on public space as part of building more inclusive and sustainable neighbourhoods and cities. Not only are the development of public space highlighted as important in the Sustainable Development Goals and in the New Urban Agenda, but they have also become the focus of movements such as New, Sustainable and Tactical Urbanism. However, recent events such as the outbreak of Covid-19 and protests by Black Lives Matter, have shaken our ideas and perceptions of public space. It forces us to pause for a moment and reconsider the meaning for and threats to inclusive public space. Broadly, inclusive refers to something containing a specified element of a whole or not excluding any section of society or any party (Oxford Dictionary 1999, p. 717). In this sense, inclusive public space would allow for different parts or groups of society to be accommodated in public space or in other words for social and physical inclusion. For example, making space for young people (Crane 1999), skate-boarders (Carmona 2010) and different race groups (Edgell 1998) in public space or for informal livelihoods (Chen and Kihato 2018) and pop-up markets (Madanipour 2017). However, the notion of inclusive public space has also been challenged by growing security concerns and debates related to whether inclusive or exclusive spaces would be safer. Consequently, certain spaces become monoculturally dominated, undermining the intention for public spaces to be democratic places for all (Shaftoe 2008, p. 16). This has also recently been extended to question the validity of certain actions, such as protests in the name of maintaining security. How can we consider the safety of people without excluding some? How can we make room for different groups of society in the public space? How can we allow for different groups to voice their concerns within public space without the fear of being arrested? How can we ensure that the nature of public space is culturally inclusive and do not evoke traumatic memories? These questions need to be considered if we strive towards more inclusive public spaces. This special issue of Urban Design International invited different scholars and practitioners to offer their insights through in-depth case studies and practical interventions. This issue seeks to not only question the notion of inclusive public space in its various manifestations but also to interrogate it within different contexts. Consequently, perspectives from both the global South and North are represented, as well as from the East and West. This does not only highlight vast cultural differences and political challenges but also show some similarities in terms of more common concerns and opportunities.

中文翻译：

---

包容性公共空间：重新思考缓解、适应和转型实践

近几十年来，人们越来越关注公共空间，作为建设更具包容性和可持续性的社区和城市的一部分。公共空间的开发不仅在可持续发展目标和新城市议程中被强调为重要，而且也成为新、可持续和战术城市主义等运动的焦点。然而，最近的事件，例如 Covid-19 的爆发和 Black Lives Matter 的抗议活动，动摇了我们对公共空间的想法和看法。它迫使我们暂停片刻，重新考虑包容性公共空间的意义和威胁。从广义上讲，包容性是指包含整体的特定元素或不排除社会的任何部分或任何一方的事物（牛津词典 1999，第 717 页）。在这个意义上，包容性公共空间将允许社会的不同部分或群体被安置在公共空间中，或者换言之，实现社会和物质包容。例如，在公共空间或非正式生计（Chen 和 Kihato 2018）和快闪市场（Madanipour 2017）中为年轻人（Crane 1999）、滑板爱好者（Carmona 2010）和不同种族群体（Edgell 1998）腾出空间. 然而，包容性公共空间的概念也受到日益增长的安全问题和关于包容性或专属性空间是否更安全的争论的挑战。因此，某些空间变得单一文化主导，破坏了公共空间成为所有人的民主场所的意图（Shaftoe 2008，第 16 页）。这最近也被扩展到质疑某些行动的有效性，比如以维护安全为名的抗议活动。在不排除某些人的情况下，如何考虑人的安全？我们如何才能在公共空间中为不同的社会群体腾出空间？我们怎样才能让不同的群体在公共空间表达他们的担忧而不用担心被逮捕？我们如何确保公共空间的性质具有文化包容性，并且不会唤起创伤性记忆？如果我们努力打造更具包容性的公共空间，就需要考虑这些问题。本期《国际城市设计》特刊邀请了不同的学者和从业者通过深入的案例研究和实践干预来发表他们的见解。这个问题不仅试图质疑各种表现形式的包容性公共空间的概念，而且还试图在不同的背景下对其进行质疑。因此，代表了全球南方和北方以及东方和西方的观点。这不仅突出了巨大的文化差异和政治挑战，而且在更常见的问题和机会方面也表现出一些相似之处。