Soft Edges in Residential Streets: Urban Planning Research

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]
On: 09 October 2014, At: 19:37
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shou19
“Soft edges” in residential streets
Jan Gehl
a
a
School of Architecture , Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts , Kongens Nytorv 1, DK‐1050,
Copenhagen K, Denmark
Published online: 15 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Jan Gehl (1986) “Soft edges” in residential streets, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 3:2,
89-102, DOI: 10.1080/02815738608730092
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02815738608730092
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 3:89-102, 1986
"Soft Edges" in Residential Streets
JAN GEHL
School of Architecture, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen, Denmark
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
Gehl, Jan: "Soft edges" in residential streets. SHPR 3:89-102, 1986.
A multitude of surveys has established that life in residential streets and other public spaces is
a major attraction and a very highly valued amenity. Trends in the 1980s—such as declining
household size and technological changes affecting both the character and amount of work—
point towards a growing importance of lively residential streets for formal and informal social
activities. This article discusses a number of conditions for supporting this function of
residential streets. The focus is primarily on the importance of creating "soft edges" by way of
frontyards/forecourts/porches in order to provide better opportunities for staying in the public
spaces for residents of all ages. Studies of residential street life in Australia, Canada, and
Scandinavia are presented to support the conclusion that "soft edges" may be a most
important way of promoting an active life in present-day residential streets.
School of Architecture, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Kongens Nytorv 1, DK-1050
Copenhagen K, Denmark.
THE RESIDENTIAL STREET
The residential street is the object for survey and discussion in this article.
The reason for focussing on the residential street is the fact that it is the one
basic element which can be found in almost any residential area. It provides
access. It is a potentially shared space, a likely public space.
As the number of persons per household declines in industrialized societies,
and as residential areas tend to have still fewer other functions, such as shops,
services, and workshops, the number of potential users of outdoor spaces is
likewise declining. To put it in another way, there are not that many people
around any more, and not that many activities generated. Thus the number of
public open spaces has to be limited to ensure, at least in one place, a reasonable
amount of life and social opportunities to create a shared, i.e. a public space.
Thus there is a need to focus both on the streets themselves and on streets as
means of supporting social life.
The residential streets studied are characterized by (1) light traffic, (2) low
(l-2-(3-4)) storey buildings; (3) somewhat dense building patterns of town or
terraced houses (or low rise flats), and (4) by front doors facing the streets. The
streets discussed then are such streets which, due to the reasonably dense low
rise housing (giving easy access to outdoor areas and thus the maximum of
outdoor visits per household (Bundgaard, Gehl and Skoven, 1982)), and light
local traffic (Appleyard and Lintell, 1972), are most likely to function as a shared
and lively public space for the residents.
90
/ . Gehl
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
LIFE IN THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS
A multitude of surveys points to the fact that life and activities in streets and
various types of public spaces are widely seen as an attraction and have a valued
quality.
In city areas, lively streets and squares are generally preferred to lifeless ones.
Benches with the best view of life and activities are the most used. Children will
be found playing where life and activity is at hand. Thus, "people tend to come
where people are".
In several Italian towns, as well as in Copenhagen, these distinctive patterns
have been found in a number of independent surveys of main streets and
downtown squares (Gehl, 1966, 1968 and 1980a). In New York and a number of
other American cities, findings almost identical to the ones from Europe have
been made by William H. Whyte and the Project for Public Spaces in New York
(Whyte, 1980).
As regards residential streets, surveys focussing on childrens' play patterns,
use of benches, use of porches and front yards have emphasized the above
conclusions that life and activities constitute an important and highly valued
quality in these areas as well (Gehl, 1980 a).
From the study presented here and similar studies from other residential areas,
the existence of a lively residential street, a space frequently used by other
people, a place where people and various activities are at hand for participation,
for inspiration or just for passtive contacts—seeing and hearing—thus appears to
be widely and highly valued. The opposite side of the coin—lifelessness, unsafety, isolation, boredom, no playmates, etc.—is not given a positive value.
A complete range of arguments, theories and surveys emphasizing the virtues
of a certain amount of life in residential streets rather than lifelessness will not be
put forward—or attempted in any detail—in this context. It makes reasonable
sense to let the elusive character of street life with its thousands and thousands of
large and small events speak for itself.
This perhaps ought to be augmented, however, by referring to a number of
studies showing how feelings of territoriality and belonging can be related directly
to the degree of use and life in residential streets (Appleyard and Lintell, 1972).
This again is closely linked to the feeling of safety as v/ell as actual protection
from violence and vandalism (Crime Prevention Board, Denmark, 1984).
LU-E IN THE STREETS—A MATTER OF GROWING IMPORTANCE?
N.'iturally the emphasis on life or no life in residential streets can be seen very
much as a matter of ideology, of life styles and preferences.
It can be argued that telecommunications, computers, TV and videos, telephones, and the like will strongly reduce the need for direct contact with other
people. Thus access to lively streets and to meeting other people in one's
residential area may not be of importance any more.
Another set of arguments, however, will lead to a different conclusion. A
number of distinctive changes in Western industrial societies point towards the
SHPR 3 (1986)
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
SHPR3O986)
"Soft edges" in residential streets
growing importance of access to lively spaces as a vital aspect of the contemporary residential situation. Changes in society pointing towards such a conclusion
are:
(a) The decline in the size of households. The average household size in
Denmark has dropped from 4.7 in 1900 to 2.1 in 1985. In the cities average
household size will frequently be even lower (Copenhagen 1.75)." More than half
of all Danish households consist of only one or two persons. Thus a number of
social functions formerly performed within households now take place outside
them.
(b) The changes in the age structure of the population. There are generally
fewer children as a proportion of the population and fewer children in each
family. Playmates—and play areas/public spaces—should thus be more accessible than previously—and houses closer together. Another change is the increasing number of elderly people. This group constitutes almost 20 percent of the
population in Scandinavia and the group is characterized by having considerable
amounts of free time and many years of good health and active life centered
around the residential situation. No single group has been found to use public
spaces and lively streets more than this expanding group of old people—provided
of course that public spaces of suitable quality are available.
(c) Changes in the character of working situations. A great number of people
will have more monotonous, less satisfying and less creative work due to automatization and technological developments. This tends to shift the emphasis from
work place to residential area for a number of creative and social activities.
id) Finally, technological and other developments tend to reduce the total
number of working hours needed by society. Thus time and energy are freed from
the working situation and accordingly more emphasis placed on residential areas.
In sum, these changes amount to the fact that more people (living in still
smaller households) have more energy, resources and time available in the
residential areas—where a number of social and creative needs will have to find
new outlets.
Deriving directly from these considerations there are more and more recommendations in Denmark regarding the need to change residential patterns towards
denser housing areas with a strong emphasis on lively outdoor spaces and
community buildings (Crime Prevention Board, Denmark, 1984).
However, the theories, arguments and government recommendations are one
thing. Quite another is to investigate whether trends in these directions can
actually be found. It is reasonable to presume that various types of public spaces
gain increased importance in this new situation, thus creating an empirically
verifiable increase in the use of public spaces.
Surveys in a number of central Copenhagen streets and squares carried out in
1968 and again in 1983 clearly show that the use of these spaces has increased
markedly during the 15 years in between (though the population of Copenhagen
has decreased). They are used by more people and there is a much wider range of
activities. Furthermore the activities have taken an obvious swing towards more
creative and expressive activities such as music, theatre, political and ideological
groups, jugglers, entertainers and other performers (Gehl, 1984).
91
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
92
J. Gehl
SHPR 3 (1986)
Fig. 1. Street studies in Melbourne 1976. Design details, dimensions, and especially the opportunities for staying/sitting; in the edge zones alongside the street, were found to be major factors influencing the street life. (Brack, Gehl
and Thornton, 1977.)
On a smaller scale—in the local areas, the residential streets and suburban
housing areas—a similar trend can be detected. The shared public spaces have
been found to be extensively used in these newer areas where a good quality of
the outdoor area is provided (Bundgaard, Gehl and Skoven, 1982).
In this context some of the problems concerning the creation of lively residential streets will be discussed.
LONG DURATION STAYS MAKE LIVELY STREETS
The duration of the various activities in the residential street is by far the most
important factor concerning life—or lifelessness—in the street.
In this context, "life" is defined as "persons being present in the street"—a
definition close to what one actually experiences: A lively street is a street with
people present—a lifeless street is a street without any people in it.
In this context, one person spending 30 minutes in the street will equal 30
persons each spending one minute in the street. Thus, it is not the total number of
persons, but the total number of minutes spent in the streets that matters. The
total number of minutes will be a product of the number of persons present
multiplied by the average time spent.
The main street is lively mainly because many people come there (each
spending just a short time). The central square with many sidwalk cafés is
particularly lively because café customers spend quite a lot of time there.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
SHPR 3 (1986)
"Soft edges" in residential streets
93
F/g. 2. Street studies in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 1977. The results came very close to the findings from the
Australian streets.
The residential street is generally characterized by the fact that only a limited
number of persons live on each street and are potential users of the street. Thus
with a relative low density of dwellings and few persons in the residential areas,
the only way in which life in the streets can be substantially enhanced will be to
emphasize the duration of the stays.
Children spend time playing in the street—if the street is suitable for playing.
Adults spend time in the street—if they have something to do and there are places
to sit down. These factors are thus very important.
Traffic, i.e. people going or driving to and from their dwellings, does not mean
much in this context, because the time spent in the street is in these cases very
short—20 to 30 or maybe up to 90 seconds per trip.
A 1977 study of 12 residential streets with terraced or town houses in and
around Waterloo, Ontario emphasizes the importance of "the time spent" in the
streets as the key factor for measuring livelyness (Gehl, 1980 a, 1980 &).
A direct observation study of the day-time activities in the 12 streets found that
52 percent of all activities occuring in the streets were related to traffic—coming
and going—while the rest concerned people talking, staying or doing something
or children playing.
It was further found that the traffic activities generally are of very short
duration. Parking and going into a house lasted between 20 and 30 seconds.
Walking to a house only took between one and two minutes, measured as time
spent in the street.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
94
J. Gehl
SHPR 3 (1986)
Fig. 3. Street A. Parking and a "nature strip" lines the street. There are hard edges alongside the houses, and
virtually no activities in the street on a number of perfect summer days. The adjoining interior courtyards and the
small balconies were not used either. The conclusion is that lack of quality leads to almost no activity.
On the other hand, talking, staying, doing something, or playing, tended to last
much longer. (Average duration of single activities was: talking 3 minutes,
sta\üng 11 minutes, doing 11 minutes, playing 13 minutes.)
By combining the number of persons with the time spent on the various
activities it was found that 89 percent of all "life in the streets" involved talking,
staying, doing and playing activities, while coming and going accounted for a
mere 11 percent ofthat "life".
In conclusion, life in the residential streets is thus very much a question of the
residents' opportunities for staying, for doing, and for playing in the streets.
Physical elements which can directly support these "long duration" activities—and thus very directly affect "life in the streets"—have been investigated in
a study of 17 streets in and around Melbourne (Brack, Gehl and Thornton, 1977).
Major findings from this study—based on observation techniques—were that
70 percent of all "long duration" activities encountered were found to occur in
the semi-private front yards, while only 30 percent occurred on the pavements or
elsewhere in the streets. Another important finding concerned the actual layout
and detailing of the frontyards. Substantial differences concerning the use of
frontyards were found to be clearly related to detafls in design and dimensions.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
SHPR 3 (1986)
"Soft edges" in residential streets
95
Fig. 4. Street B parallell to Street A. Small frontyards of very useful dimensions for all the ground floor flats and a
remarkably high level of activity in the street and—especially—in the frontyards. The total amqunt of activities in
Street B was found to be 21 times higher than in Street A.
Front yards which were too narrow or otherwise without ample opportunities for
sitting were considerably less used. Thus to be useful for supporting life in the
streets the front yards have to be conductive to long duration activities, a quality
very well developed in the majority of Australian forecourts bordering the streets
of traditional terrace houses.
Taken as a whole this study strongly pointed to the semi-private front
yards—the "soft edges"—as a physical element of great importance for supporting life in the streets.
Further insight into these issues was gained in 1980-81 through a number of
comparative studies involving comparable settings in greater Copenhagen. That
survey will be exemplified by presenting two of the cases studied.
TWO CASE STORIES
Scene 1: Two parallel streets in a Copenhagen inner suburb
Both streets were built around 1940. Both have the same types of flats, comparable rents, and comparable groups of inhabitants. Street A has buildings with 4
storeys and small balconies, while street B has buildings with 3 storeys.
96
J. Gehl
SHPR 3 (1986)
» PERSON ON
BALCONY
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
r
i
A CHILDREN
• STANDING/
TALKING
O SHADING
O DOING
X SITTING
Fig. 5. Street A (above) and Street B (below). This
illustration shows all people present in the two
streets from a total of 20 "mappings" between 10
a.m. and 8 p.m. on a Saturday in June 1980. The
importance of the frontyards in Street B as a very
popular place for staying is quite evident.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
SHPR 3 (1986)
"Soft edges" in residential streets
Fig. 6. Street B. A nice summer evening by the entrance door. Children as well as grownups from the
upper stories use the street much more than in Street A because Street B is much more lively and
interesting. Life between the houses is a self-reinforcing process: People come were people are.
The major difference between the two streets is that street B has front gardens
belonging to the ground-floor flats, creating a "soft", usable edge in the public
space, while street A has a "hard" edge and no opportunities for staying in the
street. Both areas have interior courts. Those in street A are of appallingly poor
quality, those in street B of a reasonable and useful quality.
Street life in these two streets was studied simultaneously during a number of
summer days in 1980 (Bundgaard, Gehl and Skoven, 1982). The techniques used
were direct observations and recordings of all activities occurring in the streets,
courts, and balconies from dawn to dusk.
Street A with a very poor physical environment providing hardly any opportunities for outdoor stays either for children or for grownups was found to be
almost deserted throughout the study days (which were really fine summer days,
an opportunity seldom ignored by the Danes). The conclusion is that when the
physical layout is too poor, the majority of people simply do not leave their
homes, while a minority, a more energetic group go off to other areas, beaches,
parks and so on.
With front yards giving it a much better quality and detail, street B was found
to be very lively on the very same days. All told, the activity (total number of
minutes spent) in street B was found to be 21 times higher than that generated by
the same number of households in street A. The more detailed findings showed
7-868802
97
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
98
J. Gehl
Fig. 7. Hyldespjældet is a "low dense" housing area south of Copenhagen with excellent private
backgardens, but no opportunities for staying outside in front of the houses.
that the front gardens were widely used by adults. They spent much time there
sitting, eating, reading, knitting etc., taking in the street scene and the sunshine in
the process. The children (as was also found in the Australian and Canadian
studies) were rarely in the front gardens. Nearly all of them were on the
sidewalks and in the street proper. Furthermore, the high activity level in and
around the front gardens was seen to draw quite a few people from the upper two
storeys down to the street scene. Thus, "where people are, people will come".
The high level of overall activity in this street was not merely caused by more
people coming out into the public space, but especially by the fact that they spent
much more time out there because facilities for staying and sitting were provided.
This underlines the important fact that "activity" in a street is always a
product of time spent and numbers present, which again underlines that life in
public spaces is very much dependent on the facilities provided for staying there.
The case of street A underlines that if quality is too low, no one will use the
public spaces unless they have to. Coming and leaving are just about the only
events occurring. The case of street B underlines the enormous difference
suitable arrangements for staying can make to a street. The inhabitants of all
generations are provided with a place to go and somewhere to stay.
Furthermore, they can bring out their various domestic activities into the
street. These opportunities were at hand in street B, and they were found to be
extensively used.
SHPR 3 (1986)
SHPR
3 (1986)
"Soft edges" in residential streets
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
Scene 2: Two housing areas in a suburb south of Copenhagen
"Hyldespjældet" and "Galgebakken" are two housing areas of the "low rise,
medium density" wave of the 1970s. Both were built between 1972 and 1975. They
are both public housing areas for rent, and they were inhabited at just about the
same time by very comparable groups of inhabitants. Furthermore, the two areas
are of comparable size and close to each other.
The one striking difference between the two areas is the fact that the second
area "Galgebakken" has a semi-private forecourt constituting a buffer zone
between the dwellings and the public access lanes, while "Hyldespjældet" has no
such facilities. Furthermore, these forecourts are very carefully designed and
detailed.
With most other factors as stable as can be achieved the outdoor spaces
available are as follows:
Hyldespjældet
Park/communal green
Streets and squares
Access lanes
Private back gardens
Back lanes
Galgebakken
Park/communal green
Streets and squares
Access lanes
Forecourts
Private back gardens
Back lanes
One has the forecourts—the other has not. Would there be a difference in
activity patterns in these two areas? This was the subject of another set of studies
carried out simultaneously in the two areas during the summer of 1980 (Bundgaard, Gehl and Skoven, 1982).
The studies were carried out over a number of days in June and August. Once
more, the methods used were direct observation techniques, recording every 30
minutes the number and whereabouts of all persons being outdoors in the two
areas.
The main conclusions from this study were that in the area with the forecourts
35 percent more people used the outdoor areas than in the other area with the
same number of households, but lacking forecourts. Furthermore it was obvious
from the location of the observed activities that the reason for this marked
difference was indeed the existence of semi-private forecourts in the more lively
housing area.
To put it in another way, the existence in one area of a more varied and better
designed array of outdoor spaces—and especially the provision of a highly useful
semi-private forecourt—led to a considerably higher level of activities in the
outdoor areas. It was easier to leave the private dwellings and pass from the
private into the public area.
One striking finding about the forecourt areas was that they were used twice as
much as the backyards. This indicates that given the option between staying in a
secluded private backyard or staying in an open semi-private forecourt on the
public side of the houses, the latter was favoured twice as often as the former. It
should be noted that 50 percent of the houses face west and 50 percent face east
giving equal access to sunlit back gardens and forecourts at any time.
99
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
100 J. Gehl
Fig. 8. Galgebakken is a "low dense" housing area south of Copenhagen with excellent private
backgardens as well as a very carefully designed frontyard facing the access lane.
These findings indicate that many people actually appreciate being in and using
the public spaces, and being in touch with life in these areas provided they are
given an acceptable physical arrangement. In this study it was again evident that
the edge zones with activity opportunities were used especially frequently by
adults—a group which in most housing areas is neglected in terms of opportunities for staying or doing anything in the shared spaces.
It is indeed interesting to note that when these opportunities were provided,
they were found to be quite intensively used. It merits attention that in academic
discussions the semi-private front yards have been accused of "drawing people
away from the public areas and into the realm of privacy".
Indeed, reality was found to be almost entirely the opposite. The existence of
semi-private transition zones was found to assist the inhabitants in passing from
their private homes to the public realm. The forecourts helped the inhabitants to
"take the first and most difficult step" from their homes to the shared spaces.
LIFE IN RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Described above is a series of studies carried out in Australia, Canada and
Scandinavia, all of them analysing the influence of "soft edges"—(front yards,
SHPR 3 (1986)
"Soft edges" in residential streets
SHPR 3 (1986)
Averages from 1é Counts on each of Two Saturdays in
Summer 1980. Numbers outside columns represent total
number of activities
Numbers inside columns represent the percentage
distribution of activities for each area type
-^.Ch i 1 d r e n A
Adults
Standing
Adults
Sitting
Adults
Acting
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
Green Area
Streets and
squares
Entrance
path
33
10
10 S
t
W////A
24 (4
[2 22
Front
garden
so
Back
garden
Back path
Entrance path
Back
garden
•2
21 M
6
9
GALGEBAKKEN
Green Area
Streets and squares
59
,Back path
Fig. 9. Use of outdoor areas in
Hyldespjældet and Galgebakken.
HYLDESPJÆLDET
porches, semi-private forecourts)—on the life in residential streets in neighbourhoods with terraced housing of low apartment houses with either light or no
vehicular traffic as exemplified by the new Danish "low dense" areas.
The findings from all three continents are similar. This should not be surprising, given the fact that the physical layout and detailing in the streets are—in
principle—alike. In each case, the residents had access to a well dimensioned
space, an area, e.g. a porch or a front yard on the street side of the houses. That
this facility is found to be used in various ways cannot be surprising. Actually it
would be more surprising if a number of households were each given an extra
room or space, and none found any use for this facility.
More interesting, however, is the finding that placing this extra space in the
borderland between house and sidewalk generally seems to be a factor strengthening the life on the residential streets. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that
this opportunity is primarily used by adults, i.e. groups which traditionally have
very few opportunities for staying on the public side of the houses for any length
of time.
"Soft edges" in their various forms are thus definitely a factor of significant
importance for determining the existence or no-existence of "life" in residential
streets. However, it is important to point out that they only represent one among
a number of factors important to life in the residential streets of the types studied.
Other factors of importance would be the density of dwellings and inhabitants,
the type and heights of the buildings, street dimensions, modes and intensity of
101
102
J. Gehl
SHPR 3 (1986)
traffic, climatic conditions, street furniture, as well as factors related to culture,
lifestyles and preferences.
Highlighting "soft edges" as a very important area is thus pointing to one
among several important issues. On the other hand, they are a very obvious point
of departure for supporting life in residential streets.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 19:37 09 October 2014
REFERENCES
Appleyard, D. and M. Lintell (1972) "The Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents
Viewpoint", Journal of American Institute of Planners 38: 84-101.
• Brack, F., J. Gehl and S. Thornton (1977) The Interface between Public and Private Territories in
Residential Areas. Melbourne: Melbourne University.
Bundgaard, A., J. Gehl and E. Skoven (1982) "Bløde kanter i boligområder—sammenfatning og
konklusion" (Soft Edges in Housing Areas—Summary and Conclusion), Arkitekten 84: 421-438.
Crime Prevention Board (1984) Kriminalpræventive overvejelser om miljøplanlægning. (Crime Prevention Aspects of Environmental Planning.) Copenhagen: Crime Prevention Board (Notat 13).
Gehl, J. (1966) "Mennesker i Byer" (People in Towns), Arkitekten 68: 425-443.
— (1968) "Mennesker till fods" (Pedestrians), Arkitekten 70: 429-446.
— (1980 a) Livet mellem husene. (Life between the Buildings.) Copenhagen: Arkitektens Forlag.
— (1980b) "The Residential Street Environment", Built Environment 6: 51-61.
— (1984) "The Downfall and the Renaissance of Public Spaces", University of Colorado, Boulder,
Proceedings, 4 Pedestrian Design Conference.
Whyte, W. H. (1980) Social Life in Small Urban Spaces. Washington: The Conservation Foundation.