Social Activities in Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) Design, Use and Management of POPS in Melbourne
Creators: name: Mohammadi, Mohammad
Publisher: name: RMIT University
Year: 2024
Subjects: classificationCode: 330108
subject: Interior design
classificationCode: 330411
subject: Urban design

description: Since the 1960s, a type of public space has been formed based on government and private sector
partnerships known as Privately Owned Public Space (POPS) initiated in the United States. Over the
last five decades, the aims and regulations of this kind of public space have been developed, but they
still have ambiguous design and management practices. A specific type of privately-owned public space
is formed based on a zoning incentive programme to develop the inner city and public amenities in New
York; if private developers contribute to the public realm on the ground floor, they are allowed to
increase the floor area of their buildings. Such contributions to the public realm happen by creating both
the private sector’s indoor and outdoor spaces. Privatizing public spaces has been discussed as a
concerning issue rather than a positive approach toward public space improvement. Researchers have
debated concerns about the decline in diverse users and forms of public life. Many authors declare it as
the ‘decline of public space’ and ‘the end of public space’. However, recent researchers believe that
public spaces have not experienced such extreme situations and have more optimistic viewpoints toward
creating POPSs. Understanding the design, management, and social uses of POPSs is limited to a few
types of research usually focused on American cities. However, privatisation of public spaces is
increasing in other countries based on local developments and policies, leading to different forms of
POPSs and public life. Therefore, studying POPSs in other countries like Australia is essential to
accommodate their functions based on the local urban context.
There is limited empirical research on POPSs regarding their functions, typologies, design, and
management practices in Australian POPSs. In Australian cities’ policies, several regulations initiated
in the 1990s have led to the creation of privately-owned public spaces. These policies acknowledge the
bonus system for building taller towers through different urban regulations. Still, there is no systematic
and empirical evaluation of the actual products of those urban policies in Australian cities. This research
explores the social life of privately owned public spaces in Melbourne through empirical research. It
studies the encouraging and discouraging impacts of POPS’s spatial features on public engagements
and activities. In this regard, direct observation and activity mapping were used to collect and analyse
activities, and then the data were analysed in the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps. The
findings are based on ten months of direct observations in four case studies in Melbourne.
This research shows the social life happening in POPSs is more a product of spatial opportunity rather
than the product of the social realm. Activities are more spatial-driven and programmed than
spontaneous and unscripted activities. Spatial features may have one or both encouraging and
discouraging impacts on activities. Four studied cases in Melbourne used different spatial features in
attracting and deterring activities. Two cases did not attract public users, and hosted usually
consumption activities of privileged users. However, the other successful examples of POPS with
diverse activities support the recent optimistic approaches in the literature toward the privatisation of
public spaces. Furthermore, the developed activity-based method for understanding space engagement
in activities contributes to spatial analysis related to users’ activities applicable to indoor and outdoor
public spaces. Finally, the research provides new insights for policymakers, urban planners and
designers about the potential impacts of their planning decisions on urban social life. It contributes to
improving public-private partnerships and enhancing the supervisory role of city officials in regulating
and facilitating these partnerships.