Back
 CUS  Vol.4 No.3 , September 2016
Comparative Analysis of the Quality Perception in Public Spaces of Duzce City
Abstract: Public spaces in urban areas were affected from neoliberal policies in terms of their management and ownership. Accordingly, several researchers handled public spaces from different perspectives considering on advantages or disadvantages of neoliberal policies. Four key attributes of successful places: accessibility, comfort, socialization, and activity are accepted as quality indicators of today’s urban spaces and they became an outline for this study. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of different type public spaces and to determine the reason why these differences. Therefore, quality differences resulting from management and ownership were evaluated in scope of public space literature. Our findings put forward that ownership of spaces is not a significant factor perceiving the quality of spaces. Besides, publicly owned urban spaces were found as not always preferable and the ownership was not a basis factor for quality perception.
Cite this paper: Karacor, E. and Akcam, E. (2016) Comparative Analysis of the Quality Perception in Public Spaces of Duzce City. Current Urban Studies, 4, 257-266. doi: 10.4236/cus.2016.43017.
References

[1]   Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15, 157-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574801003638111

[2]   Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C., & Hammond, L. (2008). Public Space: The Management Dimension. New York: Routledge Press.

[3]   Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Urban Spaces-Public Places: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural Press.

[4]   Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, Observing, and Lingering: Everyday Public Spaces and Their Implications for Well-Being and Social Relations. Health & Place, 14, 544-561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.10.007

[5]   Efroymson, D., Thanha, T. T. K., & Ha, P. T. (2009). Public Spaces: How They Humanize Cities. Dhaka: HealthBridge-WBB Trust.

[6]   Gehl, J. (2011). Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington DC: Island Press.

[7]   Graham, S., & Aurigi, A. (1997). Virtual Cities, Social Polarization, and the Crisis in Urban Public Space. The Journal of Urban Technology, 4, 19-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630739708724546

[8]   Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007). Social Interactions in Urban Public Places. Bristol: The Policy Press.

[9]   Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Vintage Books.

[10]   Lloyd, K., & Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, Public Space and Quality of Life in the Urban Environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21, 339-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0811114032000147395

[11]   Lotfi, S., & Koohsari, M. J. (2009a). Measuring Objective Accessibility to Neighborhood Facilities in the City (A Case Study: Zone 6 in Tehran, Iran). Cities, 26, 133-140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.02.006

[12]   Lotfi, S., & Koohsari, M. J. (2009b). Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place. Social Indicators Research, 94, 417-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9438-5

[13]   Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Banerjee, T. (1998). Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form. California: University of California Press.

[14]   Low, S., & Smith, N. (2013). The Imperative Public Space. In S. Low, & N. Smith (Eds.), The Politics of Public Space. New York: Routledge.

[15]   Madanipour, A. (2010). Whose Public Space. In A. Madanipour (Ed.), Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development (pp. 237-243). New York: Routledge.

[16]   Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 108-133.

[17]   Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 3, 93-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418

[18]   Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The Privatization of Public Space: Modeling and Measuring Publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 5-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b36057

[19]   Placemaking Chicago (2016). Comfort of Public Spaces.
http://www.placemakingchicago.com/about/qualities.asp

[20]   PPS (2016). Project for Public Spaces. http://www.pps.org/

[21]   Sennett, R. (1996). Kamusal Insanin Cokusu [The Fall of Public Man]. Istanbul: Ayrinti Yayinlari.

[22]   Stathopoulos, T., Wu, H., & Zacharias, J. (2004). Outdoor Human Comfort in an Urban Climate. Building and Environment, 39, 297-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.09.001

[23]   UN Habitat (2015). Global Public Space Toolkit from Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).

[24]   Williams, K., & Green, S. (2001). Literature Review of Public Space and Local Environments for the Cross Cutting Review Final Report. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Research Analysis and Evaluation Division.

[25]   Yang, W., & Kang, J. (2005). Acoustic Comfort Evaluation in Urban Open Public Spaces. Applied Acoustics, 66, 211-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2004.07.011

 
 
Top