Changing public space

2 Development and typology
of Dutch city squares
Based on: Van Melik, R., J. Van Weesep and I. Van Aalst (2005), Spiegels van de
samenleving: Pleinen door de eeuwen heen. In: Sprekende pleinen. Ontmoetingen
tussen mensen, wanden en een vloer. Leusden: BMC.
2.1 Introduction
To understand the background of the redevelopment of public space, it is important to trace
the current social antecedents that created the necessity for redevelopment. These trends are
described in Chapter 3. However, the development of public space hitherto is also of importance.
After all, redevelopment is an elaboration on previous stages of development. This chapter
therefore provides an overview of the evolution of urban public space from past to present, with
a specific focus on city squares. The underlying research question is: How have the design and
management of Dutch city squares evolved through history? Squares are often seen as centre and
symbol of the city (Brunt & Deben, 2001; Crowhurst Lennard & Lennard, 2008). Throughout
the centuries, they have been created and used for various purposes: from places to debate
societal issues and to exchange commodities to venues for political demonstrations (Webb, 1990).
Although these kinds of activities differ from square to square and from period to period, there is
a common denominator: most city squares function as meeting places where people spend time
in. As such, they can be categorised as open-minded spaces. With this term, philosopher Michael
Walzer (1986) indicates public space designed for a variety of uses of a less hurried nature, such
as strolling and shopping. In these spaces people are open to new experiences and encounters
with strangers, as opposed to single-minded spaces. These are designed with one objective in mind,
for example roads for transportation.
City squares, however, are more than just open-minded urban places. Because their design
has been adapted over the years to the changing demands of the users, city squares can be seen
as reflections of society (Section 1.1). They are not only meeting points, but also repositories of
history and places where societal trends become visible. It is often assumed that cities and their
public spaces are the products of planners and architects. Sociologist Henri Lefebvre opposes
this idea by stating that urban space is produced by and within a society, expressing all of its
contradictions (Lefebvre, 1990). The design and function of public spaces are therefore strongly
related to the period in which these spaces were developed. According to Pincetl and Gearin
(2005: 367), “… parks have evolved in their design, function, and size as cities have grown and
changed, reflecting different societal priorities and understandings of cities, race and class,
landscapes, and human-nature relations …”. Public spaces can thus be seen as good reflections of
29