CHAPTER 5: INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES OF GREEN SPACE PLANNING AND APPROACHES
5.2 International lively place planning: Approach analysis
5.2.1. Point of departure: planning lively places
In order to evaluate the selected case studies as pilot tests, it should be clear what can be defined or regarded as successful lively places. In this sense, this research focused on three underlying and crucial concepts (public, place and lively – as discussed in detail in preceding theoretical chapters).
These issues will form the foundation against which current international lively place planning case studies will be evaluated. First these concepts (public, place and lively) will be described to determine aspects needed to successfully create these concepts, after which these aspects will be listed as
‗measurements‘ for the empirical analysis to be executed. The approaches will then be measured and/or evaluated in order to determine which of the necessary measurements are present, which will consequently determine their measurable success in terms of applying the necessary theoretical aspects in their practical implementations.
The methodology in terms of these evaluations can be summarized or introduced in the following steps:
1. Determine key components or aspects as derived from the theoretical discussions (Chapter 3) that can be regarded as core aspects of planning for lively places.
2. Summarize and group these key theoretical concepts and determine associated components to be applied as measurements or evaluation tools (Table 23 below).
a. Lively place planning has 11 identified measurements, therefore the applicable lively place planning approach will be evaluated in terms its score out of 11 – i.e. how many of the 11 measurements are present.
3. Table the different lively place planning approaches (as introduced and discussed in Chapter 3) to be evaluated (Table 24 below).
a. The measurement table as introduced in step 2 will be included in this table with a column included in which it will be identified (with an ‗X‘) if this specific measurement is present in the approach.
b. The presence of these measurements is based on the previous detailed discussions regarding what the different approaches are, what they do, what they aim to do, how they are (or are to be) implemented and (in some cases) whether or not they are currently successful in their own environments. If it is stated or can be clearly derived that these measurements are included or present, the associated measurement of the applicable lively place planning approach will therefore be regarded as ‗successful‘ and be marked with an ‗X‘.
c. A third column will also be included to discuss these evaluations (i.e. why these approaches did or did not receive an ‗X‘ and to what extent they can (overall) be regarded as successful.
Chapter 5: International case studies of green space planning and approaches to lively place planning Page 147
4. The scores (i.e. number of measurements present in each lively place planning approach) will be further tabled and discussed in Table 27 and further analysed to determine what can be regarded as best practices – i.e. what initiatives or approaches were present that did include and plan for the measurements/ key theoretical concepts.
5. Based on the score (expressed as a percentage), all approaches scoring 50% or higher will be regarded as successful approaches.
6. The best practices (as discussed in step 5 above) of these successful lively place planning approaches (i.e. those that scored 50% or higher) will be used and conclusively applied to the two local pilot tests in Chapter 6 in order to determine their relevance and applicability on rural scale.
7. Furthermore, successes based on the determined rural relevance (Step 6) will then be empirically compared to the primary case study (Vaalharts) of this research. Finally, a summary will conclude how (successful) lively place and green space planning (i.e. including the measurements identified in step 2; successfully found (present) in approaches and case studies as evaluated in steps 3-4 and successfully scoring higher than 50% as determined in steps 5-6) can address social challenges determined in Chapter 2.
The same steps and actions will be taken for green space planning in section 5.3 of this study and will also be conveyed to and executed in the same manner for lively place approaches and green space planning case studies locally in the following Chapter 6.
The rest of this chapter (and Chapter 6) will therefore be granted to the execution of these above steps for lively place planning and green space planning internationally, starting with the first step in determining and discussing key components or aspects as measurements:
i. Measurement 1: ‗Public‘
As mentioned in Section 3.2.1 of Chapter 3 it is evident that the defining of ‗public‘ is very complex and diverse and varies, based on different perceptions, different situations and varying needs. Therefore for the sake of this paper ‗public‘ refers to any ordinary people (LDCE, 2003:1543) inhabiting the specific space and creating dimensions of lived experience and interaction within this space (Hobart City Council, 2011:1) i.e. any given person that uses the space for the function it is provided for. The specific case study will therefore be evaluated in terms of the level of public provision and how the public is included and planned for in terms of providing sufficient and efficient activities and functions through which interaction and lived experience are evoked.
Chapter 5: International case studies of green space planning and approaches to lively place planning Page 148
ii. Measurement 2: Successful ‗place‘
An accessible and inviting space provided with a variety of well maintained and managed functions, activities and attractions with a unique identity and flexibility, supported by good visibility (Baltimore City Department of Planning, 2010:170 and Worpole & Knox, 2007:9). The approaches will therefore be regarded as successful places (i.e. marked with the ‗X‘ as discussed in Step 3.a. above) in terms of specific aspects like whether this place is open and available for any user; if it shows unique and peculiar traits, activities, functions, facilities, etc. These places will also be regarded as successful in terms of whether or not these areas are well managed and if their facilities are well maintained and in good condition.
iii. Measurement 3: ‗Lively‘
Focus on the people (Soholt, 2004:8) as the process of lively place planning is a human-driven process (Hobart City Council, 2011:1). It focuses on the inclusion of the public in creating, managing and maintaining the space as a means to ensure their needs are met and to prevent declining use of spaces. In contributing to lively place planning versatile, diverse and integrative functions (Cilliers et al., 2012:9) should be provided which will attract people to be a part of this planning process and make them willing to engage in activities in order to create the lived experience (Harrison & Dourish, 1996:67) needed to provide a lively and public place. The case studies will thus be measured in terms of liveliness, taking into account if these places provide in the needs (social, physical and psychological) of the people regarding the presence of integrative, diverse and versatile functions and activities that evoke social interaction and integration as well as providing the feeling of human activity and presence throughout the day.
Therefore, for the purpose of this research and especially this chapter, the successful planning of lively places will be regarded as the planning of a place for all people where different functions and activities take place (Cilliers et al., 2012:9) based on the needs and inputs obtained through the participative inclusion of the public (inhabitants of the area) themselves, with good and sustainable maintenance and managing services or approaches included (either by inhabitants or public; or through external sources).
The following table groups these different concepts and their measurements in order to provide the basic analysis-tool to which the success of the case study approaches will be evaluated.
Chapter 5: International case studies of green space planning and approaches to lively place planning Page 149
Table 23: Evaluation tool for lively place planning and place-making THEORETICAL CONCEPT ASPECTS AS MEASUREMENTS PUBLIC
1. People/ Inhabitants included 2. Lived experience/ Interaction
„PLACE‟
3. Accessible 4. Unique identity 5. Visibility
6. Maintenance and Management 7. Attractions
LIVELY
8. Meets the needs of people 9. Integrative
10. Diverse activities 11. Versatile functions Source: Own creation (2013)