Hence, been making discourses among urban researchers

Hence, it is difficult to enact the
separation between public and private spaces in everyday life, because social
relations in spaces mean that there is a constant blurring. The notion of space
is linked to ‘function’ as well as representation and use (Banerjee
2001; Carmona 2010a; Crang 2000; Gehl 2011). In this way, different types of
spaces are frequently characterised along
a continuum: public space (e.g. streets, malls, and parks), semi-public space
(e.g. museum, theatre, and cinema), and
notionally private, but collective space (e.g. church, mosque, and temple). The latter has an enabling power
as it connects individuals together and defines a set of relations; people with
different identities who might or might not be known to each other come to space and share their cultural/religious
values. For all situations, such as land ownership, operational conditions,
management, and use will also affect the
positioning of spaces and places along the private-public continuum.

Inclusiveness
in public space

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Distinguishing clearly between public space and private space in an urban environment have been making discourses
among urban researchers (Carmona
2010b; Kirby 2008; Madanipour 2003; Weintraub 1995). But which dimension is important
for defining public or private space, in this research different approaches
have been discussed, but one of the significant characteristics for public
space is looking at the space physically
and being accessible for all groups. Parkinson
(2012) claims that the physical aspect of
public space is a platform for meeting various needs of publicity in the society
which can make a significant influence on social space. Conventionally, the
ownership of space is the benchmark to consider space as public or private, for
being public it is not necessary to be owned by the governments (Carr
1992; Kohn 2004; Miller 2007). With regarding the notion of
publicity and privacy in the space, the new relationship has been emerged to
show the identity or culture of space by intending them to be open and
accessible for all public. However, if the public
should pay to be in a space which is open, it wouldn’t be defined a public
space, like entering some museums and centers.
In addition, Franck
and Paxson (1989) mention that paying to be in any
space might exclude some part of society and make segregation among
communities.

In terms of how public spaces, are
being used various types of activities are seen in the public spaces, from
focusing outdoors events to indenting social needs (Carr
1992; Cattell, Gesler & Curtis 2006; Keller 2010). The use of public space is
different by purpose and the period of time, what they want to do, how long do
they stay, all of these depend on providing opportunities for different groups
to meet their needs and socialize and share their individuality to boost the
social interactions between gender, ethnicity, race, religion, and culture. Lofland
(1998) sees this process as an exchanging opinion that support the development of the public realm or
as other scholars called public sphere (Calhoun
1992; Gulick 1998) to learn and accept their
diversities. In some situations, particularly in the multicultural societies,
public space is a platform for minorities to represent their identity and
accommodate it in the fabric of the society, as Altman
and Chemers (1984) highlights, public space is
presenting people to each other, expressing what they believe and make a
uniqueness and personal stamp on it, this appropriation in the public space
named ‘taken space’ (Staeheli
2010).   

The symbolic meaning of public
spaces might be created by cultural activities and have taken by multicultural
people (Franck
& Paxson 1989). In this term, one particular
cultural community tends to take over in
public spaces and show themselves in the larger society by accurate
connections, can be seen temporary of newly created (Carr
1992), or can be developed cultural
identifications and representations for ethnic groups (Low
1997). In many western and secular
society, the state government laws don’t allow communities to possess their
symbolic ideas in the public spaces where they live, but whether or not, spaces
have been changed by users and people who shaped it gradually and have removed
special meaning and replaced them by newly created ones.

For making any new concept of
public space, people should learn and know about it first, to make it more
inclusive and general. Whyte
(1980) suggests that certain design
features need to consider to attract people, also Gehl
(1987) notes that several design features
may increase people to remind in the space but it doesn’t guarantee how long
they stay and how they are attracted by various types of activities and Carr
(1992) raises that the visual and
symbolic activities are important to make a space more inclusive. However, it
may attract just one certain group and
may not understandable for others, this time the people’s perceptions and
awareness are notable to make that space comfortable to use and make that space
inclusive for all. People mostly like to be safe and invited to space with unfamiliar physical
characteristics, but what makes them not
welcome into space and not feel relaxed
being inside, could affect the inclusiveness of the space (Miller
2007; Németh & Schmidt 2007; Peterson 2006).