CC BY
57Russian Journal of Logistics and Transport Management, Vol.1, No.1, 2014
© Jacek Szoltysek
University of Economics in Katowice
LIBERATING URBAN SPACE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY LOGISTICS STRATEGY
Abstract
The article is devoted to considerations on liberating urban space for city inhabitants, particularly with reference to transforming non-public space into public space. To achieve this goal a city logistics policy has to be defined accordingly. Objectives of the policy in question are specified in the article. One of the prerequisites for success is attributed to shaping transportation behaviours and building a wide social consensus in the context of the policy objectives.
Keywords: Public Space, private space, city logistics, city logistics policy.
1 Urban space dilemma
Every city in this world is unique. There is no doubt about that. Each city has its own identity, its own unmistakable character, an individual spirit, and inhabitants with certain definite characteristics and behaviour patterns. If just one of these elements were missing or came to be replaced, the city would no longer be itself (Wulfhorst, Priester, and Miramontes, 2013, pp. 6). Space, people, noise, constructions, nature and congestion are only some elements that describe a contemporary city. For many years, a city has been defined to be “a densely populated area of permanent inhabitation where no food is produced”. This dogma is being questioned today. Since always, unique nature of a city has probably been characterised by population density and intensity of interactions. These factors are connected with space - both physical and spiritual. Space is of great importance for a city. A city by means of space makes its users to move. Space may seem to be mainly public, i.e. it belongs to everybody and nobody. However, in any city there is also private space. Private places are not freely accessible, and have controllers who limit access to or use of that space. Also: things that primarily concern individuals and not collectives, and things and places that are individually owned, including things that are cognitively ‘our own’, like our thoughts, goals, emotions, spirituality, preferences (Parkinson, 2012, pp.51-52).
Nature of space is characterised by the way property rights are executed. A fundamental division into public and private space was developed by Oscar Newman, the author of the book entitled “Defensible Space” in the early seventies of the last century. Private space was supervised by people who
47
controlled the space in question totally, i.e. they were able to decide who could enter the space and who could not. On the other hand, public space was for Newman nobody’s space - he did not describe public space in this category but it was possible to reach this conclusion reading his works (Nawratek, 2012, pp. 36). Moreover, Newman (1972) introduced one more category of space: “If we attempt to categorize the grounds as either private, semiprivate, semi-public, or public, we would have to conclude that there are yards are certainly private because they belong to individual families and are only accessible from the interior of each unit” (Newman, 1972, pp. 15). The following definition of a city is persuading: “The city is a collective space belonging to all who live in it. These have the right to conditions which allow their own political, social and ecological development but at the same time accepting a commitment to solidarity” (European Charter, 2000, pp.4). This definition describes space as urban areas that meet basic needs of city inhabitants, i.e. have social facilities including streets, parks, squares, i.e. places where everybody can spend their time in any way, of course if this way is allowed. The way space is organised is of much importance while creating contacts between people who stay in the space in question. Establishing interpersonal bonds and relationships is a key task to be faced by well-organised places of public utility. Such places that positively influence interpersonal relationships are referred to as pro-social space. This space creates a sense of safety and makes people use it willingly, which allows for establishing new, positive relationships. Therefore, the space meets its objectives (Honkisz, 2013).
Public space is very difficult to define, not least because very few spaces and places are, or ever have been, truly public. As a concept, public space can be traced back at the very least to the ancient Greek agora, while throughout history, forums, parks, commons, market places, squares and streets have been seen as the embodiment of public space.
In Ancient Greece the agora or marketplace was the place where citizens came to meet, talk, trade and vote, intertwining the concepts of democracy and citizenship with public space. But as citizenship rights in ancient Greek democracy were only awarded to free, non-foreign men and denied to slaves, women and foreigners (Mitchell, 1995, pp. 108-133) more than half the population were not part of this ‘public’, excluded from the arena for debate. Lack of inclusion, then, as much as citizenship, has characterized the nature of ‘public’ space from the outset. Public spaces are freely accessible places where ‘everything that happens can be observed by anyone’, where strangers are encountered whether one wants to or not, because everyone has free right of entry (Parkinson, 2012, pp. 51). Access is therefore, clearly a key component of public space, as is the question of who controls the space (Low, 2004), determining who is or is not allowed to use it. Of course, ownership too, while not always the determining factor behind how a space is used and controlled, tends to play a central role (Minton, 2006, pp. 2).
48
Public space occupies an important ideological position in democratic societies. The notion of urban public space can be traced back at least to the Greek agora and its function as: “the place of citizenship, an open space where public affairs and legal disputes were conducted... it was also a marketplace, a place of pleasurable jostling, where citizens’ bodies, words, actions, and produce were literally on mutual display, and where judgments, decisions, and bargains were made” (Hartley, 1992, pp. 29-30).
Urban space is managed by its inhabitants. Therefore, can men divide urban space into public and private parts or can people allow for a combination of both forms? Perhaps, the division into public and private spaces does not have any sense any more. As was mentioned before, people in their quantity and the density of their interactions decide unique nature of any city. A city is characterised in this respect by social networks in virtual space. That is why, a city should differ from virtual space by existence of physical space. The more public space, the more chance for personal interactions, which leads to city success.
2 Liberating space
According to K. Nawratek, neither public nor private space exists. In his opinion nowadays people deal with densifying and diluting overlapping areas of interests and influences as a result of determining accessibility of space. Accessibility does not mean only two categories: accessible and inaccessible. New questions emerge: who is it accessible for? Who is it inaccessible for? When? How much is it going to cost? (Bawratek, 2012, pp. 36).The author agrees with this position. Authorities try to limit access to public space for their political opponents. In democratic countries authorities have a wide range of legal instruments that make it difficult to occupy public space. Public space is also occupied, as a result of transportation related needs roads and transportation facilities involved. Finally, supporters and opponents of transportation fight to get access to public space. Emergence of guerrilla gardening who fight to liberate public space from dominance of vehicles translates into zero-one understanding of urban space properties.
The role of urban space may be understood depending on the model of urban community development. One model is based on consumption, whereby people use advertising to choose an array of products that will bring them personal and individual pleasure. They work hard to afford those purchases, and in being able to buy the goods that are constantly promoted, they believe they will experience happiness, which at a national level is measured albeit rather indirectly through economic growth. The other model is based on social networks, wherein people’s links to community - interactions with family, neighbours and friends - brings a lasting contentment and even happiness. In the one, moments of pleasure and joy can be purchased; in the other, they are freely
49
available in daily encounters on the streets, in parks and in other public spaces. In the one, possessions represent the highest pursuit of happiness, with a never-ending race to buy more and more in order to capture moments of pleasure, and with selfishness considered a virtue; in the other, happiness comes from interactions, from relationships, from people (Efroymson, Thanh Ha, and Thu Ha, 2009, pp.10-11). In both models (particularly in the latter) it is possible to see some tendency to increase public space to be used in the way that allows for interactions between people in their direct contact. Streets are included in different forms of public space. However, a question whether they belong to public space emerges because streets in a majority of cases are occupied by vehicles and therefore, personal interactions between people are excluded. Streets are an important part of the landscape of everyday life. People relay on them for such daily activities as travel, shopping, and interaction with friends and relatives. Much social life and learning occurs along streets. Yet there is now (Mark Francis wrote this in 80’s XX century) growing concern that streets become “privatized”, denying people basic rights of access, use and enjoyment. Empirical research, historical analysis, and some demonstrations projects begin to show that good streets are democratic streets, i.e. streets that have meaning for people, invite access for all, encourage use and participation, are loved, and are well cared by their users. These basic qualities of street democracy may be vanishing from our towns, cities, and neighbourhoods (Francis, 1987, pp. 23). If that happens, streets have to be recovered. This concept of a city with recovered streets may be found in the following interesting work: “Public Spaces. How they Humanize Cities”: “Liveable cities includes the concept of living streets, a concept that may sound strange to those familiar with lively streets. Unfortunately for the residents thereof, there are in fact many of them even in low-income cities: streets void of people if not of motorized traffic; barren sidewalks empty of pedestrians or vendors or kids playing or people talking. Just...streets. Streets reduced, stripped, to one basic function: the circulation of vehicles. A necessary but hardly sufficient function. How much more enjoyable to be in a part of the city full of people, vitality, life. Groups of people seated on low stools eating at informal sidewalk restaurants. A prosperous cafe that spills over onto the sidewalk. A toddler pedalling a toy vehicle. An elderly couple playing badminton. Shopkeepers and manicurists, leaning in the doorway of their shops watching the drama of the streets. People arranging floral wreaths. Men painting signs, fixing bicycles, cutting hair. Incense and prayer beads and paper money sold by elderly women at stands in front of a pagoda. Fresh fruits sold from bicycle carts and sidewalk displays. Fresh cut flowers. Pottery. Peanuts. Never far to go to eat, drink, shop, observe, be entertained. Those who are used to living streets may long for “dead” ones, where cars and motorbikes move freely (or so the theory goes), where traffic laws operate, where vendors are banned. Of course to be consistent, such a city would also keep its sidewalks free of parked vehicles. No loitering, please. No more shopping without having
50
to get off your motorbike. No more familiar vendors reserving the last glass of juice, selecting the tastiest fruits, making the best to you, for you. Efficiency. Speed. The impersonal.” (Efroymson, Thanh Ha, and Thu Ha, 2009, pp.122123) Therefore, urban space should be liberated in the maximal possible way from all inconveniences that are generated by transportation. People should be able to walk the streets; not just young and able-bodied people, but children, the elderly, and those with disabilities. The sidewalks should be shared by vendors and pedestrians, by those stopping for a chat or a meal, and those trying to get somewhere. There should be space on some sidewalks for young children to learn to ride a bike and for people to play badminton. People should not be terrified of being hit by a motorbike, or have to gasp from the traffic fumes, when trying to walk.
3 Strategy of the city logistics in liberating a city from vehicles - premises
One of the city logistics objectives is to prevent congestion understood as a phenomenon that limits or even makes it impossible for any contemporary city to develop. Logisticians’ skills should translate into specific tasks undertaken by cities in the context of regulating access of vehicles to road infrastructure in a city. Rules of dividing public space into spaces accessible and inaccessible for transportation should also be taken into account. In case of those two categories of accessibility and inaccessibility there is some room for space that is characterised by limited access for transportation. Vuchic (2011) in his book “Transportation for Livable Cities” suggests the following rule (Vuchic 2011,
pp. 12):
1. A pedestrian is always more important than a car. A cyclist is more important than a car. A city bus or tram is more important than a car. All cars are equal. A car in motion is more important than a car parked - the former is useful, the latter is not. Moreover, parking is not permitted on pavements, yards (if a yard does not belong to the person, wishing to park) and in all places where a car parked may somehow disturb movement of cars and pedestrians or public transportation.
2. The only place found in the urban space where vehicle users would not be somehow persecuted and where they would not see pedestrians, cyclists or public transportation stops is a network of freeways located outside urbanized areas. No progressive metropolis can function without a well-designed and functional stratification of street network. The first basic contour is provided by streets that are mainly occupied by pedestrians who go underground only to use underground transportation - not in order to cross a particular street. Vehicle speed is exactly defined and limited, and traffic lights are located practically everywhere it is necessary. The other contour is provided by freeways that are exclusively used by vehicle drivers. Transfer speeds are high
51
(in case of some standards they may be up to 100 miles per hour or sometimes no limits may be set). Junctions are rare or they are not available at all. There are no pedestrians and traffic lights.
3. Each place in urban space - streets, junctions, pavements and yards - is owned by somebody. Owners may include municipal authorities or entities that own properties, flats or condominiums. Parking without owner’s permission is an offence. In particular, parking in areas that belong to municipal authorities is allowed only in places signed accordingly and it is subject to charges.
4. Parking is subject to charges excluding few exceptions. The amount of the charge to be paid is progressive and depends on the vicinity to the city centre.
In any liveable city it is always more comfortable to walk. In cities and downtowns cars do not stop in streets or at least in main streets. Stopping cars is only possible in case of the kiss-and-ride mode. Parking or stopping cars on pavements is blocked by accessible technical means or by administrative bans whose infringement is subject to high penalties.
The rules presented above and agreed by the author may be set as objectives of a city logistics policies realized. Success in the development and realization of future-capable strategies of mobility in cities will only be possible when people identify and take into account the many and varied factors that are involved in the urban system. Meeting these goals requires implementation of the whole set of tools and calls for undertaking some actions through a few years. One of the city logistics tasks (co-shared with other areas of city management) realised to meet the goals mentioned above is to shape transportation solutions. This area is significantly important since it decides any success in implementing the city logistics policy. Convincing people that they have to change their transportation behaviours, particularly in those communities that are used to driving personal cars not because they need to but just because of the prestige involved are a complicated task. Shaping transportation behaviours is a process that involves constant and diversified strengthening of city users’ behaviours that are closer to target behaviours understood as preferring selected and more effective from the perspective of a city means of public transportation as basic methods of changing locations. Diversified strengthening means that preferred behaviours that belong to one group of behaviours are rewarded, whereas other behaviours that used to be rewarded or not discriminated previously are not strengthened any more. As a result, probability that a particular group of behaviours is observed goes up or down. Shaping modality partly results from shaping behaviours and partly from a form of travelling imposed in a particular city. Such a process usually requires implementation of many stages. It is long lasting. Instant progress is not frequently observed. However, systematically implemented rules allow for learning and establishing target behaviours (Szoltysek, 2011, pp. 103-107). Such
52
target behaviours have to comply with four rules of a liveable city mentioned above. First of all, it is necessary to start with increasing some travel potential for pedestrians in the city although these can result in some accusations about favouring pedestrians and forgetting an important role of public transport.
The principal objective of local public transport is seen as being that of highlighting alternatives to the passenger car and offering mobility services to all city dwellers. But at the same time those cities and regions, which have low population density in certain areas, are faced with a dilemma in keeping public transport services cost-effective.
The way people design cities can considerably influence the way they move for decade to come. Cities should be planned and designed to encourage men to walk more rather than using private vehicles. Planners should focus on the overall pedestrian experience when designing the layout and character of urban street and infrastructure. Overall walkability of cities can be improved by the following measures:
• The development of car-free areas: Car-free areas can take many shapes and forms, depending on the context of the city. Approaches could range from the traffic calming of a single street (via the introduction of speed bumps or chicanes) to a totally car-free city (Wrigh, 2005). The development of car-free areas within a city is relatively easier to enforce than, say, parking regulations because entry points into the zone can be secured against violating traffic - as opposed to policing a whole area. The technological requirements are also lower, compared with, say, congestion charging.
• Walkable street design: The development of pedestrian-friendly streets requires serious consideration of a number of factors early in the planning process. For instance, cellular development concepts that locate a variety of important destinations within close proximity including schools, grocery and retail stores, office buildings would encourage people to walk more. Key elements include: safety features such as increased lighting, reduced vehicle speeds and effective traffic signals and crosswalks; efficient street networks that allow for greater route choice; convenient access to mass transit options; installing clear and direct signage; widening of streets for people instead of widening for cars; creating space for urban greenery, such as street trees, seating areas and shelter to more effectively accommodate pedestrians. Simultaneously, it is necessary to remember that providing a sufficient level of mobility in a city does influence assessment of a particular city as a place for potential domicile. Mobility is a decisive factor in the attractiveness of cities. At the same time changes implemented cannot harm city interests in the context of supplies that allow for meeting all users’ needs at some level. Removing vehicles from cities and transforming them in walking zones only may result in some fiasco for the cities involved because business,
53
administration, trade and production may face some threats. Moreover, all these sectors will have to deal with an unjustifiable increase in costs related to the way they function that could decrease their competitiveness and increase inhabitants’ costs of living.
Introducing any changes must be accompanied by great social support. It is vital to work closely with the media. Reducing road space available for cars can provoke sensationalist, negative headlines; be warned that adverse publicity can be very hard to counteract. From the start, provide the media with all information possible and involve them in the unfolding ’story’. Brief them on all the benefits of the scheme, but also the potential problems that may arise, especially during the early stages of the scheme (European Commission, 2004, pp. 50).
The “implementation of strategy” control loop (Fig. 1) below illustrates a scenario for the successful shaping of the process. Above all, effective administration is essential if the political intent of a city is to issue an appropriate strategy. Planning organization is the foundation here for successful implementation of a transport strategy. This strategic planning level must be protected against undue influence from changing political majorities and interest groups, if a long-term strategy of urban and transport development is to be securely anchored in a city (Wulfhorst, Priester, and Miramontes, 2013, pp.46).
Legend
System variable Strengthening effect © ^ Weakening effect
Time delated effect © ’ ’ ^ Effect still relatively inconspicuous
Fig.1. The implementation of strategy control loop. Source: Wulfhorst, Priester, and Miramontes (2013, p.46)
4 Conclusions
Cities are hardly completely car-free. Sometimes, car access is essential for some functions: for inhabitant, for logistics, for events or for emergency. The approach in this article is based on reducing car access to a minimum and parking cars is not allowed anymore. Visitors cannot access the centre by car. New parking facilities outside the city centre should be constructed for visitors and inhabitants. Essential measurement is the reduction of parking spaces:
54
changing streets and squares from car-dominant occupation into high quality and attractive public space.
The city offers three types of domains in public space:
1. pedestrian zone - for pedestrians only (bikes sometimes allowed)
2. car-free zone - priority for pedestrians and bikes, cars allowed as ‘guest’
3. other - all traffic allowed.
A car-free city requires controlled access points, access street for logistics, short-time parking facilities nearby, long-time parking facilities at the edges. A clear parking system, including guiding, is essential to provide quick access to the city. These assumptions should be used as foundations of any city logistics policies to be created and to be supported socially.
References
Efroymson, D., Thanh Ha, T. K. T., & Thu Ha, P. (2009). Public Spaces: How They Humanize Cities. Dhaka: HealthBridge - WBB Trust.
European Charter for the Safeguarding of Human Rights in the City (2000). Part I, Paragraph 1.1., Saint-Denis, France.
European Commission (2004). Reclaiming city streets for people. Chaos or quality of life?, EU Directoriate-General for the Environment.
Francis, M. (1987). The Making of Democratic Streets, In: A.V. Moudon, & D. Appleyard (Eds.), Public Streets for Public Use, (pp.23-39). New York: Columbia University Press.
Hartley, J. (1992). The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media. London: Routledge.
Honkisz, M. (2013). Przestrzeh miasta - jak wpfywa na czlowieka?,
Figeneration.pl/przestrzen-miasta-jak-wplywa-na-czlowieka Accessed 20.04 13.
Low, S. M. (2004). New Scope for the Public Realm. Special Issue: The Future of New York, 1, 151-158.
Minton, A. (2006). The privatisation of public space. London: RICS.
Mitchell, D. (1995). The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85 (1), 108-133. Nawratek, K. (2012). Holes throughout. Introduction to Urban Revolution. Warsaw: Political Criticism Publisher.
Newman, O. (1972). Creating Defensible Spaces. New York: Macmillan.
Parkinson, J.R. (2012). Democracy and Public Space. The Physical Sites of Democratic Performance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Szoltysek, J. (2011). Creating mobility of the urban population. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Business.
Vuchic, V. (2011). Transportation for Livable Cities. Moscow: Territory of the Future Publisher.
Wright, L. (2005). Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities, Module 3e: Car-Free Development. www.sutp.org Accessed 27.02.12. Wulfhorst, G., Priester, R., & Miramontes, M. (2013). What Cities Want, How cities plan future mobility. A Study by the Technische Universitat Munchen and MAN. Munich: MAN SE.
55
