ABSTRACT
This study undertakes a systematic visual assessment of three different projects in Liverpool (UK), which are ostensibly public. The case studies include an entirely private development, a public-private partnership, and a public project taken over by a community organization. The analysis reveals that, while lacking in ‘publicness,’ privatized spaces can be quite popular with users because they possess high urban design quality and offer engaging activities. Hence, the authors argue in favor of expanding the notion of public space to include spaces produced through private finance and planning. However, ‘publicness’ should be preserved by programming spaces and setting aesthetic and access rules that do not override values such as diversity and inclusivity. Designers can enhance the public nature of these spaces by allowing for greater flexibility in use and more opportunities for spontaneous and temporary appropriation. This is crucial in order to safeguard space that is open to the public as an arena for democratic participation, deliberation, and action. Another issue is what the scope of surveillance – including public or private CCTV cameras, police/security officers, and controversial facial recognition devices – should be. This issue must be the subject of serious public debate and engagement, which designers could facilitate.
