17 min read

Public Spaces

Summary

Public spaces are essential components of urban environments, offering areas for recreation, social interaction, and cultural exchange. These spaces include parks, plazas, streets, and other outdoor venues accessible to the public. They play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of life in cities by providing opportunities for leisure and community engagement. Well-designed public spaces can foster inclusivity, promote physical activity, and contribute to environmental sustainability.

Changelog

Resources

Action Items

  • Look up the Project for Public Spaces. ✅ 2025-06-07

FAQ

🙋 ✨

Content

Importance

Public spaces serve as communal hubs that bring people together from different backgrounds, fostering a sense of community and belonging. They provide venues for events and activities that enhance social cohesion and cultural vitality. Additionally, public spaces can improve mental health by offering green areas that reduce stress and promote relaxation.

Food Forests — Public Space That Feeds People

source/ai/claude

Another beneficial function: public space planted with edible species — “food forests,” in the phrase of Falling Fruit’s co-founder Ethan Welty.

For Modern Foragers, This Map Reveals Urban Abundance — Natasha Khullar Relph

The goal, Welty says, isn’t just to help people find free food, but to inspire cities to build “food forests”: public spaces filled with edible plants, integrated into the urban landscape as naturally as street trees and park benches.

Source: Readwise highlight. See Urban Foraging for the mapping side.

The strongest argument for this is not food security — it is maintenance cost. The best-documented case is Andernach, Germany, whose Essbare Stadt (“edible city”) programme has run since 2010, starting with 101 tomato varieties and expanding into the castle moat, the historic city walls, two traffic circles and a 14-hectare permaculture operation on the edge of town. Its city green-space planner, Dr Lutz Kosack, publishes the numbers: perennial edible planting costs about €7/m²/year against about €48/m² for conventional rotating bedding displays — roughly an 85% reduction — plus savings from eliminating peat, herbicides and mineral fertiliser. Their policy slogan is the whole design: “Pflücken erlaubt statt Betreten verboten!” — picking allowed instead of keep off. Harvest is steered by a traffic-light card system (red = not ripe, yellow = pick if hungry, green = ready) rather than by prohibition signage. Initial vandalism fears “proved largely unfounded.” The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) features it as a practice example.

Note the labour model, which is the part usually omitted: most areas are maintained by Perspektive gGmbH, a work-integration enterprise employing the long-term unemployed alongside trained gardeners — paid labour via a social-employment programme, not volunteers.

The US flagships, with their claims checked:

  • Beacon Food Forest, Seattle (designed 2009, first trees planted 2012, P-Patch established 2014). The site is 7 acres; the built food forest is about 3.25 acres — Phase 1 (1.75 ac) plus Phase 2 (~1.5 ac). The land is owned by Seattle Public Utilities, not Parks — public utility ratepayer land protecting a reservoir. Managed by a 501(c)(3), and notably: “We pay rent for part of the site, in order to be allowed to charge for classes and pay instructors.” Not simply free use of public land.
  • Urban Food Forest at Browns Mill, Atlanta — 7.1 acres, acquired by The Conservation Fund in 2016 and then purchased by the City of Atlanta with US Forest Service Community Forest Program funding. The widely repeated “largest public food forest in the US” claim is made by The Conservation Fund — the former landowner and a project partner — not by any independent inventory, and it counts total parcel area rather than planted area. Atlanta’s own page says only “Atlanta’s first Community Urban Food Forest.”
  • Incredible Edible, Todmorden, UK — founded 2008 by Pam Warhurst and Mary Clear with local residents. Now 120+ UK groups and 700+ worldwide. Increasingly its substantive work is political: the “Right to Grow” campaign for community access to unused public land.

The honest counter-case

Worth having, because a benefits list that omits this is not useful for planning:

  • Most food forests are not primarily about food. Albrecht & Wiek (2021), JAFSCD 10(3):91–105 — 209 sites analysed globally, 14 in depth: “the majority of food forests focuses on education (40%), community building (32%), or food production (11%).” Roughly one in nine even aims at food production first. And 9 of their 14 deep cases were privately owned, which limits the civic-infrastructure reading.
  • Yields are small. The one rigorous temperate study — Nytofte & Henriksen (2019), Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 45:126326 — found a 0.08 ha (800 m²) food forest averaging 713 kg/yr, 415,075 kcal. That works out to about 1,137 kcal/day, roughly half of one adult’s needs from 800 m², with only ~9.9 kg of protein a year. And that was a privately managed, intensively recorded garden with 99 species, not a volunteer-run public park. It is the best case.
  • Maintenance exceeds municipal capacity. A US Forest Service / NCAT case study of the Festival Beach Food Forest, Austin (ž acre on city park land) records that the maintenance agreement took “several years” to negotiate, that “many tasks were beyond the capacity of the City and community volunteers” — forcing creation of a dedicated nonprofit — and that volunteer labour is itself a hazard: “Sometimes plants can be pruned incorrectly, trampled, cut down, or mulched over.” Austin also required general liability, automobile and several other insurance policies before public opening, which is a hard gate that kills projects before planting.
  • The recurring failure is organisational and financial, not horticultural. Albrecht & Wiek find food forests perform well on social and environmental criteria but need to “enhance their economic viability” for broader impact.
  • Soil contamination is manageable but real — see the Berlin heavy-metal findings summarised in Urban Foraging: species, traffic proximity and barriers matter; washing matters; a tree on a busy arterial is the one to skip.
  • And the meta-problem: Ferrini, Gori & Lo Piccolo (2026), Urban Science 10(3):155, reviewed 94 peer-reviewed studies and found only 30.8% examined ecosystem services and just 6.3% looked at food safety or quality. Nobody has systematically measured over-harvesting, vandalism rates, volunteer attrition, or municipal cost per kg. Any claim that food forests “work” or “don’t work” as food infrastructure is claiming more than the literature supports.

The defensible version to carry into an argument: public edible planting is well-evidenced as cheaper green-space maintenance with social and educational returns, and poorly evidenced as food supply. Andernach makes the case on the maintenance budget; nobody has made it on calories.

Relevant to the move — and a correction

If you were expecting Freiburg to be a flagship Essbare Stadt: it is not, as of September 2026. “Essbare Stadt Freiburg” is a project of the Ernährungsrat Freiburg und Region — a civil-society food council working with the city, not a municipal programme. It published a position paper in February 2021 and built the urbanes-gaertnern-freiburg.de platform, but its own page now states the working group is “aktuell im Ruhemodus” — dormant, seeking volunteers to revive it — and no action plan has been adopted. Its stated ambition is to follow Cologne’s example.

Cologne is the German city with an actual adopted plan: the Aktionsplan Essbare Stadt Köln, adopted 2020 by the city council’s environment and green-space committee, delivered jointly by the Amt für Landschaftspflege und Grünflächen and Ernährungsrat Köln e.V., now being extended to 2030.

So: Andernach for the proof, Cologne for the policy template, and Freiburg as an opening — a dormant working group explicitly asking for people is an unusually low barrier to being useful in a new city. See Move to Freiburg.

Sources for this section

Design Considerations

Effective public space design considers accessibility, safety, aesthetics, and functionality. Accessibility ensures that these areas are usable by people of all ages and abilities. Safety involves designing spaces that are well-lit and monitored to deter crime. Aesthetics enhance the visual appeal of public spaces, while functionality ensures they meet the needs of users.

Challenges

Creating successful public spaces involves overcoming challenges such as funding limitations, maintenance issues, and balancing diverse user needs. Urban planners must also address potential conflicts between commercial interests and public access.

The case against public space — and how well it holds up

The strongest version of the argument is Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Science, 1968): a shared resource open to everyone will be overused, because each user gets the full benefit of taking more while the cost is spread across all. Robin Wall Kimmerer summarises how it’s been used — “land should be privatized rather than communally held, converting a commonly held source of abundance to individual property in order to safeguard against the Tragedy” (The Serviceberry, 2024). Applied to cities, the same logic says parks and plazas will be under-maintained and over-used, and that private ownership or management would look after them better.

Three things weaken it:

  • Hardin himself narrowed it. In 1998 he wrote that “the weightiest mistake in my synthesizing paper was the omission of the modifying adjective ‘unmanaged’” (Science 280:682). A managed commons can work; only an unmanaged one is doomed. His original remedy wasn’t privatisation at all but “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.”
  • Real commons were managed. The English commons Hardin’s parable evokes were never open-access — use was limited to rights-holders and regulated by “stinting” through manorial courts (Susan Jane Buck Cox, “No Tragedy on the Commons,” Environmental Ethics, 1985). Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel-winning work documented commons that have been sustained for centuries by their users, and identified the conditions that make it work — clear boundaries, local rules, monitoring, graduated sanctions (Governing the Commons, 1990).
  • The private alternative has a poor record in the best-studied case. Jerold Kayden’s survey of New York’s privately owned public spaces — plazas developers built in exchange for extra floor area — found 41% of 503 spaces of “marginal” quality and roughly half the buildings with at least one space apparently out of compliance: fenced, taken over for private use, or simply closed (Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience, 2000).

And one frequently cited critic of parks is often misread: Jane Jacobs argued that under-used parks become unsafe (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961, ch. 5), but her remedy was more and better-used public space surrounded by mixed uses — not less of it.

What survives of the case: public space fails when nobody manages it. That’s a real and common failure — but it is an argument for governance and maintenance budgets, not against public space.

Added 2026-09-25 (source/ai/claude).

Solnit: fewer walkers, more danger

Rebecca Solnit, Wanderlust: A History of Walking (2000), ch. 1, "Tracing a Headland"

Walking is about being outside, in public space, and public space is also being abandoned and eroded in older cities, eclipsed by technologies and services that don’t require leaving home, and shadowed by fear in many places (and strange places are always more frightening than known ones, so the less one wanders the city the more alarming it seems, while the fewer the wanderers the more lonely and dangerous it really becomes).

The rest of her paragraph (checked in the book) names what replaces public space in newer places: “malls replace main streets; streets have no sidewalks; buildings are entered through their garages; city halls have no plazas; and everything has walls, bars, gates.” She calls the loss “a crisis both for the private epiphanies of the solitary stroller and for public space’s democratic functions.”

The mechanism is a feedback loop: fear keeps people in, which empties the street, which makes it genuinely less safe, which justifies the fear. It’s Jane Jacobs’s “eyes on the street” argument run in reverse. Solnit wrote it in 2000, before smartphones and delivery apps made staying in easier still.

Added 2026-09-25 by Claude (source/ai/claude).

Community gardens: a village inside the city

Meik Wiking, The Little Book of Hygge, ch. 9, "Hygge on the Cheap" — "3. Join or build a community garden"

At the moment, community gardens seem to be popping up everywhere, and with good reason. They are a wonderful way of getting the hyggelig atmosphere of a village into a bigger city. Tending to your tomatoes while having a chat over coffee with the other gardeners is both hyggelig and meditative. In addition, it brings people in the local neighbourhood together and fosters the development of community spirit. What’s not to like?

Wiking’s next sentence (checked in the book): building community gardens “was one of the proposals recommended by the Happiness Research Institute when we were working on a town just outside Copenhagen.” So it’s offered as a planning tool, not only a hobby.

What it takes to join one, in the two cities that matter here:

  • Fort Collins: the city runs 8 community garden sites with 167 plots (Buckingham, Edora, English Ranch, The Gardens on Spring Creek, Rogers, Rolland Moore, Senior Center, Twin Silo). A plot is about 150 sq ft; 25 a year, a spring orientation, one plot per household, and a waitlist because demand is high (Gardens on Spring Creek).
  • Freiburg: community gardens are mostly citizen-run. The city’s “Freiburg packt an” programme (Garten- und Tiefbauamt) connects groups with public land (chilli-freiburg.de); named examples include the WandelGarten Vauban and the Klimagarten in Dietenbachpark, Weingarten. The directory is the Ernährungsrat’s urbanes-gaertnern-freiburg.de platform mentioned above. ⚠️ Gartencoop Freiburg is a solidarity farm (members share a farm’s harvest), not a community garden; that distinction is standard but wasn’t checked against its own site.

Added 2026-09-25 by Claude (source/ai/claude).

Emerging trends in public space development include integrating technology for smart infrastructure, focusing on sustainability through eco-friendly materials, and adapting to changing social norms post-pandemic by prioritizing outdoor gatherings.

In conclusion, public spaces are vital assets for urban communities. Their thoughtful design and management can significantly enhance urban living by promoting social interaction, encouraging healthy lifestyles, and supporting environmental goals.

Project For Public Spaces

Summary

Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating and sustaining public spaces that build strong communities. Founded in 1975 and based in New York, it was inspired by the work of William H. Whyte and initially focused on studying and improving urban spaces.

PPS works globally to provide planning, design, and educational services to help communities transform public spaces such as parks, plazas, streets, and markets. The organization is known for its “placemaking” approach, which involves engaging local communities to ensure that public spaces meet their needs and desires, thereby fostering social interaction and enhancing quality of life.

Project for Public Spaces emphasizes the importance of community involvement and participatory design processes, arguing that successful public spaces require the input and participation of those who use them. Over the years, PPS has become a leader in promoting the concept of placemaking and has worked on numerous projects around the world to revitalize public spaces and promote community-driven urban development.

Changelog

Resources

Action Items

FAQ

Title

Contents

Content

“State Of Public Space” Report

Metadata

  • Author: people/authors/project-for-public-spaces
  • Full Title: Project for Public Spaces Releases “State of Public Space” Report
  • Document Tags: politics & society
  • Summary: The Project for Public Spaces released a report showing that only 5% of public space professionals believe public spaces meet community needs. The report identifies key issues like aging infrastructure, homelessness, and social isolation that affect public spaces. As they celebrate their 50th anniversary, the organization emphasizes the importance of advocating for and improving public spaces for community wellbeing.
  • URL: https://www.pps.org/article/project-for-public-spaces-releases-state-of-public-space-report

Highlights

  • Over 700 individuals across 57 countries and 48 U.S. States contributed to a robust data set and overwhelmingly voiced a concern for public spaces. (View Highlight)
    • Did Fort Collins attend?
  • Only 5% of public space professionals who participated said that public spaces are meeting community needs, while 95% (View Highlight)
  • reported that public spaces need to improve or are outright failing to meet the needs of the community. To understand this resounding sentiment, Project for Public Spaces sorted through the findings to pinpoint the most pressing societal and practical issues in public spaces today. These issues are summarized in the report’s Seven Big Takeaways: (View Highlight)
  • 1. Aging infrastructure: The way we fund public space is broken. (View Highlight)
  • 2. Bureaucracy: Cutting red tape could make limited resources go further in public space. (View Highlight)
  • 3. Homelessness: Public space is on the frontlines of the housing crisis. (View Highlight)
  • 4. Access: Physical, financial, and cultural barriers prevent many from accessing the benefits of public space. (View Highlight)
  • 5. Social Isolation: Public space can break the vicious cycle of loneliness. 6. Climate Change: Extreme weather is making public space less welcoming, but public space can adapt. (View Highlight)
  • 7. Disinvestment & Gentrification: Big public space investments need a plan for development without displacement. (View Highlight)
  • Project for Public Spaces celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2025 (View Highlight)

Third places, and the lines outside frozen-yogurt shops

Amy X. Wang, "Why Is Everyone Waiting Hours for Frozen Yogurt? Why Am I?", The New York Times Magazine (2026)

A lot of fuss has been made about the death of so-called third places in our modern world, and for good reason. Free public space is disappearing from urban infrastructure. Not enough people are meeting their neighbors or churchgoing or joining bowling leagues. So maybe the lines for viral foods are just due to get longer and longer each year, like an IRL bar chart of American loneliness. Even some of the city’s comparatively ancient froyo shops, like Pinkberry and 16 Handles and Culture, are getting hugged by long lines. Now that the town square is bygone, why not let a well-appointed chain frozen-yogurt store swoop in with some substitute feeling of community and belonging? And yet this solution, like dairy in the hot sun, seems rather precarious.

Her observation just before it: after the hours-long wait, “each person turned toward the exit and hesitated — just for a second, not totally ready to leave the line.” The queue itself had become the gathering place.

Where the term comes from: sociologist Ray Oldenburg, The Great Good Place (1989). The first place is home, the second is work, and the third place is an informal public spot where people “relax in public, where you encounter familiar faces and make new acquaintances”: open without invitation, nearby, unpretentious and levelling, with regulars, conversation as the main activity, and a playful mood (Wikipedia summary; Oldenburg’s own list is in the book’s second chapter).

Why a queue is a poor substitute: a line for a viral dessert has strangers, not regulars; it forms once, around a product, and disperses. Oldenburg’s places work because the same people come back to the same free or cheap place for no particular reason. Wang’s “precarious” is that difference.

Added 2026-09-25 (source/ai/claude).

Recent Notes

Graph View