Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Public Space by Private Actors? Outlining the Issues
Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background Sustainable Urban Regeneration (CSUR) and builds across the world. As the Occupy movement spread
This volume, 'Privately Owned Public Spaces: The on an earlier collaborative research project that was around the globe and as other privately owned public
International Perspective', is based on a weeklong set up by Christian Dimmer (University of Tokyo), spaces were similarly taken over such as Hong Kong’s
workshop and conference that took place in Tokyo Juliane Pegels (RWTH Aachen), Elke Schlack Fuhrmann iconic HSBC Plaza, Taipei’s 101 Tower, and City Square in
in February 2012. The workshop brought together (Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago de Chile), as well Melbourne, so spread the awareness that such hybrid
young international scholars engaging in a variety of as Marieluise Jonas and Beau Beza (RMIT Melbourne) spaces at the nexus of the public and private domains
research projects, dealing with the private provision of in 2008. also existed in many other countries and continents.
collective space, with leading Japanese public space Although it has been decades since local governments
administrators, planning practitioners, and researchers 2. Introduction around the world started rewarding bonus floor area
(Fig.2). The concurrence of the appropriation of Zuccotti to private developers if they in turn agree to produce
During the workshop, fieldwork and interviews with Park by the Occupy Wall Street movement in October and maintain publicly usable urban spaces, most
urban administrators and scholars were carried out 2011 and the 50th anniversary of New York City’s research so far has discussed these ‘privately owned
in Yokohama, Kawasaki, Kyoto, Fukuoka, and Osaka groundbreaking zoning ordinance has drawn renewed public spaces’ (hereafter referred to as POPS), as Jerold
in order to provide a deeper understanding of the and unprecedented attention to a particular mode Kayden coined them in his seminal book of the same
diverse and differentiated manifestations of the of urban governance that has not only brought this title (2000), against the background of North American
related planning policies (Fig.3). This research was widely televised Lower Manhattan park into being cities only. This volume seeks to overcome this inherent
kindly funded by The University of Tokyo’s Center for but also hundreds of its kind; not only in New York but Western bias by offering a broad survey of governance
Fig.1 The price for a questionable amenity: Maybe unintentionally, the shift towards the floor area ratio (FAR) system, aiming at the creation of new downtown open spaces, legitimised the proliferation of high-rises in urban Japan
002
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
systems that have been producing privately owned
public spaces in cities as diverse as Santiago de Chile,
New York, Seattle, Aachen, Bangkok, Taipei, Hong
Kong, Melbourne, Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Sapporo, and
Yoko-hama.
By concentrating on this seemingly simple and
straightforward bargain of additional building height
or other zoning concessions in turn for the provision of
publicly usable space, this comparative study analyses
the influence of different planning and governance
cultures in 13 very different cities and highlights
the role that particular local histories, geographies,
institutions and actor-networks play therein.
3. Significance of this Collaborative Research
This collection of essays is not intended as a conclusive
statement but an initial broad survey of this specific
subset of publicly usable spaces that sketches out
common ground and provides the basis for more
systematic future research. Furthermore, it seeks
to make a contribution to three wider, theoretical
discourses. Fig.2 The POPS Symposium in Tokyo brought together international public space researchers with eminent Japanese planning experts
First, a fresh body of recent scholarship in planning
theory has highlighted global learning processes, the problems are too disparate to advance a more coherent At the same time the proliferation of hundreds of high-
multi-directional circulation of planning ideas, and the comparative agenda. rises that were predicated by this policy is having a
particular ways these manifest in different cultures and This collection of essays adds to these international severe impact on urban spaces and local communities
local contexts (See Edensor and Jayne 2011, Healey public space discourses by focusing on one single (Fig.1, 4, 5).
and Upton 2010; Sanyal 2005; Nasr and Volait 2003, subset of public space, namely privately owned public Are these new public spaces allowing for democratic
Ward 2002). This collection of essays contributes to space, and compares related issues systematically in expression and supporting complex social interaction
these novel planning theoretical discourses. Instead 13 different cities. Quantitatively speaking, these POPS among various members and groups of the public, or
of discussing very different planning issues on various are highly significant as they have thrived adjacent does an ever-growing number of POPS undermine a
spatial scales and cultural contexts, this volume to hundreds of downtown skyscrapers since the late buoyant, diverse public life and create more problems
compares 13 international cities by focusing on one 1960s (Fig.1). Moreover, since these privately owned, than it solves? To which degree can the design and
single set of institutions, actor-networks, and plan- yet publicly accessible spaces result from a trade-off of management of a vital public good like collective
ning tools that provide publicly usable spaces through bonus floor area for open space, involving developers urban space be given over to profit-oriented interests?
private actors. This reduced analytical framework and local governments, their design and operation How much and which kind of control can be tolerated
and the narrow spectrum of spatial archetypes dis- reflects how both public and private key actors at a in order to safeguard the evolution of diverse social
cussed allows for a systematic analysis and provides specific point in time thought about public space. This activities?
a more solid common ground for further comparative is a fresh perspective, as until now, most writing on the
planning theory studies. subject focused mostly on government policies but
Second, until not too long ago, international public ignored the motivation of private developers (ibid.).
space debates strongly centred on European or North Third, with the rise of neoliberal policies and the
American cities, or those influenced by European entrepreneurial city (Brenner and Nik 2003; Harvey
cultures through colonialism (Low 2000) — in effect 2005), important urban governance interventions like
underplaying public space in non-western settings the provision of public spaces need to be critically
(See Dimmer 2012). Only recently has urban collective interrogated. Indeed, incentive zoning, the mechanism
space been discussed in a cross-cultural perspective behind the creation of POPS, is credited with “being
(Miao 2001; Madanipour 2010; Hou 2010), seeking a marvelously creative solution for obtaining public
to decentre the dominating Western bias. While benefits without expenditure of taxpayer money, at
these books offer valuable new insights and identify a time when public sector budgets are increasingly
Fig.3 Participants of the international workshop visited POPS across
important common issues, the discussed spaces and constrained" (Kayden 2000: 307). Japan and entered into a dialogue with local governments
003
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
4. What is Privately Owned Public Space? than counteracts whatever negative impacts, such as Part I
In this volume, the term privately owned public spaces greater street and sidewalk congestion and loss of light The first part discusses the standardised production of
(abbreviated as POPS) refers to urban spaces that are and air, that may be associated with larger buildings. POPS in various countries and loosely in chronological
the result of some kind of trade-off between local For the developer, the rationale is still simpler: the order of the introduction of the planning systems; from
governments and private landowners or developers. value of the incentive equals or exceeds the cost of New York, where this trade-off system of bonus floor
Landowners are granted the right to build a bulkier providing the public space, making the transaction a area for publicly usable open space was 'invented'
building than allowed by existing planning regulations, financially desirable one" (2000: 22). This suggests that via Chile, Melbourne, Taiwan, Hong Kong to Thailand,
receive a tax cut, or are exempted from other building- “alternative methods for securing small public spaces, where it was introduced only in recent years.
form limiting regulations. Accepting this bonus from such as buying them with money from the city's capital The discussion of Aachen’s Bücherplatz concludes
the public side, the developer is then obliged to budget, would be less worthwhile or simply unrealistic” the first part by offering a very different, contrasting
provide a publicly usable space, or other stipulated (ibid. 307). The financial mechanics behind incentive perspective to the preceding chapters. While in New
amenities. The space remains in private property but zoning are straightforward: to attract developers, York, Santiago de Chile, Taipei, Hong Kong, Bangkok,
must be usable in principle by all members of the pub- cities must provide incentives that convey a financial and Tokyo, local governments are in a weak position
lic at any time. Incentive zoning, a planning method benefit sufficient to at least cover the costs incurred in and hard-pressed to carve out precious public space for
that does not force private developers to produce providing the POPS (ibid. 23). Floor area bonuses and rapidly expanding cities, in Germany local governments
a desired public good but induces this through the other stimuli benefit developers either by increasing have traditionally had the final say on planning
provision of an incentive, commonly produces POPS. their income or reducing their costs. FA bonuses decisions and held far-reaching planning powers. While
Other POPS are not newly created but preserved. for example increase a building's cash flow or value general, abstract and place-independent parametric
If a landowner agrees to maintain a piece of inner through rental or sale of the extra space. Frequently, rules dictate the form and use of the POPS elsewhere,
city open space instead of building the land up, and the ability to develop extra space allows the building in Germany every space is negotiated individually
agrees to open it to the community, he is entitled to to be taller, and the higher story floors may be rented between developers, local communities and municipal
tax benefits. No new open space is created here but a or sold at higher rates because of better views. governments. Often the property situation is blurred
hitherto inaccessible private open space is opened to Concessions to setback and building envelope through overlapping responsibilities and a lack of clear
all members of a community. regulations may allow for a building design that is agreements.
As Kayden suggests, the implicit rationale behind more in keeping with the tastes of the developer, or
incentive zoning is that the public is better off in a the market, or may reduce construction costs. In return Part II
physical environment that has more public spaces for the incentive, the developer agrees to allocate The second part provides an in-depth discussion of
as well as bigger buildings than in one with fewer a portion of its lot or building to be used as a POPS, urban Japan and exemplifies the provision of POPS in
public spaces and smaller buildings. This kind of public constrict and maintain the space according to the various cities and different spatial scales. In literature,
space is seen as density ameliorating, “in that it more stipulated design standards, and allow access to and it is often claimed that until very recently the Japanese
use of the space by members of the public. “In effect, planning system was very uniform and standardised;
the developer 'pays' for its bonus floor area or non-floor- legislated from above through central government
area incentive by agreeing to these obligations” (ibid.). directives and not allowing for meaningful local
Although the privately owned public space continues, adaptations.
by definition, to be privately owned, the owner has However, on closer sight, and somehow
legally surrendered significant rights associated with commonsensical, it becomes clear that the
its private property, including the right to exclude manifestation of incentive zoning and the provision
others, and may no longer treat this part of its property of POPS does differ significantly in Osaka, Kyoto,
any way it wishes. As de facto third-party beneficiaries, Yokohama, Tokyo, and Sapporo for example. Thus, local
members of the public participate in the exchange by histories and path-dependencies as well as physical
gaining their own rights to this private property, even and socio-economic contexts do make a critical
as they endure whatever extra congestion and loss of difference.
light and air that may result from the grant of extra Part II discusses how local governments utilise their
floor area or other regulatory concessions (ibid.). weak planning powers to achieve distinctly different
outcomes if they have a coherent planning and public
5. Structure of this Volume space vision (Sapporo, Yokohama), if there has been
This volume offers a variety of empirically grounded a sustained political commitment (Yokohama), or if
and theoretically informed examinations of privately long-established collaborative planning practices have
owned public space across the world as well as an influenced the spatial production until today (Osaka).
in-depth discussion of the implications of the related Local planning cultures, local histories and actor
Fig.4 The provision of POPS in urban Japan often leads to conflicts
between large incentive zoning-buildings and fine-grain urban contexts planning instruments in urban Japan. networks do matter.
004
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Part III [REFERENCES]
The final part of this volume looks beyond the highly BRENNER, Neil, and Nik THEODORE, eds. 2003. Spaces LOW, Setha. 2000. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public
standardised provision of corporate plazas that do of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
not differ too much in terms of design quality, glossy and Western Europe. Wiley-Blackwell. MADANIPOUR, Ali. 2001. Whose Public Space?
materials, and the limited possibilities they offer for DIMMER, Christian. 2012. Re-imagining Public Space: International Case Studies in Urban Design and
facilitating public interaction, or the lack thereof. The Vicissitudes of Japan’s Privately Owned Public Development. Abingdon Oxon ; New York: Routledge.
Instead, the chapters on Seattle, Kyoto, and Taipei Spaces. In Urban Spaces in Japan: Cultural and Social MIAO, Pu, ed. 2010. Public Places in Asia Pacific Cities:
introduce a different kind of POPS that have been Perspectives, ed. Christoph Brumann and Evelyn Current Issues and Strategies. Softcover reprint of
produced and maintained by local communities. These Schulz, 74–105. Routledge. hardcover 1st ed. 2001. Springer. Reprint, 2010.
spaces are much closer to the everyday lives of the EDENSOR, Tim, and Mark JAYNE. 2011. Urban Theory NASR, Joe, and Mercedes VOLAIT, eds. 2003. Urbanism:
citizens and offer more meaningful ways to engage in a Beyond the West: A World of Cities. Routledge. Imported or Exported. 1st ed. Academy Press.
wider variety of social activities. They cater to distinctly HARVEY, David. 2005. Spaces of Neoliberalization: SANYAL, Bishwapriya. 2005. Comparative Planning
wider strata of society, are far more enabling and Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Cultures. New York: Routledge.
empowering to local communities, and in short, are Development. Franz Steiner Verlag. SCRUTON, Roger. 1987. "Public Space and the Classical
more meaningful public spaces. HEALEY, Patsy, and Robert UPTON, eds. 2010. Crossing Vernacular." In The Public Face of Architecture: Civic
The example of Taipei is significant in this respect Borders: International Exchange and Planning Culture and Public Spaces, edited by Nathan Glazer and
because the local government plays a vital role in Practices. 1st ed. Routledge. Mark Lilla, 13-25. New York: Free Press.
the creation of community spaces and takes the lead HOU, Jeffrey. 2010. Insurgent Public Space : Guerrilla SHIFFMAN, Ron, Rick BELL, Lance Jay BROWN, and
in activating communities. Furthermore, the city is Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. Lynne ELIZABETH. 2012. Beyond Zuccotti Park:
providing incentives for the creation of temporary New York: Routledge. Freedom of Assembly and the Occupation of Public
community green spaces and urban farms, making use KAYDEN, Jerold S., The Municipal Art Society of Spaces. New Village Press.
of otherwise inaccessible inner-city brownfield sites New York, and The City of New York City Planning WARD, Stephen V. 2002. Planning the Twentieth-
that are awaiting redevelopment. In short, Taipei is an Department. 2000. Privately owned public space: the Century City: The Advanced Capitalist World. 1st ed.
excellent example of a city that is not shying away from New York City experience. New York: J. Wiley. Academy Press.
experiments and is actively engaging its citizens.
Fig.5 Are these spaces really worth the deal? Nobody in Tokyo monitors the quality and usability of the city's countless POPS; design and management remain mostly in the discretion of the developers
005
Greater Santiago
641 km2 *
Seattle City New York City Aachen City Bangkok City
5,428,590 people * 217 km2
1,213 km2
161 km2
1,568 km2
84.6 people/ha * 620,778 people 8,244,910 people 260,454 people 8,280,925 people
* Santiago de Chile’s figure 28.4 people/ha 105.2 people/ha 16.2 people/ha 53.0 people/ha
AACHEN
SEATTLE
NEW YORK
SANTIAGO
50km
Hong Kong Special
Administarative Region Taipei City Tokyo Metropolis Metropolitan Melbourne
1,104 km2
272 km2
2,189 km2
8,806 km2
7.026,400 people 2,650,968 people 13,227,730 people 4,170,000 people
64.6 people/ha 96.0 people/ha 60.4 people/ha 15.7 people/ha
International Experience Part I
TOKYO
HONGKONG
BANGKOK TAIPEI
MELBOURNE
Map by Chie Kodama, The University of Tokyo
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Changing Understanding of New York City's Privately Owned Public Spaces
Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background building massing and the pubic realm of streets and to relieve congestion and monotony,” exclaims Ennis
Throughout modern history, planning innovations and sidewalks. Just like parametric planning regulations in (1960). Instead of building up the complete plot, the
public space policies in New York City have served as Japan today, the more a building was set back from the building was set back from the property line and a
templates for other cities worldwide; be it the idea of a property line, the higher it could rise; the wider a street, large representative plaza was created.
central park, of Olmstead’s park system, the “light and the higher the building part fronting it. If the building
air” philosophy of the 1916 zoning ordinance, a trade- covered no more than 1/4 of the whole plot there was 3. 1961: Trading Floor Area for Public Space
off of bonus floor area for public space, or management no height restriction at all, as it was assumed that After over a decade of examination processes, the new
innovations such as the business improvement district slim, tall buildings would not interfere with light and zoning ordinance was enacted in 1961. It introduced
around Bryant Park, or the Central Park Conservancy. air reaching the street or the lower parts of adjacent a maximum building volume limit and was modeled
buildings (Kayden et al 2000: 9). In the absence of after the Seagram Building and other innovative
2. “Light and Air”: The 1916 Zoning Ordinance ground coverage stipulations and skyrocketing land precedents. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) defined the total
From the early 1900s on, technical progress had allowed prices, the majority of buildings covered their plots floor area that a building could have in a specific
the construction of ever-higher skyscrapers with the completely and no space was left open. This changed zoning lot in relation to the area of the building
consequence that congestion increased and less and only with the completion of Ludwig Mies van der plot. These more flexible parametric rules in turn
less “light and air” reached the streets. An aggressive Rohe’s iconic Seagram Building in 1958, which the would encourage more original architectural design
race to build New York’s tallest building progressed building industry greeted with enthusiasm, and which to achieve attractive, efficient and ultimately more
with no regulation limiting a building’s height or ushered in a new zeitgeist. “The owners of several profitable buildings as well as incentivise the provision
bulk. After years of political struggle, New York’s first of Manhattan's newest and largest skyscrapers have of privately owned public space (POPS). For every
zoning ordinance was introduced in 1916. Height foregone maximum floor space to provide the open square meter of plazas, arcades, and later urban plazas,
district rules determined the relationship between plazas — long sought by architects and city planners residential plazas, sidewalk widenings, concourses,
through-block connections, atriums, and elevated
and sunken plazas (See Fig.5) developers provided,
they would be rewarded with up to 10 square meters
of bonus FA for their office or residential towers. The
total amount of bonus FA would allow an increase of
up to 20% in building size. “The bonus proved almost
embarrassingly successful” (Whyte 2009: 233) and so
every new building put up in the following decade
used it. While developers earned well from this, with
$48 worth of extra space for every dollar they had put
into the construction of a POPS, the outcome for the
city was mixed. With more and more high buildings, sun
and light decreased, and an additional load of people
strained community facilities and public infrastructure
(ibid.). The logic behind incentive zoning – open space
for the public and additional revenues for developers
– proved so tempting that other cities across the USA
like Hartford, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco
adopted it subsequently. Also in other countries like
Chile, Hong Kong, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand the
trade-off was implemented.
4. Special Purpose Districts for POPS networks
Between 1967 and 1973 the city not only created five
generic POPS categories that could be applied as-
of-right everywhere, but also mapped out 5 special
purpose zoning districts: specific geographic areas
where the creation of public spaces would be assigned
to specific building lots prior to construction in order
Fig.1 On the website of the New York City Department of City Planning the map showing the locations of all of the to develop and strengthen pedestrian circulation
city's existing POPS is easily accessible; the note "to report suspected violations within a Public Plaza, please call the
City of New York at 311" actively encourages the citizens to become stewards of these urban assets networks. Their creation would be either mandated,
008
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
leavened with a FA allowance, or voluntary, encouraged for people. Some are forbidding and downright hostile” 15) stressed the high design and amenity value now
by an FA bonus (Kayden et al 2000: 13). In the 5th (NYCPC 1975: 5). Whyte initiated his Street Life Project conditional for approving bonus FA.
Avenue District as-of-right plazas were prohibited in 1970 and began researching which design factors
along the avenue frontage in order to preserve the made good plazas work and bad plazas fail. For that, 6. Incentive Zoning and Market Pressure
regular, human-scale cityscape (NYCPC 1975: 35) and he famously employed time-lapse photography, user During a real estate crisis of the early 1970s, the city
avoid developments like along the nearby 6th Avenue, interviews, and statistical compilations. His seminal felt pressure to relax rules and introduce new kinds
where three sterile plazas had developed in a row. research was published in 1979 under the title “The of bonuses in order to incentivise more downtown
Instead, active retail frontages along the sidewalks Social Life of Small Urban Spaces” together with an development activity. These new stipulations now
were mandated and bonuses granted for the various hour-long educational film of the same title. As he was allowed much higher densities than previously
through-block and interior POPS. closely cooperating with the New York City planning possible, to the detriment of the urban environment.
commission, his ground breaking work was influential Another consequence was the introduction of a new
5. Research-induced Changes for two official reports titled “New Life for Plazas” (1975) discretionary design review process with a special
Although New York City set up an urban design group and “Plazas for People” (1976) that led to a critical permit as a condition for receiving an FA bonus. This
in 1967 that inspired the establishment of a similar perception and a series of zoning amendments that path was newly available in addition to the older,
institution in Yokohama City in 1970, there was no introduced concrete design requirements. The new quicker, as-of-right approval process that was open to
evaluative unit monitoring the results of the new plaza zoning regulated the permissible height of plazas developers who asked for no special exceptions and
bonus. William H. Whyte, an urban sociologist who had above and below an abutting sidewalk, the amount of favours. Although design review with discretionary
been assisting the New York City Planning Commission seating – preferably movable chairs and benches –, and power on the side of community boards and municipal
in drafting a comprehensive plan since 1969, and the minimum number of trees and other amenities. The planners sounds preferable to the straightforward,
who had been critically involved in the planning of new stipulations not only promoted better design of parametric, standardised, and uniform as-of-right
the city’s urban spaces, came to wonder how these new plazas, but also the retrofitting and upgrading of permit process, William Whyte offers numerous
POPS were actually performing. “A lot of the places older ones, as the popularity of the new spaces became convincing arguments why the outcomes could often
were awful: sterile, empty spaces not used for much of obvious. More importantly, wording like accessibility be worse (See ibid 236-41).
anything except walking across”, he notes, “but a few “to the public at all times for the use and enjoyment
were excellent.” (ibid. 234). Even New York’s Planning of a large number of people” (cited in Kayden et al 7. Policy Change after Public Controversies
Commission admitted in an official report that plazas 2000: 17), or residential plazas as being “living rooms By the late 1970s more and more big, bulky buildings
can be “bleak, forlorn places. Some are hard to get to. of open space” (NYCPC 1976: 20) that are “accessible, were constructed, some of which replaced no-longer-
Some, sliced up by driveways, are more for cars than inviting, sunlit, safe and beautifully landscaped” (ibid: profitable historical landmarks. Due to sinfully high
Fig.2 Genealogy of New York City's privately owned public spaces from their introduction in 1961 until the latest zoning amendment in 2009
009
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
zoning bonuses that were now available and compared 8. Inventory of New York’s POPS the design standards of privately owned public plazas.
to the huge new buildings, the older ones appeared as Between 1998 and 1999, a comprehensive survey of Previous standards for urban and residential plazas
too unprofitable to be preserved. Public discontent New York City’s complete inventory of POPS was carried were unified in a new POPS category, called ‘public
mounted and civic groups started to criticise the out by a unique coalition of academia, government, plaza’. Different design standards were replaced with
planning commission’s policies in newspapers and and civil society. Urban planning professor at one coherent set of rules and the bonuses for sunken
magazines. Harvard Jerold Kayden, the New York City Planning and elevated plazas were terminated.
In 1982, another sweeping review of Midtown zoning Department, and the Municipal Art Society found that
was therefore necessitated that downzoned FAR, roughly half of the 503 POPS that they surveyed at 9. Evaluating POPS, Mandating better Design
reduced bonuses for the provision of POPS and, instead 320 office, residential and institutional buildings were Over the last 50 years, incentive zoning and the
of offering bonuses, mandated the provision of public out of compliance with legal requirements regarding design standards for privately owned public spaces
amenities such as retail frontages, large trees, or public access, private use and provision of amenities have undergone some dramatic changes. While these
through-block connections if a building was facing two (Kayden 2005: 125). While the survey found that a total spaces were producing little more than “air and light”
streets. area, equalling 10% of New York’s Central Park had during the 1960s, ever stricter and more detailed
been produced and maintained by private developers quality stipulations were introduced from one zoning
utilising incentive zoning, only 3% of these functioned amendment to the next. While most spaces were
as true destination spaces that attracted users from permitted on an as-of-right basis in the beginning, this
outside and inside the neighbourhood. changed later to discretionary design review processes
13% of the spaces qualified as neighbourhood and certifications. This transformation has been driven
space, serving as amenities for users from within the by a constant dialectic between developers and
neighbourhood. 21% were categorised as hiatus spaces laissez-faire politicians on the one side, and public
that are good for brief stopovers, and 18% as spaces space advocates, dedicated government planners, civil
only serving pedestrian circulation. Most alarmingly, society groups and the media on the other. Initially,
41% of all spaces surveyed had to be written off as planning experts like William Whyte and his associates,
marginal spaces “without any measurable public many of who later became leading public space
use” (Kayden et al 2000: 51). Revealingly, the share of theorists like Fred Kent or Jerold Kayden, perceived the
marginal as-of-right plazas is 63% and that of as-of- outcome of incentive zoning critically, and convinced
right arcades 72%, having been completed before the planning department to evaluate their usability.
the stricter design standards and review processes In the early 1980s, stricter zoning regulations were
introduced in the mid-1970s. In any event, the book necessitated by a broadening critical public awareness
that documented the survey (ibid.) became an instant and a growing discontent with the rapid proliferation
success, and instigated a heated public debate about of ever-bulkier buildings that were predicated by the
the usefulness of incentive zoning and the question of bonuses generated from POPS. As developers priced
whether the production of public space through the in future FAR deregulations, the development pressure
private sector is worth the effort. And indeed, the so- increased on many important historical landmarks that
called Unified Bulk Programme was intended as the appeared no longer profitable enough comparatively
most sweeping zoning reform since 1961 that would, speaking, and environmental conditions worsened.
according to Joseph B. Rose, (then Chairperson of the By the late 1990s, the zoning ordinance had grown so
City Planning Commission) “drive a stake through the complicated that only a few zoning lawyers could fully
heart of tower-in-the-park zoning” (cited from Kayden comprehend it, and the city no longer had a view over
2000:19). It would eliminate the as-of-right bonuses for which spaces had been created, if they were being
residential plazas and for other public open spaces, not maintained properly, if they were still open to public
having produced significant public benefits. Bonuses use, or if the amenities on which basis the FA bonuses
for residential plazas in high-density commercial had been granted had actually been provided.
districts would only be allowed by special permit. In this situation it was the Municipal Art Society, a
Bonuses for commercial and community facility plazas, civic group, and Jerold Kayden, an academic, who
of greater value because of the more public nature carried out the most comprehensive survey to this day,
of these buildings, would be retained. However, the together with the city’s planning department.
ambitious reform failed due to opposition from the real A contrasting look at Japan is helpful to appreciate this
estate sector and political struggle. healthy dialectic of constant contestation of standards
Fig.3 Different concepts of POPS in New York (above) and Tokyo (below):
While spaces are explicitly required to be inviting amenities and signs The next reform step was made in 2007, when a new and use limitations. No less than 183 academic studies
state this openly at the entrance, Tokyo’s POPS welcome visitors with a
list of prohibited activities in a jargon not understanable to casual visitors zoning amendment brought significant changes to have been carried out since the 1980s that scrutinised
010
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
either the effects of incentive planning tools or the that the visitor is entering a public space and lists all society that literally cares for these spaces. In 2005,
spaces they had created. Although many of these the amenities to be found here, most POPS in Tokyo Jerold Kayden founded the organisation Advocates
studies go into great detail, most of them are purely welcome visitors with a long list of non-permitted for Privately Owned Public Space (APOPS) under
academic and don’t influence administrative practice or activities. In many cases it is extremely difficult to find the auspices of the Municipal Art Society in order to
the practical work of architects or landscape designers. such signage at all, as developers seek to conceal them. establish a set of guiding principles for revitalising
To contrast, in New York, academia, civil society and Even the Japanese term that is equivalent to POPS – these under-leveraged amenities, creating new and
local government have been repeatedly collaborating kokai kuchi, or public open space– is a technical term renewed public resources, and strengthening the
on improving design and management standards and that is rarely understood by ordinary citizens. Instead broader dialogue around public spaces. Students of
keeping the building sector in check. Critical media has of a list of available public amenities, members of the Kayden also founded the civic watchdog group ‘Friends
picked up on these issues and provided a public forum public are greeted by unintelligible planning jargon of POPS’ that carries out activities to exercise the right
for discourse. that describes on which precise zoning stipulations the to these places and broaden the public awareness.
provision of the space is based. New York’s unified POPS They carried out a parade, for example, through a
10. Representing POPS, Inviting the Public signage with the “broccoli” mark makes it clear that all series of midtown POPS in 2011 (Fig.4) and successfully
When accessing the website of the New York City spaces belong to a larger POPS system, that makes proposed to connect a string of POPS between the 6th
Planning Department, the casual visitor is initially up the city’s “decentralised Central Park.” In Tokyo, in and the 7th avenue into a unified pedestrian realm. The
greeted with easily understandable public plaza design turn, non-unified and hard-to-find signage as well as ‘6 1/2 Avenue’ concept was unanimously supported
principles, before accessing the nitty-gritty of detailed corporate logos and surveillance, often semantically by the City and will be implemented. To summarise,
technical zoning standards. POPS have thus to be: a) code POPS as corporate spaces rather than public ones. all the above developments together with the 50th
open and inviting at the sidewalk, easily seen and read year anniversary of the zoning resolution, and the
as open to the public, conveying openness through 11. Conclusion: Activating Civil Society, Curating occupation of Zuccotti Park, the most famous POPS
low design elements and generous paths leading into POPS today, has led to a renewed, broad interest in public
the plaza, visually interesting, and containing seating; Monitoring the design and management quality space. Excluding Tokyo, for example, POPS are once
b) accessible and enhancing pedestrian circulation, of hundreds of publicly usable spaces in private again focus of heated public debates, increasing their
located at the same elevation as the sidewalk; c) management is hardly possible for city authorities potential as truly public spaces.
providing a sense of safety and security, containing alone. The key to an effective enforcement regime is
easily accessible paths for ingress and egress, being an active, interested, knowledgeable, and strident civil [References]
oriented and visually connected to the street, well-lit; Ennis, Thomas W. 1960. ‘Find Loss of Revenue Is
and d) providing places to sit and accommodating a Balanced by a Rise in Prestige; Building Owners
variety of well-designed, comfortable seating for small Favoring Plazas’. The New York Times, July 3.
groups and individuals. Kayden, Jerold S., The Municipal Art Society of
Every citizen can understand these requirements New York, New York City Planning Department
that are further supplemented with well-presented of CityPLANNING. 2000. Privately Owned Public
graphical examples of good and bad POPS designs. Space: The New York City Experience. Wiley.
Furthermore, the results of Kayden et al’s survey (2000) Kayden, Jerold S. 2005. ‘Using and Misusing Law
are presented in the form of a map and database on to Design the Public Realm’. In Regulating Place:
the homepage of the City Planning Department. Every Standards and the Shaping of Urban America, ed. Eran
citizen can easily use the site to find “the good, the bad Ben-Joseph and Terry S. Szold, 115–140.
and the ugly” privately owned public spaces. NYCPC, New York City Planning Commission. 1975.
On the website of the Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau New life for plazas. New York.
for Urban Development, on the other hand, only NYCPC, City Planning Commission. 1976. Plazas for
planning experts can find their way. Laypeople and people: streetscape & residential plazas. New York.
ordinary citizens have no chance to understand the Whyte, William H. 2009. City: Rediscovering the
regulations, nor is the public amenity character of the Center. Reissue. University of Pennsylvania Press.
urban spaces that result from incentive zoning openly
and aggressively stated. In fact, other than abstract, [Figure References]
technical design standards and a comprehensive list Fig. 1+3 (top) Website of the New York City Department
of developments utilising incentive zoning, little to no of City Planning http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/
reference is made to quality of life or the importance pops/pops_inventory.shtml
of well-designed public spaces. Yet another example Fig.4. Permission from Friends of Privately Owned
Fig.4 Raising awareness: The group Friends of Privately Owned Public
is signage (Fig.3). While in New York, a unified Space curate events to challenge established notions of corporate POPS Public Space (FPOPS)
welcoming signboard design is mandated that states
011
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Possibilities of Planning Publicly Usable Space through Incentive Zoning
The Example of Saniago de Chile
Elke Schlack Fuhrmann (CITU/ Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago)
1. Background additional building rights and the area ceded for public The reason for that is the public policy oriented towards
Chilean public policies frequently apply incentive use. Even morphological aspects, i.e. if arcades or inner a subsidiary state system. At this point, it is important
zoning with the aim of improving publicly usable passageways should be promoted, and the question to ask the question if and under which conditions it is
spaces in the city. There has been little research on about the legal status of these spaces were debated. legitimate to reward additional floor area to private
the results of these policies so far. However, the broad Despite the existence of legal easements to defend the landowners, when at the same time the spaces that
public enthusiasm for such planning instruments public use of spaces that are part of the public domain are the condition for the bonus are not available as a
cannot be substantiated by this study that examined in the Chilean urban tradition, there are comparatively public accessible space? Incentive zoning is nothing
62 bonus spaces and their development processes in few regulations for spaces that are intended for public but a trade-off of more building rights in exchange
Santiago’s inner city district Providencia. This study is use but governed by the rules of private landowners for making a public good available. In order to shed
based on an analysis of the planning processes, site (POPS). The municipal regulations do not officially some light on this difficult question, the following case
observations, interviews with architects, planners and recognise the public’s right of access to these spaces. study evaluates the privately owned public spaces in
developers, which reveal that most of the resulting Because of the absence of such requirements, the Providencia, the district of Santiago where incentive
privately owned public spaces (POPS) do not match spaces provided by incentive zoning in Santiago do zoning has been applied most frequently.
the intent of creating meaningful public spaces. not meet common standards for public space and
Furthermore, the research has found that incentive only follow the logic of a private right of way between 4. Providencia’s Public Space and Incentive Zoning
zoning in Santiago de Chile is mainly geared toward neighbouring lots. Discussions about possible Santiago is Chile’s largest city and its capital. It occupies
harvesting the highest possible bonuses for providing limitations to the public sphere seem very rare in the an area of more than 600 km2 and has a population
these spaces and not the creation of high-quality Chilean debate. of nearly six million. Santiago’s inner city districts are
spaces themselves. Instead, the focus is on the opportunities rather than the densely populated, but the supply of public space is
risks of incentive zoning, which seems understandable insufficient. Providencia, the central district developed
2. Introduction given the lack of broader instruments for providing since 1960, has a density of 9,000 people per km2
Reflections about incentive zoning encapsulate the public space. In theory, Chilean law sets out two and a supply of public space of six square metres per
key question of planning itself: How to combine possible strategies to acquire public land through the inhabitant (Municipality of Providencia 2011). The area
the forces of development with the demands of the state or municipalities. The first one, an acquisition where the incentive zone is concentrated is about 3
common good? Critics of earlier Chilean regulations strategy, is direct. It consists of the purchase of a private kilometres long and covers an area of 132 km2. This part
assume that traditional planning practice based lot by a municipality or a municipal agency. The second of the city was laid out in an irregular street pattern,
on conventional zoning neither guaranteed the strategy relies on the legal instrument of expropriation where Providencia Avenue constitutes a double-arm
achievement of the common good nor sufficiently that is very difficult to implement because of the lack of main axis. In this central area with intensive pedestrian
guided the urban development towards quality cities political will. On the one hand, acquiring land in either circulation, there are only few public plazas besides the
and neighbourhoods. Numerous authors in Chile find of these ways is difficult because of the lack of sufficient street space.
that incentive planning is the right deal for serving the municipal budget. On the other hand, the municipal Traditionally, Providencia’s central district was a
common good by granting more flexibility in planning resources for designing, planning and maintaining the residential area, but between 1960 and the early 90’s
guidelines and promoting conditioned private urban public domain have become more and more limited in this area has evolved into a prospering commercial
development (See for example Bresciani 2012). This the last decades. district for all of Santiago. The bonus spaces promoted
research tests the advantages of these incentive
planning mechanisms and evaluates them in one
specific central district of Santiago, Providencia.
3. Deficit of Public Space and the Opportunities of
Incentive Zoning in Chile
In Santiago’s public policy debates, the deficit of open
space has become a central concern. In these discourses
the focus is on mechanisms for providing space, instead
of trying to answer fundamental questions about
the nature and qualities of public space. Incentive
zoning is considered a successful way to provide
open spaces in the city, even if they are only partially
public. Much attention has been directed to the precise
mathematical formulas of these mechanisms. For
instance, in several recent zoning amendments the
experts evaluated the exact proportion between the Fig.1 Aerial view of Providencia’s central district
012
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
space 24 hours a day or by the presence of private
security personnel. In fewer spaces, this private
control is complemented by social control, namely
that induced by the eye of the users and tenants of the
shops near the bonus places.
Of course, the particular characteristics of each of
these spaces depend on the design objectives of
each developer and architect. However, this study is
concerned with the way in which the design decisions
were guided and conditioned by the regulations of the
municipality of Providencia.
Fig.2 Pedestrian activity and public spaces in the Providencia district Fig.3 Physical barriers with symbolic meaning There was a very important change in the way
regulations were handled in the period between 1970
by the incentive zoning complement many of the high- show a public character in relation to a clear design of and 2010. The critical differences between the earlier
rise buildings of the area and consist mostly of outdoor the entrances, floor continuity, visual connectivity and and latter phases were the design possibilities given by
patios as well as indoor arcades with through-block a good integration into the net of pedestrian paths in the instruments, the way coordinated decisions were
passageways. the surroundings. taken between developer and municipality, and the
In most cases, the private character of the spaces way they agreed about the sense and appearance of
5. Planning Public Space by Incentive Zoning depends on the following aspects: POPS.
In a study funded by the Chilean Research Council Symbolic barriers that exist in these spaces: This In the first phase, under the planning direction of
(2009-2011), we were able to carry out extensive is expressed for example by the predominance of German Bannen, most of the planning stipulations
evaluation research about incentive zoning developed exclusive shops, pubs and restaurants, opening times were not clearly spelled out but depended upon the
in Providencia between 1976 and the present. We that are shorter than the times in which surrounding detailed negotiation between this visionary planning
looked at 62 resulting spaces with different spatial public spaces are used, and the use of street furniture, pioneer and the developers. The framework for the
configurations, built in different periods, and with lightning and pavements that differ substantially from negotiation was a master plan, where all the important
different qualities. those used in traditional public spaces. The obligation locations of passageways and inner block patios were
The main objective of this study was to find out if the to pay to stay there and the indoor and exclusive look pre-defined by the planner. In this phase, most of the
fundamental characteristic of public space, its public that these places have may repel an important group developers agreed with the planner’s vision of public
character, was fulfilled by these 62 analysed spaces. of users. space, and both parties accepted without question that
We verified public accessibility of these spaces, as well Homogeneous groups of users: Only office men and the privately owned places open for public use had to
as physical aspects of the configuration and symbolic women that work in the nearby buildings or shoppers look just like the public sidewalks in order to express
aspects that influence its public character. The kind of traversing the passageways visit most of the spaces. full public accessibility.
users that are in the space and the way the space is Rarely are there other groups such as students, children, The first phase of incentive zoning in the district
controlled were also topics of the research. The applied families and elderly people who live in the vicinity and
indicators were based on the categories developed use these places for their everyday activities.
by Wehrheim (2009) in his comparative study of Predominance of private control: Half of the spaces
pedestrian streets and shopping malls. studied are under private surveillance in the form of
The aim of the research was to find out: do the resulting closed circuit television cameras that supervise the
spaces fulfil the objective of being truly publicly
useable spaces, and which of the following aspects
are fundamental to that. Physical accessibility, the
symbolic promotion of public character, the diversity of
users, and the presence of social control seemed for us
indicators for the public character of space. In contrast,
physical barriers, symbolic barriers, homogeneous
users and private control (CCTV and guards) were
indicators for a more private character of space.
Based on these criteria, our study shows that 96% of
the 62 cases studied have a predominantly private
character. This being said, when looking only at the
physical-morphological aspects, almost all the cases Fig.4 Homogeneous groups of users: Office people taking a break Fig.5 “Smile, we are watching you!”: Private control of space and use
013
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
of Providencia formally began in 1976, when the
municipality’s zoning amendment included a FAR
incentive in exchange for the production of publicly
accessible space on the ground floor of high buildings.
Because it was modelled after the ideologies of
Doxiadis, the Greek urbanist who led the Ekistics
School, and was strongly influenced by the ideas of
building pedestrian spaces and the human scale in the
city, the new zoning ordinance of 1976 was more than
just a physical-spatial approach. The formal master
plan with the designation of passageways and patios
was accompanied by instruments that allowed the
cession of public space.
Developers and the municipality also negotiated
several symbolic aspects of public space that depended
on physical qualities like materials, pavements and Fig.7 Passing through and staying in a highly concurred space in Providencia (Each dot representing one person staying for 5 minutes)
urban furniture and that contributed significantly
to forming a public character of space. The bonus planners was ruled out, and POPS design became The second phase, from 1989 to the present shows
places that resulted in this early period (1976-1989) codified and spelt out in generic and quantitative ways, a very different kind of bonus regime. From 1990
are significant for several reasons. Some of them not losing the soul of Bannen’s original vision. The detailed onwards, and after a series of organisational changes
only capture the ideal of urban design for pedestrians, design prescribed in the earlier master plan did not at the national and municipal level, the precise FAR
they were also the first experiment in which private play an important role anymore. bonus coefficient per square meter for specific types
developers built public space that gradually combined In this phase there was no longer an agreement of POPS was codified and the possibility for municipal
to become a new, alternative grid of pedestrian spaces, between developers and the municipality about the governments to negotiate the design of spaces in a
guided by master plan objectives. sense of public space. While the municipality still master plan was eliminated. Thus, for each square
Spaces that were designed in the first phase differ from argued for the public look of places, developers tended meter of publicly usable space on private property,
those of the latter in two aspects. The heterogeneity to prefer an indoor look and the use of a repetitive the building could earn up to 5m2 additional floor
of users and the high presence of users that stay and recipe, that of the exclusive look, the monitoring by space. The definition of qualitative aspects was no
not only pass through the spaces is a distinguishing security experts and the spatial occupation by activities longer on a case-by-case basis, but was reduced to
characteristic of this period. Data demonstrates that that have a private character. one single condition: that of the relationship to the
the security in the spaces built in the early years is existing streets. The previously mentioned master plan,
managed until today by social control rather than by a detailed planning policy that defined the location
CCTV cameras and private security personnel. of each passageway and interior courtyard of a block,
Paradigmatic spaces built in the first phase show the was no longer respected in all cases. Several decisions
intention to design spaces that look like public space by about symbolic aspects like materials, urban furniture,
using similar materials, street lighting, and vegetation. lightning, etc. were transferred to the developer. The
In the second phase, all discretion on the side of public character was no longer a priority; developers
began to make planning decisions based on their own
private interests and tastes.
The spaces built in the second phase show an
appropriate accessibility, visual clarity, and continuity
of pedestrian patterns. However, in this period the
spaces became thought of as passages for circulation
rather than for staying. Although they remain useful
spaces, they cater more to local businessmen and
women of the surrounding buildings (as shown in Fig.
4 + 5), than to the everyday life of nearby residents.
Fig.6 Passing through and staying in a space from the first phase; Fig.6 Passing through and staying in a space from the first phase;
completed in 1980 completed in 1980
014
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
to provide favourable conditions for a public use of for public space are needed in order to maintain and
privately owned spaces. But to achieve this, there preserve its public character. In the future, the main
is a need to for a very precise definition of public motivation for creating POPS should be once again the
conditions. space itself and not the FAR bonus.
Not only an appropriate accessibility and visual clarity
are needed, but symbolic characteristics like perceived Acknowledgement
opening times, the choice of the precise architectural The material presented here is result of the research
program, pavement design, and lighting should also be project Fondecyt Nr 1104007.
specified to safeguard a public character.
Until now, incentive zoning was perceived as a useful [References]
instrument in the Chilean planning system, but what Bannen, Germán. 1980. Providencia, una calle en la
Fig.9 Typical space built in the second period; completed in 2008 if the results were not what most experts expected? ciudad. in C.A. nº 27, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
While the incorporation of the private sector in the Bannen, Germán. 1989a. Seccional Nueva Providencia.
6. Conclusion physical construction of public space does reduce the in C.A. nº 57, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
Although two different regulation mechanisms were need for some government resources, this should not Bannen, Germán. 1989b. Providencia, la ciudad entre.
examined, neither of them achieved the optimal result go hand in hand with a reduction of public regulations. in C.A. nº 58, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
of creating spaces with primarily public character. On the contrary, more resources are needed in the area Bannen, Germán. 1993. El comercio en Providencia. in
From our research we have learned that it is possible of master planning, and precise planning regulations C.A. nº 72, Santiago, Ed. C.A.
Bannen, Pedro y Chateau, Francisco. 2007. La ciudad
de Providencia en la obra de Germán Bannen. Santiago
de Chile, Ediciones ARQ.
Bresciani, Luis Eduardo. 2012. Planificación urbana
condicionada: respuestas para ciudades más dinámicas
y más sustentables. En Schlack. 2012. POPS, uso público
en espacio privado. Santiago de Chile. Ed. Did Unab.
Municipality of Providencia. 2011. Statistic Information
District of Providencia. (http://www.providencia.cl/
municipio/datos-de-la-comuna) Access 18.8.2012.
SCHLACK, Elke. 2007. Espacio Público in ARQ, Ediciones
ARQ, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago,
Chile.
SCHLACK, Elke. 2011. Fórmulas invisibles del espacio
público in Revista 180, Ediciones Universidad Diego
Portales, Santiago, Chile.
SCHLACK, Elke/ Vicuña, Magdalena. 2011.
Componentes normativas de alta incidencia en la
nueva morfología de Santiago Metropolitano. In EURE,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
SCHLACK, Elke. 2012. Producción privada de espacio
público. Espacios privados de uso público y la
planificación por incentivos. Revista de Arquitectura.
Ediciones Universidad de Chile. Santiago. Chile.
WEHRHEIM, Jan. 2007. Shopping Malls. Interdisziplinäre
betrachtungen eines neuen Raumtyps. Wiesbaden. VS
Verlag.
WEHRHEIM, Jan. 2009. Der Fremde und die Ordnung
der Mall. Opladen. B. Budrich.
[Figure References]
Fig.1 Bannen G. 2000
Fig.10 In spaces created during the first phase social control dominates private control; darker tones indicating a higher degree of social control
Fig.10 Diagram by Elke Schlack and Raynner Campos
015
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Public Private Partnerships in Melbourne
Using Private Investment and Public Accessible Open Space to Transform the CBD
Beau Beza (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology)
1. Introduction of the city) is about two km2 in area and was laid out in 2. Melbourne and Urban Change
Melbourne is one of Australia’s oldest and largest 1836 in a 100 x 200 gridded street pattern. Pedestrian These later comments are remarkable considering
cities. Located on the north side of Port Philip Bay, the activity can now be found along many of its laneways central Melbourne was described back in the late
inner city is framed by the Yarra River, which provides and roads but originally no central or common open 1970’s, by The Age newspaper, as an “empty useless
a natural element the city and its people regularly space was designed to be part of the City’s layout. centre”. Remarkably, it is this concept of a useless
engage with. Holding a population of nearly five Figure 1 shows the intricate pattern of laneways and centre that was used as the platform to change the
million people and occupying an area of 8,816 km2. gridded road layout that has provided the building city and, ultimately resulted in a number of public
Melbourne’s inner city is one of the most densely blocks to affect change in the city. The CBD is also made private partnerships (PPPs) that realised some of the
populated urban environments in the state of Victoria. up of a number of precincts. Traditionally, there are the city’s most notable publically accessible open spaces.
People from over 140 nations live in this setting and financial and parliament areas and notably, there are To take a step back, the situation of Melbourne’s CBD
this diversity helps make the City of Melbourne one of also three recognised cultural precincts: Greek, Chinese was at one point considered so bad that in 1980 the
Australia’s most contemporary and culturally rich cities. and Italian, which as previously mentioned provide a State Government of Victoria fired Melbourne’s City
It is also Australia’s fastest growing city with The Age rich atmosphere for civic life. Council and removed many of their planning powers
newspaper reporting (in April, 2011) that 1000 people Unfortunately, and in terms of the CBD’s current (McLoughlin 1992). And so to improve the city’s urban
a week come to live in Melbourne. population, pedestrian capacity has been reached environment, the renewal of the CBD was argued to
To put this figure into perspective, that equates to in significant areas of the city (e.g. Swanston St.). rely on mainly three things:
roughly a 145m long trainload of people arriving Additionally, crowded and obstructed pedestrian travel
weekly in Melbourne. along some of the city’s laneways and footpaths has (1) Social policies and programs,
Melbourne’s Central Business District (CBD) (the heart resulted in unsafe pedestrian spillage into its roadways. (2) Economic investment,
(3) Changing Melbournian’s perception of the city.
Unfortunately, the latter two items were a major
challenge because in the mid-1980s Melbourne began
to feel the effects of globalisation (i.e. international
competition) and by the early 1990s had the highest
unemployment in the country. In essence, the state
and local government did not have the money to invest
in the CBD and by the mid-1990s the state was nearly
bankrupt (Cuthbert 2007). Private investment was
needed to change Melbourne.
Initially, private investment in the city did not
materialise, and the perception of this urban
environment as a dead space prevented large scale
change. The City of Melbourne first needed to
implement a number of measures to affect the needed
perceptual change, which included:
(1) The establishment of a residential population in the
city.
(2) Programs of activities for the city’s planned
residential population and the other surrounding
suburban communities.
(3) A vision that establishes a desired direction to guide
Melbourne’s civic improvements.
(4) Advice on the desired materials that are to be used
in Melbourne’s spaces and to achieve its vision.
(5) The development of workable planning legislation
to provide structure to the city’s development (e.g.
a planning scheme and framework).
(6) A champion to lead works.
Fig. 1 Melbourne’s CBD and its gridded layout
016
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
By utilising these tools, Melbourne was (and is) able to specifically utilising the city’s existing north-south coordinate urban renewal projects” (URAV 2003: 1) in
“provide a range of mechanisms to help city officials, laneways (or when designing new spaces within a Melbourne (and throughout the state). Importantly,
developers and community members structure and gridded block, an interpretation of them) to provide Places Victoria can bring together partners (public and
achieve a desired outcome” (PM 2012: 39) for the city. privately owned public spaces. In each case an private) to realise projects and spaces. The resources
In essence, the above six items provide two streams of intimate pedestrian environment is meant to be available to Places Victoria are land and employee
civic improvement: a physical stream, where physical established through a reduction in the width of a capital. In terms of land, Places Victoria has the ability
features are realised and built to form results; and laneway brought about by bringing commercial to raise capital through selling parcels of land and/or
a cultural stream that endeavours to provide social related elements into the space - tables and chairs its commercial assets. They can then apply the raised
attractions and a population base in the city. The end from restaurants or cafés fill the space and slow capital as desired. The employee capital within Places
result of these measures was an urban environment pedestrian traffic, while strategically positioned Victoria includes community engagement officers,
that in 2011 was recognised as the world’s most shops (e.g. clothing stores) remove pedestrians designers, quantity surveyors, project managers and
liveable city, by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and from the other competing adjacent streets by development directors. In essence, teams of people
now boasts a residential population of nearly 12,000 drawing people into the ‘laneway environment’. are on staff and available to realise partnerships and
people, which is expected to more than double by 2015 (5) Urban open spaces that are specifically designed as projects.
with the latest population projections estimating over civic or destination places in the city and provide a In terms of the state and local government, an annual
40,000 residents by 2025. setting for the public or public accessible activities/ budget for capital works provides the financial
The end result of this perceptual change to the city is events. These spaces are designed with much resources to realise spaces/projects. Grants and
a CBD that has attracted millions of dollars in private thought and are considered highly important other financial schemes are also available from the
investment and resulted in over 50 privately owned civic spaces within Melbourne. Common to these federal government through an application process.
public spaces. Pegels (2010) in her study of Melbourne’s environments is a central open space element with Both levels of government (state and local) have the
public private partnerships found that five different adjacent commercial activities placed along the ability to sell assets to raise funds and have done this
types of POPS exist in the CBD. These are: spaces’ edges. At times of, for example, festivals the on occasion. The motivation for selling these assets
central open space element fills with built features is rather straightforward - to raise capital to pay for
(1) Forecourts and foregrounds to buildings (e.g. a (e.g. a fenced marquee, with catwalk, fills the space the design and construction of highly engaging and
museum) that provide some sort of statement of Melbourne’s City Square during the fashion attractive urban spaces for the public.
in front of the facility but, importantly, provide festival). The main private actors involved in PPPs are the large
a venue for passive (e.g. sitting) or active (e.g. development organisations (e.g. Grocon Pty. Ltd., Lend
demonstration) public use of the space. These 3. Who is Involved with Melbourne’s PPPs Lease) and financial institutions (e.g. National Australia
spaces are normally designed in some way, adding Three main actors are involved in the production Bank). But smaller private actors such as accounting
to their attraction and use. and, importantly, management of these five firms, lawyer and barrister firms, design offices, and
(2) Entrance plazas to complexes and/or buildings (e.g. different publically accessible spaces and mostly electronic suppliers (McLoughlin 1992) provide
Melbourne’s Family Law Court) which primarily work in a tri-organisational partnership to produce another layer to the realisation of publically accessible
allows for pedestrian circulation and “creates [ ] an appropriate spaces for Melbourne. The first element spaces.
outside foyer” (ibid. 22) to the facility. These spaces in this partnership is government and its related The motivations for private organisations entering into
are minimalist in design using mostly paving to departments. However, depending on the scale of a these partnerships are remarkably similar to that of the
create distinction and interest, which leads to an development project the local government authority government. They too want to develop and establish
entrance door that is normally set far back from the may be the City of Melbourne or the State of Victoria, urban places that attract people to their realised
street. through the Department of Planning and Community space(s). Obviously, there is a commercial objective
(3) Office plazas provide an integrated open space Development. In Melbourne’s CBD the responsible and agenda to the desired attraction. However, the
element in front of the office complex and three authority is decided upon by many different variables. private organisations understand that quality designed
different levels of design are used to influence the The two most important variables are: is a project and built publically accessible spaces are a commercial
public’s use of these spaces. The first is the office deemed to be of state significance and/or the does asset, adding a tremendous amount of value to a
plaza designed to act primarily as a thoroughfare, the project have a gross floor area of over 25,000 m2? development. This is why development organisations
which includes minimal seating. The second type If either is achieved, the State Government becomes in Melbourne fiercely argue and wish to retain the
of space uses “seating, planting and water features the project’s responsible authority and private management of the publically accessible spaces when
[to] make attractive areas for respite” (ibid.). Last is development organisations must deal with them. entering into a PPP. They also have come to realise that
a highly thought-out space meant to attract use Another layer to the government dimension of by maintaining the managerial rights to spaces they
through the provision of private businesses like producing any potential publically accessible space can protect their brand, company name and/or product
cafés and restaurants. brought about by a PPP is that the state government by deciding on what activities can be done onsite and
(4) Through-block circulation makes use of and/ has and can utilise its development arm, called Places who can and can not access the space. Lastly, the
or reference to Melbourne’s gridded layout by Victoria. Its specific role is to “carry out, manage or development organisations feel they simply can do
017
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Fig. 2 Federation Square is one of Melbournes most prominent publicly usable spaces
a better job than council at maintaining these spaces most notable public private partnerships (i.e. the works – they meet to discus a desired outcome for
and are therefore more willing to invest in an open Melbourne City Link, Federation Square (Fig.2), Queen the City and their varied interests. This approach has
space. The last set of actors involved in partnerships Victoria (Melbourne), the Carlton United Brewery, been successful and has led to positive change in
is community and private stakeholders (e.g. Bicycle Melbourne’s Docklands and the Swanston Street Melbourne’s CBD.
Victoria, Department of Transportation (i.e. VicRoads), redevelopment) a number of different instruments
train, tram and bus companies) that posses the that are contained within these mechanisms are used [References]
political clout to influence the realisation of the public to confirm partnerships. The instruments, like a 163 Cuthbert, A. 2007. Urban Design. In S. Thompson
accessible space. The financial capital available to these agreement (found in the Building Act) or a Corporate (ed.) Planning Australia: An Overview of Urban and
organisations varies enormously and depends on the Charter required in corporations law, distinguish Regional Planning, pp. 263-283. Cambridge University
public or private support backing the organisation. In each of the partnerships and so when researchers, Press: Cambridge, UK.
Melbourne, these stakeholders and their influence on authorities, private developers and so on make McLoughlin, J. B. 1992. Shaping Melbourne’s Future?
the development of publically accessible spaces lack reference to Melbourne’s use of PPPs not one typical Town Planning, the State and Civil Society. Cambridge
serious research, and this provides an opportunity example can be referred to or is regularly employed. University Press: Cambridge, UK.
for investigation into another branch of the debate in Each PPP is an evolution of a previous partnership and Pegels, J. 2010. STARSinternational_Melbourne: A
public private partnerships. is tailored to meet the needs and requirements of the Document of Post-Doc Research (PT_Materialien 23). A
relative project. publication made possible by DAAD, Germany.
4. Mechanism Used to Realise Privately Owned One should note that the concept of an incentive PM. 2012. Place Making Applied Research: A Places
Public Spaces zoning framework to affect change in the City and to Victoria and RMIT University research Collaboration.
In Melbourne, the two mechanisms used to enact realise privately owned public spaces has not been Report produced by RMIT University research project
change in the city and allow for PPPs to realise used in Melbourne. Rather, urban change in Melbourne team. RMIT University, Melbourne.
publically accessible open spaces is policy and has been brought about through a dialogue involving URAV. 2011. Urban Renewal Authority Victoria Act 2003.
legislation. However, upon review of six of Melbourne’s the tri-organisational partners in the respective State Government of Victoria: Melbourne, Australia.
018
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Examining Publicly Usable Spaces on Private Property in Bangkok, Thailand
Sakrapat Anurakpradorn (Chulalongkorn University)
1. Introduction for contemporary urban public space, official planners public space such as sidewalks, promenades and
Bangkok was founded in 1782 as the new capital of ignore important social and class differences and other overpasses. The ministry's regulations state that a
Thailand by King Rama I of the Chakri Dynasty in a vital activities such as survival strategies, identity land owner or investor who builds a public sidewalk
flood plain delta of the Chao Phraya River. This location performances, unofficial economic transactions, and widening of less than 10 metres width must locate the
served as a natural defence from enemies and the protest. In an era of energy saving, the focus is on building at least 6 metres away from the middle of the
richness of water supported the lives of a prospering pedestrians who are engaged in activities at various adjacent public sidewalk. If the sidewalk is at least 10
city. Since its establishment, the city has grown times in the same public space. This latter definition metres wide, the building must be located away from
steadily in size and importance. Initially, it covered is interesting and in accord with a constructive idea the sidewalk by at least 1/10 of the sidewalk’s width. If
only 4.14 km2 but has swelled today to a megacity that of turning a vacant space into a social space for towns the sidewalk is wider than 20 metres, the building must
is comprised of 50 districts, with a total area of 1,569 and communities. In fact, merely beautiful space in be located at least 2 metres away from the sidewalk.
km2. The population of Bangkok is now close to seven Bangkok is dispensable for good public space that This means that open space on private property must
million by registered record or about ten million by is needed in quality and quantity that is sufficient to be at least 10% of the total plot area for a commercial
daytime population. facilitate the social life of most of Bangkok's citizens. property. If it is a residential building, the open space
Bangkok has always been more cosmopolitan than ratio must be at least 30%.
other cities of the region. The government sector plays 3. Public Space Under the City Planning Act Presently, the FAR bonus policy in Bangkok’s
a significant role in Bangkok along with the private Bangkok’s city planning regulations have undergone Comprehensive Plan of 2006 is an incentive to
sector. There are a number of activities in commerce, constant development for decades. The latest revision encourage private developers to produce wide, open,
industry, construction, manufacturing and various was promulgated in 2006 and introduced the floor area empty spaces. Just only 5% of the standard FAR is
kinds of services including banking and other financial ratio (FAR) system: a volume ratio that sets the usable awarded as an additional bonus if the project provides
services. Bangkok's work force includes employees, building space in relation to the overall building plot. outside POPS that are located along the sidewalk in
private retailers, street vendors, entrepreneurs, The highest FAR designation is 10 for commercial high- front of the building. If developers don’t make use of
government officials, etc. rise buildings. For the first time, planning regulations the bonus regulation, the conventional FAR system in
Due to the densely packed streets of the city, provide bonus floor area to developers, who agree to Thailand tends to produce privately owned, and fully
especially in the Central Business District (CBD), land in create a publicly usable space on their private property privately controlled open spaces, not public spaces or
Bangkok has been highly invested-in with offices and (POPS). This allows the private sector to comply with POPS. Without claiming the FAR bonus, developers are
commercial building projects. Meanwhile, the amount the Ministry's regulations on the revised Building not legally obliged to open these spaces to public use.
of public space has decreased because land prices are Control Act of 2009, which prescribes the setback of Design, management and exercise of rigid user control
becoming too expensive to allow for more. To remedy commercial and residential buildings from adjacent lies then within their discretion.
this situation, the idea was brought forward of using
some private property as public space or semi-public
space, for which the owners would legally agree to
open up their land to the public. The owner can make
some conditions regarding the purposes and activities
that are allowed in this kind of POPS. It has to be
noted that in the CBD of Bangkok only a small variety
of types of open spaces and activities can be found,
and therefore the semi-public spaces today are not as
useful for the citizens as they could and should be.
2. Defining Good Public Space
At this point it is necessary to reflect about the nature
of good public space. Prominent urban design thinkers
like Jane Jacobs and Donald Appleyard have agreed
that street spaces and sidewalks cater best to the
diverse needs of people living in towns and cities.
A definition of good public space usually involves a
rich user experience, diverse uses, and claims that a
place should be frequented by a variety of people.
However, often planners focus too narrowly on
generic, behaviourist use patterns of public space. By
tending to see leisure as the only appropriate activity Fig.1 Typology of Bankgok's privately owned public spaces
019
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
2011, there were only two applications for the FAR Ganesha Shrine in front of Central World shopping
bonus incentive, adjusting the area in front of a large centre.
building to have a more clear space and creating a Case 3: Public spaces in front of buildings with a lawful
walkway ramp to connect with a BTS Skytrain station. walkway and allowing for public use for a certain
Upon investigation, the two FAR bonus applications period e.g. walkways along Silom, Sukhumvit and
that have created POPS so far formally complied with other roads in Bangkok.
the ministry's building control regulation. Although Case 4: Public spaces in front of buildings with a lawful
the result was a green, beautiful open space in one walkway and allowed for public use 24 hours a day e.g.
case, the owner did not allow anybody to use it. Some walkways along Silom, Sukhumvit and other roads in
owners built public space as a plaza without any Bangkok.
apparent function or with no access from the public Case 5: Public spaces in front of very large building or
sidewalk. In fact, this space was designed only as a infrastructure designed by notable architects and city
visual amenity that induces people with a feeling of planners and allowed to be used 24 hours e.g. Mor Chit
fear to use it. The space does not match the activity, BTS Skytrain parking lot and public sport recreation
and private security keeps people away. areas under the Expressway.
This research aimed to find out why the privately
owned public spaces in Bangkok are not successful 6. Discussion and Conclusion
in terms of quality and/or usage. If FAR bonus cannot The survey found that factors that fostered activities on
bring about good POPS in Bangkok, what else can the privately owned (semi) public spaces are regularly
be the solution, and should a bonus be awarded for organised events or permitted special events relating
something that is not really meaningful? What are to commercial activities, entertainment and other
Fig.2 Set-back regulations creating privately owned public spaces
characteristics of POPS? How are they produced? How attractive festivities. A legal permit is usually granted for
are they used? How should the system be adapted religious activities during all hours of the day. However,
Many large buildings have been created in recent years, to facilitate the production of better usable spaces in it could be said that most Thai people still seem to lack
using the normal FAR system, thus creating privately places where they are needed? an understanding about how to use public space. One
owned, private open spaces. However, no further reason is city residents nowadays prefer commuting
details were available from the Department of Public 5. Public Space Usage by vehicles and staying in airconditioned interior
Works and Town & Country Planning as of mid-2012 Many of the surveyed privately owned public spaces spaces. This is in contrast with a generic, idealised
about the number and the total area and quality of are located in the highly developed areas along the pedestrian culture that planners and architects seek
these open spaces. For this reason, this study made a subway and Skytrain networks, which has stimulated to implement into new outdoor public spaces. As Hsu
first attempt to categorise and describe those POPS that developers to link these infrastructure public spaces also points out in this volume for the example of Taipei,
have been created through large-scale developments directly to private properties. In the first step, the study most theories and studies on public space usage are
in recent years. The focus was both on POPS that evaluated if the developments formally complied with conducted by Western researchers living in temperate
have been created by using the FAR incentive as well the ministry's regulation on building control, and in zones, where the behaviours of people in public
as on spaces that have the same appearance but are the second step, analysed which role variable factors space are markedly different from tropic zones like in
completely under private control because of their use such as users, time, activities in space, special design Thailand. Furthermore, most urban design theories
of the conventional FAR regulations. The areas studied features and others factors, such as religious facilities tend to have a Western bias. The result is a mismatch
are located in commercial land use zones, along the played for the character of these POPS. Accordingly, so that many newly built public spaces are unused,
Bangkok Skytrain lines and stations, which are the most Bangkok’s multi-use public spaces can be subdivided abandoned, damaged and not patronised. Copying the
dynamic development zones of the city. Focus was on into the following five distinct categories. Western model of public space without understanding
large-scale development projects because of their Case 1: Public spaces in front of a building, allowing for the cultural and climatic context contributes to its
significant impact on the city and everyday life. 24-hour usage, usually involving very large buildings unpopularity; spaces might be beautiful to look at,
and big events e.g. the boxing event in front of Mah but are ultimately too hot, or too far away from public
4. Compliance of POPS with Regulations Boon Krong shopping centre, aerobic exercises in front transport terminals.
A high building density is inevitable in a city like of Depot Mall and Tesco Lotus, or cosplay at a public The FAR bonus policy could potentially create good
Bangkok, especially in the CBD, where very little space linked to the BTS Skytrain. public space in Bangkok, but the bonus of 5% appears
public space in the form of promenades, parks and Case 2: Public spaces in front of very large buildings too small, and the resulting restrictions are too great
plazas exists. The effect of the new FAR regulation to designed by notable architects and city planners and for developers. Furthermore, existing regulations
create more public space has yet to be evaluated in allowing for a 24 hours use for religious activities or succeeded to create compulsory public spaces on
central Bangkok. Throughout the five years after the sacred worship e.g. Erawan Shrine (San Phra Phrom) private property, without awarding a bonus. For only
introduction of the FAR regulation, between 2006 and in front of the Grand Hyatt Erawan Hotel, Trimurti and 5% bonus developers don’t want to be permanently
020
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
privately owned (semi) public spaces was constrained
by a rigid control of the time period these could be
used, or the activities that could be performed. It was
often the case that public spaces, especially walkways
that were designed for convenience rather than beauty,
were more popular for Bangkokians, who prefer small,
linked walkways, shaded by surrounding buildings and
connected to several places without being required
to pass through uncovered open space. Another type
of well-used popular public space featured either
permanent or temporary commercial events, such as
meeting markets on the weekends.
Finally, there is still a dominating Thai perception of all
things public, including public space: "If it is public, it
Fig. 3 Case studies 1 (top left), 2 (top right), 3 (centre left), 4 (centre right), and 5 (bottom left) cannot be mine". This mindset might have contributed
to the private owners' reluctance to fully commit to
committed to opening up their land to the general factors in creating good social space for Thai people. creating POPS on their property, as they are not sure
public, which might result in economic disadvantages Some areas that were elaborately designed by about public maintenance, usage, security and don’t
for them due to insurance risk, surveillance, or crowd architects and city planners were indeed beautiful want to surrender the full control over their private
control costs. But these are not the most important public spaces in the city. However, the utility of these property.
021
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Vanishing Everyday Space: Outdoor POPS in Hong Kong
Na Xing, Kin Wai Michael Siu (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
1. Background: Public Spaces in Hong Kong Furthermore, due to the limited amount of land been adopted. At the same time, the transportation
— Kai Fong and Street Markets available in Hong Kong, most of the public spaces in system has expanded significantly to connect and
Wordie (2007) describes how the spatial form of these public housing areas are small. Xue and Manuel integrate the different, formerly independent, towns
Kai Fong (街坊, neighbourhoods) is represented (2001) refer to such spaces, which have taken over the and communities. This, in turn, has fostered the
by the combination of streets and squares in a functions of Kai Fong, as pocket parks. They point out development of the commercial real estate market. In
local residential area. The term Kai Fong refers to that an insufficient supply of such parks has caused recent years, shopping centres have been constructed
community associations that provide various services local residents to become increasingly dissatisfied with in place of existing commercial centres. Since 2004,
to local residents, enabling them to build communal the living conditions in Hong Kong. the Link Real Estate Investment Trust (Link REIT)
ties and serve their daily lives. In discussing community At the same time, Hong Kong’s street markets, another has been pursuing a major renovation program
development, Chan (1995) vividly describes the essential kind of traditional public space, also face the (The Link 2011) that has seen many old commercial
neighbourhood structure in Hong Kong. The smallest threat of extinction. As a result of urban development, centres being reconstructed and chain stores being
neighbourhood unit is the communal area surrounding the traditional practice of street hawking has been brought in to revitalise existing shopping centres.
a small-scale housing cluster. This communal area is increasingly relocated to indoor market buildings The resulting higher rents have forced many smaller,
believed to provide the essential link in the community (Kinoshita 2001), leaving only a few individual street independent mom-and-pop retailers out of business.
life of Hong Kong residents. Kai Fong are one of the markets in Hong Kong today. The markets at North Shopping centres now cover almost all of Hong Kong’s
most significant forms of traditional communal space Point on Hong Kong Island and Sham Shui Po or Mong transportation hubs in business and residential areas.
to have emerged in Hong Kong since the Second World Kok in the Kowloon district are typical examples of This development has changed the identity of public
War (Mingpao Weekly 2011). Prior to the launch of the Hong Kong’s traditional street markets. Kinoshita’s space in Hong Kong. Common areas, such as the Kai
New Town Development Program (see also Chan 1995) study indicates that street markets such as these Fong, around the old commercial centres have been
in 1973, a large percentage of the daily activities of provide a community for the local hawkers. Apart transformed into, or replaced by outdoor POPS above
Hong Kong residents were conducted in Kai Fong. The from trading and selling goods, the local residents also Mass Transit Railway (MTR) stations and shopping
New Town program aimed to provide a better living conduct their everyday practices in the street market. centres.
environment for Hong Kong’s growing population The street markets were demolished to improve the
(GovHK 2011). The target towns included Tsuen Wan, sanitary conditions in the old towns and to regulate the 2. POPS in Hong Kong
Tuen Mun and Sha Tin in the New Territories and Kwun hawkers’ business. While the Hong Kong government Introduced to Hong Kong during the 1980s as a new
Tong in Kowloon. The major goal of the program was has made a huge effort to transform the old urban type of public space (GovHK 2011; Luk 2009), POPS
to demolish the old residential areas and provide new layout, the demolition of the traditional street markets are located on private property that the general public
public housing for lower-income Hong Kong residents. has been a tremendous loss to Hong Kong’s original has the right to use. A privately owned public space
Chan (1977) states that the spatial layout of the New culture. can be regarded as a deed of dedication on the part
Town plan follows the developmental pattern of the Over the past 25 years, urban redevelopment in of a private developer in return for additional floor
original neighbourhoods by providing a common Hong Kong has undoubtedly given rise to the real space. The public and private parties cooperate in
space with public facilities, commercial centres and estate industry over the past 25 years, as it has led to the management of these spaces. Ho (2009) regards
communal utilities. Although the supply of such increasing supplies of both public and private housing. shopping centres as one of the main types of privately
facilities improved the living environment, the New Although it is based on the developmental model set owned public space in Hong Kong. He also states
Town developments forced large numbers of residents out in the New Town Plan, the physical environment that a large percentage of the POPS in Hong Kong
to relocate into high-rise condominiums and thereby of Hong Kong now appears more advanced, and are indoor spaces in shopping centres in the central
lose their links with their former neighbourhoods. a better combination of communal facilities has business district. However, as shopping centres are
commercially owned and managed, the activities
permitted in these indoor POPS are even more strictly
confined to shopping-related consumer activities than
their outdoor counterparts. For this reason, another
form of POPS unrelated to shopping is urgently needed
in Hong Kong: outdoor POPS.
3. Outdoor POPS in Hong Kong
In contrast to more controlled indoor POPS, outdoor
POPS potentially offer more opportunities for the
general public to engage in social activities other
Fig.1 Early modern public housing buildings provided small courtyards Fig.2 Street market in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon than shopping. Outdoor POPS refer to public spaces
for residents for gatherings and social interactions. Kai Fong materialised that are located on private property and are managed
in these places. The few remaining buildings surviving the New Town
Program were converted to other purposes such as artist ateliers. by the private sector. These spaces are accessible to
022
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
the public and attached to different types of private
buildings, such as shopping centres, office buildings
and residential units. The purpose is to provide a
recreational outdoor space where the general public
can relax and participate in leisure activities outdoors
(GovHK, 2012). In 2008, the Hong Kong Buildings
Department issued a statement declaring that private
developers were expected to provide public facilities
(including outdoor POPS) for public usage on private
properties. In addition to guaranteeing public access,
recreational activities were explicitly encouraged
in such dedicated areas (GovHK 2008). The Hong
Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines specify
that the primary purpose of an “outdoor open-air
Fig.4 Grand Millennium Plaza, Central Hong Kong
space,” provided by either a private or public party, is
recreation (GovHK 2007).
Outdoor POPS in Hong Kong are called “rest areas,
open to the public” (公眾／公共休憩空間 in Chinese,
Fig.3). The Chinese characters explain the precise
meaning of the term: Together “公 (gōng, public)”, and
“眾 (zhòng, people)／共 (gong, common)” describe
the range of users as the public and their legal rights
in the space, namely, that although outdoor POPS are
managed by private developers, the general public still
has an equal right to use them. Otherwise, the public
nature of such a space would be meaningless. “休憩
(xiū qì)” points to the practices allowed in the space,
including undisturbed relaxation. “空間 (kōng jiān)”
Fig.5 Outdoor POPS in Central Hong Kong
defines the nature of the physical environment and Kong. Accordingly, outdoor POPS are an additional
the space. Because the English translation ‘public open form of public space and serve as an important social
space’ does not accurately explain the term, this paper amenity.
employs alternatively the phrase “outdoor POPS” to With the expansion of the private real estate sector
avoid any misunderstanding about the open and public in Hong Kong, increasing numbers of high-rise
nature of these spaces. Furthermore, as the majority of commercial skyscrapers have been constructed in the
shopping centres in Hong Kong are connected to the central business district. The location and spatial form
transportation system, they serve as major pedestrian of the different types of outdoor POPS can be divided
thoroughfares. Therefore, the outdoor POPS attached into three categories:
to these shopping centres are an inescapable part of The first category comprises spaces located on the
the urban life of Hong Kong. Accordingly, the value of paths and entranceways to private corporations, such
the outdoor POPS as essential public spaces in Hong as financial institutions, insurance firms and office
Kong is worth investigating. buildings.
As noted above, outdoor POPS have replaced the The second category comprises the plazas and open
traditional communal public spaces in Hong Kong. spaces adjoining private buildings.
The term “outdoor POPS” is also used in this paper The third category is the open-air squares adjacent to
to emphasise the fact that these outdoor spaces are shopping centres (Cuthbert & Mckinnell, 2001).
Fig.3 Two signs from an outdoor POPS in Hong Kong displaying the located on private property for public usage. They All of these types of POPS are well-designed and funded
opening hours, property ownership details and regulations. Interestingly, differ from pedestrian streets, public parks and other by the private sector. However, they tend to arouse a
although the English naming is identical, the Chinese writing differs.
forms of government-owned public space in Hong feeling of distance in people (Fig.4+5). The Hong Kong
023
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
relocation of the local residents and the densification
have eroded the original community spirit.
The pursuit of economic gain underlying the above
described and the massive urban transformation of
Hong Kong have corroded community life of the city.
Traditionally, urban life in Hong Kong has been both
disorderly and dynamic. However, the demolition
of the open street markets has had an inevitable
influence on the patterns of urban life, as formerly
independent shops have come under unified corporate
management, or had to close down altogether.
Relatively spontaneous outdoor trading activities
have been relocated to controlled, indoor commercial
buildings, which have subsequently been renovated
by their private owners to increase profits. This has
Fig.6 Outdoor POPS on the groundfloor of Times Square, Hong Kong: In early 2008 it was reported that citizens had been barred from using this space effectively cut the connections between people
and their urban environment, as well as between
government stipulates that a property developer may on Canton Road in Tsim Sha Tsui. Canton Road is one of people themselves. In short, it can be argued that the
be allowed to add additional floors to a project as an Hong Kong’s most famous pedestrian areas. The area is increasing restriction of public space in residential
incentive to provide a ground floor public space. home to a number of flagship stores of luxury brands areas and commercial districts has limited people’s
However, the percentage of outdoor POPS available to and attracts a great number of shoppers. According to capacity to participate in everyday life.
Hong Kong residents is the lowest among high-density the Apple Daily, security guards working at the Dolce &
cities in Asia (Coorey, 2008; Designing Hong Kong, Gabbana store were preventing Hong Kong residents 6. Consumer-based Erosion of Public Space
2008). Moreover, the management of outdoor POPS from taking pictures of the store from Canton Road. The expansion of shopping centres in Hong Kong has
in Hong Kong limits their utilisation by the public. However, the guards had been told to allow tourists promoted the development of Hong Kong’s consumer
In particular, most outdoor POPS have insufficient from the Chinese mainland free rein to do so. culture. The combination of shopping centres and
seating, are fenced off, and are monitored by security The store management’s attempt to illegally control
guards. the public space outside the store led to a civic protest
(Fig.8). Hong Kong residents believed that the retailer
4. Commercialisation of Outdoor POPS in Hong was discriminating against local residents.
Kong This episode is also evidence of the development of a
The property owner of the Times Square development business culture that is eroding people’s right to use
had rented out the open plaza to a cafeteria pursuant public spaces.
to a permit issued by the Hong Kong government.
Citizens other than customers of the café were strictly 5. Vanishing Everyday Space in Hong Kong
prohibited from bringing along their own food. Gehl (2010) states that the dynamism of a city can
Security guards had been given extraordinary powers be evaluated by the extent to which its residents
to disperse non-customers. participate in different activities. Fig.7 Public protest against exclusion from the POPS at Times Square,
Hong Kong in 2008
This abuse of power by the private sector served as Before urban development took off in Hong Kong in
a catalyst for a public demonstration to fight for the the 1960s, the original urban layout offered a relatively
public’s right to use the space (Fig.7). As a result of low-quality living environment. Nonetheless, the urban
public protest, this outdoor POPS has played host to environment provided large areas of public space for
various activities in recent years, including those the city’s inhabitants to interact with their neighbours.
undertaken in everyday life (short breaks, passing by, As noted earlier, Kai Fong are not only outdoor markets,
etc.), as well as social and commercial activities. they also serve as a venue for the local residents to go
However, the lesson has not been learned. The about their everyday life in Hong Kong. Although the
expansion of private owners’ rights has led to on-going New Town Program has led to a new phase of urban
disputes concerning the use of public spaces on private development that has promoted economic growth, it
land. In January 2012, the Apple Daily (2012) reported has also completely transformed the nature of urban
that members of the public were being inappropriately life in Hong Kong. Although the new residential
Fig.8 Hong Kong residents protesting against Dolce & Gabbana at Canton
monitored by the staff of the Dolce & Gabbana store areas included spaces for community interaction, the Road, Hong Kong in 2012
024
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
public transport terminals has strengthened people’s [References] GovHK. 2012. Public open space in private
daily reliance on such commercial facilities. People Apple Daily. 2012. Trespassing ban passers-by to developments design and management guidelines
eat, play and meet friends in shopping centres, and take pictures tarnished shopping paradise Shoppes development. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://
are attracted by the forms of entertainment they bullies D & G. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http:// www.devb.gov.hk/en/publications_and_press_
provide. For the younger generations, the urban hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main. releases/publications/index.html
transformation of Hong Kong has changed their urban php?iss_id=20120105&sec_id=4104&subsec_ Ho, S. 2009. Shopping mall as privately owned public
life patterns. Consumer spending has become the id=11866&art_id=15954668 space. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong
main part of public life. For the older generations, Chan, C. K. J. C. 1995. Community development and Kong. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.arch.
the reduced public participation and interaction management of private sector housing estates in Hong cuhk.edu.hk
has left them with little more than memories of the Kong. Master Dissertation. Hong Kong: University of Kinoshita, H. 2001. The street market as an urban
traditional urban life in Hong Kong. However, for Hong Kong. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http:// facility in Hong Kong. In P. Miao (Ed.), Public places in
the younger generations, the growing consumer hdl.handle.net/10722/29067 Asia Pacific cities: Current issues and strategies (pp. 71-
culture has provided a new reason to participate in Chan, Y. K. 1977. The development of new towns in 86). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
public activities, and has become one of their major Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Luk, W. L. 2009. Privately owned public space in Hong
motivations. The accelerating growth of consumer Hong Kong. Kong and New York: The urban and spatial influence
spending is significantly reshaping the culture of Chow, J. 2012. Dolce & Gabbana photo ban sparks of the policy. In Proceeding of The 4th International
urban life. protest. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://blogs. Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism
In recent years, outdoor POPS in shopping centres have wsj.com/scene/2012/01/09/dolce-gabbana-photo- (IFoU): The new urban question - Urbanism beyond neo-
become one of the primary forms of public space for ban-sparks-protest/ liberalism (pp. 697-706) Delft, Amsterdam. Retrieved
Hong Kong residents. The increasing commercial use Coorey, S. B. A. 2008. Design of open spaces in high April 10, 2012, from http://newurbanquestion.ifou.org/
of outdoor public spaces and the restrictions on, and density zones: Case study of public housing estates in Mingpao Weekly. 2011. Neighborhoods. Hong Kong:
monitoring of the public who use them, confirm that Hong Kong. PhD thesis. Hong Kong: The University of Mingpao Weekly.
such spaces are now largely profit-driven. Furthermore, Hong Kong. Retrieved 10 April, 2012, from http://hub. The Epoch Times. 2008. The militia called on to open
the recent protests in Times Square and at the Dolce & hku.hk/handle/10722/50280 up the Times Square open space. Retrieved February 20,
Gabbana store in Canton Road indicate that the public’s Cuthbert, A. R., & Mckinnell, K. G. 2001. Public 2012, from http://hk.epochtimes.com/8/3/25/79323.
civil rights are being threatened. Even so, the public domain, private interest and social space in Hong htm
continues to actively contest these infringements of Kong. In P. Miao (Ed.), Public places in Asia Pacific cities: The Link. 2011. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from
their civil rights. However, blindness to the expansion Current issues and strategies (pp. 191-211). Boston, http://www.thelinkreit.com/EN/assets/Pages/Aim-
of private power and the disregard for civil rights may MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Objective.aspx
eventually lead to wider public discontent. Designing Hong Kong. 2008. Public right over private Wordie, J. 2007. Streets: Exploring Kowloon. Hong
property. Retrieved 10 April, 2012, from http://www. Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
7. Conclusion legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/plw/papers/ Xue, C. Q. L., & Manuel, K. K. K. 2001. The quest for
Outdoor POPS are now typical forms of publicly usable dev0531cb1-1752-7-e.pdf better public space: A critical review of urban Hong
space in Hong Kong. They have largely replaced the Gehl, J. 2010. Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Kong. In P. Miao (Ed.), Public places in Asia Pacific cities:
traditional public spaces following the escalation of Press. Current issues and strategies (pp. 171-190). Boston,
urban development in Hong Kong in the 1960s. During GovHK. 2007. Recreation, open space and greening. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
this time, the majority of the original public spaces In Hong Kong planning standards and guidelines.
such as the Kai Fong and street markets have been Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.pland.gov. [Figure References]
demolished. In their place, outdoor POPS located in hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch4/ch4_text. Fig.6 Floor plan adapted from: http://www.
shopping centres have become the dominant form htm#1.8 timessquare.com.hk)
of public space people use in their day-to-day life. GovHK. 2008. Background information on provision of Fig.7 Picture from http://www.epochtimes.com/
However, the essential connection between people public facilities within private developments. Retrieved b5/8/3/25/n2057595.htm
has been weakened as a result of these changes. Due 10 April, 2012 from http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/ Fig.8 With permission of OTHK
to the increasing pursuit of economic gain and the dedicated_areas.html
dense urban environment in Hong Kong there are GovHK. 2011. New town and new major urban
now insufficient non-consumer-driven outdoor POPS development. In Hong Kong: the facts. Retrieved
available in the city. February 20, 2012, from http://www.cedd.gov.hk
GovHK. 2011. Background information on provision of
Acknowledgement public facilities within private developments. Retrieved
We would like to thank The Hong Kong Polytechnic 12 April, 2012 from http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/
University for the research funding for this study. legco/pfpd.htm
025
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
From Capitalising on Public Space to Subjectising Urban Life
A Reflection on POPS in Taipei, Taiwan
Yen-Hsing Hsu (City of Taipei, National Taiwan University)
1. Background: Postcolonial Space in Taipei States and many urban planning and urban design the quality of life. Among the most important and
Taiwan’s modern urban planning and building mechanisms as well as laws have been borrowed innovative mechanisms are the institutional systems
regulations were mostly introduced during the from there, especially from New York. Even though for the creation of public space, such as the famous
Japanese colonial period (1895 – 1945). At that time, much of Taiwan’s spatial institutions and academic model of New York City, where the provision of publicly
the urban spatial policies sought to improve public knowledge have been imported from the USA, the usable space on private property (POPS, privately
sanitation and reflected universal modernist principles. Japanese colonial legacy still have a significant impact owned public space) was first developed in response
In 1953, after becoming independent, and within on academia and bureaucratic practice. Although to the dilemmas of capitalising urbanism. With the
a transforming world order, urban spatial policies the spatial policies have been learned from overseas, mechanisms of POPS constructed under incentive
were adapted to enhance public infrastructure and the spatial reality in Taiwan’s cities is based on and zoning, the quality of public space was predicated by
to induce new modern economical thinking under embedded in local culture and politics. Although there the logic of capital in New York. With POPS expressing
the developmental state model. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s has been an intensive exchange of ideas between the contradiction of capitalist public space, the concept
central government, and in particular the Ministry Taipei, New York, and urban Japan, Taipei developed a of the public is still sustained in Western cities in order
of Economics and Infrastructure invited experts and distinct subjectivity due to a different understanding of to safeguard a more just urbanism. Paradoxically, the
consultants from the United Nations Development the relationship between individual and state, the role essence of the public is different in Asian cities. Here
Programme (UNDP), in order to help establish urban of private property, and the authority of state organs. one can explore the complexity of problems that result
governance institutions such as a spatial planning Similarly, other Asian cities have been confronted with from learning the formal mechanisms for the provision
system, building regulations, a public housing policy the challenge of importing foreign knowledge and of POPS from New York, for example (including
and planning education. matching it with its social space. This complex process incentive zoning, POPS design standards and an urban
To this day, the national institutional framework is the of subjectisation could be called the postcolonial design review) while socio-economic, cultural and
foundation stone of spatial policies in Taiwan. These condition. political contexts don’t support these.
kinds of spatial institutions were not only influenced
by the Western experience at the time of their original 2. Archaeology of POPS in Taiwan 3. The Example of Taipei
development, but also by limiting political conditions Cities have created urban planning and urban design The Taiwanese City Planning Act, which is based on
and local academic discourse. Most of the urban mechanisms in the 20th century to cope with the the American zoning system, was enacted in 1964 in
planners and designers were educated in the United problems of rapid urbanisation and to improve order to safeguard orderly urbanisation. At that time,
the role of local governments was seen to be to clean
slum areas and initiate urban renewal. As the planning
systems were established and managed by the central
government, plans were not really suitable for local
needs. On the contrary, the zoning control systems
that were introduced were modelled after the rapidly
growing New York. Ironically, the same mechanisms
for the creation of POPS were implemented in very
different contexts and as a response to different urban
issues in the East and the West. When Taiwan’s central
government wanted to initiate zoning control, local
governments were in opposition to the mechanisms,
despite the fact that officials of both local governments
and the central government were educated at the
same institutions, and all were under pressure from
local politics. That is the reason why the FAR control in
Taipei was only introduced in 1983; 20 years after the
City Planning Act was promulgated.
Aside from this struggle between the central and
the local governments, another struggle took place:
between government officials with urban planning
and those with civil engineering backgrounds;
between equity and welfare state advocates and
between adepts of scientific rationalism and free
markets. Urban design as a new approach learned from
Fig.1 POPS created by the Comprehensive Design System in Taipei until 2010 per every city ward
New York and Tokyo responded to the contradictions of
026
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
urban planning and favoured FAR incentives. The Taipei controlling bigger scale development projects with became active in this matter. In spite of the citizens
zoning regulations, administered by the Department sites over 6,000m2 or a floor area of over 30,000m2. and public starting to take a strong concern in the
of Urban Development, has contained a mechanism of The urban design review came to play the role of compliance of POPS with the public interest, incentive
bonus FAR since 1983. Initially, the zoning regulations gatekeeper for quality of new developments, which zoning had already become a part of the game of
introduced an incentive zoning instrument called previously failed to integrate into their wider urban capital accumulation with the quality of space still
the Comprehensive Design Systems (CDS), which context. The new pioneering discipline of urban design disputed in Taipei. The scattered location of POPS was
aimed to incite private developers to provide publicly advocated an integrated wider urban design with a predicated by the logic of the real estate market and
usable open space. Accordingly, the first type of POPS detailed development plan. This new policy was first urban planning failed to integrate them with adjacent
emerged in Taipei. As in Japan, after the introduction implemented for the urban planning of the XinYi public parks and promenades. POPS often remained
of incentive zoning for encouraging open space and district, where Taipei’s iconic 101 Tower is located, and isolated in the city, with their quality almost entirely
good design, other mechanisms of FAR incentives were which provided a comprehensive open space structure, depending on the skills of architects and the good
invented for the creation of other much needed public an urban design review, and detailed urban design will of developers. Those POPS that were produced by
amenities. Many government departments began guidelines. the Joint Development of Mass Transportation Act are
thinking about using FAR incentives for achieving At the same time, pioneer urban design officials in similar to the public spaces in station developments
their own objectives. In 1988, for example, the the Taipei City Government started to improve the in Japan; with the design led by the transportation
transportation department of Taipei City introduced a Comprehensive Design System, and revised the design department and by civil engineers, the design of the
regulation to encourage additional public car parking and management standards to preserve the public POPS followed the functions of safety, convenience
lots. Other FAR incentives were introduced through interest. The older incentive regulations had usually and crowd control, but often ignored the qualities of
the Joint Development of Mass Transportation Act by led to producing gated communities, with POPS not aesthetics and diversity.
the Ministry of Transportation in 1988, and the urban open to the general public. Citizen organisations had In order to cope with these dilemmas of POPS, Taipei’s
renewal ordinance by the Ministry of Interior. The sprung up to contest this unjust phenomenon, and urban design officials attempted an alternative
different incentive FAR policies, offered by different as a result, the incentive policy was abandoned for way in 1995, called community empowerment. The
government authorities and implemented without residential land use zones. Today, the Comprehensive policies of community empowerment (in Japanese,
mutual integration led to a loss of integrity of urban Design System is only applicable in commercial machizukuri) were not only aiming at improving
planning and local government control. Therefore, zones. Meanwhile, as of 2010, the number of POPS public space, but also at managing the privately
the mechanisms of incentive FAR no longer played has increased to 169 cases under the comprehensive owned space, which elevates community identity. The
the role of encouraging good quality of design, but design policy in Taipei. Moreover, as of 2012, the policies were proposed by the Department of Urban
also to increase the profitability of the investment. number of car parking lot cases is 9,147, and the Development. In other Taiwanese cities and counties
The multiple types of POPS and incentives, governed number of motorcycle parking lots amounts to 2,596, the departments of culture pushed this policy forward.
by different public reasoning were destroying the under the regulation for encouraging additional public Truly, this policy change created a new opportunity for
urban planning system; urban planning became a tiger car parking. Because most of the incentivised parking quality public life, with synergies in the production and
without teeth. lots were underground, they were hardly open to management of space resulting from a partnership
In order to restore the integrity of urban planning, the public. For this reason, the public opinion turned between officialdom and locals. Until 2010, the policy
new urban design mechanisms were introduced. Since against the policy and citizen protests erupted. In 2010, completed 121 projects, including parks, streetscapes,
1988, for example, urban design reviews are held for the national institution of impeachment and audit or semi-public lands in private ownership.
Fig.2 Large privately owned public space in Taipei's XinYi District Fig.3 Interior POPS on the fourth floor of the 101 Tower; since the number "4" connotes to death in Chinese
culture, often public facilities are allocated in the fourth floor, which is otherwise difficult to rent out
027
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Fig.4 Citizen organisations are protesting against additional FAR incentives for public parking lots in Taipei
Unlike all planning policies in Taiwan that came before, and privates, and enhance the capacity of urban social disruption, urban issues are no longer only
these new developments had been divorced from design. We might believe that these efforts have come solving high growth, facilitating and intensifying
the earlier models of New York and Japan. After three to fruition, with successful urban regeneration projects the flow of capital, and expanding urbanised areas.
decades of hard work, the POPS policy seemed to like Marunouchi, Roppongi Hills, and Nihonbashi in To respond to the new challenges, policies for the
have missed the original intention to achieve a better Japan as good examples. Here, the amazing success provision of POPS need to be more creative.
public urban life, but planning officials still try hard to is in integrating a complex spectrum of stakeholders, Since 2010, the Taipei Urban Renewal Office (URO) has
change this by improving the laws, design standards, coupled with mature design skills, and a perfect initiated an expansion of a series of policies under an
review mechanisms and management mechanisms. balance between urban function, social activity, urban acupuncture approach, confronting these new
Simultaneously, pioneer urban design officials have ecological issues, and historical preservation. challenges. The first creative policy is called Urban
started to develop creative mechanisms in order to However, following the current crisis of globalisation, Regeneration Station (URS), which began to shift the
avoid isolated POPS, such as FAR incentives that are uneven development, climate change and growing focus on soft infrastructure. URS’s policy is embedded
granted for the utilisation of idle properties since 2001.
This new incentive mechanism is meant to encourage
a temporary public use of unused buildings or vacant
lands before a new redevelopment takes place. This
type of POPS is highly original and very different from
the original concept imported from New York. These
novel policies were born from the need to respond
to the reality of urban problems in Taiwan and were
developed without borrowing to Western experiences.
They are the beginning of a new paradigm of subjective
public life under the conditions of a capitalist world.
4. Subjectising POPS
If we agree that most formally produced POPS are not
catering to the public life in the city, we should honestly
face the question of: what could their role be in the 21st
century? In the 20th century, issues of urbanisation
were solving density issues, capital accumulation and
creative destruction, which caused urban governance
to facilitate circulation spaces, improve connectivity
through appropriate collaboration between officials Fig.5 The Urban Regeneration Station URS21 was an old warehouse, which is now temporarily used for creative co-working spaces and exhibitions
028
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
as a creative, vital activity into the community. The as well as young creatives with the surrounding through POPS is miniscule. In order to rethink POPS
establishment of an URS is temporary and designed community which is maintaining a vegetable farm and take an alternative route to sustainable urbanism,
in response to local assets and community needs. This here. more creativity and critical reflection is needed.
strategy aims at creating prosperity together with Another important new policy is the temporary green The concept of temporality is promising in this respect.
the citizens. Traditionally, urban regeneration policies spot project that was launched in order to beautify the It would have been entirely possible to create, for
have been based on the expectation that a new city for the Taipei FLORA EXPO in 2010. As LIEN and example, a permanent stadium for the 2012 London
development per se would be enough to invigorate SHIH discuss in PART 3 of this volume, many of these Olympics. However, in order to allow the public
the wider project area. URS, however, develop a more kind of temporary POPS were collaboratively planned more time and a deeper reflection on subjectising
heterogeneous space based the subjectivity of city and and managed together with the local communities and urbanism, and not to foreclose future possibilities, a
the diversity of social needs. The policy does not aim NGOs. (*1) temporary structure for the main stadium was chosen.
to struggle against capitalism or globalisation, but to To conclude, in Taipei the formalistic provision of POPS Like the stadium, the meaning of POPS should also
create a new model. that has been imported from New York and Japan has express inclusiveness and shared spaces should create
A special case of POPS provision was URS89-6, where a failed to address the subjectivity of the city. The URS synergies with the citizens toward a sustainable city.
private developer allowed an old building to be turned and the new temporary POPS are more reflexive of Urbanism is a subjectising process with social inclusion
into an art studio, a public gallery, a lecture hall, and an the reality of urban public life we face today. These and a sharing society always being the mandate for
NGO office before the urban renewal began. alternative approaches to the production of space urban designers and planners.
The other case was URS21, where the land was owned aim to transform the capitalist public space into an
by the national government, and where Taipei City’s integrative social productive one. [Notes]
urban regeneration office has borrowed it for three *1 For details refer to see LIEN Chen-Yu and SHIH
years in order to present a new showroom to the 5. Temporary Conclusion for Policy of Temporality Pei-Yin in this volume: ‘Temporary Privately Owned
public, as well as incubation studios for young creatives The Taipei experience suggests the possibility of a new Public Space in Taipei: A Flexible Space Opens the
and NGOs in the field of cultural production. kind of POPS. In the past, Asian cities that have imported Social Realm’
URS differs from traditional projects because the public techniques and mechanisms for the production of
office has cooperated with artists and academics in space from Western civilisations were unable to answer [Figure References]
order to elaborate a common vision together with to the challenges of today's complex urbanism issues. Fig.1 With kind permission of the City of Taipei
the community. This approach was chosen in order to Nowadays, the techniques for creating POPS are merely Fig. 4+5 With kind permission of the NGO Organization
prevent visions from elites prevailing. Today, the site aiming at preventing negative externalities, whereas of Urban Reform (OUR)
successfully integrates fashion and cultural production the important goal of creating a better public life
Fig.6 Temporary POPS that serves as a community farm in central Taipei
029
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Challenges in Co-Producing Publicly Accessible Spaces
The Example of Bücherplatz in Aachen
Ulrich Berding, Antje Havemann, and Juliane Pegels (RWTH Aachen)
their perception of shared responsibilities, and to find
out what consequences result from ‘co-producing’
urban spaces especially for municipal planning.
The STARS project thus opened the way to a more
nuanced understanding of urban spaces. It revealed
the complexity of public-private interdependences,
the variety of interests involved, and the challenges
that result from the co-production of spaces, not only
during the building phase but over the whole life cycle
(see also Berding et al. 2010).
2. Bücherplatz, Aachen: A complex Public-Private
Agreement
Bücherplatz, in the city of Aachen, provides a good
example to illustrate the major findings of the study
(Fig.1+2). It is a small square in the city centre, close
to the historic cathedral, the town hall, and the major
shopping streets. On two sides, the square is framed by
streets with limited vehicular traffic, and the two other
edges are dominated by the Haus der Kohle, an eight-
story office building with a rectangular base hosting
stores and a cafe on the ground floor.
Fig.1 Responsibility Profile: Types of actors and their different responsibilities regarding public space management Thanks to its location, the Bücherplatz is a highly
frequented part of Aachen‘s network of open spaces.
1. Background influence on public space is something we questioned It provides numerous places for stopping and resting
Plazas, parks, and promenades play an important in the research project STARS. (*1) It added more either on public benches or chairs provided by the café.
role in the identity of a city. With lively and attractive nuances to this simplistic view and examined what was The square was built in 1961 as part of the development
public spaces, cities can showcase their social, cultural, not recognised before: urban spaces in shared public of the multi-level building Haus der Kohle. Even back
and economic situation. But who is responsible for and private responsibility. Publicly usable space is then, control and rights of access were important issues
them? Discourse on urban space in Germany has rarely only subject to municipal planning and control;
often assumed that publicly accessible open spaces it is created and maintained by many different public
are always ‘public’ – i.e. owned and regulated by the as well as private stakeholders.
municipality. Following this understanding, spaces The STARS-study started with identifying over 100
in private hands cannot be public by definition. The possible case study spaces in the cities of Aachen,
conception of which roles the different stakeholders Hanover, and Leipzig of which 29 were chosen for in-
play in the creation of urban spaces also corresponds depth analysis. In addition to studying the function,
to this dualistic thinking: municipal actors were seen to spatial context, and design characteristics of each
dominate ‘public spaces’, whereas market forces control space, all actors involved in the design, regulation, and
‘private spaces’. These assumptions have continued to management were interviewed.
be present in public space debates. For years, several For each space a responsibility profile (Fig.1) was
German scholars described the state and prospects for created to summarise and visualise answers to the
public spaces with a skeptical tone (see, for example, following questions in a standardised representation:
Beiglböck 2008, 34; Hochstadt 2010, 6; Kreye 2007; Who is the landowner and who has further rights
Matzig 2007; Weilacher 2006, 44) with privatisation (rights)? Who planned and built the space; who
processes leading to the disappearance of public maintains and manages it (production)? And who is
space, cities were increasingly characterised by covered allowed to regulate the use and the users behaviour
shopping malls, private companies were exercising (regulation)?
their right of exclusion, hence curtailing civil rights, In addition to these case studies, we interviewed 40
and remaining public spaces were being increasingly representatives of planning and parks departments in
aligned along commercial and private sector interests. 20 large German cities and conducted 17 interviews
Generally, blaming private actors for having a negative with private stakeholders in order to understand Fig.2 Bücherplatz in Aachen
030
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
negotiated between the municipality and the private
developer. When granting the building permit, the City
of Aachen obtained a right of way in the land register
for guaranteeing public accessibility. The bookstore,
which has rented the ground floor of the building
for years, gave the square its name Bücherplatz –(in
English, “book plaza”).
It is important to note some details about the
responsibilities and rights shared by the owner and
the city: First, since the square belongs to a real estate
company, it is clearly privately owned. The main tenant,
the bookstore, sublets a small portion of its floor space
to a café, and a bank pays a monthly rent for installing a
cash machine in the middle of the space. Fig.3 Layer "Rights": Who is property owner? Who has further rights?
The outdoor space is divided into two sections: on
one side the City of Aachen holds a public easement,
which secures the public right of way; the other side
is in the hands of the tenants and the store owners.
This agreement is further complicated as the portion
of the space that is occupied by the café terrace in the
summer must be quickly vacated for access by fire
trucks in case of an emergency. These complicated
arrangements with different layers of influence are
visualised in figure 3, 4, and 5.
In general, security on the square is provided by the
municipal security personnel, the tenants of the stores,
and the building management of the Haus der Kohle.
Similarly complex and partially overlapping are the Fig.4 Layer "Regulation": Who regulates use? Who sets rules for users? Who has domestic right?
maintenance and cleaning responsibilities: the stores
and the café are obligated to clean the areas in front
of their premises. The bookstore, as the main tenant,
cleans the plaza and tends to the flowerpots and
flowerbeds. The sanitation department of the City
of Aachen, however, empties the waste bins, and the
municipal infrastructure department is responsible for
maintaining the playground sculpture.
These agreements are often not even understood
by the tenants themselves, which became apparent
when we interviewed the municipal cleaning staff,
responsible for the space. They did not know precisely
what their duties were.
3. The Limits to Renewal
When building the square in the 1960s, and later
erecting a playground sculpture, the city and the Fig.5 Layer "Production": Who has produced the space? Who maintains it? Who upgrades it?
private owner cooperated well. But in 1990, the original
owner sold the building and the public square to a real improvements for the Elisengarten, a historic park and obligations, but they were also eager to make positive
estate company, and decades of successful cooperation its surroundings. When the competition for the area was changes to the square. The suggested design stood
with the City of Aachen came to an end. announced, the participants were asked to include the in sharp contrast to the rundown appearance of the
The first conflict arose when the city developed Bücherplatz in their design concepts. The city saw the Bücherplatz. Municipal actors elaborated on all these
an inner city concept in 2002, which suggested competition entries as recommendations rather than ideas without including the owner – which later turned
031
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Suddenly, municipal power stopped at the property
line. Even though the city had included the Bücherplatz
in its overall planning concept, it’s authority remains
limited. The easement could secure public accessibility,
the agreements about cleaning and liability worked
well, but upgrading and redesigning was never
discussed, and accordingly, unexpected disagreements
arose.
The need for municipal and non-municipal actors to
cooperate in planning and producing urban spaces
cannot be ignored; they are part of urban reality now.
The contribution of private actors to urban spaces
becomes more important than ever, as municipal
budgets shrink.
The lessons of the Bücherplatz and other similar cases
are that successful co-productions of publicly accessible
spaces requires all stakeholders to come together
in order to discuss their interests and negotiate
their responsibilities in building, maintaining, and
upgrading a space.
If stakeholders are interested in creating accessible,
attractive, and usable urban spaces, an enduring
partnership can become the basis for key outcomes
in urban space development. In Germany, however,
coproduction is still not acknowledged very much. So
far, public/private relations are negotiated and shaped
on a case-by-case basis – with unequal results.
It is now time to optimise these processes. The findings
of the STARS project as well as experiences made in
other countries (see also Dimmer et al. 2010, Pegels
2010, Pegels 2011) can contribute to this debate by
addressing the following questions:
Fig.6 Site plan and model show the function of Bücherplatz in its wider urban context Which kind of urban spaces can benefit from co-
production, and what role do they play in the network
out to be a mistake. In preliminary conversations, the 4. Lessons from Bücherplatz: Clearer Guidelines of open spaces of a city?
real estate company showed little interest in investing for Publicly Accessible Spaces Which actors have what interests in urban spaces,
to upgrade the space, and even pointed to technical The example of Bücherplatz teaches us that private and how can they contribute to the development and
difficulties with the parking garage beneath the stakeholders are important partners in building and upkeep of a space? What has to be taken into account
square. The company agreed to a redesign, only if the maintaining urban spaces in ways challenging to city when different actors share responsibilities in a space,
city would carry the costs. In their view, the stores and planning. When building permits are needed – as seen and how can a lasting balance be maintained?
the café on the plaza were rented out for years even in the initial phase of the public-private cooperation in
without a visual upgrading. The city could not find the case of the Bücherplatz – the municipality can rely [Notes]
ways to implement the envisioned integrated design on its planning sovereignty. *1 STARS – Stadtraume in Spannungsfeldern (= Urban
of the public realm around Elisengarten without the But later on, its influence on private property shrinks. Spaces in Between Public and Private Activities).
consensus and participation of the building owner. In the case of the Haus der Kohle and the adjacent Plazas, Parks, and Promenades in Fields of Tension.
The relationship between city planning department Bücherplatz, the initial owner had a personal The main goal of the four-year study, financed by
and owner worsened to a point where the renewal attachment to Aachen and felt a sense of responsibility the German Research Foundation and conducted
plans had to be shelved, with the result clearly today: in improving the character and appearance of the city at the RWTH Aachen University, was to improve
the upgraded public realm halts at the property line of – a crucial issue when working to the benefit of the city the understanding of the role and relevance of
the Bücherplatz (Fig.7). and the site. When the owner changed, the relationship non-municipal stakeholders in creating urban
with the city also changed. spaces.
032
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Fig.7 Property line: Not to be overlooked
[References]
Berding U., A. Havemann, J. Pegels, B. Perenthaler Havemann, A.; Selle, K. 2010. Plätze, Parks und Pegels, J. 2011. “Stadträume in Spannungsfeldern
[Ed]. 2010. Stadträume in Spannungsfeldern. Plätze, Co. Vorwort. In: dies. (Hrsg.): Plätze, Parks und Co. anderswo. Insights from Post-doc Research on Privately
Parks und Promenaden im Schnittbereich öffentlicher Stadträume im Wandel – Analysen, Positionen und Influenced Public Space in Melbourne” in: pnd-online.
und privater Aktivitäten. Aachen. Konzepte. Detmold 2010. S. 12-15 I.2011 www.planung-neu-denken.de
Beiglböck, S. 2008. Öffentlicher Raum mit exklusiver Hochstadt, S. 2010. Öffentlichkeit und Privatheit: Pegels, J. 2010. “Privately Influenced Public Spaces.
Nutzung. In: RAUM 72/2008: 34–36. Wem gehört die Stadt? In: RaumPlanung 148, Februar Die Koproduktion von Stadträumen in Melbourne,
Dimmer C., Ju. Pegels, E. Schlack Fuhrmann. 2010. 2010: 5–10. New York City, Tokio und Santiago de Chile” in: Forum
“Systematisierte (Ko)Produktion öffentlich nutzbarer Kreye, A. .2007. Deutschland privat. Wenn der Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung. Verbandsorgan des
Stadträume in außereuropäischen Kontexten. Privately städtische Raum von der Wirtschaft gestaltet wird, vhw. Heft 2. March-April 2010
Owned Public Space in New York, Tokio und Santiago verliert er seinen demokratischen Charakter. In: Weilacher, U. 2006. Die Zukunft des öffentlichen
de Chile” in: Berding, Havemann, Pegels, Perenthaler Süddeutsche Zeitung, 02.11.2007: 15. Raumes – Traum oder Alptraum? In: Europäisches
[Ed]. Stadträume in Spannungsfeldern. Plätze, Parks Matzig, G. 2007. Event, Event, ein Lichtlein brennt. Haus der Stadtbaukultur (ed.): 5 Jahre Landesinitiative
und Promenaden im Schnittbereich öffentlicher und Weihnachtsmarkt, Loveparade, Stadtmarathon oder Stadtbaukultur NRW. Düsseldorf: author’s edition,
privater Aktivitäten. Aachen. Bladenight: Wie die Städte ihre Straßen und Plätze 42–45.
verramschen. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 02.11.2007: 15.
033
Japanese Experience Part II
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Standardised Diversity: Privately Produced Public Space in Japan
Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
Fig.1 Mostly unplanned urban growth led to extreme densities in large Japanese cities and a quantitative lack of public spaces such as sidewalks, parks, promenades, or squares
1. Introduction Part II This is especially the case with incentive zoning, where and corporate headquarters and high-grade office
The following part of this magazine details the the most prominent, available planning tools are based functions concentrating in central Tokyo, there is little
discussion of the private production of public spaces on unified central government standards. demand for extra bonus floor area. The old trade-off of
(POPS) on various spatial scales and in different On closer sight, however, one notices that local bonus floor area for public space is no longer working
cities in Japan in order to develop a more nuanced conditions vary significantly and that even the properly even in huge cities like Yokohama, Osaka,
understanding of the variegated and differentiated outcome of centralised planning tools are surprisingly Nagoya, or Sapporo.
implications of this planning tool. As noted earlier, predicated by local geographies, socio-economic In Sapporo, a planned city with sufficient public
public space means different things to different people conditions, particular actor-networks, local problem space such as parks, wide promenades and sidewalks,
in different places at different times. Part 1 showed perceptions and planning cultures as well as planners are more critical of incentive zoning. In this
that although there are many commonalities in POPS established path dependencies. city with long and snowy winters, in the central area
design, production and maintenance, there are also In the city of Yokohama, for example, already in the early POPS are used to complement a newly developed
marked differences between the discussed countries. 1970s a more collaborative planning culture evolved, underground mall with ample amenity spaces. They
This is owed to distinctive national planning and where a financially strained local government sought are employed to connect the underground level with
governance cultures, each with their own institutional to mobilise private capital for the complementation the street level and their design and allocation is strictly
frameworks, shared perceptions of problems and of much needed public infrastructure. Available controlled by district plans. Furthermore, planners are
probable resources, and means that the respective planning tools were comprehensively combined in keenly aware of the shortcomings of conventional
actors utilise in order to achieve their objectives. order to realise a detailed public space conception. incentive zoning and use their discretionary powers
Part 2 shows that the same holds true on a local level. A progressive, long-term mayor politically backed and negotiation skills in order to claim better design
As Christian Dimmer and Takefumi Kurose demonstrate visionary planners in order to set up a unique quality.
with their chapters on Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka and institutional framework, not to be found elsewhere in In Osaka, again, from the 1930s on city and private
Sapporo, unique local histories and specific spatial, Japan. Today, Yokohama stands next to Sapporo and landowners began to produce publicly usable spaces
socio-economic, and political conditions do make a Kanazawa as a showcase example of urban design in close cooperation in the densely built-up Semba
significant difference. Many observers have remarked in Japan. In recent years, however, incentive zoning central business district. This created a unique local
that the planning system in Japan is too rigid and seems no longer to function well in most Japanese planning culture and a collaborative climate between
centralised, in practice leaving little institutional space cities. As many cities are confronted with shrinking city authorities and private developers. It established
for tailoring plans and projects to local conditions. populations, a hollowing-out of the local economy, a path dependency that produces distinctly different
036
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
spatial outcomes in the Semba area to this day. Tokyo,
contrary to all these other cities, is marked by the
absence of a clear centre. Whereas many secondary
Japanese cities have developed fairly detailed spatial
visions for key areas, in Tokyo this is only weakly
developed due to the sheer size of the metropolis and
the overlap between different, sometimes competing,
layers of local government and state authorities. Also,
deregulating planning in Tokyo has often been seen
as a means to boost the national economy. Under
these circumstances, long-term vision making and far-
reaching design control couldn’t fully develop.
After contrasting the provision of privately owned
public spaces in these four Japanese cities, Dimmer
discusses the example of SIO Site Shiodome, one of
Tokyo’s largest recent redevelopment schemes, where
a far-reaching public-private partnership and a close
collaboration between the landowners lead to an
unprecedented integration of the private and public
provision of public spaces and a unified management
scheme, which is often cited as Japan’s first business
improvement district.
Ayane Maekawa shows then from a user perspective,
how different kinds of third places in large-scale urban
development projects are used and that POPS tend to Fig.2 LeCorbusier's modernist logic of the "Tower in the Park" applied to Japan: Instead of a dense network of vernacular street spaces, planning
regulations came to incentivise the production of large open spaces and slender high-rise buildings
be less conducive to user appropriation than totally
private lounge settings, because of management,
design and maintenance constraints. 2. Background could lead to an unpredictable densification of
It is also a unique feature of public space in Japan It is important to point out that contrary to the squeezing ever more buildings floors under a fixed
that little deviation in user behaviour takes place, and modern West, most Japanese cities developed mostly height cap. As the FAR only states building volume, it
that prohibited activities are far more tolerated by the in an unplanned, haphazard fashion, with only encourages slimmer, less deep, higher buildings that
public space management if no serious conflicts erupt. incomplete public facilities such as sidewalks, parks, or capitalise on better views and capture as much light
There is a marked gap between prohibiting activities promenades. Incentive zoning in Japan was therefore as possible for interior office spaces. With buildings
and actually enforcing these rules. Although privately seen as a viable tool to utilise private capital for now no longer required to make use of the entire plot,
owned, many lounge spaces allow for a broader overcoming this severe infrastructure shortage, while valuable open space could be freed on site. With a
spectrum of public activities, or, put differently, self public funding was critically short and planning lacked FAR designation of 5, or alternatively 500%, a building
policing and a strong "common sense" regarding authority to enforce more ambitious schemes (Fig.1). filling up a plot completely could be 5 stories high, one
appropriate behaviours in public space reduce the that leaves half of the plot vacant 10 stories high and
scope of activities and along with it, the potential for 3. Floor Area Ratio and Incentive Zoning one that covers only 1/4 of the site 20 stories tall. Open
contestations of space. The foundation for the private production of public spaces created through FAR massing wouldn’t need to
Finally, Mireille Tchapi examines how one specific space was laid with the gradual shift from a system of be publicly accessible though, and wouldn’t necessarily
local community in Tokyo is conceiving the gradual absolute building height restrictions with maximum contribute to a better urban environment. It was under
replacement of its vernacular urban fabric of narrow, of 31 meters outside of residential areas to a more the discretion of landowners to fence off these spaces,
micro-scale community spaces by the alien typology of parametric one, stipulating a maximum permissible pave them and turn them into parking lots. One year
tower condominiums and empty, unused POPS. With Floor Area Ratio (FAR) during the early-1960s. In later, a mechanism was added that allowed local
numerous interviews she shows that many residents 1963 an exceptional Special Urban Block designation governments to grant a bonus of additional floor area
in this densely built-up, disaster-prone neighbourhood allowed for abolishing absolute height limits in if certain portions of the block were opened to public
appreciate POPS and the high-rise developments specifically designated districts and the stipulation of use. For the POPS that predicated the bonus FA, certain
that predicate them, because they convey an image building volumes instead (Ishida 1988: 60). Stipulating minimum design standards regarding shape, visibility,
of safety, while fine-grain, human-scale, vernacular a maximum density through FAR, would make the city elevation, and relation of perimeter to contact surface
spaces are feared as dangerous in times of disaster. more plannable, whereas absolute heights restrictions to sidewalk were mandated by generic planning
037
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
finally abolished in 1969, after it had been scaled Sôgô Sekkei Seido) was created through a revision of
down 29 times since 1949 (2001: 263-4). Fragmented the Building Standard Act "in order to effectively utilise
landownership, lack of funds for land acquisition, as private energies for the urgent redevelopment of
well as weak planning powers vis-à-vis rigid private inner cities" (Tateishi 1973: 16). As indicated in Figure
property rights further frustrated the authorities' 4, this is the most frequently used incentive planning
efforts to create new open spaces. Publications of the tool for the private production of public space. The
time show that much hope and enthusiasm went into initial three objectives of the system were as follows:
the new FAR system and incentive zoning (See for First, creation of publicly usable open spaces. Second,
example Tateishi 1973; Yanagisawa 1973). allowing for freer, more innovative building designs
through deregulation of building form restrictions.
5. Highly Systematised Production POPS Third, promotion of large scale development by
What followed this pioneering period was a merging fragmented plots and to contribute to a
systematisation of incentive zoning and its codification more efficient land utilisation. In the following year,
in an ever-growing number of planning tools for MoC issued nation-wide application standards for
achieving widely different objectives and used on the system, based on the work of an external expert
diverse scales. Where the creation of superior design commission. Local government could now adapt the
quality of building and public space was once a system in response to their unique local conditions,
condition for receiving bonus FA or waivers from within this rough guiding framework, prescribed by
Fig.3 Example for POPS bonus coefficients in Yokohama City: One square building envelop regulations, gradually the production the national government. Initially the system was
meter of these respective kinds of POPS generates different FAR bonuses
of POPS became abstracted and automated. Whereas intended as an exceptional incentive and as a means
manuals. Spaces adjacent to the sidewalk level would developers initially had to demonstrate that their for local governments to bargain for better building
earn higher bonuses than lesser usable space below or public spaces would lead to a significant environmental design. It was explicitly pointed out that this trade-
above the flow of pedestrians. Furthermore, different improvement, in later years POPS became only a off was “not meant as an automatism,” which would
types of POPS would earn developers higher or lower pretext to cash up additional valuable FA that could be automatically entitle a floor area bonus (Yanagisawa
bonuses (Fig.3). sold or rented out at premium prices. 1973:19). A project, making use of the CDS and most
As seen from 1964 onward, the specified block allowed other incentive planning tools is judged in three steps:
4. Innovating Technology, Importing Ideas for the production of Japan's first POPS. Based on First, does the development meet the minimum
This fundamental change in urban planning was a MoC directive, cities with own building authority stipulations, entitling its use? Is the building plot big
facilitated by technological progress, permitting (tokutei gyôsei chô) and a population greater than enough in accordance with above objectives? Is the
earthquake-proof high-rise buildings in this disaster- 250,000 were encouraged to offer FA bonuses and fronting street broad enough to handle the extra traffic
prone country for the first time, and by the potent other zoning concessions to builders if they in turn caused by the building?
lobbying of the real estate and construction industry. agreed to provide plazas, arcades, atriums, through- Second, how is the use comfort of the provided public
A young bureaucrat from the Ministry of Construction block connections, elevated plazas, or sunken gardens, spaces? Is it a large coherent chunk of open space, or
(MoC) who studied at the University of Philadelphia governed by explicit, yet minimal, design standards. To only a narrow, deep strip, north of a building? Is it fully
between 1962 and ‘63 under Paul Davidoff, father of adapt the system to local conditions, bonuses could be visible from the public street so that users are aware of
New York’s ground breaking 1961 zoning ordinance, adjusted to favour the creation of certain spaces over its existence and make use of it, or is the access hidden
brought this know-know to Japan. Subsequently, he others. In reality, such adaptations would not differ by building parts? Is it at ground level and easily
helped to craft Japan’s own version of incentive zoning much from city to city. Generally, indoor spaces like accessible, or is it elevated or depressed, which would
in order to facilitate the construction of the country’s atriums, appearing more private, generate less bonus make it difficult to use in daily practice? Is it a truly open
first skyscraper, the Kasumigaseki Building (completed FA than open air spaces like sidewalk widenings or space, or do building parts cover it and obstruct views to
in 1968). Furthermore, at a time when the ideas of plazas (Fig.3). the open sky, creating a sense of claustrophobia? Every
the Metabolists were in high currency, it was broad In 1969 the Intensive Land Utilisation Area (Kôdo Riyô kind of POPS is then weighed with a specific coefficient,
consensus among planners that Le Corbusier's “Towers Chiku) designation followed. This system that is applied through which the bonus floor area is calculated in step
in the Park” concept was the superior city model (Fig.2). for whole districts incentivises the production of mostly three. The highest coefficients were originally assigned
The abolition of the absolute height limits, and with pedestrian circulation spaces through FA bonuses to square-type POPS, which are fully open. Less bonus
it, the implicit rejection of the low-rise vernacular in areas where more densification and efficient land floor area is generated through the creation of atriums,
city, was therefore uncontested. The environmental utilisation is desired. It would be mostly applied around arcades and narrow sidewalk widenings (Fig.3). In the
degradation after a decade of rampant, unchecked crowded station fronts but also in other areas where FA permission standards, local governments would be
urban growth with a rapid loss of open space was also bonuses appeared useful as incentive to induce private able to create additional POPS and weigh them in a
decisive. Ishikawa details for instance the persistent development activities. Modelled after the Specified way so that they better responded to local conditions.
encroachment on Tokyo's greenbelt, which was Block, in 1970 the Comprehensive Design System (CDS, However, Kuniyoshi and Senda (2000) point out that
038
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
only few cities nationwide using the CDS have really
customised it. Instead, most municipalities have stuck
to the uniform national standards. Only Yokohama
and Sagamihara offered bonuses for the protection
of natural green spaces and, prior to a recent zoning
amendment in Tokyo, Yokohama was the only city
explicitly promoting the creation of POPS along rivers
and the waterfront (ibid). After the establishment of
the system it has been subsequently changed in order
to utilise it for the alleviation of other pressing urban
problems, by incentivising the injection of private
capital.
After a first revision in 1983 the CDS no longer only
encouraged the production of POPS but also of inner
city housing and high-quality residential space. The
background was the increasing hollowing out of
residential downtown functions and the rampant
suburbanisation. The next revision in 1986 created
higher floor area bonuses if projects complied
with district plan provisions, or accorded with the
redevelopment principles and comprehensive urban
redevelopment plans.
The next revision in 1990 introduced FA bonuses for
publicly usable underground, or mechanised parking
facilities in order to counter on-street parking. In 1995,
yet more bonuses were added for the promotion
of residential space in central Tokyo, Nagoya and
Osaka that had been depopulated due to a land price
rally during the 1980s, during the so-called bubble Fig.4 Overview of planning tools that incentivise the private production of public spaces in Japan, exemplified for Tokyo:
Although these numbers differ between cities in Japan, the ratio between the use of the different tools is similar elsewhere
economy. Finally in 1997, an additional bonus was
granted for the redevelopment of very large plots. concrete quality requirements spelled out, comparable or simply Tokku) have been designated in central
This served not only to create giant POPS but also to to those of New York City. In essence, the actual design areas of large Japanese cities, where many planning
reanimate the collapsed real estate market. quality of POPS lies in the discretion of builders and regulations are temporarily waived and projects
A careful analysis of the permission standards for the architects. Strained, understaffed city administrations are freely negotiated between local governments
CDS shows that different priorities for the creation are overburdened with the task of monitoring the post- and developers. All these discussed systems equally
of POPS are given in different cities. Yokohama City occupancy design as well as the maintenance quality. encourage the creation of POPS and other amenities
grants bonuses for the creation of natural green spaces In 1988 the 'Redevelopment-type District Plan but differ in scale and planning process.
and waterfront POPS, whose production has only (Saikaihatsu Chikukeikaku, in 2002 renamed into Specified blocks, areas of intensive land utilisation and
recently been explicitly rewarded in Tokyo. In Tokyo, Saikaihtasu to Sokushin-ku) was introduced. It sought
in turn, artificial decks and pedestrian overpasses are to mobilise private capital for the redevelopment
bonusable as a response to countless station front of large brownfield sites, vacated through the de-
developments and infrastructure projects, which are industrualisation of Japan and a transformation to
less of an issue in other Japanese cities. The highest a service economy. Because a larger area is tackled,
bonuses are granted in both cities for open air an integrated public realm can be mandated that
sidewalk-type POPS (Fig.5). With increasing length, the transcends public/private property lines. As a condition
magnitude of the bonus also increases in Tokyo, which for higher bonuses, developers provide parks and
is not the case elsewhere. Despite these variations, sidewalks in the area, which are transferred into
most basic quality requirements such as coherency municipal property after completion. Additionally
and form of POPS, minimum frontage with other POPS are provided on private plots as parts of a
public spaces, or height differences in the elevation, are larger concept. Finally, since 2002, so-called Urban Fig.5 Many neighbourhood streets in Tokyo are lacking sidewalks: Bonus
floor area is rewarded if private developers choose to provide these kinds
everywhere the same and nowhere in Japan are more Renaissance Special Districts (Toshisaisei Tokku, of public space that often remain isolated and don't connect
039
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
redevelopment-type district plans, or Tokku are used on the actual building plot, but separated by a canal A second innovative example is the housing project
for larger areas and require a city planning procedure and a wide street. The POPS is close to Nishioji station Garden Hills Forest in Shiki, a suburban community
and design review process with public participation. and forms a privately owned station front square. north of Tokyo in Saitama prefecture. On the site
These plans create a more integrated public realm; In late 1998, the company invited the surrounding of a former Keio University dormitory a major real-
harmonising privately and publicly owned public residents to take part in four citizen workshops in order estate developer planned to build a large housing
spaces within the urban context. to develop a more responsive design. The globally estate. Because the new building would be out of
In contrast, the CDS applies to smaller developments active company, which is originally based in the area, scale in comparison with the otherwise low-rise
on single plots. A building permit is to be granted as- emphasised its corporate social responsibility and neighbourhood and because the large number of
of-right, if plans comply with building regulations. As provided a free bicycle parking facility in order to solve old trees that would have had to be sacrificed for
a time-consuming urban design review is not required, the severe illicit parking problems near the station (See the development, a citizen movement formed in
the CDS is the most popular planning tool among also Kurose in his chapter on bicycle parking problems opposition to the project.
developers. in Osaka). Between 2002 and 2005, after 10,000 signatures
Additionally, privately owned public spaces are also The park-like station front square was named ‘You You had been collected against the project, eight design
produced by tax incentives if landowners agree to Park’ by the students of the nearby Shoho elementary workshops were hosted that brought together city
preserve valuable green space and open it to public school and has become an important event space for officials, advocate planners, the developer, and local
access for a fixed period of time (Fig.9). the local community and the school. Wacoal in turn citizens. At the end of the process, 65% of the valuable
benefited from this scheme because the company greens were preserved. On private property a 1,200m2
6. POPS with Community Participation was able to build a big and cost-efficient headquarter POPS was created and another 450m2 of open space
In recent years, a few significant model projects have building on the western plot, without sacrificing land became a public park (Fig.8). For the provision of the
materialised which demonstrate that it is possible for a POPS on site (Fig.6). Instead, the POPS could be POPS the developer was granted a waiver of fixed
to design more meaningful privately owned public allocated to a piece of land that was cut off by a big road asset tax and the city guaranteed the maintenance of
spaces in close cooperation with the surrounding local and couldn’t have been utilised for the development the space. A park adoption agreement was set up in
community. otherwise. Furthermore, the community agreed to take which the community committed itself to maintain the
One example is the headquarters building of the on maintenance work for the new park, which reduced green, located on the POPS and to use it for community
Wacoal Corporation in the south of Kyoto. This is a costs for Wacoal (Fig.7). events. The city pledged to provide tools and funds for
rare case where POPS is not completely allocated capital improvement.
Fig.6 A significant part of the POPS at the Wacoal headquarters building has been designed and managed as community garden, bicycle parking facility, Fig.7 Within the frame of corporate social responsibility Wacoal
disaster prevention and evacuation area and civic plaza; elementary school students have chosen the name 'You You Park' for it employees help maintaining the park (above), while students of the
Shoho elementary school use the space for environmental education
040
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
7. Discussion
As seen above, incentive zoning in Japan started as a
system that would reward exceptional design quality
of buildings and open spaces.
The burden was on the developer to prove that his
plans would contribute to a betterment of grave
environmental conditions in urban Japan. Only then
would he be rewarded with a FA bonus or waivers of
building form regulations.
In subsequent years the menu of bonusable amenities
grew ever bigger, now including disaster prevention
(storage of disaster prevention gear or fire water), social
(community or day care centres), cultural (theatres,
museums) and parking facilities, historical landmark
preservation, access to subway stations and downtown
housing. The underlying philosophy was thus diluted.
Additionally the operation of incentive zoning
became standardised and design-criteria abstracted in
quantitative parameters. In essence an inversion of the
initial ideas occurred. Whereas only design excellence Fig.9 Citizen Green Space 'Sendagi Community Forest': While Bunkyo ward pays for the maintenance costs, the surrounding community engages in the
actual upkeep of this patch of dense urban forest in the middle of Tokyo; between 9:00 and 17:00 the space is open to the general public
of POPS entitled to exceptional planning benefits, later
POPS degenerated into a useful tool for generating more coherent, attractive public space networks TCDSR Tokyo Comprehensive Design System Research
more, valuable floor area. for sensitive area. Also, more and more landowners Group. 2002. Tokyo Metropolitan Commented
On the other hand, conscious local governments recognise the value of attractive public space, and Comprehensive Design System Permit Principles.
like Yokohama, Sapporo and others came to use support the establishment of informal district design Tokyo: Tokyo Society of Architects & Building Engineers.
redevelopment-type district plans in order to provide guidelines that coordinate the evolution of integrated Yanagisawa, Atsushi. 1973. "Explanation of the
networks of publicly- and privately owned public Permission Standards for Comprehensive Designs." In
spaces. Urban Redevelopment and the Comprehensive Design
System, edited by Zenkoku Shigaichi Saikaihatsu
[References] Kyokai, 19-30. Tokyo.
Ishida, Yorifusa. 1988. "Chronology on Urban Planning
in Tokyo 1868 - 1988." In Tokyo: Urban Growth and [Figure References]
Planning 1868 - 1988, edited by Hiromichi; Ishida Fig.2 Mori Building. 1999. Urban New Deal Policy
Ishizuka, Yorifusa, 37-68. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan - Striving to Recover from the Largest Crisis of the
University Press. Postwar Era. Tokyo: Mori Building.
Ishikawa, Mikiko. 2001. Cities and Green Space: Fig.3 YOKOHAMA, Yokohama-Shi Machizukuri Chosei-
Moving Towards the Creation of a New Environment. Kyoku Kenchiku Takuchi Shido-Senta Kenchiku
Tokyo: Iwanami Shouten. Original edition, Toshi to Kankyo-Ka Shigaichi Kenchiku-Kakari. 2006. Urban
Ryokuchi: Atarashii Toshi Kankyou no Souzou ni Environmental Design System Yokohama: Yokohama
mukete. City.
Kuniyoshi, Sanechika, and Mitsuru Senda. 2000. Fig.4 Diagram by Christian Dimmer, data from
"Image of the Urban Consolidation and Improvement Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau for Urban
Emerging from the Regulations for the Comprehensive Development: http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp
Design System established by the Special Fig.5 Adapted from Google Maps
Administrative Agency.” Nihon Toshi Keikaku Gakkai Fig.7 Adapted from Google Maps
Gakujutsu Kenkyû Ronbun Shû no. 35:925-930.
Tateishi, Makoto. 1973. "New Land Use Zoning
and the Comprehensive Design System." In Urban
Redevelopment and the Comprehensive Design
Fig.8 When plans for a large condominium block surfaced, a vocal System, edited by Zenkoku Shigaichi Saikaihatsu
opposition movement evolved; to diffuse the conflict citizen participation
was carried out during the planning phase and for the management Kyokai, 15-18. Tokyo.
041
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Tokyo’s Uncontested Corporate Commons
Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background 2. Introduction decade and require special skills and experience. Much
As described in the preceeding introductory chapter It is not fair to compare New York City’s 3,467 pages of the permission standards in urban planning and
to Part II, various incentive mechanisms have been strong zoning ordinance, which contains POPS construction are spelled out generically in manuals.
developed in order to encourage the production of provisions only among many other stipulations, Every officer can follow such a checklist-like as-of-
public space on various spatial levels by private actors with Tokyo’s 36-pages short Permission Standards right permission procedure for a project using the
in Japan: from a single building lot to the scale of a full for the CDS; including definitions and terminology. CDS, without much expert knowledge. The lack of
urban district. This chapter discusses the development This somewhat odd comparison, however, gives discretionary planning control is exacerbated by the
of one particular planning system, namely the an indication how urban planning in general, and sheer size of Tokyo – Tokyo Metropolis as administrative
Comprehensive Design System (hereafter CDS) and its incentive zoning in particular, works. Many planning unit has a population of 13.2 million and the Tokyo
application in Tokyo. Interestingly, in contrast to the instruments are strictly parametric and generic. It is metropolitan region 35.7 million – and its rapid, (during
earlier example of New York City, discussed in Part I, worth noting in this respect that despite all neoliberal most of its modern history) largely unplanned growth.
where constant monitoring from academics and civil rhetoric in political debates, Japan has the leanest
society organisations in cooperation with the New public sector among all OECD countries. In most 3. Urban Japan’s Specific Planning Issues
York City Planning Department led to refinement of government offices, job rotation is exercised to keep Against this background, one has to understand the
regulations and tighter planning control, in Tokyo employees flexible, constantly learning, and effective. variegated, extensive catalogue of objectives that
the actual text of the regulations has changed only What sounds good in theory is bad when it comes to incentive zoning and the creation of POPS came to be
insignificantly since its introduction to Tokyo in 1976. urban planning where large projects easily run over a burdened with (TCDSR 2002: 8-11):
Fig.1 Every dot represents one POPS: The comparison shows that POPS in Manhattan are much more concentrated than in Tokyo, where they have materialised over a far wider area
042
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
1) Improving the urban environment, where basic
infrastructure such as sidewalks and parks are critically
lacking: just as in New York, securing “light and air”
through the provision of plazas and open spaces;
complementing pedestrian networks in mostly
irregularly shaped urban environments; providing
additional greenery in a time when many parks were
encroached upon and densification led to the gradual
loss of private green; opening access to waterfronts
through through-block connections.
2) Aside from creating open space, promoting the
dispersion of high-quality, earthquake-proof buildings
and a good quality housing stock; encouraging
mergers of fragmented land holdings for more
efficient, intensive, and profitable land utilisation; in
essence promoting the transformation of a low-rise
vernacular city to one resembling Corbusier’s Charter
of Athens and his “Tower in the Park” model; preserving
historical landmarks.
3) Complementing public facilities and infrastructure;
allocating POPS in station front areas to strengthen
pedestrian circulation; creating access to railway
concourses and subway stations on private property;
offering off-street parking; encouraging the
development of cultural, community, welfare, and
educational facilities; alleviating pollution and saving
energy through encouraging joint heating and cooling
facilities, rainwater infiltration, solid waste and waste
water treatment facilities.
4) Strengthening disaster resilience; providing
evacuation spaces; using sidewalk-widenings and
through-block connections to complement evacuation
corridors; providing disaster prevention facilities and
emergency stocks of food and water.
5) Promoting the development of welfare facilities,
barrier-free buildings, and open spaces for the elderly
and handicapped.
6) Promoting downtown living and countering the
atrophy of inner-city communities, thus establishing
once again a proper balance between work and
residential urban functions, and eliminating the need
for time-consuming commuting.
4. Development of the Comprehensive Design
Not only objectives but also rationalisations for
incentive zoning in Tokyo grew complex and manifold.
Its evolution wasn’t straightforward and neat, but
contingent on Tokyo’s development and its urban
problems. Put into effect in August 1976, the CDS
Fig.2 Historical evolution of Tokyo's 694 privately owned public spaces
that were created through the Comprehensive Design System alone
043
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
went through several major revisions. In 1983, the was changed to 1/6, now allowing the utilisation of land required urgent redevelopment within the next
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) felt the need narrower, deeper plots. As a consequence, this meant five years. According to Hohn (2000: 203) in 1996 as
to react to the dwindling nighttime population in the that the provision of urban housing was valued much as 16.3% of Tokyo’s central 23 ward area was
city’s central 23 wards. Skyrocketing land prices had more highly than legible, easily accessible, well- zoned as category II area, totalling 297 redevelopment
led to a massive displacement of population from the proportioned POPS, which now shifted farther away promotion zones. Two new types of CDS were created
centre to the suburbs, increasingly putting stress on from the pedestrian flows. in order to induce private investment in these zones
commuters and the public transit system. Additionally In 1988, a second major revision took place. Its as well as in the category I areas inside Ring Road 7.
to the provision of POPS, a floor area bonus was added background was the perceived urgent need for Through large-scale POPS of more than 2,000m² the
if developers agreed to build inner city housing and redevelopment in central Tokyo and the necessity to permissible standard FAR could be further increased
indeed, since then around 80,000 flats have been provide for more numerous and larger downtown by 50%, or at most by an FAR of 2. By conforming to
created through this and other housing bonuses. In POPS, especially in the densely populated areas of the the provisions of the redevelopment master plan the
order to make the bonus applicable to more cases in so-called wooden apartment belt and on the numerous permissible standard FAR could also be increased by
typically strongly fragmented residential areas, the brownfield sites which were opening up because of a 50%, or a maximum bonus of FAR 2.5.
minimum POPS size necessary for the generation tertiarisation of the economy and the relocation of the Based on a report of the Tokyo metropolitan housing
of bonus FA was reduced from 500m² to 300m². production sector to neighbouring countries. policy conference, which dealt with the hollowing-out
The minimum required width of the fronting road Based on the 1969 Redevelopment Act, a of residential functions in the downtown area, the so-
was reduced from 9 to 8 meters to promote further redevelopment master plan was introduced in 1986. called doughnut phenomenon, the third metropolitan
diffusion. Furthermore, while originally 1/4 of the Most areas of the 23 wards were zoned as category I long-term plan and the metropolitan housing master
total perimeter of the plot had to border upon roads which principally requires redevelopment. Within this plan were issued which sought to address this problem.
in order to safeguard a shallow, legible public space, area, priority areas were mapped out where a significant The CDS was identified as an appropriate tool to
closely connected to street and sidewalk, this ratio shortage of infrastructure and underutilisation of actively tackle this and therefore, an urban mixed-use-
housing-type was newly created and the older urban-
housing-type was revised in order to further induce
the provision of rental residential space in central city
locations through conditional bonus FAR.
As a consequence of a growing accumulation of office
functions in the central area, another bonus was
introduced for creating mixed-use developments,
containing housing and non-office related business
and retail functions. Since a revision in 1991, this bonus
that would add up to 75% of the standard FAR but
at most to an extra FAR of 3, could be utilised within
the Ring Road 6 and Arakawa River as well as within
designated downtown housing restoration zones.
Since 1996, further FAR bonuses are being granted for
developments with over 75% housing and housing
support facilities. This could double the zoning standard
FAR as bonus, with a maximum extra FAR of 4, if plots
are larger than 1,000m² and developments located
within Ring Road 6. Along with these new standards,
the bonuses for several POPS types were also amended.
While one square meter of sidewalk/ sidewalk
widening-type POPS earned for example 1.3m² bonus
FA, this was changed to 2.0m² if the sidewalk was
longer than 100 meters and the development located
within the 530 hectare designated “central city and
sub-centre zone.” Within the wider central area, marked
by Ring Road 6, the bonus would be 1.8m² and in all
other areas of Tokyo 1.7m². Shorter sidewalks would
Fig.3 Distribution of POPS in Tokyo central 23 wards: The darker the shade of the underlying map, the higher the disaster risk of the area, and the lower
generate lesser bonuses. Also, additional underground
the ratio of public park area per capita, sidewalks and other open spaces parking in public housing developments, contributing
044
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
to an improvement of the cityscape and off-street borough of Manhattan. The area within Ring Road 6
parking were bonusable now. In exclusive housing still measures 18,200 hectares – twice the size of all
zones, where no buildings higher than 10 to 12 meters of Manhattan. Within these zones almost any kind of
was allowed, 20 meter high developments became urban context can be found, from two-story wooden
possible if the CDS was used. apartment areas (See Mireille Tchapi’s chapter in
With the central Tokyo nighttime population rising this volume) with minimum public infrastructure to
again, on the one hand, and further proliferation of state of the art, world-class business centres. Large-
monocultural, exclusive office areas, a new bonus was scale developments, stimulated through all these
introduced in 1998 that would reward the provision bonuses, can thus materialise in contexts where they
of housing support and commercial functions. For are significantly bulkier than their vicinity, if minimal
development in the central core and the sub-centres stipulations are met. This can cause severe conflicts and
75% of the standard FAR could be added as bonus massive breaks in the urban fabric.
with a maximum cap of FAR 3. Within Ring Road 6 the By 1998, the metropolitan government could no longer
minimum plot size was set at 5,000m² and for plot-sizes ignore the so-called heat island effect. Where there
over 30,000m² the bonuses, generated through large were zero to five tropical nights with temperatures
POPS, could be doubled. over 25 degrees a century ago, now there were 30 to
Although it appears as if the different kinds of 40 such nights and therefore bonus FA was granted
incentives granted for the provision of public housing for the provision of “cooling” roof greening. One year
and larger POPS are somewhat context sensitive, it later, bonuses were given to encourage the renewal Fig.4 Since 2007 a small collection of best and worst practice examples
is offered to developers of projects who will create POPS; compared to
has to be noted that the area encircled by Ring Road of aging public housing estates through private New York City where comparable guidelines have been offered since the
mid-1970s, Tokyo's collection is only 13-pages thin and hard to find on
7 is still 37,400 hectares - 4.3 times larger than the capital. Higher bonuses were now also awarded for website of the metropolitan planning department
Fig.5 Since 2007 developers of large-scale projects "have to consider" the surrounding network of public spaces; as much as this is a step in the right direction, the map is too macroscopic in scale to achieve more meaningful results
045
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
POPS developments materialising within more strictly the results are remarkable. As of 2011, the CDS alone the highest in the world. Conversely, few POPS were
regulated areas, covered by district plans. After several produced privately owned public spaces at 697 offices, created in the disaster-prone areas where many old
minor revisions, in 2010, the first “quality stipulations” residential, and community buildings, totalling 1.9 wooden apartment buildings cluster, and where open
were mandated for the design of POPS; namely million m²; amounting to an area equal in size to space ratios remain extremely low despite all planning
encouraging the connection to adjacent parks and 11.6 times Hibiya Park, or 55% of New York’s Central efforts. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that many of
waterfront areas, planting a diversity of trees of greater Park. The total open space area created through the the objectives haven’t been achieved. Most POPS were
height and size as well as greenery spots. Since 2007, provision of POPS is three times larger in Tokyo than created where infrastructure had been most complete
a citywide “green map” exists that, while macroscopic in New York. A closer look reveals, however, that over and where the fewest people live, while very few POPS
in scale (1:10,000), shows important urban green that half of Tokyo’s POPS concentrate in the three central materialised in the most disaster-prone, dense, mostly
developers have to take into consideration for their wards Minato (24%), Chiyoda (14%) and Chuo (13.5%) residential areas(Fig.3).
projects (Fig.5). Also since 2007, a guideline exists for and that more than 75% are located outside residential
the greenery provision in POPS. On 13 short pages it areas. Revisiting the initially-discussed rationale of 6. What About Design Quality and Liveability?
shows for the first time examples of good and bad incentive zoning –provision of much-needed public Interestingly, quality standards for POPS do exist.
design features (Fig.4). In contrast, government reports spaces and infrastructure, improvement of the To avoid strangely shaped spaces with unrelated
in New York City already discussed in great detail which residential environment– it becomes clear that these pieces, shape rules mandate that the majority of POPS
design features would contribute to more user-friendly downtown areas were already best supplied with should be visible from adjacent sidewalks, parks,
POPS 35 years ago (NYCPC 1975; 1976). sidewalks and parks, and also per-capita park space or from within. Rules also regulate the relationship
supply is relatively higher because of low residential between frontage, circumference and depth, in
5. Geography of Tokyo’s POPS densities. This clustering also does not come as a order to safeguard that plazas are comfortable.
After discussing the history and the logic behind surprise because it follows the market logic inherent Elevation changes below and above grade, as well as
Tokyo’s incentive zoning and the CDS in particular, in incentive zoning. For developers, it is of course interior spaces are discouraged by lower FA bonuses.
let’s examine its effects. What kind of spaces have most profitable to capture valuable FA bonuses in Recently, standards for universal design and greenery
been produced and where? By quantitative measures, central areas, where land prices have been among have also been added. What is clear, however, is that
these standards are geared towards experts and the
underlying philosophy is implicit but never spelled
out in official documents. Government reports like
New York City’s ‘New Life for Plazas’ (NYCPC 1975),
or ‘Plazas for People’ (NYCPC 1976) that address the
usability of POPS in detail have rarely been published
in Japan. Interestingly, planners in Japan did always
have intimate knowledge of new developments in New
York but different mindsets and the absence of public
contestations and critical discourses didn’t lead to
more far-reaching changes to the system. Maybe, mere
empty expanses were considered a sufficient amenity
in a country as vulnerable to disaster as Japan.
Be it as it may, any change to the planning system so
far came as a response to new concrete planning issues
in Tokyo and was rarely driven by a desire to create
high-quality environments. The example of Yokohama,
discussed in this volume, is an exception here. While
the creation of POPS was initially central in the design
philosophy, the menu of bonusable amenities grew
ever wider while the buildings that the CDS produced
grew ever taller.
7. Competition and Changing Awareness
This having been said, the casual visitor cannot help but
to notice that the newest Tokyo POPS are of outstanding
Fig.6 One of the city's most spectacular recent developments is Tokyo Midtown, where a big park-like POPS (front, right) forms an integrated open space design quality. Spaces in Shiodome (see Shiodome
together with the municipally owned and managed Hinokicho Park; this unified design was mandated by a redevelopment-type district plan that was
legislated before the previously public land was auctioned off to the private development consortium chapter in this volume), Roppongi Hills, Tokyo Midtown
046
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
(Fig.6) and Marunouchi (Fig.7+8) play an important role
for area branding. As Tokyo decentralised over the last
three decades and as ever more high quality business
areas developed, so increased the competition on
the real estate market (See Dimmer 2012). After the
beginning of Japan’s lingering economic crisis in the
early 1990s, tenants have become more price sensitive
and expect higher quality amenity spaces. Attractive
public spaces have become recognised as important
tools for successful urban regeneration since the late
1990s and developers have noticed that with "great
public spaces" more money can be made and the area
image improved. In order to strengthen the area image
within a more competitive environment, quality urban
environments have now become common sense and
area management schemes have been established in
many places. SIO SITE Shiodome and Marunouchi are
prominent examples, which not only provide a unified
public space management, but landowners have also
agreed that their future developments will contribute Fig.7 Similar to North American BID schemes, area management associations are curating events that take place across property boundaries: On the
roadway of Naka avenue in Marunouchi and on the adjacent public sidewalks temporary events are frequently carried out
to the formation of an integrated public realm,
transcending property distinctions.
8. Conclusion
Most changes in the design of Tokyo’s POPS didn’t
come from contestations of civil society, as described in
the chapters on New York, Hong Hong, or Taipei in this
volume, or from a new quality-of-life approach of the
government. In contrary, POPS have come to be seen as
generators of bonus floor area, or a panacea to remedy
multifarious urban problems. The majority of design
and management innovations were introduced by the
private side and are attributable to the fact that, to
put it simply, better public spaces make more money.
Tokyo’s corporate commons remain uncontested and
largely undiscovered by the citizens, who are rarely
aware of their rights to them. The goal of this volume
is to contribute to a growing awareness and a greater
public use.
[References]
Dimmer, Christian. 2012. ‘Re-imagining Public Space:
The Vicissitudes of Japan’s Privately Owned Public Fig.8 Marunouchi Park Building marks the apex of recent POPS design in Tokyo: framed by a replica of the historical Mitsubishi No.1 building that
contains a museums, on one side, and, restaurants on the other, this space offers ample green, public art, as well as movable chairs and tables
Spaces’. In Urban Spaces in Japan: Cultural and Social
Perspectives, ed. Christoph Brumann and Evelyn NYCPC, New York City Planning Commission. 1976. [Figure References]
Schulz, 74–105. Routledge Plazas for people : streetscape & residential plazas. Fig.1,2,3 Jan Lindenberg, IIDJ & Christian Dimmer
Hohn, Uta. 2000. Stadtplanung in Japan. Geschichte New York. Fig.4 Adapted from Tokyo Metropolitan Guideline for
- Recht - Praxis - Theorie. Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- TCDSR Tokyo Comprehensive Design System Research the provision of Greenery in POPS, 2007
und Planungsliteratur, Dortmund. Group. 2002. Tokyo Metropolitan Commented Fig.5 Courtesy of Tokyo Metropolitan Government
NYCPC, New York City Planning Commission. 1975. Comprehensive Design System Permission Principles. Fig. 6 Adapted from Mitsui Real Estate PR brochure
New life for plazas. New York. Tokyo: Tokyo Society of Architects & Building Engineers.
047
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
The Yokohama Formula
Collaborative Planning Culture and Comprehensive Public Space Vision
Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background 2. Changing the Rules of the Game city to this day. Already the title of the plan was a
With a population of 3.5 million, Yokohama is Japan’s Asukata, who would serve as mayor for 15 years, strong statement against the established top-down
second largest city. After the opening of the country in assembled a multi-disciplinary team of young governance principles of the time, as it called for
the 19th Century, it became Tokyo’s port and Japan’s professionals from within and outside of the public “the citizen to design future Yokohama”. Despite its
gateway to the West. The city has therefore always administration, whom he entrusted with the importance, the document was pleasant to look at and
taken pride in its distinctly local culture. This identity development of a comprehensive renewal strategy. As easy to understand for every citizen (Fig.1).
was threatened by the rapid urban growth that set head of the restructured urban planning administration For a seamless realisation of the showcase projects and
in during the 1960s, and the massive concentration he won Tamura Akira over, who had previously worked to facilitate lateral coordination, Asukata and Tamura
of heavy industries between the cities Yokohama in the private sector. In 1965, the team around Tamura reorganised Japan’s typical vertically segmented
and Kawasaki. Furthermore, the allied occupation presented an integrated, long-term revitalisation municipal administration. With unprecedented
of Yokohama’s historic Kannai centre delayed war programme that centred on the famous 6 Big Projects. political support by the mayor, Tamura established a
reconstruction until the late 1950s, depriving the city Symbolically most significant was the initial restoration planning and coordination office in 1968 that aligned
of its traditional centre and funnelling the main thrust of the historical Kannai area and its integration with the the agendas of all related departments and promoted
of urban growth to the fringes. In only two decades, the new city centre around Yokohama station, from which internal teamwork.
population doubled from 1.5 million in 1963 to three it had been cut-off by a Mitsubishi shipyard (Fig.2.) Two years later, Japan’s first municipal urban design
million in 1983, and the sprawling suburbanisation led Together with the other projects, 2) land reclamation bureau was set up to ensure that all major projects
to the morphological absorption of Yokohama into the for relocating factories from residential areas to a new would comply with the stated objective of “pursuing
greater Tokyo metropolitan region. Political pressure landfill; 3) Kohoku New Town as a new sub-centre publicness” in all new urban design projects and create
increased with this relegation to a bed town of Tokyo as to curb uncontrolled sprawl; 4) a subway system as “places where people can come in contact with each
well as worsening environmental conditions. In 1963, public transit backbone; 5) a highway system to drain other and communicate” (Nishiwaki et al. 1992: 25).
the progressive Asukata Ichio was elected as mayor on traffic from the city centre; and 6) a bay bridge as a The backbone of this public space strategy was
the promise to promote sustainable urban growth and link to Tokyo (Yokohama 1965: 48–67), these 6 Big the vision of a densely woven pedestrian network,
grass-roots democracy. Projects formed a comprehensive urban regeneration linking the city’s major parks, historical and cultural
strategy that would inform the development of the assets, shopping streets, as well as the waterfront.
Fig.1 Mayor Asukata's 1965 blueprint for “a new Yokohama” also formally marked a fresh beginning: clean visuals and easy explanations Fig.2 The symbolically most significant first project sought to connect
invited ordinary citizens into the planning process, and, by that, broadened the public sphere the new central city around Yokohama station with the old Kannai core; a
comprehensive public spaces network would connect important areas
048
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Furthermore, by actively involving the citizens and the
business community in its planning and management,
not only would physical public space be created, but
the formation of a vital public sphere would also be
encouraged. Incrementally, this network would be
complemented through a few strategically placed
public projects like promenades, greenways, squares,
and cultural facilities as well as through carefully
guided private developments.
3. Yokohama’s Independent Incentive Zoning
In order to implement this vision and to provide for a Fig.3 Section of privately created open spaces along the Yamashita Park promenade, with the white dotted line showing the property boundary; the
development in-line with the urban design principles, open spaces created on the private building plots are part of an integrated public realm that spans across property lines; for a unified appearance the
city provided the paving materials to the private landowners
the city produced its own variant of incentive zoning.
The name ‘Urban Environmental Design System’
(UEDS) stresses this unique character but it was only
one component of Tamura’s strategy to combine all
available tools into a far-reaching, comprehensive,
unique local planning regime that became known as
the ‘Yokohama formula’.
As the rapid population influx of the 1960s caused
unchecked, haphazard development, municipal
planning could no longer keep up with providing basic
infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and parks.
At the same time, the first disputes over access to
sunlight had erupted as a consequence of the abolition
of the system of absolute height limitations in 1970,
now permitting the construction of buildings higher
than 31 meters almost everywhere.
Worse, the tense budgetary situation did not allow
countering these conditions through internal
financing, and mayor Asukata’s objective to curb the
influence of the central government allowed him
only minimal utilisation of national subsidies. The city
Fig.4 Machizukuri Council District (MCD) in the vicinity of Yamashita Park and Nihon Ôdori; informal administrative guidance by the city commenced
therefore embraced the new incentive planning tools, here in the early 1970s in order to convince landowners to provide much needed pedestrian circulation space near this park of citywide importance
which were rolled out concurrently with other planning
innovations such as the senbiki growth control system, height control areas and re-established in effect height 4. An Additional Planning Layer
new land use zoning, and height control areas, from caps that the national government had just abolished. Another singularity of Yokohama is an additional,
the late 1960s on. These were combined with the lowest permissible FAR informal planning layer, into which incentive zoning
The coordinated utilisation of these planning tools designations under the Building Standard Act. is embedded. Within so-called Machizukuri (or
combined with guided private development would help Exemptions thereof were only granted if in turn POPS Community Development) Council Districts (MCD),
to secure scarce public funds and shield the city from or other bonusable public amenities were created, or detailed urban design visions were initially developed
the influence of the conservative national government. historical landmarks preserved. in public deliberations between the urban design
The UEDS would also add to the city’s open space stock, Height caps and low FAR values meant also that more bureau, local residents, and the business community
provide greenery and, through exceptional waivers buildings than elsewhere became subject of a design (Fig.4). Informal district guidelines were then legislated
from building form restrictions, reward building design review process, in which urban designers could exert to facilitate the incremental realisation, and in sensitive
excellence. Without building height caps, however, influence. areas, these were further backed by the stricter district
the system allowed for unpredictably high buildings, To preserve the city’s character as a port town, plans.
depending on how much land developers assembled additional incentives were offered for the provision This extra-legal administrative guidance addressed
–thus inevitably compromising other public goods. of POPS facing river promenades or the sea, or natural both adjacent buildings and public open space, as
Unparalleled, Tamura’s team designated citywide green space preservation in the hilly woodlands. it stipulated wall setbacks on private land, vitalising
049
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
building functions and storefronts along the sidewalk,
allocation of parking lots off important pedestrian
areas, massing of buildings in order to maintain a sense
of human scale in public space and reduce shadow fall,
promotion of greenery as visual amenity, and control
of advertisement signboards around ‘dignified’ civic
spaces.
In general, these MCD rules seek to complement
scarce public space around important parks, symbolic
buildings, and important road intersections.
The vicinity of Yamashita Park is an early example,
where multiple landowners contributed significant
parts of their property for the widening of the adjacent
park promenade (Fig.3+4). Significantly for incentive
zoning, within MCD an additional design review takes
place.
Before projects enter into the building permit process,
proposals must comply with district rules and respect
the local character. Unlike Tokyo, this system enhances
the probability that POPS do not materialise out of
context, but contribute to the city’s long-term public
space vision.
5. POPS in Yokohama
With the exception of the Senba district in Osaka, and
Sapporo’s station front underground mall concept,
Fig.5 Dots with item numbers mark 133 POPS that have been surveyed in central Yokohama; dark lines are designated urban promenades, dark patches discussed in other chapters of this volume, there has
are major public parks, and hatched, grey areas mark MCDs; most POPS are located in city areas with an additional layer of design control
been no bolder municipal attempt to embed the private
production of public space into a comprehensive
planning framework.
Available instruments such as lowest possible FAR
designations, citywide height control areas, MCDs
backed by district plans, specified block, and UEDS
were used to restrict incentive zoning.
The Asukata administration politically prioritised good
urban form, developed a precise spatial vision around
an integrated public space system and readjusted the
planning administration to assist its realisation.
More importantly, the citizens were actively invited
into the planning processes from early on. Compared
to other Japanese cities, the results of the last 40 years
are encouraging. Some 524 POPS were produced
citywide at office, residential, and community facility
buildings untill 2011, equalling 47% of the total area
of New York’s Central Park. In the vicinity of Yokohama
station alone, the UEDS created a cluster of 48 spaces
that complement the public space system, while it
helped to preserve historical assets in the Kannai area
and widen main intersections and the park promenade
Fig.6 Detailed study of an MCD north-west of Yokohama Station, where 29 POPS materialised in close proximity and contribute to a widening of the oth- around Yamashita Park (Fig.3+4).
erwise narrow public sidewalks; beyond facilitating circulation, these spaces contribute little to invite more meaningful public activities
050
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
However, even within this sophisticated framework,
certain problems remain. An own survey of 133
downtown spaces in 2004 (Fig.5) found that many
POPS were unsatisfactorily maintained, or did not
invite public activities due to small size, adverse layout,
hidden location, missing amenities or encroachment by
shops and parking (Dimmer 2008: 301). Only one fifth
Fig.7 Many downtown POPS are small and good for little more but pe- Fig.8 In the Minato Mirai 21 redevelopment area many large and spec-
offered a pleasant stay and encouraged more diverse destrian circulation tacular POPS can be found: This indoor through-block connection passes
through the corporate showroom of the Nissan headquarters building
social activities. Four fifths were pure circulation spaces
like substitute sidewalks, sidewalk widenings, through- [References] [Figure References]
block connections or arcades (Fig.7+8). Since their size Dimmer, C. (2008). ‘Renegotiating Public Space: Fig.1+2 Yokohama City. (1965). ‘Yokohama’s City
correlates with that of the overall development, the A Historical Critique of Modern Public Space in Planning – Yokohama’s Future Made by Its Citizens,
biggest spaces are located in large suburban housing Metropolitan Japan.’ Department of Urban Engineering, Yokohama-Shi Somu Kyoku
estates, where residential densities are relatively low The University of Tokyo. Fig.3 adapted from YOKOHAMA CITY PLANNING AND
and natural green spaces and big parks are found. Nishiwaki, T., Kitazawa, T. and Kuniyoshi, N. (1992). COORDINATION BUREAU. (1981). Development Process
Downtown POPS in turn tend to be much smaller ‘Possibilities in Urban Design – 20 Years of Urban of Port City Yokohama, Yokohama, p.101-2
(Fig.9). Consequently, the best design quality, network Design in Yokohama and Prospects for the Future. SD Fig.4 Adapted from MCD guideline http://www.city.
integration, and maintenance were found in districts Space Design, 22 (Extra Issue), 25–32. yokohama.lg.jp/toshi/machi-kyogi/ (accessed 9/2007)
where local business and landowners were keenly Yokohama City. (1965). ‘Yokohama’s City Planning – Fig.9 Adapted from YOKOHAMA-SHI KIKAKY-KYOKU
interested in high-quality environments, or showcase Yokohama’s Future Made by Its Citizens, Yokohama-Shi SEISAKU-BU TOKEIKEISEIKI-KA. (2003). Yokohama
spaces of citywide importance like Nihon-Odori and Somu Kyoku Mesh Statistics, Yokohama City, Yokohama.
Yamashita Park (Fig.3+4). In Minato Mirai 21, large
projects produced some of Yokohama’s biggest and
most spectacular POPS (Fig.8). Here, the landowners
– among them Mitsubishi Real Estate as owner of
the former shipyard – developed a detailed design
guideline in cooperation with the authorities and
concluded a development agreement.
6. Afterthought
The quality of POPS aside, incentive zoning is a
planning tool that only works when there is a demand
for a bonus of additional floor area on the real estate
market. However, Japanese cities outside of Tokyo
are confronted with eroding land prices and bearish
markets. In these cities, the trade-off of additional
floor area as exchange for the creation of public space
no longer works, if it ever has. Here, there is a need to
think of new, creative strategies if governments want
to continue pursuing the provision of privately owned
public spaces.
Acknowledgement
Parts of this essay appeared in: Dimmer, Christian.
2012. ‘Re-imagining Public Space: The Vicissitudes of
Japan’s Privately Owned Public Spaces’. In Urban Spaces
in Japan: Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. Christoph
Brumann and Evelyn Schulz, 74–105. Routledge
Fig.9 Distribution of public parks (left columns) and POPS (right columns) across Yokohama city wards in relation to population density: most POPS are
located in the densely populated downtown but their median size is very small compared to those, produced in large suburban housing estates, where
the supply with public parks is already sufficient
051
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Creation of POPS and Cooperative Planning Culture in Osaka
Takefumi Kurose (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background the new Building Standards Act and all POPS were still utilising the CDS. For each street, it shows detailed
After the construction of Osaka Castle in the 16th maintained and expanded in the area. A second layer design principles for both sidewalk-type and plaza-
century, the city became the political and economic of POPS in the area was later added through the CDS type POPS, such as preferable width, connection to
capital of Japan for a short while. Although the and other contemporary incentive zoning systems subway exits and landscape details, such as the kind
government functions were taken over by Edo such as the District Plan or the Urban Regeneration and size of street trees.
(today’s Tokyo) at the beginning of the 17th Century, Special District. In most cases, new POPS and old ones Additionally, unofficial administrative guidance is
Osaka remained the central market place for rice are treated in an integrated fashion and it is difficult to carried out by the building control department in
and kept its position in the Japanese economy. After notice the different boundaries (Fig.1+2). order to improve the connectivity between POPS and
Tokyo and Yokohama, it is the third largest city of the other adjacent public spaces. Building owners, for
country, with a night time population of 2.67 million. 3. Detailed Design Guidelines for POPS in Semba example, often erect walls between their POPS and the
The much higher daytime population of 3.69 million Very few cities in Japan seek to harmonise new large- neighbouring plot in order to hide the unsightly side
shows its importance as the business center of West scale developments within the specific urban context. face of the next building. These walls are inevitable as
Japan. Considering the high density and land values Osaka is different. Based on the above-discussed long as there is a building right next to a POPS. However,
in central Osaka, it is not surprising that developers historical precedent, most streets in Semba have once another open space develops here, usually these,
secured an additional floor area bonus, beyond what their own detailed design guidelines for new projects now useless, separation walls tend to remain and
is allowed by the zoning, for 908 office and residential obstruct the pedestrian circulation between POPS.
buildings as of December 2011. A condition for City officials in Osaka are very aware of this problem
receiving this extra floor area is the provision of POPS. and have begun negotiating with property owners.
Although Tokyo is the far larger city, Osaka has more In some cases, they have succeeded in removing the
POPS that have been created by utilisation of the laxer wall, while in other cases long boundary walls have
Comprehensive Design System (CDS). According to the to remain because of structural reasons. Recently, the
data of Osaka City, more than 600 cases are designated city government has begun asking developers to build
for condominium towers across the city and more than two separated boundary walls; one for permanent
200 cases for office highrises, mostly in the central area. structures and another for temporary structures along
sidewalk-type POPS, which can be removed when
2. Historic POPS in the Semba Area future POPS emerge on adjacent sites.
Osaka’s history as mercantile capital and the presence
of a close-knit business community becomes clear in
Semba, one of the oldest business districts in the city.
Unlike anywhere else in Japan, POPS have been
systematically created in Semba since the 1930s. As
the Semba area has been urbanised for centuries and
was already densified to its limits, landowners suffered
from the limitation of building height under the former
Building Standard Act. Under the act, in commercial
land use zones the building height was limited to up to
1.5 times of the width of the fronting street and to an
absolute maximum of 31m. Fig.2 Two types of POPS in the Semba area (Semba Center Building)
In Semba at that time, most streets were 8m or 6m wide
and therefore the building height limit was 12m or 9m.
In 1939, landowners and the Osaka city government
agreed to set buildings 2m back from the property
line. The space between the property line and the
building line became one of the first privately owned
public spaces in Japan, officially stated under the law.
While landowners were now allowed to assume a
wider street for the computation of their maximum
building height, and enjoyed additional floor area, the
city could introduce wider streets in this dense area
without buying any plots from private owners. This
Fig.1 The Semba Building Line designates different wall setbacks from Fig.3 Continous sidewalk-type POPS doubles the width of the public
so-called ‘Semba Building Line’ has been kept under the property line and mandates the creation of street corner squares sidewalk along Mido-Suji, Osaka’s most important business street
052
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
4. POPS at Tower Condominium Projects In numbers, the policy may have been successful as the building setback from the property line was agreed
Osaka, like many big Japanese cities, has an additional population of Chuo ward in central Osaka increased on in each block. To ensure liveliness, plans also
FAR incentive program for residential developments by 42.4% between 2000 and 2010; from 55,324 to required the allocation of shops, exhibition spaces,
in order to promote the repopulation of once 78,790. However, the POPS created at the foot of new and hotel lobbies on the ground floor along the
hollowed-out downtowns. The difference between high-rise condominiums, developed under this new central boulevard. In this way, an integrated network
ordinary incentives and residential development extra incentive, tend to be very small compared to others, of privately and publicly owned public spaces has
incentives is shown in figure 4. Compared to non- created at office developments. Also, these spaces are been created in Nishi-Umeda in cooperation with the
residential developments (1), residential developments not really used by citizens other than those living in the landowners(Fig.7+8).
(2, 3 and 4) receive higher FAR bonus for the same respective building in many cases, because of stricter
amount of POPS created. security policies by each housing operator and designs
Like in Tokyo, the population in central districts of that discourage use or make it difficult to find these
Osaka has decreased rapidly from the 1960s to the spaces.
1980s. New planning policies, aiming to increase
the nighttime population in the central areas, were 5. Interconnecting POPS with District Plans
introduced by the national government in the early Osaka Station is the city’s central transit node, located
1990s and most of the large cities revised their local in the Umeda district. As the station is connected to
ordinances and regulations in order to comply. The various subway and communter lines, more than 2.5
additional incentive program was created at that time million people are using the hub every day. Comparable
and has been enhanced under the ‘Urban Renaissance’ to central stations in other big Japanese cities, the
policy of the early 2000s. surroundings of Osaka station are the most dense
urban areas in the Kansai region and several POPS play
an important role in supporting huge pedestrian traffic
flows in the area.
The Nishi-Umeda area, west of the station, is one
Fig.6 Signboad showing the extensive underground pedestrian network
example for an extensive pedestrian network that has into which the Nishi Umeda development had to be integrated
been created by a combination of land readjustment
and the strategical allocation of POPS based on a
comprehensive redevelopment-type district plan. In
the past, the area was a container yard of the Umeda
freight station. The development plan was prepared
after the container yard was abandoned and the nearby
Hanshin commuter line that ran through the site
was put underground. Between 1984 and 1992, land
readjustment was carried out and a redevelopment
master plan drawn up in cooperation between city
government, landowners and other stakeholders.
Fig.4 Comparison of different FAR incentives based on ratio of POPS area
As a public contribution from landowners, whose Fig.7 Nishi-Umeda redevelopment district plan mandates an integrated
to size of total building plot land values increased tremendously through the network of privately- as well as publicly-owned public spaces
redevelopment project, one park, four streets, one
bus stop, five sidewalks along a central east-west
boulevard, and two plazas have been negotiated
into the district plan. One plaza complements an
underground pedestrian concourse, and the other
one widens the boulevard. These public spaces that
were paid for by the private sector were transferred
into public property after the completion of the
development. They are thus similar to conventional
POPS as they were previously owned and planned for
public use by private landowners.
In order to further widen the public realm, and to
Fig.5 Square-type POPS at a high-rise condominium in Chuo ward Fig.8 POPS-like public spaces and POPS in Nishi-Umeda district
handle the additional pedestrian traffic, a minimum
053
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
6. Public Space and the Bicycle Problem
According to city officials, major conflicts involving
POPS are complaints about noise by people gathering
there at night, garbage, dog waste, and illicit bicycle
parking.
Bicycle parking is an especially serious issue in the
narrow, densely populated public spaces near railway
and subway stations in most Japanese cities.
Fig.9 shows how the public sidewalk is choked with
illegally parked bicycles. As the adjacent POPS is
available to the right, people assume that the sidewalk
Fig.10+11 In order to preserve the important visual access to the Tsuyu no Ten Shrine in Kita ward the developer designed a throughblock-type POPS
can be completely (ab)used for parking their bikes.
Usually POPS are more strictly managed by private 7. New Challenge: Planning POPS with the 8. POPS and Historical Landmarks
property owners than public sidewalks. Community Teki-Juku is an important historic landmark in Osaka. It
In Osaka, however, the city government requests A through-block-type POPS (Fig.10+11) was created in was opened as a private school in 1838 by Koan Ogata,
private owners to create temporary bicycle parking for front of a shinto shrine in Sonezaki, Kita-ward, in order a physician and scholar of Dutch studies, and became
all members of the public within POPS in order to solve to open up a vista from the main street. In general, the origin of Osaka University. It is located in the centre
this problem. The city also rents POPS from landowners there are special regulations on how to deal with POPS of the Kitahama business district, Chuo-ward.
to build public bicycle parking, or permits landowners adjacent to religious facilities which are not designated The site has been designated as national historic site
to create bike parking therein. As POPS were originally important cultural properties. and the building became recognised as an important
evaluated as green spaces, sidewalks, or plazas, such However, as shrines and their approaches are still today cultural heritage site in 1964. Still, the surrounding
a temporary occupation for a public purpose can be important elements in the life of the surrounding plots were owned by private owners and it was
tolerated on an exceptional basis. This policy might community and often key urban structures, in most sandwiched between office buildings at both sides.
be an important step for a post-occupancy adaptation cases, POPS designers and landowners respect Osaka City and Osaka University have tried to create
of POPS after their completion. In some other cities, religious facilities. open spaces around Teki-Juku since then and one
projects located near central stations that were In some cases, a shrine even utilises its unusable adjacent plot was turned into a public park in 1981.
permitted under Urban Renaissance Special District development rights and sells them to a adjacent The land on the other side became a POPS of the
designation, public bicycle parking is evaluated as one high-rise development, like Hikawa Shrine in Tameike- Nissay Imabashi Building project in 1986, using the
of the public contributions during the planning stage. Sanno, Tokyo. Comprehensive Design System (Fig.12+13). The new
building that was built together with this POPS is
14-storeys high and designed with simple warm color
tiles. Considering that the project was completed in
1986, at the beginning of the Japanese asset price
bubble, it is clear that the project must have been
challenging for the city and the developer.
Fig.9 Illegal bicycle parking on sidewalks and privately owned public spaces is one of the gravest public space management problems in Fig.12 Aearial photo of Nissay Imabashi Building and Teki-juku
metropolian Japan
054
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
actors in Osaka. Since the 1930s, the Semba Building
line has created important sidewalk spaces in one
of the city’s densest areas, and since then a unique
planning culture has evolved.
Although the city is troubled with some common
issues such as uninspired design, lack of maintenance,
and illegal bicycle parking, some private stakeholders
have tried new, innovative ideas to enhance the value
of their POPS for the surrounding community.
Also, the city government is keenly aware of
management and design problems and has made
great efforts to react to these challenges by constantly
adapting their local ordinances and regulations for
POPS.
The institutional framework for the provision of POPS
in Osaka has developed into a distinct form and differs
in many ways from regulations in other cities, or the
guiding principles of the national government.
[Figure References]
Fig.1+3 adapted from Website of Osaka city
Fig.13 The park-like POPS next to the historical Teki-Juku landmark offers a wide spectrum of amenities to its visitors in this busy part of central Osaka
government: http://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/
9. POPS and Urban Agriculture and water flows were also created, and characteristic Fig.2 Based on the administrative guideline for
Another innovative example of POPS management fauna and flora such as fireflies and medaka fish were Comprehensive Design System by Osaka city
is its partial use for urban agriculture at the Shin- introduced into the biotope. government
Umeda City development, north of Osaka Station. The Fig.7+8 Based on Nishi-Umeda Redevelopment District
41,800m2 project site features a giant designated POPS 10. Matured Treatment of POPS in Osaka Plan and existing situation
2
of 26,400m (Fig.14). It includes various types of open As shown in this article, there has been a long tradition Fig.12 Based on aerial photo by Google maps and the
spaces in the site, like plazas, green spaces, sidewalks of creating publicly usable spaces together with private signboard of Nissay Imabashi Building
and an urban farm.
Although the project was based on the city’s official
incentive zoning regulations, the amount of POPS
exceeds the necessary amount of open space required
for the claimed FAR bonus by far. The agricultural
area was created based on the concept of traditional
Japanese satoyama landscapes: nature and human
culture in harmony (Fig.15).
Children from nearby elementary schools and
kindergartens enjoy rice paddies and vegetable
farming here. In this satoyama area, a small forest
Fig.14 More than half of the building plot of Shin-Umeda City is occupied Fig.15 A large chunk of Shin-Umeda City's privately owned public space is occupied by an urban farm that was inspired by Japanese satoyama
by privately owned public spaces that offer a rich program to visitors landscapes and is cultivated by students of nearby elementary schools and kindergardens
055
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
POPS in Sapporo: A City with a Vision and a Masterplan
Takefumi Kurose (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background 2. Construction of a New Public Underground 3. Small-scale Through-Block Connections for a
Sapporo is a regional centre in Japan’s northernmost Concourse Large-Meshed Grid City
main island, Hokkaido. The city has a population of Sapporo has two city centres; one is the traditional POPS have been proactively used in Sapporo, and not
over 1.9 million that has nearly doubled between 1970 commercial centre Odori with its famous parkway, only for major urban structures like Odori Park Avenue
and 2010 and is host to the regional government of where three municipal subway lines cross. The city hall or the underground walkway to Sapporo Station.
Hokkaido. As the city was planned from scratch in the and headquarters of major banks in Hokkaido are all Several through-block connections have been created
early-modern Meiji Era, it developed for the most part located here. by interconnecting and combining POPS on abutting
in an orderly grid structure like Kyoto or Nagoya. The other centre developed around Sapporo Station, plots. The urban grid of Sapporo is larger than in other
Different from most other major cities in Japan, there is with numerous large office buildings and hotels. Here Japanese cities and therefore pedestrians have to walk
thus sufficient public infrastructure such as roads, parks several JR lines and one subway station intersect. In long detours where through connections are absent.
and other public spaces in the central area. 2003, a part of the central station was redeveloped into Through two adjacent blocks near Sapporo Station,
Another peculiarity is that the city is located in the a gigantic complex of department store, hotel, cinema the POPS of the Asty45 and the Nissay Kitamon-guchi
subarctic climate zone, just as Chicago or Toronto. The and office facilities. With several other redevelopments Building were connected to form a shortcut from the
city therefore spends over 190 million US$ per year for taking place in the area, Sapporo station evolved as the station to the Hokkaido Government Hall (Fig.5).
snow clearance of roads and other public spaces and city’s new central business district.
also the operators of POPS are required to keep them After long discussions between city, citizens, the 4. POPS in Suburban Housing Developments
accessible in winter. This duty is even stipulated in the business community, and all adjacent landowners, Sapporo experienced rapid urban growth between
local technical standards for the CDS. the city decided to connect the two centres around the 1960s and the 1990s and expanded massively into
Sapporo station and the Odori area through a public the suburban area. Some large housing developments
underground concourse. Extensive underground have provided POPS in order to receive additional FA
station and shopping networks had already or relaxed height limitation. Most problematic in these
been developed in both areas, yet they remained housing developments is accessibility and openness of
disconnected from each another. During the long and courtyard-type POPS. In most cases, huge green spaces
snowy winters people were thus still required to walk are surrounded by these buildings and even with a
over slippery sidewalks in order to reach the other POPS sign it is difficult for non-residents to access
centre. By establishing a new underground link, the these. Entrances to these courtyards are often small
city is seeking now to connect the two nodal areas and and appear like entrances to private gardens. This is
combine them into one strong, unitary, easily walkable not an issue unique to Sapporo, but common to large
city centre (Fig.4). The city prepared two district plans residential developments, permitted under the CDS, in
shown in figure 1 and 2 to promote redevelopment and other cities and in downtown as well as in suburban
better connectivity to the walkway. settings (Fig.6).
For example, the Odori Central Interchange District Another example is Hiraoka central district, permitted
Plan for the crossing point of Sapporo Ekimae Avenue in 1993. The project site is located in Kiyota ward, 10km
Fig.1 Sapporo Ekimaedori North Block district plan seeks to facilitate
the integration of the new city centre that is eveloving around Sapporo and Odori Parkway set several requirements with an southeast of the city centre and about 2 km from the
Station with the old core around Odori Park FA incentive of 2.5 (the maximum FAR permitted by nearest subway station. The area was planned based
zoning is 8.0). on a district plan for intensive land use utilisation in
At that time, several buildings were under residential areas. More than 10-storey high apartments
consideration of redevelopment and this district plan with POPS and parks emerged in this suburban, almost
clearly influenced these projects. Its requirements were exclusively residential area with low-rise detached
very detailed, such as mandating the building use of houses. The open spaces that have been created are
the ground floor and the underground level, or a direct hardly used by anybody but the residents. The project
connection to the underground walkway with more is partly undeveloped, leaving large vacant lots open.
than 2/3 of the property line (abutting the concourse), The district plan envisions a public open space network
being opened up for entrances to the walkway. after completion that is welcoming to people from
Hokuyo Odori centre at the northeastern corner of the outside of the neighbourhood. However, the POPS
crossing, completed in 2012, is one of these projects. within the housing blocks have the same accessibility
Shops, a three-storey atrium, and an underground issues although it is well planned and maintained.
plaza-type POPS are widely connected with the The quality of POPS and their usability will improve
walkway and many citizens enjoy sitting here on through design review in the planning stage. The
Fig.2 Odori Central Interchange district plan movable chairs and tables (Fig.3). fundamental question, however, remains. Are these
POPS and FAR incentives necessary and effective, and
056
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
who profits from them? Looking at the planned but population increased by more than 200% from 2000 6. Strong Public Projects and Coordinated POPS
unfinished urban infrastructure in the suburbs in a time to 2012. Land use conversion itself from industrial Provision
of demographic change, traditional POPS like plazas or to residential was in line with the City’s compact city Compared to other major cities in Japan, officials in
amenity green spaces might not really be useful. What concept. Also, the integration of the Odori Centre and Sapporo seem to have a more concrete spatial vision
is needed here are community centres, kiosks, nursery the eastern fringe along with the revitalisation of Sosei especially for the city centre. Several district plans with
facilities, and community gardens. River followed this policy. Even car lanes were buried to detailed stipulations that are conditional for granting
make the river park more accessible. FA bonuses indicate their skills and good relations to
5. New Initiative at the Edge of the City Centre However, as it was an industrial area, basic the private sectors. The city also utilises huge public
Like other large cities in Japan, Sapporo experienced infrastructures for residential uses such as sidewalks, projects to realise this vision, such as the underground
a construction boom of condominium towers at the parks and green, retail or community facilities, and walkway or the Sosei River revitalisation.
fringe of the city centre during the 2000s; especially clinics were lacking. Because height restrictions were Although these public projects and guided private
between Sousei and Toyohira river. This was originally lacking, several super-high-rises grew almost as tall as developments proved effective in the city centre,
an industrial area, thought to be outside of the city the landmark, Sapporo TV Tower. new solutions need to be found for the shrinking and
centre. As a response, the city government designated a ageing urban periphery. To respond to these issues,
Sapporo Factory, an historical beer factory made of district plan. It promoted POPS along sidewalks as POPS regulations and the planning system need to
bricks and converted into a shopping and cinema well as designated land uses such as retail, medical or change.
complex in 1993, was the first redevelopment project welfare facilities on street level (Fig.7). The city also set Every single new project will need to prove that it
in the area. The development introduced a new type a basic design guideline for all projects here, including contributes to the strengthening of urban functions
of shopping complex to Sapporo and attracted many minimum setbacks from the property line of 0.5m, or and the realisation of the vision.
people on weekends. However, as the location is maximum height limitations of 45m.
far from Sapporo Station as well as Odori Park, it is Not all projects have created POPS based on the plan [Figure Reference]
difficult to attract customers here during the week. No though. Those that came before 2006 lack public Fig.1+2 Website of Sapporo City: http://www.
other shopping facilities followed. Instead, high- and amenities that the latter are mandated to provide city.sapporo.jp/keikaku/toshikei/chikukeiichiran/
middle-rise apartment complexes were built here. The (Fig.8). chikuichiran.html
Fig.3 Underground plaza at the Northeastern corner of Odori crossing, Fig.5 Through-block-type POPS at Nissay Kitamon-guchi Building Fig.7 Mid-rise apartment with sidewalk-type and plaza-type POPS and a
created through a district plan; atrium and escalator connect under- and clinic along the street; completed after 2006 and based on a district plan
above ground POPS
Fig.4 Wide shop frontage along underground walkway and smooth Fig.6 S-Town Project near Shin-Kotoni Station is a typical block-type Fig.8 One of the highest residential towers in Sapporo provides limited
transition between public space, POPS and private shop space, created residential development, created through the CDS setbacks and the blank wall of the machine room faces the sidewalk;
under Special Urban Renaissance District construction of the development started before 2006
057
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Branding the Corporate Image City: Public Space in Shiodome, Tokyo
Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background Beyond the quality of the public realm, the SIO Site 1923 destroyed the old station building and gradually
POPS are often cited as a key witness for the current Shiodome is significant for the following reasons. First, the vicinity turned into a freight distribution centre
rampant privatisation of public space in contemporary an integrated, cooperative, partnership-type planning for the nearby Tsukiji fish market. However, because
cities. Semantically, the term privatisation suggests a process evolved, setting a striking example for a new, of the motorisation of the 1960s and 70s, the role of
process in which public assets are reduced and handed more inclusive planning culture in Japan. Second, the railway in freight distribution declined increasingly.
over to private actors, thus somehow diminishing the a far-reaching town management and branding Consequently, railway operations were suspended
public realm. This is, however, rarely the case with strategy was devised in which a coordinated design here in 1987 after the Japan National Railway Company
reference to incentive zoning: a planning tool that and management of the public and private realms (JNR) was privatised and the land was auctioned off
creates new publicly usable spaces on private land are central. Third, one of Japan’s first BID schemes was in order to pay off the company’s debt. In 1991, the
that was not necessarily accessible before. Clearly, no developed in order to manage the ‘soft’ aspects of creation of a new cosmopolitan multi-functional
existing public space is taken away here or privatised, urban space such as policing, cleaning, upkeep, event business city along the following objectives was
but instead a new specific kind of admittedly privately management and area promotion. Fourth, similarly to proposed. First, the creation of a new, state-of-the-art
controlled yet publicly usable space is added to the the role Kanna ascribes to his Starchictects (2011: 77- international business centre for the world city Tokyo.
city’s public realm. In Tokyo alone far more than 800 104) in the making of “Dubai, the City as a Corporation,” Second, the provision of downtown housing in order
POPS were newly added to the city’s public realm; an Shiodome’s area management made intensive use of to recover residential population in central Tokyo.
area equal in size to 55% of New York’s Central Park. the brand value of star architects. By commissioning Third, integration of various transport modes and the
Lord Richard Rogers, Kevin Roche & John Dinkloo, Jean provision of attractive urban amenities (Nishikawa
2. Public Private Partnership at SIO Site Shiodome Nouvel, and the Jon Jerde Partnership, building owners 2003: 49).
The 31-hectare central Tokyo redevelopment project sought to capitalise on the image value of these
SIO Site Shiodome is a good example in this respect. famous names. Their contributions were literally little 4. Designing a Unified Public Realm
It represents a redevelopment of a previously more than superficial. While Japanese architectural It was further proposed to divide the overall site into
inaccessible brownfield site. Beyond that it is also firms were responsible for all the actual realisation four zones with varying graded functions: Closest to
an example for an advanced, cooperative planning plans, only the façade designs and the overall concepts Shimbashi station the zones A, B, C would form the
process that evolved during the redevelopment of a were contributed by starchitects. so-called Ginza-Shimbashi block, where international
former railway freight yard. In the western section 80 business functions would be allocated. The zones D
individual landowners jointly redeveloped an existing 3. Planning Process (north) and E would take up cultural facilities and
mixed-use neighbourhood into a human-scale, Italy- The location of SIO Site Shiodome looks back on a long hotels (Fig.1).
themed quarter (G+F block in Fig.1). In the adjacent and turbulent history. Here in Shimbashi, Japan's first Block D (south) and H would be used for residential
tower block section, to the east, some of Japan's railway station was built in the early Meiji period to developments and the Hamamatsucho Block I, at
biggest corporations have erected their representative connect Tokyo with its harbour Yokohama. For nearly the southern perimeter, would include business,
headquarters as part of a unified development half a century it assumed the role of the capital's commerce and residential functions in proximity to
concept. Importantly, privately- and publicly-owned central passenger terminal, which it lost with the the Hamamatsucho Station. The POPS of the Blocks
public spaces are part of an integrated overall design. opening of Tokyo Station in 1914. The earthquake of A, B and C (Block A 1,500m2; B 1,800m2; C 1,400m2)
Fig.1 The area development council, made-up of all landowners, public authorities and the urban design coordinator, drew up a comprehensive scheme in which POPS are complementing an integrated public space network
058
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
(Fig.1: circle right) cluster around the central public pedestrian decks, underground malls and people While TMG has been trying to transfer responsibilities
underground pedestrian concourse, where they form a movers would be necessary to facilitate a smooth and costs to the private actors and lower its existing
large subterranean open space of 5,200m2; mediating pedestrian circulation. Parks would be developed both maintenance standards, landowners in Shiodome
between pedestrian spaces above and below ground in the east and the west that would be expanded in size have been trying to raise the standards in order
spaces. The respective landowners decided the detailed through the allocation of bordering privately owned to adequately maintain their sophisticated public
design of these spaces, whereas the master plan only public spaces (Fig.2); and the 3 northernmost office spaces. From an international perspective, however,
applied to the public realm. Between Block D-south blocks would be connected below ground through a TMG's minimum design and maintenance standards
and H (Fig.1: ellipse left) a public park was allocated on giant sunken-garden- type POPS of 5,200m . 2
for public facilities are still significantly higher than
a narrow strip of land, which was too unfavourable to in most comparable large cities worldwide, especially
allow building there, and which was squeezed between 6. Managing Publicly- and Privately-Owned Public New York. Here standards are often lower and therefore
an elevated expressway and the main railway artery. Spaces business communities are urged to react and to take
The POPS of the residential developments, adjacent In order to provide a high quality, unified management the initiative for area management into their own
to the north and the south would double the size of a for the public realm, the landowners established an area hands. In Japan, the situation is different. Following
then joint public-private open space (Fig.2). management organisation. Normally, the design and its traditional line of redistributive welfare politics,the
Complementing much needed urban infrastructure of management differs in adjacent publicly- or privately- public side still takes up the lion's share in the public
city-wide importance lend further impetus and urgency owned public spaces. No design coordination usually realm and, until now, there has been little need for local
to the project. The elevated Yurikamome monorail takes place to harmonise spaces and contribute to the business communities to engage more actively in such
was to serve a planned World City Expo in Tokyo Bay creation of an integrated public realm, transcending management affairs of public amenities.
that was later cancelled. Later, Ring Road 2 was also property lines. At SIO Site, on the other hand, design
complemented by running through the northern part and management of POPS were harmonised with [References]
of the district. This massive concentration of transport one and another in terms of allocation, connectivity, Kanna, Ahmed. (2011). Dubai, The City As Corporation.
infrastructure above ground (monorail), on and below and materials. Nearby, publicly owned public spaces University of Minnesota Press.
ground made it necessary to design a complex system like sidewalks, decks, underground concourses and Nishikawa, Y. (2003) Redevelopment of Shiodome.
of public underpasses as well as decks and bridges, parks were jointly planned and later managed in a Japan Railway & Transportation Review, 35, 48-55.
which would connect the different junctions. unified fashion. For the first time in Japan, the public
sector and the local landowners shared the costs for [Figure References]
5. Public Space to Showcase World City Tokyo the production and maintenance of the public realm Fig.1 Adapted from TOKYO-TO KENSETSU-KYOKU
The objective for the Shiodome development to create as a whole. While in the POPS on the private building SHIGAICHISEIBI-BU. (2002). Shiodome Land
a state of the art international business centre in the plots, the property owners bear the costs, and in the Readjustment Project, 3-4.
heart of the world city Tokyo, necessitated also high- public realm the public side covers the maintenance Fig.2 Adapted from Google Maps
quality public infrastructure such as parks, promenades costs up to certain stipulated minimum standards
and plazas. This included for example the creation of and covers the construction cost almost completely.
Japan's widest underground pedestrian mall, which Public services, which exceed the minimum standards
would help to smoothly feed over 60,000 employees of Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG), are then
every day from Shimbashi station into the new shiny borne by the property owners. This solution is in
office towers of the corporate headquarters. For this essence comparable to the business improvement
purpose, a close integration of publicly managed district (BID) schemes in the USA and in fact SIO
underground mall and adjacent sunken-garden-type Site Shiodome is often cited as Japan’s first BID. In
POPS was taken care of. Shiodome there are for example 40 different kinds of
Tokyo’s new Ring Road 2 would cut through the area, trees which need to be adequately maintained. TMG
and serve the new districts as an arterial road. To expressed to the landowners that two kinds of trees
handle all the required traffic functions, a complex five are enough and rejected covering any costs beyond
storied transport infrastructure core had to be above that standard. The underground passage is 40 metres
and below ground: the Yurikamome line, connecting wide instead of the 10 metres for comparable standard
to the waterfront sub-centre Odaiba, would run on underground concourses. For this reason TMG only
elevated tracks on top of a ground level road. Under the provides maintenance costs for 10-metre width while
road would be a 40-meter wide underground walkway, the landowners finance the upkeep of the remaining
below which an underground road would connect 30 metres width. TMG maintains that five times
the parking facilities throughout the district. Finally, cleaning per week is sufficient, whereas the corporate
three storeys below ground level the Oedo subway landowners insisted on daily cleaning; also on the
line would run. Consequently a labyrinth of elevated weekends. Fig.2 Adjacent POPS complement a park and form a unified public realm
059
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Usability of Privately Owned Publicly Usable Interior Spaces
Ayane Maekawa (The University of Tokyo)
1. Background 4. Types of Staying Spaces
In the centres of large Japanese cities, especially in In Minato ward, a total of 189 of these staying spaces
Tokyo, many urbanites spend the daylight hours away existed in 2010. They are located within 31 big
from their homes. redevelopment projects of over 1 hectare size. Three
Is it possible for city dwellers to feel that they belong to types of staying space in such mixed-use developments
some sort of community in a public space, while being can be distinguished:
away from home? (1) Extended restaurants are open-air cafes that have
To explore this question my master’s thesis focused on been created by the Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance
daily user activities in some selected spaces in Tokyo. for Creating an Elegant Cityscape’ (2003, Tôkyô no
My hypothesis was that in the city centre, urbanites Shareta Machinamizukuri Suishin Jôrei).
not only need public spaces for festivity and events, (2) Event spaces that have been provided based on the
but also for inhabiting them as their own spaces; for same above regulation. Category 1 and 2 spaces
making them their temporary home. are run by a management organisation that is
In this respect, it is interesting to see that many city set up by landowners and shopkeeper of the
dwellers in Tokyo find their own spaces not in public development.
spaces such as parks, but in privately owned spaces (3) Others spaces are fully privately provided and
such as lounge settings. managed, without any legal obligation. They differ
The objectives of this research was to examine staying from POPS in that they are conditioned by zoning.
spaces that are located in privately owned settings
in Tokyo, comparable to Oldenburg’s third spaces; to 5. Urban Living Space
understand the actual use of these spaces; and based Among these three types of staying spaces, category 3
on this, give an account of how these spaces can be has the greatest potential to be inhabited as own space,
temporally used by city dwellers as their own. because people feel more free here than in the more
To make this point clear, the study did not look at POPS strictly regulated other two types. Furthermore, there
that are officially created through incentive zoning but are indoor, semi-outdoor & outdoor spaces, of which
at settings that are fully privately controlled but that fully indoor spaces have the highest performance as
nevertheless allow for public interaction. staying spaces. I have labelled these interior spaces as
urban living space (ULS). In the following part two of
2. Current State of POPS & Private Spaces these urban living spaces will be discussed exemplarily.
As most articles in this magazine suggest, POPS are not
necessarily intended as comfortable spaces for people 6. User Activities in Urban Living Spaces
to stay. On the contrary, many activities that conflict The pictures in figure 1 show two urban living spaces,
with the commercial nature of the development are where user behaviour has been examined in depth:
prohibited. Building S and Building M. An urban living space
In Tokyo, some private interior spaces are opened to in Building S is located on the 2nd floor, next to an
the public by the private sector, without being legally entrance for office workers working on the upper
obliged to do so. Opened private interior spaces floors of this building. Another urban living space in
have become a popular tool for area management Building M is located on the ground level floor, next
and image branding. Prominent examples are the to an outdoor POPS. Like in the other case, this space
Marunouchi Cafe in Marunouchi, or the Shibaura is close to an entrance for office workers working on
House near Tamachi Station. upper floors of this building. In Building S, many office
workers use the ULS on weekdays, and on weekends
3. Research Object there are fewer workers, but it is still used by some.
From among the different kinds of third-space-type Most of the users are in their 30s, and most of them
settings in Tokyo, I focused on such spaces that were are alone, both on weekdays and weekends. In both
both equipped with movable chairs and tables that ULS the most frequent activities are eating, chatting,
anybody could freely use as staying spaces. The case business meetings, shop staff breaks, working and/
studies are located within massive urban development or studying, reading books, using mobile phones,
projects with offices and mixed urban functions in sleeping, and some people are just sitting without
Fig.1 Urban Living Spaces are offered as an amenity by many developers; Minato ward, Tokyo. doing other activities. The most frequent activities
in appearance they are similar to indoor POPS, but are fully privately
controlled without any stipulations to safeguard their publicness in each space during weekdays and weekends are
060
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
working and/or studying, reading, using mobile
phones, sleeping, and just sitting. These activities
could be called “personal activities”. It becomes clear
that such ULS allow a variety of activities.
Although these activities themselves are not so original
and interesting, there are always some users around
and they spend their time for personal activities in ULS.
7. Management of Urban Living Spaces
In the following section, I will highlight some
management issues of staying spaces. In addition to
Building S and Building M, Building I is included which
is part of the same project as Building M (Fig.2). This
is based on interviews with the building management.
In Building S, the purpose of setting up staying spaces
is to increase the total number of sitting for the Fig.2 Overview of major activities in Urban Living Spaces in the buildings S and M during weekdays (WD) as well
as on Saturdays (WE1) and Sundays (WE2)
delicatessen section on the first floor. The targeted
users are office workers of the same building. ULS are
seen therefore as an amenity for the workers of this
building. Rather than yielding direct benefits for the
building management, their availability improves the
overall attractiveness for tenants, workers and clients.
When asked about problems with undesirables,
lingering around and causing a nuisance to others, the
management replied that the security personnel urges
such persons to leave, citing the announcements on
the tables.
In Building M, staying spaces were provided for similar
reasons. This ULS was created because of a dead area
next to the emergency exit, which couldn’t be used for
stores. In order to utilise this otherwise commercially
unusable space, tables and chairs were set up here.
Like in Building S, undesirables are shown out with Fig.3 Location of case study Urban Living Spaces in relation to large outdoor POPS
reference to the stated site rules. The management
suggested, however, that between 19:00 and 23:00 it discard and to jointly maintain, causing additional The instability and ephemerality of urban living spaces
is difficult to judge only by their appearance whether management costs. is noteworthy. Activities in ULS show some degree of
a user is a homeless person or not. In general, the diversity of usage, and each individual can get their
management wants to maintain the staying place as 8. Usability in Urban Living Spaces small temporary own space in the city. On the other
long as users don’t cause problems. Often the word As a conclusion, urban living spaces are mostly seen as hand, the management can easily clear out undesirable
“hospitality“ is cited. It is difficult, however, to put “amenities for workers in the building”, without direct users. Thus, there is an asymmetrical relationship
chairs and tables outdoors, because in this case the benefits for the building management. Often, they are between users and controllers.
rules of formal POPS would apply and time-consuming located in places open to the general public. Although Urban living spaces can legally tolerate some city-
permission processes would be necessary. the management provides for only a few things to dwellers, but others can and will be excluded from
Building I has also similar purpose of for provision. happen here, users are allowed to use them freely, but here, because the spaces are under private control.
No problems were reported to this day, although the within fixed rules. Finally, the Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance for Creating
management had been putting chairs and tables It became also clear that many managers find it difficult an Elegant Cityscape is aiming to turn POPS into
out since 2010. Here too, it is difficult for them to put to make use of POPS as meaningful staying spaces. venues for festivities and events. Although it is good
furniture on formal POPS, because these are jointly- Private spaces are much easier to manage and are to create an attractive city, this ‘festivalisation’ of public
owned by all the landowners within a project and it is not limited by red tape. The management can change space should not overlook that high-quality urban
difficult to reach a unanimous agreement. the setting and the site rules easily, according to their living spaces that individuals can freely inhabit and
Once put in POPS, chairs and tables are difficult to needs. appropriate are also needed.
061
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Resident’s Perception of POPS and Vernacular Outdoors in Shinjuku, Tokyo
Mireille Tchapi (The University of Tokyo)
more global outdoors features eliminates distinct fences) and the decoration with objects and vegetation
urban singularities of old neighbourhoods and a (trees, potted plants, and little gardens). The result is a
the particular way, these had formed social life; thus, micro landscape shaped by countless, unaware local
affecting irretrievably the identity and spatial memory designers, displaying a high level of appropriation and
of these local communities. attachment by the residents.
This paper looks at one particular old, dense With Japan’s aging society and modernisation, the
neighbourhood called Wakaba and contrasts the area saw the disappearance of child play from the
perception of residents, between the production of everyday landscape in the countless alleys as well as
local-style outdoors along small lanes and alleys on the neighbourly chat around the 3 remaining wells.
private land (vernacular POPS) with the typology of With technical progress, the necessary activities
homogenised (global-style POPS) that have newly disappeared from public space. Around Wakaba,
penetrated the fine-grained neighbourhood. This is parks are the preferred venue for leisure and the new
a first attempt to better understand the residents’ POPS at the foot high-rises are often empty. They have
perception, their attitudes and expectations; brought along a visible new form of seclusion, by the
expanding from the private plot to the public realm of contrasting scale and the poor esthetical language of
the street, and their opinion on the conflict between their landscape design.
the different outdoor typologies. It does not claim to
be representative, but tries to shed light on the often- 3. Wakaba through the Eyes of its Residents
underplayed grassroots perspective on the spatial An interview survey was conducted among 22 long-
transformation that comes along with the proliferation term residents of Wakaba in May 2011. Questions
of global-style POPS. mainly addressed the resident’s views regarding global
versus vernacular open spaces, their perception of
2. The Wakaba District the different outdoors, and the spatial elements that
The Wakaba district developed during the pre-modern catch their attention. Interviewees also commented
Fig.1 Spatial structure of Wakaba and system of open spaces Edo era into three spatial units, filled with numerous on the deep spatial transformations that the district
shrines, temples, and their cemeteries. The district had undergone, and how the identity of their place
1. Background became thus associated with death and evolved as one has changed. One major turning point in this respect,
Shinjuku ward today is a central district in Tokyo, but of the three slums of the city. The hollow of the deep was the earthquake of March 11th 2011 and the
it was at the edge in pre-modern times. With its rough valley created a spatial constraint to any development, renewed recognition that natural disasters pose a
topography in a narrow valley, the area encapsulated a and as a result small houses on introverted plots imminent threat to this dense, highly disaster-prone
number of traditional urban villages that transformed developed in extreme densities along small lanes, neighbourhood. Around 30% of residents appreciate
over time into complex spatial configurations, created perpendicular to the main street (Fig.1). global POPS for their “orderly” design and for the
by cramped plot arrangements, mixed property This urban frame has undergone many deep social, security that the connected high-rise building offers
patterns, high building densities, scarce empty spaces functional and spatial transformations since WWII, to the vulnerable community. 20% emphasised the
and diverse forms of spatial appropriation by the and is now marked by an aging population and small necessity for a balance between vernacular and
inhabitants. Different periods of pre- and post-war manufacturing activities. Over time, the district identity newly designed POPS as both spaces bring positive
construction activity can be read on top of a persistent has changed. A new, larger supermarket caused the characteristics: different kinds of greeneries (bigger
original Edo urban footprint. gradual death of small local retailers. Condominium trees in global POPS and pot-plants in vernacular
The multiple juxtaposed outdoors and greeneries towers, their POPS, and asphalted, private parking lots spaces), more safety with global POPS (wider open
shaped by each resident on their plots, and the have replaced some of the most vibrant urban spaces areas, where residents from denser parts can evacuate
combinations of new and old features at the between small houses and along lively lanes.This has in case of disaster), as well as social factors (high-rise
boundaries between private and public realms changed the atmosphere of the area and the patterns condominiums bring young families with their kids
create distinct vernacular landscapes. These peculiar of social interaction. A variety of different types and into the district with mostly elderly residents living in
spatial configurations that developed over hundreds uses of the outdoors can be found here: car and bike the lanes). Vernacular POPS are preferred as venues
of years along a blurred boundary between private parking, greenery, representative entrance spaces for for the everyday by 20% of the residents. The opinions
properties and public space are today confronted condominiums, outdoor storage, a sunbathing spot,a regarding resident’s attachment to the green spaces
with new types of outdoors that follow more global, garbage disposal area, dead spaces with no apparent of their alleys are divided: Some inhabitants were very
widely interchangeable design trends, and that use, and urban wastelands awaiting development. In sensitive to the beauty of the vegetation, the cooling
develop as privately owned public spaces (POPS) at these vernacular open spaces each owner’s personality effect of alleys during summers (wind and plants), and
the foot of condominium and offices towers. A gradual and a tacit agreement with the respective neighbours the conviviality created by the narrowness of the lanes,
transformation process of vernacular urban forms into are manifested through chosen materials (pavements, “where you can even hear your neighbours cooking
062
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Fig.2 Global-style, generic POPS at the bottom of condominium towers remain unused despite high density area Fig.3 Vernacular POPS along narrow alleys are more responsive to the needs of the local community
while walking by.” This isn’t the case with the wider within vernacular POPS. One could conclude that the earthquake of 2011: “You could hear everyone (in the
global-style POPS, and the hermetically closed-off value of vernacular POPS isn’t properly recognised as alley). People would also ask and shout to everyone
first floors of the adjacent condominiums. However, criteria for sustainable regeneration, and that this is from their house to check if there were any troubles,
more than half of the respondents don’t pay attention owed to lacking awareness of its positive impacts on while holding their furniture inside or hiding under the
to these kinds of issues and prefer global POPS for their everyday life. Furthermore, contrary to the mere table. We used to laugh about that after, because the
their tidy and “organised” designs. “Condominiums openness requirement of global POPS, such properties alley became very noisy.”
come with sufficient parking places, which improves are hard to measure and to quantify.
the car traffic in the often congested street. They 5. Discussion
offer larger space for pedestrians. It is also safer and 4. Disaster Risk and Open Space It is interesting to note that only few people associate
better for business on the street. POPS are needed to Due to its density, the lack of open space and a high the spatial transformation and the replacement of
keep community linkages alive by attracting young share of wooden buildings, the authorities have dense urban fabric with condominium towers and
new families with children,” said the president of a categorised Wakaba as one of the areas with the global POPS, with the loss of place identity.
Wakaba district association. For locals, POPS and the highest disaster risk in Tokyo. Although Wakaba The most valuable element for the residents is the
condominiums they come with are the only option to resisted past earthquakes well, the president of one community linkages, which can be maintained despite
solve all these issues at once. Asking which elements of district association strongly agrees with the authorities’ the radical physical transformation according to them.
the outdoor spaces catch their attention while walking objective to widen streets and alleys and to replace The landscape of vernacular POPS, perpetually
23% responded “seasonal change of plants, flowers vernacular wooden buildings with safer ferro-concrete regenerated by their inhabitants, isn’t acknowledged
and greeneries or other elements of vernacular POPS” condominiums. He accepts that such measures would by most.
while only 13% find design elements of global POPS completely change the spatial structure and the However, I would argue that such elements do play
somehow remarkable. 13% are not paying attention to district’s identity. an underplayed, yet significant role in the daily
any outdoor spaces at all, while 30% of the resident’s Condos and their open spaces appear to assume a safe appropriation, compared to the supposedly more
are concerned with unsecured elements that can pose and secure image for most residents. Alternatively, attractive image of global POPS, which create a new
a risk in case of disaster. Examples are not properly the dense web of alleys generates anxiety among emptiness and separation. A place should be more than
parked bikes or outside storages. 10% of the people the interviewees. The president of another district merely defined by disaster vulnerability indicators.
take joy in cultivating and looking at outdoor elements association remarks that “80% of the people are very Also peculiar atmospheres and spatial factors that are
within their own plot. All people interviewed were scared of disaster (…). For safety, the place has to be conductive for social life in a community should be
enjoying living in the Wakaba area. Consciously or not, reconfigured. Despite all spatial change through ever evaluated for urban regeneration.
what seems to contribute to the joy in their everyday more new condo projects, the community linkages The contrast between global and vernacular POPS
lives, while shopping, or having a walk, is directly could be kept stable, so far.” Somewhat contradictorily, makes this point very clear. A focus on transportation,
related to the design elements within vernacular POPS there is the hope to preserve the present spatial security, fire fighting and sanitation, and the promotion
more than global POPS - no matter if visible or invisible, framework. “There is the danger of losing this balance of redevelopment along with global POPS is harming
positive or negative. but currently Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the local identity, but the community is not aware
It is somehow contradictory that nearly half of the Shinjuku ward are promoting fireproof high-rises only.” of this. Increasing awareness and appreciation for
residents prefer the septic, orderly outdoors of However, the virtues of narrow, close-knit community vernacular POPS and the traditional urban landscape is
condominium towers, while at the same time 70% spaces are nicely summed up by an elderly lady of great importance to preserve this unique urban and
of the elements that attract the attention are located who explains her experience during the March 11th social landscape.
063
Community Involvement Part III
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Temporary Privately Owned Public Space in Taipei
A Flexible Space Opens the Social Realm
Chen-Yu Lien (National Taiwan University) + Pei-Yin Shih (Classic Landscape Design and Environmental Planning)
owners who agreed to “beautify” their properties, and
three synthetic plans that targeted a comprehensive
redesign of important public spaces.
The eight series’ of strategic interventions sought to:
(1) create more open public spaces around landmark
buildings;
(2) regenerate the urban environment and reduce the
number of dilapidated buildings and waste;
(3) create ”a good location with a new look”: cleaning
and decorating external blind walls;
(4) create attractive shops with beautifully designed
signboards;
(5) create friendly school campuses with bright and
welcoming fencing;
Fig.1 Citizens claimed more publicly usable greenery spots for Taipei City in 2010
(6) utilise unused urban land for gardening and
forestation;
1. Background: FAR Bonus-oriented Development the assent of 1/10 of the landowners living within the (7) provide a lighting design that brightens up Taipei’s
of Taipei City redevelopment area. In stage two, an urban renewal night; and
Floor area ratio (FAR) plays a key role in the urban business plan is presented which has to garner the (8) display public art at public buildings.
development history of Taipei City. The outline of assent of either 2/3 of the total number of landowners,
urban planning and the zoning system in Taiwan or, alternatively, that of those who hold over 3/4 of the Three complimentary synthetic plans were aimed to
were introduced from the United States and Japan. total area to be redeveloped. In the third stage, the (1) create new roads and street scenes with unifying
With rapid population growth and urban expansion, transfer of property titles takes place, and after that, design concepts and themes;
Taipei city government started to offer FAR bonuses actual construction can begin. Every stage needs to (2) provide elegant riverside sceneries by integrating
in exchange if private developers would offer much go through extensive explanation sessions. In order waterfront resources; and
needed public facilities on private land, such as open to speed up such time consuming redevelopment (3) demonstrate the government's administrative
spaces, parking lots, social facilities, etc. Moreover, processes, the city has begun to reward additional vigour by integrating public assets and resources.
there are various ways to grant FAR bonuses through FAR bonuses as an incentive instrument in urban
urban renewal programs in order to deal with illegally governance. According to official statistics, between The government basically took the exhibition as
built houses, to incentivise the construction of “green 2005 and 2010 only 119 of 152 urban redevelopment an opportunity to strategically promote urban
buildings”, to keep the renewal period on schedule and projects were completed, while the remainder of the beautification and enhance the citizens’ understanding
reward the provision of much needed public amenities. projects were behind schedule. of and identification with urban regeneration. Among
However, land values are deeply rooted in Chinese In 2005, the national government identified urban the Series Policy, Taipei Beautiful Series (2) created
culture and inextricably linked to people’s ideas of regeneration as a driving factor for revitalising the the most remarkable achievement by granting those
wealth. As an old proverb goes, ”along with land local economy, and indeed, the rising real estate prices landowners an additional FAR bonus if they agreed
comes about wealth” and therefore landowners often bespeak of an economic boom. However, this land to tear down old buildings and temporarily open the
adhere to their private property and resist selling off price hike led to difficulties integrating the objectives land as greenery spots for citizens. These green spaces
their land for redevelopment projects. The inheritance of the different landowners and the private project make, thus, use of those lands which could not meet
system leads to a further fragmentation of property developers. More and more landowners came to the urban planning requirements, and which had lain
structures and land holdings. If heirs want to make take the house as an object of real estate speculation dormant; waiting for their integration in an urban
money out of an inherited piece of land, all of them and clung to their property. Accordingly, the average renewal project. As the government is granting a FAR
have to agree. Since this is often not the case, the planning and implementation process of an integrated incentive to open these brownfields to the public, and
land gets subdivided, with chunks evenly distributed urban renewal project rose to 3.3 years, with many as they remain in private property, we call these spaces
among the different heirs. Owing to these and other even taking 10 to 20 years to complete. temporary privately owned public spaces in this article.
reasons, carrying out urban renewal projects is never In order to improve it’s international competitiveness,
easy, even under capitalist market logic. Every urban the city decided to host the Taipei International Flora 2. Time, Space and Community Renewal
renewal project needs to go through three stages, Exhibition in 2010. In order to prepare the urban area Land does not only have an exchange value but also a
and the process usually takes longer than expected. for the event, in 2009 the “Taipei Beautiful Series use value. Examining from both time and space axes,
In stage one, a project developer proposes an outline Project” was launched, which consisted of eight so- we can find different benefits at different times for
of an urban renewal project, which needs to acquire called series’ that gave incentives to building or land different types of spaces.
066
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Prior to this new FAR bonus for temporary open space
policy, the mechanisms for land utilisation were rigid.
Previously, land seemed to only be used for either
new buildings or public parks. There was no policy on
how to deal with vacant land or old buildings, which
remained idle until the urban renewal process was
completed. Legally, there was no other way to force
landowners to tear down dilapidated buildings before
a renewal project was approved. As a result, many
vacant plots and unused buildings were fenced off,
awaiting reconstruction for an undetermined period
of time. These fencings not only caused harm to the
urban landscape but also caused local environmental,
health, and public safety issues. Thus, the community
environment and the city landscape relied on the
government sector, carrying out redevelopment, and
the public consciousness was weak.
However, in terms of land use, and under consideration
of the factor of time, these vacant plots can play
different roles as abandoned wasteland, community
gardens, or parking spaces, before being developed
into new buildings at a later point in time. Compared
with the land used for planned public parks, these
vacant lots have been serving diverse community
needs before a new building or a formal public park is
developed.
These flexible open spaces serve complex
demands such as visual green amenity, a means for
environmental regeneration and cleaning, a useful
outdoor space for neighbours, or even as a sink for Fig.2 Taipei Beautiful Series (2) created 74 temporary green spots during the run-up to the International Flora Exposition in 2010; dark markers represent
temporary green spaces on public land; lighter markers represent those located on private property
carbon dioxide. Many of these diverse spaces are
beneficial for societal minorities such as kids, elderly 3. The Experience of Taipei City In total, 74 green spots were created through the
people, handicapped people, gays and lesbians, or The Taipei Beautiful Series (2), awarded landowners an special incentives that were only offered in the run-up
NGOs like the Independent Bookstore Alliance. Many incentive of bonus floor area in two steps (See Tab.1 to the flora expo; showcasing a new way of utilising
different activities occur here at different times of the and Fig.2). In the first step they gained 5% incentive precious urban land more flexibly and creatively.
day — morning, noon, afternoon, evening, and night for removing old buildings. The temporary POPS that Although most spaces are only covered with grass,
— depending on their specific location. These new resulted from this were required to be well maintained a few paths, and chairs, some of them were created
types of spaces respond to the complex needs of the for at least 18 months, and kept open to the public through participatory design processes, such as the
public everyday life of adjacent communities. until the construction for the new building started. Rain Water Garden, the Reading Garden and the Happy
The Taipei City Government considers temporary POPS Once the landowners and the developer submitted Farm. This new flexible land use was developed out of
to be an alternative urban design process that offers the urban renewal plan to the city government, the urban renewal experience of Taipei City, providing
new results in the field of community regeneration. the council evaluated the environmental benefits the citizens with a different understanding of time and
Temporary POPS were created as novel forms of of each of the temporary POPS that were offered in space.
participatory design processes. The neighbours and the redevelopment area, and then granted another
NGOs got together to elaborate community visions incentive of maximum 5% if standards were met. Thus, 4. Case Study Green Life Axis, Roosevelt Road
with one another in open planning workshops. depending on the particular location, construction Green Life Axis along Roosevelt Road was a project
Responding to the policy goal of making Taipei more costs of temporary POPS, the length of time the POPS carried out by the Taipei Urban Redevelopment
beautiful, moreover, many communities' visions have was open to the public, and other public benefits, Office, and can be seen as model case for temporary
materialised on temporary POPS, turning many of developers would gain a maximum of 10% bonus FAR POPS design (Fig.5). During the participatory design
these privately owned lands temporarily into truly through this two phased process – permanent benefits process, some NGOs that are involved in grassroots
public spaces. for a temporary public amenity. environmental initiatives were also invited into the
067
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
public space. The alliance manages this spot by holding
creative cultural events once per month, such as the
Reading at Starry Night. Citizens can enjoy the visual
landscape, learn new ideas and share life experience
there. On the other hand, small minorities like union
activities or gays and lesbians, who are promoted by
the Willow Den Independent Bookstore Alliance, get
a better chance to become visible in public space. The
green temporary POPS refills the city with multiple
imageries.
Another site, Happy Farm (Fig.7, 10, 12) offers a bridge
for citizens to connect with natural life and past
countryside memories. Many elderly people in Taipei
came from different rural regions in Taiwan and kept
a close relationship and a high awareness with the
countryside. They wished to have a city farm and re-
cultivate the vegetables for their daily lives, which is
not allowed in the public parks. Now these city farmers
Tab.1 The Taipei Beautiful Series (2) awarded landowners an incentive of bonus floor area in two steps
have become friends and share experiences, and know-
decision-making sessions. Through the workshops, the renewal project. The project management applied how of cultivating with passers-by, who walk along the
idea of public space in temporary use was identified, for the new temporary POPS designation. Since its temporary POPS. This space shows, thus, how we can
and a connection was made between the design and creation, Rain Water Garden has been used as site live a more ecologically aware life in crowded cities and
the maintenance stage. After the construction, the for outdoor environmental education because of its the multiple roles urban land can play therein.
collaborating NGOs Green Citizens’ Action Alliance, rainwater collecting installation. Neighbours, nearby These temporary POPS under the new incentive policy
Willow Den Independent Bookstore Alliance and others office staff, passers-by and even school teachers and encourage people to reimagine a green city. More
held events in the temporary POPS in order to spread students use this garden at different times and for and more neighbourhood leaders have learned from
their ideals, and the local communities assisted with different purposes. Since people could not be made these cases and started to apply for temporary POPS
the daily maintenance. These co-produced temporary aware of water conservation ideas in most of the designations in their own communities. Local groups
POPS opened up new imaginations of urban life in general public parks, this central site offered a novel adopt national public lands to promote farming
public spaces. educational function. activities in the city, or hold farmer’s markets or ecology
One of the private plots on which Rain Water Garden Another temporary POPS named Reading Garden observation activities. Additionally, developers open
(Fig.6+8) came to be located is in a neighbourhood (Fig.9+11) was designed together with the Willow Den their lands or buildings as theme centres or temporary
without any public parks. A real estate company had Independent Bookstore Alliance. The design concept showrooms to the public. People can have a cup of
begun to integrate nearby lands for a wider urban reflects the demand for alternative reading activities in coffee here, or go to exhibitions in these kinds of
temporary POPS. Obviously, urban life is performed
here in many new, unprecedented expressions. We can
understand this type of temporary POPS as a creative,
alternative way to promote communication among the
stakeholders of future urban regeneration projects and
the general public.
5. Conclusion
Long before the Taipei Beautiful Project was launched,
there has been a public clamour of non-government
sectors and community activists for idle, unused
spaces to be released for diverse public uses. Taipei
Beautiful Series (2) now makes use of a FAR bonus to
create temporary urban POPS. Besides offering the city
a green visual landscape, some of them also exhibit
Fig.3+4 Before (above) and after (below) urban renewal: This old house Fig.5 Map of the “Green Life Axis along Taipei’s Roosevelt Road”, where accessible, useful, educational functions, which benefit
from the Japanese colonial period had long laid dormant before the site numous temporary POPS have been created
was turned into the ‘Rain Water Garden’ green spot their surroundings, and stimulate social discussions.
068
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Fig.6 Citizens gathered to have tea in the "Rain Water Garden" Fig.7 “Happy Farm” is adopted by local residents, who cultivate vegetables here
Because these temporary POPS will be replaced by
higher buildings some day, after a minimum lifetime
of 18 months, some citizens argue that useful public
spaces are only temporary, whereas the benefits of
bonus FAR in new buildings are permanent and might
create long-term burdens for the public. They don’t
agree that this policy, specifically created for the Flora
Expo 2010, should become a regular municipal law
for offering more urban temporary POPS. Also, some
researchers have begun to find better ways for creating
Fig.8 An environmental NGO held educational activities in "Rain Water Fig.9 “Reading at Starry Night” was a creative idea from the Willow Den
temporary POPS than offering an FAR bonus to private Garden" in order to teach citizens the installation of rainwater collectors Independent Bookstore Alliance
landowners. An academic study suggested that the
Taipei city government set up a Space Sharing Centre in
order to match the supply and demand for land. Such a
sharing platform for urban space would allow the city
to create POPS to respond to the communities' real
demand. The database could identify and match plots,
landowners, future public space users and neighbours.
The City of Taipei is supportive of this idea and intends
to run a model project in the near future.
This aside, temporary POPS make the rigid zoning
regulations in urban planning more flexible and
offer new, unprecedented opportunities. Urban
Fig.10 Kids enjoy interacting with the greenery cart art installations Fig.11 The left-wing independent bookstore “Tan-Shan” invited the ‘Black
renewal has been hitherto known as a program to Hand Nakasi-Workers’ band” to perform live music in "Reading Garden"
consolidate building sites into a profitable, economic
redevelopment project. Now a new aspect has been
added, as the process of community participation
additionally improves the urban social realm.
[Figure References]
Fig.1 With kind permission of the NGO Organization of
Urban Reform (OUR)
Fig.2 Google Map, created by Taipei Metropolitan
Development Research Centre (TMD): http://goo.gl/
Fig.12 Also Korean government officials visited “Happy Farm” in order to
maps/Iwrv learn from Taipei's temporary POPS experience
069
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Beyond POPS: Kyoto's Community-dominated Public Spaces
Yoshihiko Baba (Ritsumeikan University)
Fig.1 Since 1968, 310 "kids squares" have been created in Kyoto: 66 of these were created on the premises of privately owned temples or shrines, 91 were on other privately owned plots, 153 were located on publicly owned land
1. Background to early 17th Century), when the city was threatened the more recent history of policies and practices that
The city of Kyoto was founded as early as 794 and has by frequent battles and a decaying public order, the have sought to induce the production of privately
undergone constant transformation since then. When residents gathered at the halls of temples like the owned public spaces through incentive zoning (POPS)
looking at the original plan of Heiankyo, the medieval Gyoganji, Chohoji, and others in order to discuss local and, more significantly for Kyoto, community owned
Kyoto, one notices that there was only one major park, public matters. In the more peaceful, subsequent public spaces (COPS) and community-dominated
called Shinsenen, and otherwise a grave lack of inner Tokugawa Period (1603 - 1868), the temples and public spaces (CDPS). It will then address the question
urban open spaces. Instead, aristocrats, temples, and shrines opened their gardens regularly to the public. if POPS can be an appropriate public contribution
shrines developed gardens on their premises. For Meanwhile, many local communities have also built and compensation for building new high-rises in an
ordinary people, there used to be communal space their own neighbourhood houses (cho-ie or cho- otherwise low-rise, height controlled, historical city.
inside the city blocks, which however gradually began kaisho). These communally owned buildings hold
filling up with buildings in the late medieval period. important cultural properties of neighbourhoods, such 2. Temple Gardens and Chibikko Hiroba
Although the nearby Kamo River, outside of the city, as the floats of the famous Gion Matsuri Festival, with In Kyoto, there are more than 1,500 privately owned
also provided vast open spaces, the city itself lacked precious decorations. Some of these houses remain temples and shrines. Some of them are small in scale
small neighbourhood open spaces like Italian piazzas and have been designated as historical landmarks by and open only to their parishioners. However, many
or squares in English towns. the city. of them have large plots with gardens and children’s
Instead, the residents often used gardens and other To this day, some legacies of these historical open playgrounds so that local residents can visit them and
open spaces in privately owned temples, and shrines. spaces and community owned spaces still remain. spend meaningful time there. After the Urban Park Act
During the Warring States Period (mid-15th Century The aim of this article is to shed some more light on was legislated in 1956, local authorities were required
070
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
to provide a sufficient number of urban parks for their
citizens, prescribed in square meters per capita. These
quantitative open space stipulations were very severe
and hard to fulfil for already fully developed cities like
Kyoto.
Thus, in the absence of sufficient public space, the
City sought a way to utilise privately owned lands and
legislated the “Kyoto City Subsidy Guideline for Kids’
Squares” (Kyoto-shi Chibikko Hiroba Josei Yoko) in 1967
to support landowners who offered and maintained
open spaces for children on their private property
(Fig.1). According to Narumi (1968), among the 310
kids squares that were created, 66 (21%) were on the
premises of temples or shrines, 91 (28%) were on other
privately owned plots, while 153 (51%) were located on
publicly owned land.
Today, some 250 kids’ squares remain and have been
maintained by the local neighbourhoods.
Many cities throughout Japan have adopted similar
policies subsequently, following the example of Kyoto
– decades before Western urbanists began to diagnose
Fig.2 During the Gion festival public streets in front of community-owned neighbourhood houses turn into temporary common spaces
the threat of privatisation of public space.
3. Renovation of Kids’ Squares
There are, however, problems with these kids’ squares.
Due to the decreasing number of children, many of the
squares are disappearing and the remaining squares
are poorly maintained and used.
Between 1998 and 2001, Kyoto City refurbished
14 squares, with the support of Tetsuya Yoshida, a
professor at Kyoto University. He organised planning
workshops for redesigning and refurbishing these
spaces together with the local residents.
Reflecting Japan’s overall demographic development,
the former ‘Kids’ Squares’ were relabelled into
‘Community Squares’; in effect, redefining their social
role. For many years the number of children had long
been decreasing while at the same time the ratio of the
elderly was increasing (Sato and Yoshida 2000).
4. Neighbourhood Houses
While kids’ squares are one prominent kind of
community space, the neighbourhood houses and the
fronting streets also provide valuable common spaces. Fig.3 During the Jizo-bon festival many old communities in Kyoto decorate neighbourhood streets with lanterns and gifts for children
Historically, the street communities had erected gates
at access points during the Warring State Period for August, when in many parts of Kyoto the streets are Jizo-bon and Gion Matsuri are both prominent
protection. Naturally, within these gated communities decorated with lanterns and gifts for children (Fig.3). neighbourhood festivals. It is clear that although
grew a sense of close association. The Gion Festival is another interesting showcase of the streets are still public, the local communities
Although these gates were removed long ago, today’s communal spaces. Some 33 neighbourhoods build temporarily dominate them. To this day, streets are
street festivals make reference to that older period. This their own floats in front of the neighbourhood houses thus tightly integrated into the traditional community
may be most prominent during the Jizo-bon festival in and link them by a wooden bridge (Fig.2). structure in Kyoto.
071
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Fig.4-7 Design ideas for the renovation of Shutoku Park: Partents and kids group (top, left), elderly group (top, right), neighbourhood association (bottom, left), and other citizens living in the administrative district (bottom, right)
5. Community Node Primary School when the school districts were defined in the 1870s, newsletters the community publications.In workshops
When moving to the city and joining a local sport club, the City had very similar ideas to Perry. As the number residents were separated into four groups: parents with
one is sometimes asked for the school district in which of children has been decreasing in recent years, several young children, elderly, adjacent residents and other
the residence is located, even if one did not go to that primary schools have been closed. The City has begun interested people. The four groups made their own
school. Schools are another important community discussing the future use of these former primary plans and discussed alternatives (Shutoku 2000) (Fig.4-
space, or community-dominated public space (CDPS) schools and their land with local residents, and in some 7). In a later stage, the different plans were harmonised
for people in Kyoto. While neighbourhood associations cases, collaborates with them on the plan making. into one overall concept.
(chonaikai) are traditional community units, school The former Shutoku Primary School is one such case. Today, the park boasts diverse local activities: office
districts (gakku) are wider and a more modern form of After becoming disused as a school, it was planned workers having lunch, elderly people resting and
community. as a complex with a library, elderly care facilities, and children playing around. Those who participated in the
Clarence Perry (1929=1998) once suggested space for young children, combined with a park. The design process are today taking care of the flowers and
that elementary schools should be the centre of local residents intensively participated in the design greenery in the garden and the district has become one
communities, and indeed, decades earlier in Kyoto, of the park, and the process has been detailed in local of the most active ones in all of Kyoto.
072
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
6. Trading Skyscrapers for Open Space?
Other, much more common and systematic ways of
producing privately owned public spaces in Japan are
standardised bargaining mechanisms under incentive
zoning, known as Comprehensive Design System
(sogo sekkei seido), and Specified Block (tokutei
gaiku). Like the instrument of the Kids’ Square, the city
government deemed this tool a viable way of creating
much needed urban public spaces in Kyoto. However,
as this deal is predicated by a trade-off of additional
floor area as compensation for the provision of a
privately-owned, yet publicly accessible open space,
the result of this policy is a proliferation of higher
than average buildings. High-rise buildings are, in
fact, one of the major causes for landscape disputes
and citizen movements in Kyoto. One of the first, and
most prominent, cases is the example of Kyoto Hotel.
As a condition for waiving the 45 metre building height
limit stipulated by zoning, and for allowing a 60m high
tower structure, the developer provided a pocket park,
sidewalk widenings, a sunken garden, benches, and
public art objects (Fig.8-9). Similarly, the new Kyoto
Station building was granted the same height waiver,
where previously 31 metres were set as maximum
height. However, given that a great number of other
privately- or publicly owned open spaces have already
been provided, and that the design quality of most
POPS, created through incentive zoning, is very modest,
there seems little justification in such bargain planning.
On the contrary, incentive zoning has opened the door
for higher buildings and set a harmful precedent that Fig.8-9 As a condition for waiving the 45m building-height limit stipulated by zoning, and for allowing a 60m high tower structure, the
developer of Kyoto Hotel provided a pocket park (below), sidewalk widenings, a sunken garden (above), benches, and public art objects
has caused severe conflicts between developers and
local communities in recent years. Le Corbusier’s idea is also an effective tool to use public streets as open Chibikko Hiroba Secchi Undo ni tsuite, AIJ Conference
of “Towers in a Park” may be appropriate for cities like space for a limited period, for example during festivals. Proceedings, 647-648.
Tokyo and Osaka that are extremely dense and short They all serve to strengthen the sense of community. Perry, C. 1998. The Neighbourhood Unit (1929)
of public infrastructure. However, Paris was never Also, it is important to note that many activities held in Reprinted Routledge, London, 1998, p.25-44.
reconfigured following Le Corbusier’s visions and Kyoto these spaces are for children. In either case, community Sato, S. and Yoshida, T. 2000. A Case Study on Relation
also does not need open spaces that will legitimise involvement seems the key to the successful open space between Design and Residents' attitudes toward
further high-rise construction and spoil the sensitive management and the design of public spaces should Management and Maintenance Activities and in Re-
historic cityscape. be negotiated in concert with the local community and pairing Small Playgrounds: A Case of the Participatory
the future users. Meaningful public space can hardly be Project for Repairing Community Playgrounds by Kyoto
7. Conclusion created through normalised, nationally uniform design City, AIJ Conference Proceedings, 273-274.
In this article, I briefly introduced privately owned standards and bureaucratic manuals, as is the case with
public spaces (POPS), community owned public spaces incentive zoning and POPS. [Figure References]
(COPS) and community-dominated public spaces Fig.4-7 Adapted fromShutoku. 2000. The Park
(CDPS) in Kyoto. In fully built up, fully developed cities [References] Images is Completed. In: Hana to Midori no Machi
like Kyoto, POPS and COPS are useful tools to create Mizutani, K., Takeda, S., and Oikawa, K. 2010. Shutoku. community paper. Issue 6/19/2000. available
open spaces. However, it is important to note that the Classification of Chibikko-Hiroba as Small Openspaces online from: http://kyoto-machisen.jp/chiiki_hp/
creation of POPS and COPS do not require any planning for Disaster Mitigation by Geographical Conditions, syutoku_HP/syutoku_image/koho/koho/koho42.pdf
bargain like Comprehensive Design or Specified Blocks. Rekishi Toshi Bosai Ronbun Shu, Vol. 4, 333-338. (accessed September 1 2012)
These policies can be, and should be, separated. CDPS Narumi, K. 1968. Toshi Kinrin Kuukan Kaizen Undo: Fig.8-9 Photograph by Christian Dimmer
073
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Community ‘Owned’ Public Space: Seattle’s Alternatives to POPS
Jeffrey Hou (University of Washington)
1. Background eventually evicted from the park — a privately owned resolution in New York City in 1961 as a mechanism
With camping of protestors in Zuccotti Park in New York public space (POPS) —, the movement also brought for incentivizing public access to private properties
in 2011, the Occupy Wall Street Movement has helped attention to a system of spatial production that (Kayden 2000).
transform the public discourse in the United States has permeated the making of contemporary urban Today, POPS has become a subset of a broader practice
concerning the social and economic inequity under landscapes in cities not only in North American but of so-called ‘public-private partnership’, a prevalent
our present political and financial system. As protestors also increasingly around the world. The term "privately and seemingly indispensible mechanism for producing
negotiated their occupation of Zuccotti Park and were owned public space" first emerged in a zoning publicly accessible amenities in contemporary cities.
In New York City where the term POPS first emerged,
not only has POPS become a prominent feature of
its cityscape, but public amenities such as parks
and playgrounds are also increasingly funded and
managed by private or not-for-profit entities. For
example, in Central Park, the continuing maintenance,
public programming, and capital restoration has
been supported and operated by the Central Park
Conservancy, a not-for-profit entity. (*1)
Recent projects such as the High Line and Brooklyn
Bridge Park have followed a similar model. Even
small-scale projects in the City have been supported
through private philanthropy as well, such as the Trust
for Public Land and New York Restoration Project that
preserved the city’s many community garden sites. The
phenomenon is not limited to New York City.
Across North America, many large-scale public space
projects could not have been realised without private
funding or revenues from private development. These
include the Millennium Park in Chicago, Centennial
Olympic Park in Atlanta, Downsview Park in Toronto, and
the Orange County Great Park in Southern California,
just to name a few. Similar to the Brooklyn Bridge Park,
development (including design, construction, and
maintenance) of parks like the Orange County Great
Park and Downsview Park has been led and managed
by an independent corporation. The predominant
trend as evident in these projects begs the question—
is private support the only tool for creating significant
public open space in today’s city in the midst of a
declining municipal resources?
In this article, I would like to suggest otherwise.
Specifically, I will highlight a few counter examples
from Seattle that suggests a different model for the
co-production of public realm in today’s city. As a
counter point to POPS, I call these examples a form of
Community-Owned Public Spaces.
Contrary to the proprietary notion of ownership, the
community ownership here emphasises community
participation and specifically use value, vis-à-vis
exchange value commonly associated with the
common form of property ownership, private or public.
Fig.1 The High Line in New York City was developed and operated by the nonprofit Friends of High Line The notion of community ownership here dwells on
the degree of participation and engagement. And as
074
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
such, ‘community-owned’ public spaces represent a
kind of public space in which the notion of public is
fully mobilised in form of actively engaged citizens.
2. Community Owned Green Spaces in Seattle
Located in the Pacific Northwest region of the United
States, the City of Seattle currently has a population
of 612,100, in a metropolitan area of about 3.3 million
residents. (*2) The city is bound by the Elliott Bay to the
west and Lake Washington to the east, and is abutted
by the City of Shoreline to the North and the cities of
Burien to the South. As such, the city itself has been
fully developed with no additional land for significant
growth or expansion – a factor that might have
contributed to the creative ways of expanding green
open spaces in the city. Similar to most U.S. cities, Seattle
has faced challenges in supporting development
of parks and open spaces to meet the demand of its
residents. The lack of state income tax in particular has
limited the revenue base for local governments. In the
following, I will highlight four mechanisms in Seattle
that support the notion of community owned public Fig.3 The Fremont Troll is a beloved landmark in Seattle’s Fremont neighborhood
spaces and how they are distinct from the predominant
pattern of public-private partnership as found in most in recent decades. Gardening provides locally grown lands, including parks, utility corridors, street right-
other cities. food, reduces dependency on imports, supports of-way, and lands owned by different city agencies,
community building, promotes active living, and these sites amount to approximately 23 acres, serving
A. Community Gardens empowers marginalised communities. 4,400 gardeners. (*3) Through the P-Patch Program,
Starting with the Picardo P-Patch founded in the early Community gardens in Seattle exist in a wide variety city staff provides administrative support, coordination
1970s, community gardens have been an important of locations, from well-to-do neighborhoods to with other city agencies, and public outreach. Besides
feature of community-based placemaking in Seattle impoverished communities, from utility corridors to the City-supported P-Patches, there are also gardens
residential areas, and from dense urban neighborhoods operated and supported by non-profit organisations,
to wide-open park grounds (Hou, Johnson and Lawson such as local food banks, youth organisations, and
2009). Gardeners include urban dweller as well as community-based organisations. The Seattle Housing
suburban residents. They include long-time residents as Authority, with help of the Friends of P-Patch (now
well as immigrants and refugees.A typical community P-Patch Trust) also developed a neighborhood
garden in Seattle consists plots of about equal sizes gardening program called "Cultivating Communities"
that citizens can use by signing up and paying a that provides garden plots to low-income communities
modest annual fee. Some gardens are incorporated and immigrant populations. Non-profit organisations
into existing parks and open spaces; others are next such as Seattle Tilth also provide critical support to
to private houses as well as commercial spaces, on various gardens in the city. Beyond the support of city
properties owned by the city, nonprofit organisations, agencies and non-profit organisations, however, most
or private entities. Some are almost exclusively used of the day-to-day work in the gardens is performed
for gardening, while others incorporate additional by gardeners and volunteers. It is precisely through
program elements such as social spaces, communal the day-to-day maintenance of the gardens that
kitchens, tool sheds and storage space. Community community ownership is engendered.
gardens are not only used by gardens but also enjoyed
by non-gardeners. To support the development of B. Neighborhood Matching Fund
community gardens, the City of Seattle established Neighborhood Matching Fund is a program of the
the P-Patch Program in 1973. Since then, about 80 Seattle Department of Neighborhood, developed
Fig.2 The Danny Woo International Community Garden in Seattle’s sites have been created around the city and more under the leadership of its founding director Jim Diers
International District provides local residents with opportunities to grow
food in a dense urban neighborhood are being added. Located on both private and public back in 1988. Each year, community groups around
075
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Fig.4 With support from the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, local residents led the renovation of the International Children’s Park in Seattle and continued to organise events to activate the space
the city submit proposals to the Department that in city’s many neighborhoods, but also strengthen the private support, however, park advocates and citizen
turn provide matching support for implementing social networks and capacity of community groups to groups worked with the city staff to put new tax levies
selected projects. Different types and levels of grants become more engaged in the city’s planning process. on the election ballot twice in the past decade. In 2000,
are available: ‘Small Sparks Fund’ (up to $1,000 A number of landmarks in Seattle are in fact outcomes voters in Seattle passed the Pro Parks Levy ($198.2
per project) provides support for activities such as of community efforts supported by the Neighborhood million over eight years) to fund parks acquisition,
organizing and membership expansion; ‘Small and Matching Fund program. These include the Danny Woo development, and environmental stewardship,
Simple Projects Fund’ (up to $20,000 per project) can International Community Garden, Cistern Steps (part maintenance, and programming. (*4)
be used for design and planning. Communities can of the Growing Vines Street project), and the Fremont In 2008, even in the midst of the economic recession,
also apply for ‘Large Projects Fund’ (up to $100,000 Troll—a sculpture of a car-eating troll crawling from the Seattle’s voters approved overwhelmingly the Parks
per project) for implementation. To receive the equal bottom of a bridge produced through a community- and Green Spaces Levy, a $146 million fund over six
match by the City, a community group can either initiated arts competition. Because all of the projects years to continue to support the expansion of public
raise cash donations or mobilise volunteers whose have been by nature initiated by the communities, the opens spaces in the city, including $2 millions for
work hours can be translated into cash match—a citizen-driven process has fostered strong community developing more community gardens. These levies
mechanism that incentivises community building, ownership of these places, which contributes to their have supported acquisition and/or development of
social mobilisation, and volunteerism. Since its popularity. Furthermore, the community volunteerism a wide range of open spaces, including parks, sport
inception in 1989, thousands of projects have received has ensured continued ownership and maintenance of fields, playgrounds, as well as community centers.
supported from the City in forms of neighborhood those places. They include large neighborhood parks as well as small
parks, playgrounds, public art, youth programs, and pocket parks.
cultural events and activities. In return, from 1989 to C. Parks Levy The projects are located throughout the city, partly to
2001, the communities have generated more than $30 In the face of diminishing public resources similar to generate broad support from communities. Aside from
million in matching resources for projects (Diers 2004). many other municipalities, support for parks has been projects listed in the levy proposals, the two levies also
The funds not only support the improvement of the a concern for Seattle residents. Instead of seeking included so-called ‘Opportunity Fund’ ($10 millions in
076
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
the 2000 Levy and increased to $15 millions in the 2008 3. Three Lessons: Returning to the Common ownership suggests a return to the Common as a shared
Levy), supporting projects that could be proposed by The examples that I highlighted above are not resource, a notion that has been around historically in
citizens and community groups. exclusive or unique to Seattle. In fact, similar efforts human settlements and needs to be rediscovered and
In some cases, the citizen groups also help fundraise can be found in other cities in North America, such as recognised and perhaps given new meanings and roles
or mobilise resources to help implement the projects. the Village Building Convergence in Portland and the in the contemporary city.
Through the levies, the citizens of Seattle have been Parklet movement in San Francisco.
able to support creation of more public open spaces Increasingly, one can find examples of new ways The making of public green spaces in today’s city
without ceding control and priority to private entities. through which citizens in cities around the world are reflects a broader struggle in our social and political
engaged to change how urban spaces are used and system against privatisation, neoliberalism, and
D. Independent Projects produced (Hou 2010). Nevertheless, the experiences dominance of corporate interests. To counter these
In addition to the above, there have been other in Seattle as highlighted here do offer a few lessons hegemonic forces, a more actively engaged public
individual citizen efforts or initiatives to transform that may inform the continuing making and remaking is necessary. The making of Community-Owned
public spaces in Seattle, with or without institutional of urban public open spaces in North America and Public Space is a step toward building a more actively
support. These included intersection painting in the beyond. engaged public through collective actions and broader
Wallingford neighborhood (inspired by Intersection and more meaningful public participation in the spatial
Repair in Portland, Oregon), alleyway activation efforts First, the Seattle alternatives suggest a broader set of production of the contemporary city.
in the Pioneer Square neighborhood (including public possibilities and processes in which citizens can play
art installations and public gathering), the University a stronger and more meaningful role in the making of [Notes]
District and International District, and a growing public space. Specifically, they do not have to be just *1 See http://www.centralparknyc.org/about/inside-
number of pop-up events throughout the city. passive participants in public meetings, responding to the-conservancy/ (accessed April 29, 2012)
Many of these projects primarily involve modifications only proposals presented by officials and professionals. *2 See http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/
of existing spaces and are often temporary and With modest support from city agencies and non-profit Population_Demographics/Overview/default.asp
ephemeral in nature. Nevertheless, they have given organisations, citizens and community groups can be (accessed April 29, 2012)
new meanings and engendered new possibilities in empowered to initiate and even implement projects *3 See http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/
the city’s public realm. on their own, which in turn strengthens community ppatch/ (accessed April 29, 2012).
Each of these projects also builds or reinforces social support in long-term programming and caretaking *4 See http://www.seattle.gov/parks/proparks/
networks as well as ownership of public space in of the places. While many citizen-initiated projects default.htm (accessed March 15, 2012).
different parts of the city. may be modest in scale and design, they can be just
as powerful and in many ways more meaningful than [References]
spaces produced through typical, institutionalised Diers, Jim. 2004. Neighbor Power: Building Community
planning process. the Seattle Way. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Second, while modest projects can be equally powerful Hou, Jeffrey, ed. 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla
and effective, community-driven projects do not Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities.
have to be only small or modest in scale. Through London and New York: Routledge.
programs such as the Parks Levy, contribution of Hou, Jeffrey, Julie M. Johnson, and Laura J. Lawson.
individual citizens can add up to significant funds for 2009. Greening Cities, Growing Communities: Learning
major initiatives. The successful passage of the levies from Seattle’s Urban Community Gardens. Seattle and
indicates the strong support for open space in the London: University of Washington Press.
city if planning can be done in a fair and just way. The Kayden, Jerold S. 2000. Privately Owned Public Space:
experience also suggests an alternative to the heavy the New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley &
reliance on private support that often results in the Sons, Inc.
erosion of public ownership and encroachment by
private interest.
Third and perhaps most importantly, the experiences
from Seattle in the making of community-owned public
spaces challenges effectively the notion of ownership
in a society increasingly being dominated by narrowly
defined legal systems and private enterprises. Rather
Fig.5 Alley Party in the University District transformed the underutilised
space into a place of social gathering than a proprietary notion of ownership, community
077
Providing Common Ground Part IV
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Critical Differences and Common Ground: Towards an International Research Agenda
Christian Dimmer (The University of Tokyo)
1.Summary collective spaces. Although a variety of empirically are presented unsystematically and many that are
Privately Owned Public Space: The International grounded examinations of privately owned public equally valid could and should be added as the project
Perspective has shown that the provision of publicly spaces (POPS) across the world are offered, as well as expands and develops.
usable spaces by private actors is neither a mere in-depth discussions of diverse Japanese cities, this
phenomenon of “great American cities” like New York, volume does not intend to provide final answers or make 2. Transfer of Ideas, No Clear Centre
Los Angeles or San Francisco, nor a recent development, definite statements. On the contrary, it is meant as a The fact that cities around the world have adopted
as might be suggested by the rich public debates conscientious first step towards a more nuanced, flexible, policies to systematically encourage private actors
blossoming in the aftermath of the Zuccotti Park and context-sensitive understanding of public space to create public space is only superficially the result
occupation (See e.g. Shiffman et al 2012). Instead, the and towards developing a common ground for future of clear-cut copy-and-paste-style implantations and
different chapters have demonstrated that since the intercultural public space research and action. Despite borrowings from New York City — the first City to
1970s, cities around the world —from Santiago de Chile, this qualification, the following broad observations can systematically draw up such policies. No doubt, New
Seattle, Taipei, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, to be offered in order to visualise common ground and York served as model case for other cities world-wide
Melbourne— have systematically given incentives to mark critical differences in the planning, management, and planners have been keenly aware of developments
private actors in order to stimulate them to produce control and use of POPS and public space. These issues there, yet local histories, planning cultures, actor-
networks and spatial conditions have played a crucial
role for the ways these abstract, imported planning
ideas materialised in space and how they were received
by local societies. This volume contributed therefore to
de-centring dominating planning theory debates by
emphasising mutual learning processes with no clear
centre in North America or Europe. Taipei planners
have been equally inspired by incentive zoning in
New York and Tokyo. Santiago’s system developed
independently from New York and was only influenced
by it in later years. Cities like Yokohama and Sapporo
drew up distinctly local public space policies and
Osaka has incentivised the production of public space
through private actors since the 1930s. Interestingly,
the new affordances of social media now allow the
instant exchange of ideas between public space
advocates worldwide as well.
3. Public Space Visions and the Role of Planners
Furthermore, we have seen that in Santiago de Chile
and Yokohama, strong planner personalities were
central. Committed individuals like German Bannen in
Santiago, Akira Tamura in Yokohama, or Robert Adams
in Melbourne played a crucial role in developing
comprehensive and far-reaching public space visions.
Private developers would only be rewarded with
additional floor area if they agreed to provide public
urban spaces of superior design quality that would
complement these envisioned public space networks.
The example of Osaka has also shown that as early as
the 1930s the city collaborated with local landowners
in order to create an elaborate system of sidewalks,
promenades and corner squares in the Semba area.
In many other of the cities discussed here, no such
visions for integrated pedestrian-friendly public spaces
networks existed. POPS frequently materialised in
Fig.1 Discretionary urban design review, a strong planning vision, as well as the adjacency of a public park: all these important factors contributed to the
successful design of Tokyo Midtown's well integrated privately owned public space places where municipal planners had no clear idea
080
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
what these spaces should do for the local community
and how they should function within a city-wide open
space network. Jerold Kayden points out that “public
spaces must be designed in advance as the primary
object, and not treated as an afterthought or add-on to
private development” (2000: 132) —they thus have to
integrate and enhance their urban context.
4. Discretionary Review vs. "Manual-isation" and
As-of-Right Permission
Another issue that is treated differently from country
to country and over time is the relationship between
municipal planning departments and property owners
as well as developers. At the beginning of incentive
zoning in New York, developers were entitled to receive
a building permit if project plans complied with the
relevant regulations and if the amount and shape of
the respective POPS was computed correctly. In this
Fig.2 The negotiation processes near Yamashita Park in Yokohama in the early 1970 marked the beginning of the city’s collaborative planning culture
as-of-right process, planners could carry out no design
review; they had no discretion. During the 1970s
William H. Wright’s seminal research on user behaviour spaces of the fine-grained city that is replaced is the problem is that after countless rounds of planning
in POPS showed that most of these spaces were hardly dissolved into one single ownership. Most residents and deregulations, the granting of extra floor area almost
usable and suggested stricter design control. Planners neighbours no longer feel a stake or any attachment to came to be seen as customary right. There was a
would now have discretion, allowing them to claim these corporately managed open spaces. Furthermore, temptation to introduce ever more far-reaching FAR
better context integration and usability of spaces if we understand open space in dense urban settings bonuses, with markets pricing in the relaxation and
from developers. In Japanese cities and in Santiago as a common good, the creation of this one common asking for more deregulation. Even without the
this went in a contrary direction. After German good is compromising the integrity of other, equally provision of POPS, very high and bulky buildings could
Bannen, the mastermind of the public space network important common goods. High, bulky buildings in thus materialise. One has to be almost happy therefore
in Santiago’s Providencia district and the man with fine-grained urban settings often cause an increased if any POPS are created, even if they don’t measure up
the big vision retired, abstract and strictly parametric traffic load, strain public infrastructure, or bring large to the standards to be mandated in other advanced
design rules were introduced that superseded the numbers of new residents into an existing community cities, like in New York.
older discretionary design review. Similarly, in the that can harm the neighbourhood spirit. Large
urban Japan of the 1980s, discretionary powers of buildings create shadow, cause strong winds, and 7. Local Histories and Planning Cultures
planners were constantly weakened with the rollout so forth. All these complex factors need to be taken Particular local histories have created path
of neoliberal governance principles. Instead, planners into account when assessing the quality and value of dependencies that in turn have an impact on public
came to rely on simple, checkliststyle permission POPS. It is clearly not enough just to look at the design space policies and management to this very day.
manuals. Both in Santiago and in Japanese cities, the quality of a POPS but the whole, big picture needs to Interviews with POPS administrators across Japan
impact of this "manual-isation" and codification of be assessed. More research is thus needed in order to have revealed that municipal planners in Osaka and
public space planning is reflected in the often-inferior explore ways to valuate the different common goods Sapporo are among those most aware of the problems
context integration and design quality of as-of-right one against another. associated with these planning systems and how the
POPS. resulting corporate plazas actually look and perform in
6. Arms Race of Deregulation, Greater Bonuses, everyday use. This can be partly explained by the long-
5. Benefits and Externalities Lower Expectations term experience with the Semba Building Line and a
One important question to use when evaluating The preliminary findings in the discussed international specific collaborative planning culture that has evolved
incentive zoning and POPS is ”who benefits?” Often the cities as well as field surveys in Fukuoka, Osaka, Kyoto, here, and this influences planning processes in other
results amount to a zero sum game. Large corporate Yokohama, Sendai and Tokyo suggest that the majority parts of the city. In Sapporo, this can be attributed to the
commons, products of mega-developments that of POPS are hardly usable as more than a mere space relative youth of the city that was planned in the late
replace vernacular urban fabric, create undeniably for pedestrian circulation. As discussed above, these nineteenth century around a central public open space
urban spaces that are open, and often also expansive. inferior spaces are predicated on huge, bulky buildings —Odori Park. The city of Yokohama was cashstripped
Yet the multiple stakes and the community attachment that often conflict with the neighbourhoods where during the 1960s and creatively developed its own
that were once embedded in the countless common they are created. Especially in the Japanese context, unique planning framework in which collaboration
081
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
appropriation. Similarly, in New York City, conscious
civic organisations like the Advocates for POPS (*1),
Friends of POPS(*2), or the #whOWNSpace project
(*3) are active to keep commercial interests in check
and seek to raise the awareness for these important
public assets. Conversely, in most Japanese cities there
is a rather weak consciousness regarding the rights of
citizens to public space, and to POPS in particular. Most
users don’t question that these spaces are privately
owned, often highly controlled and programmed, and
consequently should be privately managed.
Interestingly, in Japan there is an enforcement gap
between often strict, prominently displayed use
limitations and the actual application of these rules.
This gap is creating a sense of inclusion and open use
that seems to preempt open contestations of space
(Fig.3).
Fig.3 Not only planning and governance cultures are important for the character of POPS but also cultures of appropriation and contestation of space:
While use regulations are strict in Japan, they are often not rigidly enforced, as is shown by this example of a homeless man in Shinjuku 9. Mapping, Monitoring, Raising Awareness,
Curating
with the private sector played a crucial role in creating a without clear agreements having been spelled out. The In many cities around the world such as in San
comprehensive public space system that centred on the example of Bücherplatz showed that even privately Francisco, New York, and Taipei, civic groups have
human scale. The effects of these policies can be seen owned public spaces appeared fully public in nature; taken on the task of broadening the public awareness
to this day. The example of Aachen in Germany served not coded as a corporate common. Like in Melbourne of these spaces in order to make them better usable, to
as a critical test case in the volume; contrasting the – and unlike all the other cities, discussed in this create transparency and accountability and to activate
more dynamic, negotiation-based governance cultures volume – no systematic institutional arrangements are civil society. An alert civil society can then act as a
in the other cities discussed. Until very recently, in old provided to encourage the production of public spaces watchdog for a proper design and maintenance, and
European cities such as Aachen no clear distinction through private actors. Instead, cities have far-reaching open access to these spaces for public use.
was felt between privately owned and publicly planning and control powers and enter into different Furthermore, only if citizens are aware of their rights to
owned public spaces. Often, both private and public agreements with private actors, depending on the the city; if they know that they have a right to claim
administrators shared maintenance responsibilities particular cases. these spaces and make them their own for a limited
time, can these POPS become more meaningful, truly
8. Civil Society and Discursive Context public resources.
The evaluation of POPS and how they are perceived In San Francisco, for example, a guide reveals one
and used depends on the state of civil society and of the "best kept secrets: a rich network of privately
cultural patterns of spatial appropriation in the owned public open spaces scattered through the
respective societies and cities. The examples of Hong city's downtown area." It encourages the urbanites "to
Kong, Taipei, Melbourne, and New York have shown scope out a new spot to eat lunch, hold an informal
that citizens are making more active and intensive meeting, or simply soak in some nature" (SPUR 2009:
use of POPS — also for explicitly political agendas. 1). The international comparison shows that planners
The Occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York, the in cities like New York, Taipei, Melbourne, or Aachen
HSBC plaza in Hong Kong, and the Taipei 101 clearly understood themselves explicitly as advocates of the
demonstrated the potential of these spaces for a public good, and in that function, pressed private
political public life and democratic expression (see e.g. developers for better public spaces.
Shiffman et al 2012). Moreover, the chapters on Hong In Japan, on the other hand, municipal planners in
Kong and Taipei illustrated that an alert civil society numerous interviews expressed no real interest in
plays an important role in contesting the enclosure of establishing monitoring systems, or raising the public
these ‘corporate commons’. In both cases, conscious awareness for POPS. The implication was often that
citizens who urged city governments to intervene more awareness would encourage more complaints,
Fig.4 Not only lacking design vision contribute to the failure of many on behalf of the public good and reproach private and in turn would lead to a greater workload and
POPS but also a lack of proper post-occupancy monitoring that ensures
that spaces remain usable and accessible landowners challenged commercial encroachment and trouble with the development community.
082
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
10. Outlook: Global Challenges require Assembly and the Occupation of Public Spaces. New [Figure References]
International Collaboration Village Press. Fig.5 From SPUR 2009
A large number of POPS exists in many cities around SPUR, San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Fig.6 With kind permission of F-POPS
the world whose provision was induced by local Association. 2009. A Guide to San Francisco’s Fig.7+8 With kind permission of #whOWNSpace project
governments incentives and, ultimately, the tax Privately-owned Public Open Spaces. San Francisco.
payer’s money. It is therefore time, as Jerold Kayden http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/
suggests, commencing a public conversation on secretsofsanfrancisco_010109.
how best to utilise these “remarkable archipelagos”
of plazas, arcades, and indoor spaces scattered
throughout central cities around the world (Kayden
2000). An effective enforcement regime for privately
owned public space requires five elements: reliable
documentation, public knowledge, periodic
inspections, meaningful remedies, and promotion
of public use. In order to find the best methods
to achieve these objectives, the exchange of local
knowledge and the sharing of international experience
is helpful. However, as we have seen, culture, local
planning histories, institutions and actor-networks
are all responsible for the individual manifestations
of POPS in different cities and countries. Although it
is tempting to compare these developments directly,
the initial survey presented in the volume suggests
that more work needs to be done in order to better
understand the workings of these cultural factors and
local manifestations. Fig.5 The guide map of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Fig.6 Friends of Privately Owned Public Space (F-POPS) is an organisation
We hope that this volume serves as a first step Association (SPUR) shows where the city’s 68 POPS can be found and in dedicated to the celebration and improvement of New York City’s 82
which activities citizens can engage there acres of POPS; parades through the corporate commons serve to raise
towards a more systematic, comparative research awareness
project, yielding deeper insights into the underlying
mechanisms. This volume hopes to stimulate a broad
discussion of the presented ideas and to expand the
project further, to include collaborating research in
other cities worldwide.
[Notes]
*1 Website of Advocates for Privately Owned Public
Space —APOPS: http://mas.org/urbanplanning/
apops/
*2 Website of Friends of Privately Owned Public Space
—F-POPS: http://f-pops.org
*3 Website of whOWNSpace project: http://
whownspace.blogspot.tw/2011/10/whownspace-
mapping-nyc.html
[References]
Kayden, Jerold S., The Municipal Art Society of
New York, and The City of New York City Planning
Department. 2000. Privately owned public space: the
New York City experience. New York: J. Wiley.
Shiffman, Ron, Rick Bell, Lance Jay Brown, and Lynne Fig.7+8 The printable, double sided map of the #whOWNSpace project serves as a spatial visualisation tool that helps citizens to locate privately owned
open spaces in New York and to compare governing bodies of public and private control.
Elizabeth. 2012. Beyond Zuccotti Park: Freedom of
083
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
Editorial Team
Christian Dimmer, Urban Conversation Unit, RCAST Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo (contact: chr.dimmer@gmail.com)
with
Takefumi Kurose, Laboratory of Urban Design, Department of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo (contact: kurose@ud.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Chie Kodama (assistant editor and mapping) Laboratory of Urban Design, Dept. of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo (contact: kodama@ud.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Contributors
Sakrapat Anurakpradorn, Urban Conservation & Regeneration Lab, Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning, Chulalongkorn University (contact: josh2859@gmail.com)
Yoshihiko Baba, Ritsumeikan University (contact: babayoshihiko@mac.com)
Ulrich Berding, Planning Theory and Urban Development Unit, Faculty of Architecture, RWTH Aachen University (contact: berding@pt.rwth-aachen.de)
Beau Beza, Planning and Sustainability Discipline, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, (contact: beau.beza@rmit.edu.au)
Antje Havemann, Co-founder planning consultancy stadtforschen.de Aachen/Essen (contact: havemann@stadtforschen.de)
Jeffrey Hou, Chair in Landscape Architecture, University of Washington, Seattle (contact: jhou@u.washington.edu)
Yen-hsing Hsu, Deputy Chief Engineer of Urban Regeneration Office, Taipei City Government; National Taiwan Normal University (contact: hsu.yenhsing@gmail.com)
Chen-yu Lien, Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University; Classical Landscape Architecture Consultants (contact: chenyu.lien@gmail.com)
Ayane Maekawa, City & Regional Planning Division, Nihon Sekkei Inc. (contact: maekawa-a@nihonsekkei.co.jp)
Juliane Pegels, Co-founder planning consultancy stadtforschen.de Aachen/Essen (contact: pegels@stadtforschen.de)
Elke Schlack Fuhrmann, CITU - Centro de Investigaciones Territoriales y Urbana, Facultad de Arquitectura, Arte y Diseño (contact: eschlack@unab.cl)
Pei-yin Shih, Project Executive at Classical Landscape Architecture Consultants (contact: classicdesign015@gmail.com)
Mireille Tchapi, The University of Tokyo, Laboratory of Urban Design, Department of Urban Engineering (contact: mireille.tchapi@gmail.com)
Natalie Xing, School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (contact: Natalie.Xing@connect.polyu.hk)
084
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
085
Sustainable Urban Regeneration Privately Owned Public Spaces Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Vol. 25_2013_01 The International Experience The University of Tokyo
S_25
SUR Vol. 25_2013_01
発行日 2013年1月31日
発行 東京大学・都市持続再生研究センター
©2013 Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration, The University of Tokyo
sur@csur.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
企画・編集 Christian Dimmer＋黒瀬武史
デザイン 新目 忍
印刷 PRINT BANK, Inc.
086
