Changing public space

they are categorised as squares because their function as meeting point is not different from other
‘old’ city squares. Not everybody agrees with this argumentation. Some, for example, state that
‘real’ city squares require historicity and the sensation of experienced times, and therefore traffic
squares and shopping plazas cannot (yet) be categorised as city squares (Mommaas, 2003: 26).
Dutch city squares have thus gone through numerous transformations over time. The text
box describes the development of one of the most famous Dutch city squares: the Dam in
Amsterdam. It is a medieval square that originated as fish market and has evolved throughout
the centuries into its current state as tourist attraction, political arena, and meeting place. It
therefore is a good epitome of the development of Dutch city squares.
2.6 Typologies of city squares
The evolution of city squares described in the previous sections is also identifiable in the
typologies of city squares that have been set up. This is not surprising, since many of the
categorisations have focussed on the form or the function of squares, which have varied
throughout time. From the 19th century onwards, a number of researchers have established
typologies of public space in general (e.g., Carr et al., 1992; Burgers, 2000; Madanipour, 2003;
Meyer et al., 2006), and city squares in particular (e.g., Zucker, 1959; French, 1983). According to
Dordregter (2003), the simplest classification of city squares consists of two types: squares where
people actually spend time in, and monumental squares, which are designed as ‘forecourt’ or
parvis of a particular building or monument. However, most classifications consist of more than
two types, as can be seen in Table 2.2. The table provides an overview of all typologies on city
squares that were found in the (academic) literature. The typologies have been ordered on the
basis of the year of publication. It appears that not only the number of types differs, but also the
main variables on which the types are based. Some typologies focus on the form of city squares,
whereas others concentrate on the main function.
As Table 2.2 points out, the German scientist Stübben was the first one to set up a typology on
city squares. He distinguished four types of squares on the basis of their dominant function:
Nutzplätze (utilitarian squares), Verkehrsplätze (traffic squares), Gartenplätze (garden squares),
and Architekturplätze (squares that are dominated by surrounding buildings). The first Dutch
typology, developed in Peteri’s dissertation in 1913 (De Vries, 1990) is rather similar. Peteri also
acknowledged market and traffic squares, and added a category of squares that provide a moment
of quietude. De Vries (1990: 19) argues that this categorisation is incomplete, because squares can
have more than these three functions. He uses the origin of a square as independent variable.
Basically, his typology is twofold: city squares can either be categorized as squares resulting
from traditional city building (pre-1675), or as squares that have been created in line of modern
city building (post-1875). De Vries regards the period 1675-1875 as stagnation phase in which, as
described earlier, hardly any squares were constructed in the Netherlands. In more detail, De
Vries provides over 20 different types of city squares, including traditional types determined by
watercourses (i.e., dam square, wharf square), roads (i.e., junction square, waterway square), and
buildings (i.e., gate square, castle square, church square), and modern types such as train station
squares. The disadvantage of the categorisation is that a square’s origin is often difficult to detect,
40