ABSTRACT

The last two decades have witnessed a growing commitment to European public space projects seeking to promote social cohesion. These projects are built on the premise that social cohesion is under threat from the increasing cultural and economic differences in contemporary cities, and that it should be promoted through public spaces. This paper examines the key commonalities and differences among these new public space projects, in terms of their social, economic and planning policy contexts, social goals, design aims, processes and outcomes, and their diverse representational and use needs. The paper characterizes three distinct open space design approaches – Symbolic, Programmatic and Minimalist – that governments and designers that have put forward as best practices to enhance social cohesion, which have all been applied in similar socio-cultural and urban contexts: multicultural, low-income neighbourhoods that are experiencing gentrification. By combining theories and methods from urban design and social sciences, this paper offers an assessment and comparison of the three case studies and their relative merits and limitations in terms of how they used public space design to support the divergent functional and representational needs of diverse social groups, and the common aim of enhancing cohesion among these groups.

摘要

在过去的二十年里，人们越来越多地致力于寻求促进社会凝聚力的欧洲公共空间项目。这些项目的前提是社会凝聚力受到当代城市日益增长的文化和经济差异的威胁，应该通过公共空间来促进这种凝聚力。本文从社会、经济和规划政策背景、社会目标、设计目标、​​过程和结果，以及它们多样化的表现和使用需求等方面探讨了这些新公共空间项目之间的关键共性和差异。该论文描述了三种不同的开放空间设计方法——象征性、程序化和极简主义——政府和设计师提出了作为增强社会凝聚力的最佳实践，这些都被应用于类似的社会文化和城市环境：正在经历中产阶级化的多元文化、低收入社区。通过结合城市设计和社会科学的理论和方法，本文对三个案例研究及其在如何使用公共空间设计来支持不同社会的不同功能和代表性需求方面的优点和局限性进行了评估和比较。群体，以及增强这些群体之间凝聚力的共同目标。