Designing public spaces based on use: The examples of Perth, Western Australia, and Pune, India.
Author: Dr Annie Matan
Address: Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley,
Western Australia, Australia.
Email: Anne.Matan@Curtin.edu.au
Phone: +61 (0)8 9266 9039
Abstract
Cities around the world are redeveloping their public spaces to be more walkable and people-friendly.
City officials can design public space, but unless it relates to the needs and uses of people, it will not
be successful. Citizen participation in the designing and understanding of use of a space is needed
when designing public spaces for people. In order to do this, the methods to design public space are
changing. This paper discusses and compares urban design processes undertaken in two very
different cities: Perth, Western Australian, and Pune, India. Both of these cases utilised Public Spaces
Public Life survey methodology developed by Jan Gehl, however, in the Pune process, this was
expanded to include participatory techniques based on deliberative democracy processes to enable
citizens to be part of the re-design process. The redevelopment of Perth’s city centre illustrates the
move from a car-dominated and focused city with the character of an ‘oversized department store’ to
a vibrant pedestrian focused city. The transformation of Perth has been led by a focus on public space
and on small, incremental infrastructure changes that slowly shift the focus from cars to pedestrians.
The case of Pune illustrates the application of these methodologies to a mixed (in income and land
use) urban area, combining them with collaborative techniques. This on-going project is a
collaboration of multiple stakeholders from various levels of government, education (academics and
students), Advocacy groups, and most importantly, local community members. The participatory
techniques enabled people to collaborate effectively to solve complex problems and together develop
preferred designs for the public realm. This paper discusses the methods used in both cases along
with implementation and learnings from the programs. In addition it includes a discussion about
undertaking the Public Spaces Public Life methodology in extremely different urban contexts.
[297 words]
Introduction
Cities around the world are redeveloping their public spaces to be more walkable and peoplefocused. Although urban designers and city officials can design public spaces to be more walkable,
unless the designs relate to the needs and uses of people using these spaces, they will not be
successful. Increasingly cities are experimenting with ways to involve citizens in the designing of a
space. In order to do this, the methods to design public space are changing. This paper discusses and
compares urban design processes undertaken in two very different cities: Perth, Australia, and Pune,
India. Both of these cases utilised Public Spaces Public Life survey methodology developed by Danish
urban designer Jan Gehl, however, in Pune, the process also included the use of participatory
techniques based on deliberative democracy processes to enable citizens to be part of the re-design
process. The paper starts with providing the background to the changing landscape of public space
design, including some of the current challenges and an introduction to the participatory techniques
utilised. The Public Spaces Public Life methodology is then introduced along with the processes
undertaken and changes made in Perth and Pune. The paper concludes with a discussion around the
urban design tools used and some of the differences between undertaking these urban design
studies in two very different contexts.
Background
Worldwide, walking and cycling in 2005 accounted for about 37percent of the transport mode share
(UN-Habitat, 2013a). Although this share varies greatly from country to country, in all countries
walking is important for health, for equity, and for environmental and social sustainability (Matan,
Newman, Trubka, Beattie, & Selvey, 2015; UN-Habitat, 2013b). In dense urban areas, walking, along
with cycling and public transport, are the most important transport modes mainly due to the level of
efficient and equitable accessibility they provide.
Accessibility is a vital measure of the sustainability of a city, and is the level and ease of access
provided by the urban environment (urban form and transport combined) (Matan & Newman, 2014;
Newman & Kenworthy, 2015). Accessible urban areas, particularly those areas that are accessible by
walking, are increasingly being connected to the ‘knowledge’ and ‘creative’ economies. That is,
walkability is being related to areas being able to attract and retain young, highly educated
professionals (referred to as the ‘creative’ class) who are now deliberately choosing their city of
residence based on the amenities and lifestyle choices provided, not solely on the job market
provided as with prior generations (Florida, 2010; Landry, 2000; Speck, 2012). Cities now must
market their urban centres and neighbourhoods as being vibrant and sustainable in order to meet
the demands of this creative class and to be globally competitive. Furthermore, recent studies are
connecting walkable environments to higher productivity knowledge economy outcomes (City of
Melbourne, 2014; Newman and Kenworthy, 2015). This is because, despite global connectedness
through technology, the transferring of ideas and knowledge along with innovations, is increased
happening through face-to-face interactions. This interaction has been found to be a facilitator of
economic generation. Referred to as ‘agglomeration economies’, this implies a link between
connectivity and productivity. For example, the City of Melbourne in Australia is consistently ranked
one of the world’s most liveable cities by the Economist, found that rents were 54percent higher in
walkable areas (City of Melbourne, 2014).
Walking is also particularly important due to its role in placemaking. Placemaking is “the
deliberate shaping of an environment to facilitate social interaction and improve a community’s
quality of life” (Silberberg, Lorah, Disbrow, & Muessig, 2013, p. 1-2) or concisly; it is the turning of a
‘space’ into a ‘place’ (Project for Public Spaces, 2015). Placemaking, as both a practice and a theory,
is becoming increasingly important to cities worldwide. Although some of the focus or reasoning
behind utilising placemaking processes and theories can vary, often the reasoning centres of on the
need to equitably distribute street or public space and on prioritising people over automobile
transport. However many areas also use it to encourage a feeling of ‘place’ in the urban
environment. For example, in some cities, such as those in Australia, placemaking is important as a
way to reintroduce or create a sense of place in areas that were built using modernist planning and
design principles that lack human scale and personalisation and that are focused on primarily on
mobility. Whereas, in cities such as those in India, placemaking is often used as a way to prioritise
people focused infrastructure (including services) over car focused infrastructure, along with helping
to protect the local character (sense of place) of areas undergoing massive redevelopment. In both
examples, placemaking is used to facilitate the priority of people over the priority given to
automobiles and to turn the conventional planning process around to put people first.
Despite a growing shift towards planning for sustainable transport modes and placemaking,
in many cities there are considerable social stigmas and infrastructure barriers to overcome, with
many areas, particularly in cities in developing1 nations, seeing individual motorised transport “as
the most desirable travel option” (UN-Habitat, 2013b, p. viii). Furthermore, many cities lack
appropriate, safe and welcoming pedestrian infrastructure and have high pedestrian fatality rates
(Salter, Dhar, & Newman, 2011). In these areas, much work needs to be done to enable walking to
be safe (both perceived as safe and actual levels of safety), attractive and easy to undertake.
Facilitating this shift to a walkability and public space focus requires a number of elements,
firstly the planning, design and provision of appropriate infrastructure and then the continuous
evaluation and monitoring of that infrastructure to ensure that it is appropriate in the context. In
addition, recognition of streets as one of the most important public spaces within a city is needed.
Streets are more than spaces for mobility; they are places for infrastructure service provision, for
everyday life to take place, for moving from A to B, and for exchanges of the social, economic and
cultural kinds. As Enrique Peñalosa maintains “public pedestrian space is the only real place in the
1
The term developing nation is used due to ease of reference, however it has not been used without
significant misgivings as the term implies that one set of countries (the ‘developed’) has achieved a state of
development that the other countries (the ‘developing’) are moving towards. In reality no country has
achieved a perfect state of ‘development’. There is a need to rethink the terminology of development
available; however this is beyond the context of this paper.
world that we have right of access to” (2015). This requires a change of mindset and a new set of
planning and design tools.
Streets for people require efficient, safe environments, through adequate distribution or
sharing of street space (for all road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, motor vehicles, hawkers,
street vendors, public transport, etc.), provision of appropriate infrastructure for all street users and
street design that reflects the local context. This means continuous footpaths (or shared road space)
that connects destinations, is obstacle free with minimal grade changes (i.e. not stepping up or
stepping down too often), provides universal access (i.e. access for everyone including people with
mobility needs, along with women and children), has safe crossings, has amenities (i.e. benches,
rubbish bins, toilets and lighting), and has careful attention to the micro-details and maintenance of
streets and public spaces. The presence of footpaths in particular is strongly linked to improved
human health related primarily to increased walking for transport (Reed, Wilson, Ainsworth, Bowles,
& Mixon, 2006; Sallis et al., 2009).The design of the street and public space is particularly important
and influences how people use the space. This includes the placement and design of street furniture,
such as seating, art, water fountains, etc. These elements are very important in encouraging and
enabling use of public spaces and streets (Matan, 2011).
People are present in the public space for a variety of reasons, from the necessary reasons
to the optional and social reasons (Gehl, 1987). This means that urban design with a placemaking
focus requires examining the use of everyday public spaces as the design context. The use of
everyday public spaces are those everyday activities that people are undertaking in the spaces along
with the everyday activities they would like to do in those spaces. Danish walkability expert and
urban designer Jan Gehl maintains:
The starting point [for city design] is simple: universal human activities. Cities must
provide good conditions for people to walk, stand, sit, watch, listen and talk. If these
basic activities, which are tied to the human sensory and motor apparatus, can take
place under good conditions, these and related activities will be able to unfold in all
possible combinations in the human landscape. Of all the city planning tools available,
attention to this small scale is the most important. (2010, p.118)
Urban design from a placemaking focus also requires an emphasis on the equitable sharing of space
along with the provision of appropriate infrastructure for all street users, and importantly that any
design solutions reflect the local context, that they are authentic, reflect the needs of the local
community and those using the space. Increasingly this involves the use of participatory techniques,
such as those undertaken as part of a deliberative democracy process.
New methods to facilitate this transition and involve citizens in planning decisions are
needed. The UN-Habitat states “it is essential that all stakeholders in urban transport – including all
levels of government, transport providers and operators, the private sector, and civil society
(including transport users) – are engaged in the governance and development of urban mobility
systems” (2013b, p. viii). This is challenging. One way that is being used to facilitate this engagement
is deliberative democracy, which is a
way for communities to co-create with decision-makers/ ‘experts’, and “enables
decisions to be made which: (i) are inclusive of diverse viewpoints, (ii) are
representative, (iii) involve the participation of everyday people in the co-creation of
solutions, (iv) involve deliberation to resolve conflicts of values, (v) result in a coherent
voice about the preferred way forward. (Internal document for PSLP Project, Hartz-Karp,
2013)
Deliberative democracy processes utilise a number of techniques to enable participation and
deliberation. The ones of importance to this study include: ‘Enquiry-By-Design’, which is an
interactive collaborative process involving citizens, urban planning and design ‘experts’ and relevant
stakeholders using urban design best practice principles and techniques to develop co-created plans
for an area; ‘21st Century Dialogue’, which involves everyday people, stakeholders and ‘experts’ in
effective deliberation through the use of small facilitated groups all connected by networked
computers using a deliberation software; and ‘Open Space Technology’ which involves self-managed
groups deliberating on and developing ideas on issues that matter to them (Internal document for
PSLP Project, Hartz-Karp, 2013).
This increased focus on creativity, placemaking, walkability and deliberative techniques
requires a different set of urban and transport planning tools, particularly those tools to facilitate
the design of public space. Charles Landry discusses how we are now entering what he refers to as
City 3.0:
[The City 3.0]...takes into account the full sensory experience of the city. In
making the city it considers the emotional impact of how people experience the built
fabric and thus is strongly concerned with the public realm, human scale and aesthetics.
It understands that blandness and ugliness weakens the city. Its mental model is to see
the city as an organism. It is an adaptive city that through its flexibility in operating itself
has more chances to become resilient and to future-proof itself…This urban form is
concerned with creating cultural and physical environments which provide the
conditions for people to be creative…‘Third places’ become important…Planning 3.0
moves away from a strict land-use focus and is more integrative as it brings together
economic, cultural, physical and social concerns...It works in partnership and finds
interesting methods of participation…Citizen participation in decision making is
encouraged and it takes a holistic approach to identifying opportunities and to solving
problems…Transport 3.0 moves from a sole mobility focus to thinking about seamless
connectivity...Culture 3.0 increasingly sees people make their own culture…Culture is
performed in more unusual settings – the street, a local café or a pop-up venue. (2014)
This shift to a walkability placemaking focus within our cities requires new tools. Public Space Public
Life techniques help facilitates this shift through providing information on how people use everyday
spaces, particularly streets, within our urban environments.
Jan Gehl’s Public Spaces Public Life Surveys
Conventional urban and transport planning, other than through the provision of universal access
requirements in many countries, has generally focused more on mobility rather than accessibility
(Iacono, Krizek, & El-Geneidy, 2009). This focus has been in part due to the tools available for
planners, such as the four-step transport planning model (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999, 2015), and
the focus on quantitative analysis (Gehl, 2010). This has resulted in car dependant locations
(Newman & Kenworthy, 1999), social isolation and environmental degradation (UN-Habitat, 2013a).
de Vasconcellos explains that this focus has resulted in urban and transport planners seeing car use
“as a ‘given’ and mobility … [as a] sacred objective” and furthermore, the task of urban and
transport planners as being to “divid[e] space according to the number of vehicles, therefore placing
car drivers as the main beneficiaries” (2004, p.4). Shifting this focus to pedestrians (or people)
requires a “paradigm shift in transport policy” moving from “the global preoccupation on mobility
enhancement and infrastructure expansion” to accessibility based planning and people’s use of cities
(UN-Habitat, 2013a, p.2). This shift requires tools to enable pedestrians to be accounted for in the
current planning frameworks and processes.
Jan Gehl’s Public Spaces Public Life (PSPL) surveys centre on enabling people’s use of streets
(as pedestrians) and use of public spaces to be accounted for in the planning process. The PSPL
surveys are a mix of qualitative and quantitative evaluation techniques for assessing pedestrian
needs and use in city centres based on observations, quantitative pedestrian and activity counts and
follow-up surveys. The surveys are centred on continuous and systematic observation of how people
use public space. In effect, the method revolves around examining existing issues, implementing
improvements and then re-examining the area as an iterative process. The PSPL surveys involve:

Public space analysis: focusing on the quality of the public space (including streetscape
analysis, public space analysis, amongst others).

Public life analysis: focusing on use of public space (including pedestrian counts,
behavioural mapping, age and gender counts, test walks, tracing techniques, amongst
others).
Gehl has been using these survey techniques in cities around the world, starting in Copenhagen in
the 1960s (with his first major survey in 1968) and in many other major cities, including in cities of
varying contexts. This study discusses the application of the PSPL technique to two cities, Perth,
Australia, and Pune, India. In Perth, the PSPL was applied by Gehl and Gehl Architects with local
partners, and the design outcomes decided by the State and Local Government and in Pune, a
number of the survey techniques utilised within a PSPL were combined with techniques from an
urban design context analysis and the results of which were presented as part of a participatory
process to enable citizens along with State and Local Government to determine design solutions.
Perth: Study, design
Jan Gehl’s PSPL surveys have been very influential in Australian Cities and Gehl has worked with
most major Australian cities to help them restructure their urban cores to be more walkable (Matan
& Newman, 2012). Perth, the capital city of Western Australia, home to 2 million people in the
metropolitan area (2014) and with a walking mode share of 4.1 percent (Australian Government,
2013) was the first western city to undertake a Gehl PSPL survey in 1992 (released in 1994). This was
followed by a survey 15 years later in 2009. The 2009 survey involved Gehl Architects, the City of
Perth (the Local Government Authority), the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (the State
Government Authority; now split into the Department of Planning and the Department of
Transport), and academics and students from Curtin University (the author included).
The primary surveys conducted in both PSPLs were pedestrian counts, stationary activity
counts, street frontages assessments and test walks, and both surveys focused on the city centre
area of the City of Perth (also called the Central Business District). The original survey illustrated a
city with “no invitation for walking, and certainly no great invitation to walk for the pleasure of
walking” with “waiting times in front of traffic lights [accounting] for 35-40 percent of the total trip
time” (Gehl, 1994, p. 9). The survey concluded that Perth “has the character of an over-sized
department store” (Gehl, 1994, p.v), exposing that the pedestrian ‘mall’ (pedestrian only streets)
system used in Perth was “conceived not as walking routes but as isolated pedestrian places in a car
traffic dominated city centre”, essentially the malls were “conceived as concentrated shopping
malls”, rather than pedestrian networks and did not connect any important destinations (Gehl, 1994,
p.9). Fundamentally the counts revealed a planning system focused purely on car movement and
commercial activity – walking was provided for insomuch as it facilitated commercial exchanged, not
as a mode of transport. Additionally the public life aspect of walking was highlighted by the surveys,
particularly as it was a major feature lacking in Perth at the time. The surveys enabled an
understanding that public space was important in the everyday sense not just for grand civic
occasions.
After the 1994 survey a series of recommendations were made to enable the city centre to
be transformed. The follow up survey, conducted in 2008 and released in 2009, revealed the
following changes:

13 percent more daytime pedestrian traffic (from 132,650 in 1993 to 150,100 in
2009);

57 percent more stationary activities during the day, with 37 percent more in
the evenings;

15 percent more bench seats (from 1,725 bench seats in 1993 to 1,988 bench
seats in 2008);

190 percent more outdoor cafés (from 48 in 1993 to 140 in 2008) and 74
percent more café seats (from 1,940 seats in 1993 to 3,390 seats in 2008);

1576 more street trees; and

34 percent more people traveling to work by public transport than in 1994 (Gehl
Architects, 2009).
Fundamentally what these results show is a number of small subtle shifts towards focusing
more on pedestrians and people within the public realm. These included widened footpaths
throughout the city, a good environment in terms of accessibility for those with mobility
impairments, a more beautiful city streetscape (though greenery and integrated furniture) and an
increase in the number of people using the public space. However, the survey also highlighted a
number of important areas that the city could focus on, such as the creation of a civic heart (primary
public space) and the fact that Perth was still predominately focused on commercial and business
activity, with an absence of people walking and spending time in the city at night and on weekends
(Saturday pedestrian count number were only 62 percent of the weekday pedestrian count numbers
and night-time pedestrian count numbers had only increased by 3 percent in the fifteen years
between the surveys, even though the numbers of residents had increased) and an absence of
appropriate spaces for children, youth and older people, particularly in regards to spaces for ‘play’.
Since the 2009 PSPL study the city centre of Perth has undergone a number of significant
changes focused on creating a more walkable environment and on creating a sense of vibrancy
(shaking of the ‘dullsville’ label so to speak). These changes include:

The upgrading of Forrest Place to be a civic heart. This upgrading includes a water
playground/fountain to encourage children to be in the city, paving that connects
Forrest Place to the train station all on one grade, a large piece of public art, additional
seating, including moveable chairs and table and chair sets, the removal of a pedestrian
overpass and the creation of a covered stage in its place.

The continuation of the two way streets program. Many of the inner city streets have
now been converted from one-way to two-way traffic.

Extension of footpaths throughout the city. Many of the converted two-way streets also
include a widen footpath. This is particularly noticeable in St Georges Terrace, the main
‘business’ street, where the footpath has been widened considerably.

The redevelopment of the Cultural Centre including the introduction of a wetland in an
old fountain, an urban orchard, a movie screen and a ‘playscape’.
In addition to these changes, many major projects mentioned in the 2009 report are being
undertaken, although with varying designs. These include the sinking of the train line which
segments the city centre with ‘business’ on one side and ‘fun’ on the other. The sinking has been
completed, with construction above currently under construction so the results have yet to be
determined. Furthermore, there is major development being undertaken along the river foreshore,
to enable the river to ‘kiss’ the city (Gehl Architects, 2009).
Pune: Study, design, and also deliberate.
Pune is in the State of Maharashtra, India, and is home to 5 plus million people in the Metropolitan
Area (3.9 million people in the Metropolis; 2011). The walking mode share accounts for 37percent of
trips (Parisar, 2010) and is very important particularly for captive walkers (those that have no other
choice), within local areas and also as ‘last mile connectivity’, where it enables connection between
other modes of transport. As part of an Australian Government federally funded partnership grant a
walkability study involving innovative intensive participatory techniques was undertaken in a low
income mixed use urban area in Pune, India between 2012 and 2015. The project involved multiple
stakeholders, including most importantly, local community members along with academics and
students from Curtin University (based in Perth, Australia), including Professor Janette Hartz-Karp
and PhD candidate Sanskriti Menon, both of who provided the expertise for the deliberative
component and techniques, the community organisation Centre for Environment Education (CEE),
the sustainable transport advocacy group Parisar Sanrakshan and students and academics from the
Dr. BN College of Architecture for Women in Pune, India. The focus was to enable local residents to
be involved in redesigning their neighbourhood to prioritise walking and cycling.
As part of this process a modified urban design context analysis was undertaken including
utilising PSPL survey techniques. The surveys included those that focused on use of the area
(pedestrian counts, behavioural mapping, systematic observation, age and gender counts, tracking
and tracing), the design of the area (urban design context analysis mapping techniques such as
permeability assessments, streetscape analysis etc.) and the thoughts of the local residents and
business owners (particularly hawkers) in the area (face-to-face surveys, interviews etc.). This
modified urban design context analysis and PSPL was undertaken at the start of the process to
develop an understanding of the existing context, and the initial design ideas were developed and
illustrated by students at BNCA. The findings from the analysis along with the initial design ideas
were then deliberated on and discussed using a combination 21st Century Dialogue and Enquiry-byDesign process held over two days that focused on developing a ‘community voice’ and consensus
on design solutions for the area. The first session focused on deliberating and developing consensus
on ‘what is valued’ about the area, ‘what should be kept or changed’ about the area, what any ‘hot
spots’ were and what the participants’ priorities were. Based on the findings and prioritisations from
the first day, the designs were further refined to develop scenario options by the ‘technical team’ of
students and academics from BNCA and Curtin University. These scenario options were then
displayed on the second day at the local school and 60 community members discussed the options
and deliberated on the best outcomes. These were then voted on and the scenarios further
developed by the students and academics at BNCA based on the results.
Since this process was undertaken a number of the design recommendations have been
implemented including the repaving of many of the smaller inner streets in the area to become
‘shared streets’ all using a more reflective concrete material which is also cooler, encouraging public
life, and all on one level with no differentiation between car space and people space. In some of the
areas in the precinct, particularly on the major road, the design solutions determined by the
community were not fully implemented, rather were compromised either by the complexities of the
site or by the implementation process. The learnings and engagement from this iterative process are
however continuing with many tangible and intangible outcomes, with both the college and the
community organisations (CEE and Parisar) continuing to utilise PSPL techniques in their analysis of
other areas.
Discussion: What can we learn from the Perth and Pune processes?
The walkability-focused urban design analysis processes undertaken in the two cities, while both
incorporating PSPL techniques, were quite different and had quite different outcomes. The process
in Perth involved the city centre and was at a much larger scale. While involving local students and
non-government organisations, the design and implementation of the recommendations was driven
predominantly by the government departments involved (although with citizen pressure). This in
part reflects the big scale of the changes, but also of the process commonly utilised in Australian
cities, where communities are engaged with rather than active participants in the decision making.
This process is changing, and the new thinking was applied to the case of Pune.
The Pune example is an on-going project involving collaboration between multiple
stakeholders from various levels of government, education (academics and students), advocacy
groups, and most importantly, local community members and as such some of the outcomes from
the process have yet to be fully realised. It also deals more with neighbourhood level design rather
than with a city centre. Deliberative democracy has been used in India before but is not well
established. While not fully utilising all deliberative democracy processes (such as involving a
random sample of the population), the outcomes of the deliberative process determined that
participatory techniques can help to achieve the prioritisation of local streets designed more for
walkers and can help to achieve consensus on changes in a very short timeframe. The processes also
demonstrated that what residents want in terms of public space is often much less ‘designed’ than
planner’s and designer’s believe. The top priority as voted by the participants at 20 percent of the
prioritisation was: ‘We want to change the street design to be more for people (i.e. street furniture,
footpaths, lighting, bus shelters, clean and well maintained public toilets, zebra crossings, etc.) and
create footpaths that are unobstructed.’ Furthermore, despite some uncertainties in the planning
phase as to whether all stakeholders would attend, engage and participate, particularly the local
community members, and issues around conducting workshops and design processes in three
languages and very different cultural understandings, the events were extremely well attended and
the local council, the Pune Municipal Corporation, and the local Member of Parliament were very
supportive (and continue to be very supportive), citing the significance of the process in helping
them reach rapid decisions and being able to determine what the community wants.
Furthermore the study in Pune built on new understandings of urban design context analysis
that were enabled through the participatory processes. The process was iterative whereby an urban
design based context analysis was conducted to assess street life, street redesign options for the
precinct were developed and then, through the use of participatory techniques, citizens and other
stakeholders were able to develop a preferred plan reflecting the needs and wants of the
community. The participatory techniques enabled people from different backgrounds and
understandings of the issues to collaborate effectively to solve complex problems and together
develop preferred designs for the public realm. From an urban design perspective, involving the
public in the decision making process enabled design outcomes to be clearer as there was clear
direction from the community of their needs and wants. In both cases, Perth and Pune, the PSPL
techniques were suitable and adaptable to be able to be used in the local context.
Conclusion
The redevelopment of Perth’s city centre illustrates the move from a car-dominated and focused city
with the character of an ‘oversized department store’ to a vibrant pedestrian focused city. The
transformation of Perth has been led by a focus on public space and on small, incremental
infrastructure changes that slowly shift the focus in the city centre from cars to pedestrians. The
case of Pune illustrates the application of these methodologies to a mixed urban area, combining
them with collaborative techniques. This on-going project is a collaboration of multiple stakeholders
from various levels of government, education (academics and students), Advocacy groups, and most
importantly, local community members. The participatory techniques used in the Pune design
process enabled people to collaborate effectively to solve complex problems and together develop
preferred designs for the public realm. While quite different, the two examples illustrate the
universality and adaptability of the PSPL techniques along with the importance of understanding
how people use space and having the qualitative and quantitate evaluations in enabling a focus on
pedestrians within our urban environments. These examples provide thought to how we might
develop new design tools to enable people’s use and needs of everyday public space to come to the
forefront of urban planning and design concerns, and also how we can include everyday citizens in
the design of their area.
Acknowledgements
The Pune walkability project is part of an Australian Government funded Public Sector Linkages
Program Activity titled ‘Stemming car dependency and improving transport options in Indian cities’,
headed by Professor Peter Newman at Curtin University, Curtin University Sustainability Policy
(CUSP) Institute, 2013-2015. Acknowledgements go to Ms Sanskriti Menon and Professor Janette
Hartz-Karp along with the project partners including Centre for Environment Education (CEE); Parisar
Sanrakshan; College of Architecture for Women – Dr. BN College of Architecture; Institute of Urban
Transport (India); Ministry of Urban Development.
[4981 words]
References
Australian Government. (2013). State of Australian Cities 2013. Canberra: Australian Government
Retrieved from
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/files/2013_00_INFRA1782_MCU
_SOAC_FULL_WEB_FA.pdf.
City of Melbourne. (2014). Draft Walking Plan 2014-17. Melbourne: City of Melbourne Retrieved
from http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/projects/draft-walking-plan.
de Vasconcellos, E. A. (2004). The use of streets: a reassessment and tribute to Donald Appleyard.
Journal of Urban Design, 9(1), 3-22.
Florida R. (2010). The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash
Prosperity. Canada: Random House.
Gehl Architects. (2009). Perth 2009: Public Spaces and Public Life (D. f. P. a. I. City of Perth, Trans.).
Perth: Gehl Architects.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space (J. Koch, Trans. English Translation ed.).
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gehl, J. (1994). Public Spaces and Public Life in Perth. Report for the Government of Western
Australia and the City of Perth. Perth.
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Hartz-Karp, J. (2013). Deliberative Democracy Description for Stemming Car Dependency and
Improving Transport Options in Indian Cities. PSLP Project Information Sheet. Curtin
University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute. Curtin University.
Iacono, M., Krizek, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2009). Measuring Non-motorized Accessibility: Issues,
Alternatives, and Execution. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 133-140.
Landry, C. (2000). The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan.
Landry, C. (2014). The City 1.0, The City 2.0 & The City 3.0. Retrieved from
http://charleslandry.com/blog/the-city-1-0/
Matan, A. (2011). Rediscovering urban design through walkability: An assessment of the contribution
of Jan Gehl. (Ph.D. Thesis), Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Matan A., & Newman P. (2014, 10-11 July, 2014). Active Transport, Urban Form and Human Health:
Developing the Links. Paper presented at the 7th Making Cities Liveable Conference,
Kingscliff (NSW), Australia.
Matan, A., & Newman, P. (2012). Jan Gehl and new visions for walkable Australian cities. World
Transport Policy and Practice, 17(4), 30-37.
Matan, A., Newman, P., Trubka, R., Beattie, C., & Selvey, L. (2015). Health, Transport and Urban
Planning: Quantifying the Links between Urban Assessment Models and Human Health.
Urban Policy and Research,, 33(2), 145-159.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2015, in press). The End of Automobile Dependence: How Cities are
Moving Beyond Car-Based Planning. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Parisar. (2010). Nowhere to Walk: Pune Walkability Survey (Vol. Report 4). Pune: Parisar,.
Penalosa E. (2015) Opening Address. PUBLIC 2015 Symposium. Perth: FORM
Project for Public Spaces. (2015). PPS: Project for Public Spaces. Retrieved 20 April, 2015, from
www.pps.org
Reed, J., Wilson, D., Ainsworth, B., Bowles, H., & Mixon, G. (2006). Perceptions of Neighborhood
Sidewalks on Walking and Physical Activity Patterns in a Southeastern Community in the US.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(2), 243-253.
Sallis, J. F., Bowles, H. R., Bauman, A., Ainsworth, B. E., Bull, F. C., Craig, C. L., . . . Bergman, P. (2009).
Neighborhood Environments and Physical Activity Among Adults in 11 countries. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(6), 484-490.
Salter, R., Dhar, S., & Newman, P. (Eds.). (2011). Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation:
Transport Sector. Roskilde, Denmark: UNEP Risø Centre.
Silberberg, S., Lorah, K., Disbrow, R., & Muessig, A. (2013). Places in the Making: How placemaking
builds places and communities: Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Speck, J. (2012). Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America. New York: North Point Press.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2013a). Planning and Design for
Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report on Human Settlements 2013. Nairobi: United
Nations Human Settlements Programme. Retrieved from http://unhabitat.org.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2013b). Streets as Public Spaces and
Drivers of Urban Prosperity. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. Retrieved from http://unhabitat.org.