The article is from A&B issue 4|24
Privately OwnedPublic Spaces (POPS, or Privately Owned Public Spaces) have changed the face of many cities around the world. They have emerged as a result of formal incentives addressed by local authorities to investors. They have resulted in vibrant places, open to everyone, where residents want to spend their time. And although the path of development of the idea of POPS began more than a century ago, Poland still lacks such solutions. They are being built next to some office complexes or as revitalizations of areas that already had a similar purpose. Developers' pursuit of savings in housing construction - which is, after all, predominant in our country - causes them to abandon planned and qualitative development of socially useful spaces. However, this unfavorable trend can be reversed. Good regulations and the right lessons learned from the experience of cities such as New York and Tokyo will suffice.
it started in New York
As early as 1916, New Yorkers understood that providing streets with adequate access to air and natural light in such a rapidly growing city required the introduction of an appropriate law. At the time, they passed the Zoning Resolution, which forced newly constructed buildings to set back on the upper floors, creating air corridors and making it easier for sunlight to reach the ground. An example of a building that fully implemented these principles is the iconic Empire State Building (designed by Shreve, Lamb & Harmon) It was completed in 1931 and has been called the quintessential architecture of the so-called wedding cake. Typical of the time, buildings of this type expanded downward, creating a stepped silhouette. They often filled with their outline practically the entire plot of land intended for development.
New York - Domino Park, design: James Corner Fields Operations
photo: Mateusz Cyganek
The local approach to urban planning changed over the years. In contrast to the Empire State, the Seagram Building (designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe) was built, completed in 1958. The lump of the building is simple, being an extended rectangle. Limiting the built-up area and leaving considerable space open for public use, the building signaled the beginning of a new era in urban planning. Not only the aesthetics of residential and office buildings were becoming a priority, but also their usability at street level. The lessons learned from the functionality of the Seagram Building became the reason for the creation of the 1916 Resolution Amendment in the 1960s.
what is POPS?
The term Privately Owned Public Spaces - POPS for short - is due to urban planning professor Jerold S. Kayden, who made a kind of redefinition of what the aforementioned 1961 amendment initiated in urban space. In his 2000 book, Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience, which he published in conjunction with the New York City Department of Planning and the Municipal Art Society, Professor Kayden analyzed several decades of experience applying the principles flowing from the revised Zoning Resolution. The intention of its drafters was to encourage private developers to create publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas, arcades and atriums, as part of their developments. In return, investors were permitted to develop taller buildings with greater total area and intensity. As in the early 20th century, the regulatory changes proposed by the New York City authorities stemmed from a desire to bring light and air into the dense grid of streets in Manhattan at the time. To do this, it was necessary to reach for planning means other than those used previously. Kayden's study became so groundbreaking that the title of his book came to refer to those points of urban space where there is a dynamic interaction between investors' private interests and public access.
New York - Domino Park, design: James Corner Fields Operations
photo: Marta Golec
POPS development in New York City
While the idea of POPS seemed promising, many of their early developments fell short of expectations in terms of use value. Developers, taking advantage of the opportunity to increase the development area, often minimized the contribution to the quality of these spaces. The result was inaccessible and unfriendly spaces for users. The lack of clear guidelines and precise design and functional requirements meant that these places, while technically accessible, had marginal real value for residents. Instead of becoming meeting and recreation points, such POPS inadvertently turned into undeveloped empty zones, parking lots, or technical areas of buildings.
The divergence of assumptions and effects caused the Resolution to be updated several times between 1968 and 1975 to eliminate earlier mistakes and reduce the abuses that occurred. Public spaces were divided into five categories: elevated plazas, sunken plazas, block arcades, covered pedestrian spaces and outdoor spaces with roofing. The classification was intended not only to increase the variety of types of POPS available, but also to improve their quality so that they become more functional and attractive to visitors.
New York - Manhattan West (Subarea B2).
Photo: Mateusz Cyganek
The evolution of New York's POPS system over the years has moved toward better understanding and meeting the needs of the city's residents. The introduction of more rigorous design standards, attention to the maintenance and activation of spaces, and integration with environmental considerations have significantly improved the quality and accessibility of POPS. New York now offers about 353,000 square meters of additional public space, and it is steadily increasing, adding more green, accessible and functional spaces. In turn, a flexible approach to urban planning means that new types of public amenities are emerging, such as spaces for the arts, improvements to subway infrastructure and affordable housing.
Current regulations set the minimum required area for public plazas realized as POPS at roughly 186 square meters. This is a sufficient size to create pocket parks, for example, where seating, plantings and other necessary amenities can be comfortably arranged. Public plazas must consist of at least 20 percent planted areas (in the form of planting beds, ground cover or accessible lawns), which promotes increased landscape diversity and prevents over-hardening of the area. In addition, at least four trees are required in each public square, as well as small architecture in the form of freestanding chairs, tables, trash cans and bicycle racks.
The larger the square area, the higher the requirements. Medium-sized ones must have at least one of the following additional amenities: a sculpture, a fountain or decorative pool, a children's playground, or freestanding outdoor food services. An area larger than about 930 square meters means three additional amenities are required. By default, all private public plazas are open to the public 24 hours a day, year-round.Closing the plazas overnight is allowed only with the approval of the Municipal Planning Commission.
New York - Vessel, pro: Heatherwick Studio
photo: Mateusz Cyganek
POPS set out into the world
Private public spaces have gained popularity around the world, and have become an important element of urban planning. As early as the late 1960s, large North American cities such as San Francisco and Toronto followed the lead of New York and introduced a similar system.
Even earlier, in 1964, regulations were introduced to reward the development of public spaces on private lots in Tokyo. Unlike Western cities, most Japanese cities developed primarily in an unplanned manner. Tokyo was characterized by a lack of a clear center and large shortages of public space. The implementation of POPS was seen as a viable tool to leverage private capital to overcome severe infrastructure deficiencies.
The development of planning policies brought greater qualitative demands on developers. Bonus points were established for certain project activities, making it possible to steer private capital according to current needs. For example, in the 1990s in the Japanese capital, the realization of quality public spaces in the center of the city was given a high premium for residential developments. This revived a declining real estate market and encouraged residents to return to a depopulated neighborhood.
Tokyo, Ōtemachi Tower building, proj: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates.
photo: © Michael Vito
Due to countless investments in railroad and infrastructure projects, developments in the immediate vicinity of railroads, such as pedestrian overpasses or public terraces, were also highly favored. Today, the total area of open space created through POPS is three times larger in Tokyo than in New York. Tokyo's POPS are seen not only as generators of additional usable space, but also as a panacea for various urban problems.
not always colorful
Santiago, Chile, began using incentive zoning to create public spaces in the 1970s. Activities in this city can be divided into two phases. First, the newly created spaces were the result of the guidelines set forth in the master plan by city planners and the city's negotiations with developers. Lanes and patios had to maintain a human scale and be equipped with an appropriate mix of materials and urban furniture. A change in approach occurred in the 1990s, and POPS have since been created based on general and quantitative guidelines without the participation of planners and without the approval of the City. The basic guideline for obtaining a bonus was to open up to the neighboring street. This translated into a significant increase in the number of such spaces in the city, with a corresponding decrease in their quality. The public character of POPS was no longer a priority. Developers began to make planning decisions guided by private interests and their own taste. Private public spaces turned primarily into thoroughfares rather than places to stay.
Toronto - 120 Bloor Street East, designed by Salter Farrow Pilon, Farrow Partners.
photo: © City of Toronto
POPS have also failed to catch on in Bangkok. A resolution rewarding the creation of publicly accessible public spaces in exchange for an increase in the plot's FAR parameter (ratio of floor area to building plot area) was promulgated in 2006. However, due to the relatively small profit generated by increasing FAR by 5 percent, few developers have chosen to take advantage of the bonus. Another problem specific to Thailand is a general lack of public understanding of the function of public spaces. A study by Chulalongkorn University found that events related to commercial activities, entertainment or religious ceremonies are a factor in activity in public spaces, yet urban residents prefer to commute by car and stay in air-conditioned interiors. Copying the Western model of public space without understanding the cultural and climatic context has contributed to wasted potential.
Many new POPS have been built in Bangkok, but they are mostly abandoned and neglected due to the prevailing climatic conditions and distance from public transportation stops.
Tokyo - Ōtemachi Financial City, designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates.
photo: © Michael Vito
London's private public spaces face considerable criticism. Unlike New York's POPS, their British counterparts are often created through privatization. A series of publications in The Guardian in 2017 echoed loudly. They described London POPS as quasi-public spaces and reproached, among other things, the lack of clear rules for their use. Under the rules in place at the time, landowners decided on public access. They could set their own rules for "acceptable behavior" on their land and change them as they saw fit - with no obligation to inform the public about them. As a result, residents had no way of knowing what rules applied to the spaces in question. They didn't know whether they could take pictures there, sit on the grass or hold a demonstration. Any action could have resulted in the intervention of security guards. Starting in 2019, London authorities have begun to introduce new regulations setting out rules and responsibilities for POPS owners to ensure that these spaces are guaranteed to be accessible and open.
Public or private space?
The idea of POPS seemingly conflates two contradictions. Public spaces are the opposite of private spaces. They are meant to be open places, accessible to the general public. Private property, on the other hand, emphasizes the dogma of individual interest. Private public spaces must therefore always be shaped by negotiations between property owners and representatives of public interests. Between the commercial interest of making as much profit as possible from a given plot of land, and the city's interest understood as caring for the common good and the quality of public space.
Shopping centers are an interesting example of private spaces that are made available to the public, but they cannot be described as POPS. This is because the primary task of such facilities is to maximize the profit of their owners. They are owned and managed by private entities with full control over their operation.
Toronto - 45 and 141 Bay Street
Photo: © City of Toronto
Meanwhile, POPS have a primarily social function and a defined legal framework for access. They are created as a result of negotiations between developers and the city government, and are intended to serve the public good - even though they are located on private land. They must be accessible to the public on terms similar to those of traditional public spaces.
Of course, we have examples in urban planning of public places to which access for the general public is limited or impossible. These could be green areas, government buildings or educational institutions. Although these spaces belong to the state or local governments, their use is not always universally open, highlighting that public ownership alone does not equate to accessibility, functionality and openness. Introducing POPS into the urban fabric is therefore an attempt to strike a balance between the need to preserve public spaces for the common good and economic realities that often require private sector involvement. The effectiveness of achieving this balance depends on a number of factors, such as understanding the cultural contexts of the communities in question and preparing precisely defined and understandable regulations that define the responsibilities and rights of each party.
Private public spaces in Poland
In the Law on Spatial Planning and Development, an "area of public space" is defined as one of "particular importance for meeting the needs of residents, improving their quality of life and fostering the establishment of social contacts due to its location and functional and spatial characteristics, as defined in the study of conditions and directions for spatial development of a municipality." In reality, therefore, public space is formed only by symbolically marked points on the city plan. This is unfortunately a sad reflection of the state of Polish cities, where public spaces often do not form coherent networks.
Only a small part of the investments under construction generate new public spaces. They are most often created in the vicinity of office developments. A successful example of this type of development is the European Square in Warsaw, which was opened in May 2016 by the developer responsible for the Warsaw Spire skyscraper (design: Jaspers-Eyers Architects). In place of a once neglected quarter, a high-quality public space with greenery and fountains was created exclusively for pedestrians. The square was appreciated by the residents of the capital, who named it the best realization of 2016 in Warsaw. It is one of the first private spaces in Poland to be made on the scale of a full-fledged city square.
The creation and maintenance of public spaces is considered part of the cost of implementing office and commercial developments. For residential developers, however, it is somewhat different. They often perceive these spaces as an unjustified expense, and as a result, there is a very low quality of spaces in front of residential buildings. In a typical development project, they are limited to the absolute minimum required by regulations. Most often, they include only a fire road, parking spaces, a basic playground and green areas of minimal size. Importantly, we can't call them public spaces, as they are very often fenced off and inaccessible to the general public.
Toronto - 225 King Street West
photo: © City of Toronto
Fortunately, in Poland you can also find examples of public spaces that are created as part of residential developments, such as Fuzja in Łódź (design: Medusa Group) or Browary Warszawskie (design: JEMS Architekci). Both projects are characterized by the integration of modern residential functions with thoughtful public spaces that are accessible to all. These are, unfortunately, isolated examples, but the very fact that they are appearing is an important step toward the development of sustainable and socially responsible urban design in Poland. Still, in a great many cases, the only public space in the immediate vicinity of new residential developments remains the access road.
The development of a legally regulated benefit system that will encourage developers to create valuable public spaces, for example, by offering them the opportunity to increase the usable area for development, could change the face of Polish cities. Despite some risk that the POPS model will confuse urban structure and cohesion, this is a direction worth pursuing. Provided, of course, that city authorities develop clear guidelines for their accessibility, design and functionality.
In order for POPS to successfully fit into the Polish context, it will be crucial to set standards that ensure their high level and openness to the community. We need to draw on the rich experience of cities such as New York and Tokyo, where private public spaces are not only sensibly designed, but also properly managed, maintained and provide lasting value for residents. POPS can enrich our urban fabric, benefiting better integrated communities that enjoy a growing quality of life.
