Control as a Dimension of Public Space Quality-Francis

Public Places
and Spaces
EDITED BY
IRWIN ALTMAN
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
AND
ERVIN H. ZUBE
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
PLENUM PRESS • NEW YORK AND LONDON
6
Control as a Dimension of
Public-Space Quality
MARK FRANCIS
INTRODUCTION
Public-space quality is attracting considerable attention. The number of new
spaces has greatly expanded. At the same time, people are using existing and
new public spaces in increasing numbers. As a result, the relationship of public
spaces such as parks, plazas, and streets to the quality of urban life has attracted
intense interest on the part of public officials, researchers, deSigners, and cit-
izens (Hiss, 1987; Levine, 1984).
Several critical questions surround this public interest in the form and
meaning of public space. How do public spaces support public culture and
outdoor life? How does public space affect people's overall experience and
satisfaction of living in towns and cities? What role do public spaces play in
what Gehl (1987) has come to call the "life between buildings"? How can public
spaces be best designed and managed to satisfy human needs and expectations?
These concerns point to the need for expanded theory and improved practice
in public space design and management.
A multiplicity of dimensions regarding public-space quality have been
identified through past research and design and management practice (Francis,
1987b, 1988a; Goffman, 1963; Whyte, 1980). Several of these critical ingredients
of successful public space are reviewed by other contributors to this volume.
The purpose of the present chapter is to examine one important yet poorly
understood dimension of public-space quality-people's right to control their
use and enjoyment of public places. User control of publiC space is emerging
MARK FRANCIS • Department of Environmental DeSign, University of  
Davis, CA 95616. Research for this chapter was supported with grant #CA-D-EHT-4143-H
from the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.
147
148 Mark Francis
from psychological and political theory and environmental design research as
an essential ingredient for the success of urban places. It is part of an evolving
public culture in the United States, where people are using outdoor space in
greater numbers, with increased intenSity, and for a wider range of activities
than previously experienced in neighborhoods, on streets, and in urban
centers.
Public spaces are participatory landscapes. Through human action, visual
involvement, and the attachment of values, people are directly involved in
public spaces. People claim places through feelings and actions. The public
realm, as Lofland characterizes public space, is a publically perceived, valued,
and controlled landscape. As pointed out by the Lennards (1984):
a public space, . . is at once both stage and theater, for in public the spectators
may at any moment choose to become actors themselves. Successful public places
accentuate the dramatic qualities of personal and family life. They make visible
certain tragiC, comic and tender aspects of relationships among friends, n   i g h ~
bors, relatives or lovers.
It is this direct or symbolic human involvement that invites an examination of
control as a critical element of the values attached to urban spaces.
This chapter considers several aspects of user control and participation in
public space. The evolving nature of publiC life is first examined to point to the
effect of changes in demography and leisure time on the use of public envi-
ronments. The shift of designers away from a romanticized European image
of public space to a more Americanized form of public environment is dis-
cussed. The differing and often competing interests of various publics such as
space managers, users, city officials, and deSigners in controlling spaces is
introduced to show how control affects American public space design and
management.
Control as a psychological construct and participation concept is reviewed
to point to the individual and social benefits of perceived and real control in
public environments. The direct contribution of personal control is outlined
utilizing a conceptual framework advanced by Lynch (1981) for making "good"
urban environments. Lynch's five dimensions of control-presence, use and
action, appropriation, modification, and dispOSition-are discussed in terms
of their relevance to public-space quality. Gardening is employed as an example
to illustrate how user control is an increasing part of residential and city life.
Several controversial issues are also reviewed, including the conflict be-
tween private interests and publiC needs, the growing role of public space as
home for the homeless and other disadvantaged groups, and the effect of con-
trol on perceived safety. Design and management techniques that increase user
control of streets, parks, and plazas are also reviewed. The chapter concludes
with a discussion of some future policy and research implications of increasing
user control over public space, including a research agenda for control with
respect to public environments.
Control as a Dimension of   Quality 149
PUBLIC SPACE AND URBAN LIFE
Public spaces reflect ourselves, our larger culture, our private beliefs, and
public values (Berman, 1986). Public space is the common ground where civility
and our collective sense of what may be called "publicness" are developed and
expressed. Our public environment serves as a reflection or mirror of individual
behaviors, social processes, and our often conflicting public values.
An intense scholarly debate has raged for some time over the growth or
decline of public life and culture. Strong positions have been drawn both for
and against an increase in publicness in American life. Scholars such as Lofland
(1973), Sennett (1977), and Brill (in Chapter 1, this volume) argue that American
life has become more specialized, leading to a largely privatized society. Others,
including Fisher (1981) and Glazer and Lilla (1987), observe that there is an
expanding public culture and increased appetite for public space. This claim
is supported by the commercial success of new festival marketplaces developed
recently in many city centers and the increase in retail sales in downtowns and
malls. Such evidence points to a renaissance taking place in both older as well
as new types of public open spaces.
How does public life affect urban public space? Public life is evolving as
part of a growing reaction to the privatization of American life. The isolation
of suburban living, impersonal work environments, and the increased stress
of modern life all contribute to an increased appetite on the part of many people
for public space. The park or mall becomes a retreat, a form of refuge from the
hectic daily schedule of appointments, faxing, car pools, and deadlines.
Many Americans still do not yet know how to use public space. People
are often uncomfortable lingering for hours in a plaza watching the "place
ballet," as Seamon and Nordin (1980) have characterized the changing life of
dynamic public places in Europe. The behavioral rules are not clear for many
types of public space. They are often limited at present to office workers sitting
on benches during lunchtime periods and undesirables being discouraged from
lingering for too long in a downtown plaza.
One of the most predominant forms of current public-space behavior can
be characterized as recreational shopping, now a popular American family ac-
tivity. The evening or weekend spent shopping in the mall or downtown mar-
ketplace is part of public life (Prus, 1987). Private developers have been quick
to understand this consumer-oriented leisure activity by providing ample op-
portunities for food, performers, and benches. Public amenities and a highly
articulated physical environment are used to support the browsing and buying
behavior of recreational shopping. The rediscovery of the farmers' market, as
reported by Robert Sommer in his chapter in this volume, is part of this trend,
where people come together at the local park or downtown parking lot to buy
fresh vegetables, meet friends, and exchange news with neighbors. Shopping
is an important but still poorly understood aspect of public-space culture.
150 Mark Francis
THE CHANGING FACE OF PUBLIC SPACE
Changes in public life are transforming the design and management of
public spaces. Existing spaces have become more controlled by owners, man-
agers, and designers, Who uses spaces has become a primary concern of pri-
vate-space managers, with design and management being used in favor of
affluent users and against less desirable users such as teenagers, the elderly,
and the homeless.
The designer's romanticized view of European public space has also shifted
with the realization that the Italian piazza does not fit American public-space
cuI lure (Brill, Chapter 1, this volume). As Chidister (1988, p. 40) points out,
"Few, if any, of today's plazas achieve the concentration of vital political, com-
mercial, religious, and social functions that characterized the medieval piazza.
Today's public spaces are more amenity than necessity." Increased under-
standing of the limits of the "Euro-Urbanist" (Brill, Chapter 1, this volume)
view of American public space has led some to a search for more appropriate
design models for public space (Behl, 1987; Glazer & Lilla, 1987).
At the same time, new types of public spaces have been developed that
respond to the changing public life of cities (Francis, 1987b). To address man-
ager and owner concerns about undesirable uses and users, new types of spaces
have been developed that often restrict public access and use. Examples indude
the lockable park that is fenced and dosed at night and on weekends and the
indoor atrium plaza designed to be visually separate from the street and pa-
trolled by guards and dosed-circuit cameras.
At the neighborhood scale, numerous community parks and gardens have
been developed by neighborhood residents in response to the failure of some
traditional public parks and playgrounds (Francis, Cashdan, & Paxson, 1984).
These community-controlled sites also restrict access by fences and locks but
several hundred keys are often checked out to neighborhood residents for a
typical park. Community-controlled sites often experience equal or greater use
and satisfaction than nearby public parks (Francis, 1987c), as was the case with
a community garden and public park in downtown Sacramento, where the
garden was found to be more highly valued by both users and nonusers on
dimensions of beauty/visual quality, quality of facilities, and safety than the
publiC park.
THE PUBLICS OF PUBLIC SPACE
A discussion of public space raises the question, Who is public space for?
In reality, public space is the meeting ground of the interests of many diverse
groups. Studying the needs and agendas of these different publiCS is important
for understanding how public space is developed, used, and valued (Vernez-
Moudon, 1987).
Zube (1986) distinguishes between three types of publics involved in the
Control as a Dimension of   Quality 151
Figure 1. Jefferson Market Garden-a community-controlled and -developed garden in New
York City.
public landscape. The first are "professionals," who are involved in the de-
velopment of plans and policies. The second he calls the "interested public"-
those who perceive the plans as directly benefiting them. This group frequently
has a direct role in shaping public space. The "general public" is the third
category and it includes people who do not participate in making the plans or
policies.
152 Mark Francis
Using this framework as a starting point, a finer distinction of publics for
public space can be proposed. At least five distinct groups or publics can be
identified: users, nonusers, space managers and owners, city officials, and designers
(see Table 1). Each has its own set of interests in controlling public space.
USERS
Users are those who frequent public places and rely on them for passive
and active engagement. Rarely are they asked their opinions or directly in-
volved in designing or managing public spaces. The social failure of a number
of public spaces points to the need to better articulate the needs of users and
directly engage them in public-space design.
An example where lack of attention to user needs led to the eventual de-
molition of a redesigned plaza is Richard Serra's Titled Arc sculpture in the
Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan (Storr, 1985). In this commissioned public
art project designed without user input, the artist erected a large curved metal
structure in the center of the plaza blocking direct access to the building en-
trance. The building occupants protested, eventually winning a court case to
have the sculpture removed. Had the designer simply spent a lunchtime in-
formally talking to and observing users of the plaza, he might have recognized
the inappropriateness of his proposal.
NONUSERS
Nonusers are another important and often neglected publiC space group.
Many people pass by parks, plazas, and atriums on foot, in buses, and in cars
without ever becoming users. How these sites are perceived is important for
their overall value as public spaces. Studies of people's perception of places
(1m, 1984; Zube, Sell, & Taylor, 1982) point t.o the importance of visual elements
in landscape quality. A common problem with some new public places such
as lockable parks and atriums is that they deny visual access to nonusers.
SPACE MANAGERS AND OWNERS
Space managers and owners represent a powerful and influential public
space group. Either public (for example, a redevelopment authority) or private
(for example, the owner of a building), these groups hire designers, strongly
influence the assumptions that guide their work, and are responsible for the
daily functioning of public spaces. In the past, some building owners have
been interested in nonuse, discouraging public access to or ability to use a public
place. Grace Plaza in New York City is a well-documented example (Carr,
Francis, Rivlin, & Stone, in press). William Whyte (1980) has also documented
several plazas that were purposely designed to discourage use by not providing
comfortable seating.
Control as a Dimension of   Quality 153
TABLE 1. A FRAMEWORK 01: THE PUBLIC INTERESTS IN PUBLIC SPACE
Major publics
Users
Nonusers
Managers/owners
Public officials
Designers
Types
Age
Children
Teenagers
Adults
Elderly
Sex
Male
Female
Occupation/economic
Service
Professional
Unemployed/homeless
Same as above
Developers
Building owners
Banks
Tenants
Space managers
Guards
Investors
Stockholders
Planners
Zoning officials
Public-works engineers
Police department
Fire department
Review bodies/commissions
Landscape architects
Architects
Planners
Urban designers
Technical consultants
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Public-space interests
Use
Recreationlleisure time
Eating
Shopping
Passive engagement
Active engagement
Comfort
Visual quality
Visual quality
Effect on
Local economy
Tax base
Image
Cost
Profit/return on investment
Maintenance
Economic development
Design quality
Relationship of projects to
standards, codes, and
guidelines
Technical
Aesthetic quality
Client acceptance
Liability
Recognition
(awards, published projects)
Public officials are charged with the overall quality of the public landscape
of towns and cities. City agencies typically responsible for public spaces include
Departments of City Planning, Parks and Recreation, Real Estate, Public Works,
etc. These agencies are faced with the difficult task of developing and main-
taining new parks, streets, and squares as well as reviewing proposals for
privately developed ones. An example of the complex and often competing
154 Mark Francis
role of public agencies in public space policy can be seen in New York City,
where over a dozen agencies are involved in open-space policy. Many of these
agencies were working against one another. Departments of Park and Recre-
ation, Planning, General Services, and Housing Preservation and Development
are all involved in development of parks, community gardens, and waterfront
areas. Most are not familiar with each other's projects and efforts are often
duplicated. At the same time, the New York City Department of Real Estate
has sold city-owned property slated for open-space development at public auc-
tion to private developers for housing. These problems led the Mayor to appoint
an interagency Open Space Task Force to better coordinate city policy. Other
cities such as Boston and San Francisco have also established cross-depart-
mental groups to better coordinate open-space and housing policy.
The trend to give private developers greater responsibility for prOViding
open spaces has presented public officials with a difficult challenge. For ex-
ample, indoor atrium spaces are being developed in many cities as part of the
official requirement for providing public space. Yet many of these places are
not accessible to the public. This led the City of New York to require that
building owners post signs stating that spaces were open to the public. Another
example of the complex relationship between public and private interests in
public-space management can be seen in a recent controversy over Bryant Park
in midtown Manhattan. The New York City Park Department developed an
agreement with a private nonprofit corporation to take over the management
of the park. The group then proposed allowing a private developer to build a
large and exclusive restaurant in the park. After intense debate, the proposal
was defeated by environmental groups; however, management of Bryant Park
remains in private hands.
DESIGNERS
DeSigners, such as landscape architects, architects, and urban designers,
play an influential role in shaping public space. Design often defines the be-
havioral rules of public space, communicating what is allowed and what is
forbidden in open spaces. Fences, gates, edges, surfaces, and lack of amenities
can communicate strong messages to users about the lack of hospitality of a
space. On the other hand, a water feature that encourages touching, com-
fortable benches, and shade trees on a hot day can invite use.
CONTROL AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPT
The goal of public control of the environment, as pointed out by J. B.
Jackson (1984), is to "make favorable differences in the lives of the public."
There is a long history in the United States of political and legal protection of
the quality of the public environment. Examples of laws and regulations pro-
Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality 155
tecting the public landscape include the zoning of land use, general plans that
control density, and design guidelines that control building heights.
Control of the public environment grows out of a tradition of community
activism in the United States concerned with the enhancement of the civic
environment (Zube, 1986). For example, in the late 19th century, numerous
visual improvement societies existed for the protection and enhancement of
public places. Local groups formed for the promotion of outdoor art and the
development of town parks. These groups were also strong advocates for other
types of civic improvements. Zube (1986) points out that by 1880 there were
over 200 rural and community improvement associations in New England with
more in other states. Cranz (1982) traces the influence ollocal concern for public
health and improvement of the city in the early 20th century to the rise of the
public playground, gymnasium, and schoolyard. The "city beautiful" move-
ment was part of this social movement. Control as an environmental concept
grows out of this tradition.
Environmental design research has also contributed useful information on
the importance of the public environment. Research in the 1970s by William
Whyte (1980) on use of urban plazas in New York City and subsequent studies
(Gehl, 1987; Project for Public Spaces, 1981; Chidister, 1986) in diverse Amer-
ican and European cities identifies use as an important prerequisite to public-
space quality. This perspective, simply stated, is that when a public space is
heavily populated, it is successful.
However, a significant problem with use as a major indicator of success
is the fact that activity alone is not a good gauge of the public values attached
to a space. For example, the lunchtime use of an office tower plaza may be the
result of a lack of meaningful alternatives. The space may be occupied but not
loved. It is this deeper attachment to place that is ignored by a central focus
on use as a measure of satisfaction.
More recently, concepts such as environmental meaning or one's con-
nectedness to a place have been advanced as an important dimension of good
public spaces (Carr et ai., in press; Francis, 1988a; Rapoport, 1982). The at-
tachment of meaning to a public space can occur at several different levels. For
example, human connectedness to a place can be at the individual level, as
with a person experiencing a special event such as a wedding or memorable
concert in a town park or public garden. Meaning can also be attached by a
group to a public place, such as teenagers plaCing value on a certain street
corner or an ethnic group's tradition of celebrating a festival on the same street
at the same time every year. Meaning can also be at a national level as in the
case of the millions of Americans and others who celebrate New Year's Eve in
Times Square in New York City in their minds and through watching the events
there on their television sets.
Another aspect of the attachment of meaning to a public space is through
direct involvement in the designing or building of a place. Many examples of
public spaces being designed with public participation now exist and those that
have been documented through case study research point to the benefits of
design participation (lacofano, 1986). A current example is the design process
156 Mark Francis
for the North Park in Battery Park City in lower Manhattan. Gary Hack and
Stephen Carr of Carr Lynch Associates are engaging residents in the design of
the park through a variety of participatory techniques. The developers of the
park, Battery Park City Authority, report that this participatory process has
enhanced the sense of attachment of residents to this new, large-scale com-
munity. A similar participatory process used by Davis Design Research to de-
velop a master plan for the expansion of Central Park in Davis, California, has
resulted in the fostering of a sense of local ownership and advocacy for the
master plan.
Direct involvement of users in the construction and maintenance of a place
also may enhance meaning or attachment to a public place. Hart (1978) has
documented the importance of children's building and modification of the land-
scape in child development. Hester (1985) involved Manteo, North Carolina,
residents in the design and construction of a boardwalk along the town's water-
front. He found that their involvement in construction added to increased use
of the waterfront and greater satisfaction with the project. Similar results have
been documented in the case of community-built gardens in several New York
City (Francis, Cashdan, & Paxson, 1984) and Boston (Warner, 1987)
neighborhoods.
An ingredient of meaning is the concept of control or people's ability to
directly influence their Own use and experience of a place. In one of the most
comprehensive discussions of the importance of freedom and control in open
spaces, Carr and Lynch (1981) argue that user satisfaction is determined largely
by one's ability to control one's experience of the place. They cite examples
such as the territorial claims over open spaces by some groups, such as drug
dealers, which in turn deny others their right of access and use.
CONTROL AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT
Control as a psychological concept has been a focus of considerable re-
search and theoretical attention (Langer, 1975; Lefcourt, 1982; Wortman, 1975).
The desirability of perceived control in a variety of situations has been found
to be a prerequisite for a positive experience for some people (Burger & Cooper,
1979; Dougherty, 1988). Recently, Langer (1983) has conceptualized control to
mean the "mindful process of mastering," which differs from previous views
of control as achieving an outcome. Control has been defined in various ways
in the social sciences, including the mindful process of mastery (Langer, 1983);
efficacy (White, 1959); internal versus external control (Lefcourt, 1982); and
process versus decision control (Tyler, Rasinki, & Spodick, 1985).
In person-environment studies, personal control has been found to be an
important mediating variable in reducing stress (Ulrich & Simons, 1986) and
the perception of crowding (Baldassare, 1979; Saegert, Mackintosh, & West,
1975). These studies support Lynch's (1981) suggestion that the environmental
"fit" of a person and an environment is enhanced by the ability of a person to
directly control or mOdify his or her environment. Retreating to a doorway at
Control as a Dimension of   Quality 157
a crowded bus stop or turning away from the person next to you on a crowded
subway are examples of ways people adapt environments to fit their needs.
When the ability to control the environment is reduced or eliminated, as in the
case of an overcrowded apartment or noisy office environment, negative ex-
periences such as stress or social withdrawal increase.
Territoriality is one key dimension of control. As defined by Altman (1975,
p. 106), "Territoriality involves the mutually exclusive use of areas and objects
by persons and objects." Brown (1987) reviews the structural characteristics of
territoriality. Territories, she suggests, are a form of "markings" that promote
display of personal identity and regulate social systems.
Altman (1975) distinguishes three types of territories that differ on di-
mensions of duration of occupancy and psychological centrality. Primary ter-
ritories are settings such as homes and bedrooms, which are occupied for long
periods of time and are central to their occupants. The last two types form the
basis of a discussion of public space. Secondary territories such as a bar or
neighborhood park are somewhat more accessible to a greater number of users
but regular occupants exert some control over the space. These spaces take on
a more collective ownership and shared public control. The third type is a public
territory such as seats on a bus or a table in a restaurant, where occupancy is
often determined on a "first come, first served basis" and for brief periods of
time.
Applied to public space, the claiming of space by drug dealers or teenagers
is an example of spatial territoriality in an urban park. For example, in a study
and redesign of Exxon Mini Park in midtown Manhattan, Project for Public
Space (PI'S, 1981) found drug dealing to be a barrier to use of the plaza. The
use of the plaza entry by drug dealers at lunchtime contributed to both un-
deruse and misuse of the plaza. A redesign by PI'S introduced food, com-
fortable seating, and a physical layout that provided for belter visual surveil-
lance by the plaza managers. As lunchtime use increased, the drug-dealing
behavior shifted to other locations outside the plaza.
One reason people may be interested in more directly controlling places
they use is that many parts of their everyday life are beyond their direct control.
In a society where life has become anonymous and privacy is a legally guarded
concept, some individuals and groups are working to create settings for greater
public interaction and enjoyment. The concept of publicness or one's right to
use the public environment has emerged as a central issue in urban design.
CONTROL AS A PARTICIPATION CONCEPT
Direct participation in designing, building, and managing environments
has been found to increase user satisfaction in a variety of spaces including
communities, the workplace, and open spaces such as parks and playgrounds
(Wandersman, 1981). The effects of participation need to be more fully studied
by environmental design researchers (Francis, 1985), but, clearly, participation
158 Mark Francis
in design has been found to increase a sense of attachment and ownership for
many participants. For example, lacofano (1986) reviewed several environ-
mental design projects and found that participation was instrumental in fos-
tering a sense of personal growth, self-actualization, and political efficacy.
Control has been advanced as an important goal of participation. Arnstein
(1969), in an early and widely cited framework of citizen participation, suggests
several levels of participation. In her "ladder of participation," citizen control
is the ultimate goal of participation, followed by delegated power, partnership,
placation, consultation, informing, therapy, and finally manipulation as de-
creasing degrees of participation and citizen power.
Hester (1987) cautions that participation does not always lead to equity
and environmental justice. Like Arnstein, he points out that participation with-
out real control over decision making can often lead to decreased environmental
equity. Pateman (1970) argues that real environmental control implies a sharing
of power. She attributes the limits of participation to basic structural problems
of power and politicS that often work against decentralized control over decision
making. Politics and power have important influences on control.
This political view is useful for a discussion of public-space quality because
it points out that control implies a sense of individual or group ownership or
stewardship. When the degree of real or perceived control is limited, the
amount of perceived responsibility over a place may be limited. For example,
perceived control may reduce littering in a public plaza or reduce teenage graf-
fiti in a neighborhood park by offering users a sense of caring for a place. Thus
participation becomes a tool to achieve perceived control in public places.
CONTROL OF PUBLIC SPACE: A DEFINITION AND
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Kevin Lynch, in Theory of Good City Form (1981), offers a useful starting
point for defining the importance of control in quality of place. He suggests
that spatial control-or its absence-has strong psychological consequences
such as contributing to anxiety, satisfaction, and pride. He proposes five forms
of spatial control: presence, use and action, appropriation, modification, and
disposition. A brief review of these rights is useful in understanding how con-
trol can be provided for in public space.
Presence is the right of access to a place. Without access, use and action
are not possible. Use and action involve one's ability to use a space. Appropriation
allows users to claim ownership, either symbolic or real, of a site. Modification
is the right to change a space to facilitate use. Disposition is the ability to transfer
one's use and ownership of a public place to someone else. Together, these
spatial rights provide a conceptual definition of control in public space.
Following Lynch's framework, a preliminary definition of control of public
places can be developed. Control is the ability of an individual or group to gain
access to, utilize, influence, gain ownership over, and attach meaning to a public place.
Control as a Dimension of   Quality
TABLE 2. DIMENSIONS OF CONTROL IN PUJ3L1C
ENVIRONMENTS
Individual
Symbolic
Temporary
IncJusionary
One time
Group
Real
Permanent
Exclusionary
Continuous
159
When conflicts arise between groups or individuals with competing interests,
control becomes a process through which conflicts are identified, negotiated,
and resolved.
Control can be either individual or group, as in the case of seniors or
teenagers gathering in a park. Control can be real, as in the case of a group
owning a site, or symbolic, as in a "Friends of the Park" group that takes on
management responsibility for an open space. Control can also be temporary,
existing for only certain times of tl1e day, week, or year, or permanent, as in
the complete control of a space. Control can be for one time only or continuous
over a long period of time. Control can include or invite people into the process
or place. It can also be exclusionary, restricting opportunities for involvement
or use. Table 2 shows some dimensions of control in the public environment.
CONTROL IN THE PUBLIC LANDSCAPE: THE EXAMPLE OF
GARDENING
The role of control in developing a satisfactory relationship to public space
can be seen in one example-the growing interest in gardening as a recreational
activity. A 1987 Gallup Poll found gardening to be the most popular of outdoor
recreation activities surpassing jogging, swimming, fishing, and bicycling (Na-
tional Gardening Association, 1987). Over 74 million American households re-
portedly garden, many on community sites. Americans spent $17.4 billion on
their lawns and gardens in 1987. This represented a 23% increase from 1986
spending levels. The sharp increase in the number of garden supply and seed
catalogues is further evidence of the increased public interest and involvement
in gardening (Francis & Hester, 1987).
Several studies have begun to point out the psychological and restorative
benefits of gardens and gardening (Altman & Wohlwill, 1983; Francis 1987c;
Kaplan, 1973). Kaplan's study of community gardens in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
found that gardening produced increased self-esteem and contributed to sat-
isfaction with other aspects of people's lives. Kimber (1973), in a study of Puerto
Rican gardens, reported that "gardens ... represent social territories in which
persons define their own places and express their self images" (p. 7).
This sense of symbolic ownership and control is a major motivation in the
increasing number of community garden projects in U.S. communities. In a
160 Mark Francis
TABLE 3. SOME CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A COMMUNITY-
CONTROLLED COMMUNITY GARDEN AND A OTY-CONTROLLED PUBLIC
PARKa
Public park
Passive
Quiet/relax
Be alone
Clean/neat
To look at
Publicly controlled/managed
Permanent
Green attracts people
Liked
• Adapted from Francis (1987c).
Community garden
Active
Activity/work
Get together
Messy but cared for
To participate in
User-controlled/managed
Temporary
People attract people
Loved
study of ten community-developed garden and park sites in New York City
(Francis et a!., 1984), the desires to improve the appearance of the neighborhood
and to grow fresh vegetables and flowers were the most frequently mentioned
reasons people reported for getting involved in these projects. This intimate
contact with and control over nature is one way urban residents create a sense
of place for themselves. Other studies have identified as motivation both the
visual preference for natural elements and vegetation (Schroeder, in press; Ul-
rich, 1979) and the active engagement gardening offers to people (Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1987).
Community gardening as a human activity illustrates Lynch's framework.
A garden must invite presence and be accessible. The process of gardening is
both use and action-occupying a space and changing it. The gardener ap-
propriates the space and directly modifies it through planting, pruning, and
harvesting. The gardener is free to transfer the real or symbolic ownership of
his or her plot to others.
In the previously cited study comparing perceptions regarding an adjacent
community garden and public park in downtown Sacramento, control was
found to be a key reason why both users and nonusers placed higher value
on the gardens than the park (Francis, 1987b). Although fenced and locked,
the gardens were valued by nonusers because they communicated a sense of
caring for a place, something not communicated by the public park. Table 3
summarizes some conceptual and perceived differences between public parks
and community gardens (Francis, 1987b).
The garden has also become part of the workplace with the advent of the
employee garden popular in some corporate environments. For example, two
insurance companies in Marin County north of San Francisco, Fireman's Fund
and Amex Life Assurance Company, have set aside space for employee gar-
dening. The garden site includes 15 plots but that does not satisfy the demand
by employees who want space to raise vegetables and flowers. The companies
put up the fence and supply the water; corporations such as Hewlett-Packard
Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality 161
in Palo Alto also have established employee gardening programs as part of
their corporate landscape.
The expanded role of the urban garden as public space illustrates how
gardens are becoming integrated into public life (Francis, 1988c). The garden
is becoming part of the park, the plaza, the waterfront, the hospital, the home-
less shelter, and housing for the elderly.
SOME CONTROL ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC SPACE
There are several control issues of concern to public-space users, designers,
and managers. They include the growing privatization of public space by cor-
porations and building owners, the increasing use of public spaces by the home-
less and other disenfranchised groups, and the role of user ownership and
accessibility in satisfactory relationships with public space. These issues help
to illustrate the different ways control influences public space perception and
use.
PRIVATE INTERESTS VERSUS PUBLIC NEEDS
Public spaces are becoming increasingly privatized by owners and man-
agers (Kinkowski, 1981). The privatization of open space raises basic questions
regarding what a public space is for and who it serves. Private interests, in-
cluding merchants, bankers, developers, and property owners, are actively
involved in the making and managing of public spaces. These groups frequently
exert strong influence over public-space design and policy.
An example of how control relates to open space is a proposal to build a
multistory building on the site of the New York City Coliseum, located on the
southwest corner of Central Park. The building, as originally proposed, would
cast a large shadow over the park and critics argued that this would change
the park's use. Some cities such as San Francisco have adopted tough policies
to guarantee solar access to existing public spaces, but New York City has not,
pitting development interests against park advocates. Only after the Municipal
Arts Society provided a simulated photograph showing the shadow cast over
the park did the city force the developers to scale back the project. People's
right to solar access and thus enjoyment of public space promises to continue
to be a major urban policy issue in the future.
PUBLIC SPACE AS HOME
Public space has become home for many people. Although there have
always been homeless people in public spaces in cities, the homeless are pop-
ulating parks, open plazas, and streets in increasing numbers. A current ex-
ample is Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, which is permanent home to some
people who live in the park's wild areas and in vans and autos on its perimeter.
162 Mark Francis
Figure 2. Public space as home. Fig Tree Park in Santa Barbara, California.
Cities such as Los Angeles and New York are struggling to find better
solutions to housing for the homeless, yet the problem is still growing and
there are no clear answers. Downtown Sacramento is redesigning many of its
downtown open spaces to exclude homeless people without planning or con-
cern for alternative settings or shelter. One large-scale attempt to solve the
problem was the urban campground for the homeless constructed in Los An-
geles. Only after being compared to a modern "concentration camp" was the
idea abandoned. The ability of homeless people to have control over their lives
and environment is a central part of the solution to this larger social problem.
PERSONALIZATION AND PUBLIC SPACES
The ability of people to change or modify a public space is also important.
There are several ways users directly personalize public environments. Ex-
amples include the opportunity for people to garden in a public plaza or move
furniture in a park to be able to sit in the sun. Other ways are through popular
art such as murals (Sommer, 1983). The sides of buildings in ethnic neighbor-
hoods such as Hispanic communities in Los Angeles are now dotted with mu-
rals expressing local culture and politics.
There also are subtle and indirect ways people personalize public spaces.
As part of a fund-raising effort for a new plaza in downtown Portland, Oregon,
residents contributed to the purchase of bricks. The plaza is now paved with
the bricks that bear the names of the donors and, part of the use of the plaza
includes people finding familiar names of friends or neighbors. A similar but
more emotional activity can be observed at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington, D.C., where visitors discover the names of relatives killed in the
Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality 163
Figure 3. Discovering names in the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Wall, Washington, D.C.
Vietnam War in the granite wall and often leave flowers, photos, and other
mementos. Another recent example of personalization of public space that com-
municates meaning to people is the AIDS quilt touring public spaces in several
U.S. cities. The patchwork quilt covering the length of two football fields in-
cludes 2,176 panels created by friends and family members of AIDS victims.
Personalization raises important questions about how public space is per-
ceived by different publics. User maintenance of an open space, such as elderly
residents planting a flower box in a housing project entrance, communicates
a sense of caring for the environment. This has been supported by some studies
of public open spaces. As we have seen, nonusers of a community garden
project in downtown Sacramento were found to place high value on the garden
because they "read" that the place was cared for (Francis, 1987c).
On the other hand, personalization can discourage participation or result
in negative perceptions by some publics. For example, groups taking over a
164 Mark Francis
space such as the homeless camping on the Venice, California, beach is seen
as a barrier for local residents to use and enjoy the public beach. Thus, per-
sonalization has qualitative dimensions that communicate messages of caring
or neglect, access of restriction, and safety or fear.
ACCESSIBILITY
Access is an important prerequisite to realizing many other dimensions of
public-space quality. For a space to be well used it must be accessible (Lynch,
1981). Access is also essential if people are going to be able to attach meaning
to a public place. For example, teenagers' access to community places was
found by van Vliet (1983) to be important for them to feel attached to a com-
munity. The access of the elderly to comfortable outdoor spaces provides op-
portunities for informal sOcializing and reduces a sense of isolation in housing
projects.
Three types of access are important in public spaces. The first is the direct
physical access to a plaza or park. Design devices such as doors, walls, and
locked gates are being used by some public space designers and managers to
physically block access to some spaces. Examples include lockable parks and
atriums, now popular in corporate open-space design. Another form of access
is social, where a space is open to different classes or types of users. For ex-
ample, the City of Seattle surveyed public places, and found many to be in-
accessible or poorly designed for children. A further example is public art,
which is frequently not designed at a child's scale. A third type of access is
visual, or the ability to see into a park or plaza. Visual access has been found
by several researchers to be critical for people to feel safe and secure in a public
place (Wiedermann, 1985). Nager and Wentworth (1976) found lack of visual
access into Bryant Park to be a major barrier to people's use of the park. They
also discovered that the visual barriers supported the role of the park as an
active setting for drug dealing. Now over a decade after they made recom-
mendations for removing some fences and lowering hedges on the borders of
the park, park officials are implementing the recommendations after trying
more expensive and less successful changes.
OWNERSHIP
Ownership is a direct form of spatial control. As sense of ownership in-
creases, owner responsibility and concern for the quality of the environment
often increases. Ownership can be either real or symbolic. Real ownership is
when a space is legally owned by an individual, group, or corporation. The
transfer of ownership from city government to private developers explains the
increasing private control over public space. At the neighborhood scale, some
parks and gardens have become owned as community land trusts by local
residents who are legally responsible for preserving and maintaining the sites
as permanent and publically accessible open spaces.
Control as a Dimension of   Quality 165
Symbolic ownership is a more common way users feel part of public places.
The claiming of territory by teenagers populating benches in a park is one
indicator of users' feeling a sense of ownership over a space. The results of
perceived ownership have both positive and negative consequences. When
ownership results in the exclusion of people who would like to use a space,
access is denied. Ownership can also serve to invite people into a space by
communicating a sense of caring or responsibility.
There are several direct benefits of ownership in community settings. Real
or symbolic ownership of community gardens has been found to result in im-
portant psychological benefits such as increased self-esteem and satisfaction
with Significant aspects of people's lives (Kaplan, 1973; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1987).
Home ownership increases positive attitudes of residents toward their neigh-
borhood and fosters social contact.
SAFETY
To feel safe and secure in a space is also a prerequisite for space use (Stewart
& McKenzie, 1978). Safety is a critical issue for the elderly and women in public
spaces. Many women report not using parks and plazas because of fear of rape
or other forms of physical violence (Wiedermann, 1985). An ability to feel a
sense of control over a space, to be able to see in, to escape easily, or to gain
assistance in times of crisis are examples of how a place can be made to feel
more secure.
Urban vegetation contributes to one's sense of security and safety in public
space. Schroeder (in press) reports on findings of a study in which people rated
park photographs to determine perceived risk and safety. Long-view distances,
open grassy areas, and water were associated with high degrees of perceived
safety, whereas physical features such as dense vegetation, graffiti, and litter
decreased the perception of safety. This concept supports physiological find-
ings by Ulrich and Simons (1986) showing that scenes with vegetation promoted
more relaxed and less stressful states than scenes lacking vegetation.
CONFLICT
The desire for diverse and often competing groups to control the design
and management of a public place like a plaza or park will increase the amount
of conflict in the development and management process (Berman, 1986). Yet
conflict and negotiation are hallmarks of the democratic process and the concept
of public space (Francis, 1987a). An example of the role conflict can play in
urban design was the proposal to site the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library in
Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the mid-1970s (Francis, 1975).
The approval of the project was blocked because the developers did not let
concerned community members participate in the design process, which could
have led to a consensus plan and project approval. Instead, the developers
chose to control the design process themselves and decided to relocate the
166 Mark Francis
project to an undeveloped part of Boston where the project could avoid public
scrutiny.
SOME DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INCREASING CONTROL IN PUBLIC SPACE
Good design and management are central to making good public places
(Project for Public Spaces, 1984). How can an understanding of the role of
personal control in public-space quality be more fully integrated into the design
and management process for public places?
The direct participation of users in the design and management process
is one mechanism to increase control (Florin & Wandersman, 1984). As dis-
cussed earlier, participation can increase the perceived attachment of people
to environments they have input in designing or managing. For example,
Becker (1977) found that the ability to participate in both design and manage-
ment was an important ingredient in resident satisfaction with housing
projects. There are now well established and tested techniques for maximizing
user participation in public environmental design (Iacofano, 1985). They in-
clude workshops, user consultancy, participatory mapping, and surveys. Par-
ticipation is also a useful device in articulating and negotiating between the
often conflicting values of different groups in public open-space design. Par-
ticipation was employed successfully to clarify and resolve different design
values between children and adults for a neighborhood playground in Davis,
California (Francis, 1988b).
Another way to involve the public in public-space decisions is environ-
mental simulation. Films or photographs are used to present the visual impacts
of proposed development as part of the public debate over proposed new
projects. This technique has been used recently to present visual simulations
of development proposals in New York City and San Francisco on public tele-
vision ·to invite public comment. Utilizing models, the UC Berkeley Environ-
mental Simulation Laboratory, under the direction of Peter Bosselmann, has
prepared public television programs showing the visual effects of new buildings
proposed on the East Side and Times Square areas in Manhattan, downtown
San Francisco, and the UC Berkeley campus. The films became part of the public
review process for the projects, helping decision makers and the public evaluate
the qualitative aspects of new development.
People's interest in haVing greater control of places they use has affected
the form and management of both older and newer types of urban open spaces.
Following a typology developed for this purpose (Francis, 1987c), some specific
ways personal control can be integrated into streets, parks, plazas, and down-
town public spaces can be identified.
STREETS
Streets are an important part of the public landscape of cities (see Nasar,
Chapter 2, this volume). For neighborhood streets, resident efforts to control
Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality 167
traffic speed and volume have been found by Appleyard (1981) and others to
increase people's use of and attachment to streets they live on. A study of
residential traffic control and street redesign in a West Germany city (Eubanks-
Ahrens, 1985) found reduction or elimination of auto traffic greatly increased
children's access to and use of streets.
Another way to increase people's sense of control over streets is the design
of town trails, a mechanism used in many parts of Britain. Here streets serve
as teachers of local history with an interpretive trail marked through areas of
historic interest. School children, tourists, and local residents utilize the urban
trail system to discover local architectural and cultural history (Goodey, 1975).
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
There are several ways people can be given a greater sense of control over
neighborhood parks and playgrounds. Personal control can be applied to neigh-
borhood parks and community open spaces through both symbolic and real
ownership. Symbolic ownership can be achieved by initiating a "Friends of the
Park" group or real ownership established when users own the park as a land
trust. "Loose parts" such as natural elements can also be provided in play-
grounds and neighborhood parks to support children's direct modification of
the environment (Nicholson, 1971). These simple and low-cost elements serve
to increase environmental competence and learning for children and teenagers
(Hart, 1978; Hayward, Rothenberg, & Beasley, 1974).
PLAZAS AND DOWNTOWN PUBLIC SPACES
Design devices can be employed by deSigners to invite direct physical con-
trol and modification of plazas and downtown spaces. One is the ability to
touch or become actively engaged with water. Another is the movable chair,
which Whyte (1980) has shown to help people adapt plazas to their own needs
such as sitting in the sun, being alone, or sitting in a group. Also, office workers
could be given the opportunity to garden in plazas, thus communicating to
others a sense of caring for the space while reducing the maintenance costs for
the owner. As we have seen, this has already been successfully tested in some
co"porate office parks in California.
Farmer's markets are being introduced into public open spaces, such as
downtown streets and central parks, and give people an opportunity to have
greater control over the quality of food they purchase. As Sommer states (Chap-
ter 3, this volume), a farmers' market renaissance is taking place in many com-
munities. Public spaces such as parks and plazas in small towns and large cities
are being redesigned to include markets. For example, a major program element
in the reconstructed Copley Square in Boston is the provision of space for a
farmers' market in the plaza. Based on the great success of the Davis, California,
farmers' market, a permanent plaza is being planned for the market in the
town's central park.
168 Mark Francis
Figure 4. Movable chairs in Western Plaza, Washington, D.C.-an example of opportunities
for personal control in public spaces.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND DESIGN
The effect of control on public environments raises several issues in need
of further empirical study and design exploration. One example of research
needed is a study of the role of control in the design, management, and use
of different public-space types. Traditional spaces such as parks and play-
grounds need to he examined, as do newer and more innovative environments,
such as waterfront areas, transit malls, and everyday public spaces including
steps to public buildings and streetcomers. For example, how can users be
made to feel more a part of privately provided public spaces such as atriums
and indoor plazas? How does the management of urban streets affect residents'
perceived or actual control of streets? How can greater user control contribute
to decreased vandalism or improved maintenance of public spaces?
Ownership and territoriality as outcomes of control need to be more deeply
examined to determine how they impact on the quality of public environments.
Both the interests of different publics in controJling public places and how
control relates to the decision-making process require further study. New meth-
ods for expanding public involvement must be developed and tested. The social
and psychological impact of involvement or exclusion from the decision-making
process also requires careful examination.
Innovative design ideas must be developed to provide opportunities for
people to directly shape and arrange spaces they use. Flexibility and change
can be better provided for in the physical design of public spaces. Designers
must recognize the changing and often evolutionary nature of public spaces,
and owners and managers need to support such efforts by funding evaluation
and redeSign on a continuing basis (Francis, 1987b). Control needs to occupy
a larger part of the overall agenda for environmental design research.
Control as a Dimension of   Quality 169
CONCLUSIONS
Public control has a long history of importance in civic improvement and
will continue to shape the urban environment of the future. Public control also
affects how the environment is used, perceived, and valued. Control is a mech-
anism by which people come to attach meaning-both positive and negative-
to public places.
As seen in the research cited in this chapter, control of the public envi-
ronment has both advantages and disadvantages. Control can contribute to a
place being cared for or neglected. It can also nurture user responsibility for a
place. Lack of control can foster a sense of neglect or disregard. Control by one
individual or group can deny the right of access or use to other groups.
The process of making, managing, and changing public places needs to
be an open democratic process engaging the ideas and interests of diverse
individuals and groups. It is imperative that the design and management of
public space remain part of the public arena. Only then can urban spaces be-
come more fully integrated into our evolving public culture.
REFERENCES
Altman, I. (1975), Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding,
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole,
Altman, 1., & Wohlwill, J, p, (Eds,), (1983). Behavior & the natural environment. New York:
Plenum Press.
Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institufe of Planners.
35, 216-224.
Baldassare, M. (1979). Residential crowding in urban America. Berkeley, CA: University of Cal·
ifornia Press.
Becker, F. C. (1977). User participation, personalization, and environmental meaning: Three field
studies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Program in Urban & Regional Studies.
Berman, M. (1986). Take it to the streets: Conflict and community in public space. Dissent,
Fall, 33, 478-485.
Brown, B. (1987). Territoriality. In D, Stokols & I. Altman, (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
psychology (Volume 1, pp. 503-532). New York Wiley.
Burger, J. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The deSirability of contro1. Motivation and Emotion, 3,
381-393.
Carr,S., Francis, M., Rivlin, 1., & Stone, A. (in press). Public space for public life, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Carr,S., & Lynch, K. (1981), Open space: Freedom and control. In 1. Taylor (Ed.), Urban
open spaces (pp. 17-18). New York: Rizzoli.
Chidister, M. (1986). The effect of context on the use of urban plazas. Landscape Journal, 5,
115-127.
Chidister, M. (1988). Reconsidering the piazza. Landscape Architecture, 78, 40-43.
Cranz, C. (1982). The politics of park design. Cambridge, MA: M.LT. Press.
Dougherty, D. (1988). Participation in community orgatlizations: Effects of political efficacy, personal
efficaClj, and self-esteem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA,
Vol. 48, No. 10, Section A, p. 2578.
170 Mark Francis
  B. (1985). The impact of woonerven on children's behavior. Children's En-
vironments Quarterly, 1,
Fischer, C. (1981). The public and private worlds of city life. American Sociological RevieuJ, 46,
306-316.
Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in community
development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 689-708.
Francis, M. (1975). Urban impact assessment and community involvement: The case of the
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library. Environment & Behavior, 7, 373-404.
Francis, M. (1985). Research and design participation. In M. R. Beheshti (Ed.), Design coaUtion
team: Proceedings of tlte International Design Participatfoll Conference (pp. 211-221). Eind-
hoven, Netherlands: Department of Architecture and Planning.
Francis, M. (1987a). The making of democratic streets. In A. V. Moudon (Ed.), Public streets
for public use (pp. 22-39). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Francis, M. (1987b). Some different meanings attached to a public park and community gar-
dens. Landscape Journal, 6, 101-112.
Francis, M. (1987c). Urban open spaces. In E. Zube & G. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment,
behavior & design, (Vol. 1, pp. 71-106). New York: Plenum Press.
Francis, M. (1988a). Changing values for public spaces. Landscape Architecture, 78, 54-59.
Francis, M. (1988b). Negotiating between children and adult design values in open space
projects. Design Studies, 9, 67-75.
Francis, M. (1988c). The urban garden as public space. Unpublished paper presented at the
Future of Urban Open Space Symposium, University of California, Berkeley, October 29.
Francis, M., Cashdan, L., & Paxson, L (1984). Community open spaces. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Francis, M., & Hester, R. (Eds.). (1987). Proceedings of the Meanings of the Garden Conference.
Davis, CA: University of California, Center for Design Research.
Gehl, J. (1987). The life between bUildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Glazer, N., & Lilla, M. (1987). The public face of architecture: Civic culture and public spaces. New
York: Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the organization of gatherings. New York:
Macmillan.
Goodey, B. (1975). Urban trails: Origins and opportunities. Journal of the Royal Town Planning
Institute, 61, 29-30.
Hart, R. (1978). Children's experience of place. New York: Irvington.
Hayward, D., Rothenberg, M., & Beasley, R. (1974). Children's play and urban playground
types: A comparison of traditional, contemporary, and adventure playground types. En-
vironment & Behavior, 6, 131-168.
Hester, R. (1985). Subconscious landscapes in the heart. Places, 2, 10-22.
Hester, R. (1987). Participatory design and environmental justice. Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research, 4, 301-309.
Hiss, T. (1987, June 22, 29). Experiencing places. The New Yorker, pp. 45-68, 37-86.
Iacofano, D. (1986). Public involvement as an organizational development process: A proactive theory
for enviromnelttal planning program management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Department of Landscape Architecture, Berkeley, CA, Vol. 48, No.5, Section
A, p. 1333.
1m, S. B. (1984). Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces. Environment & Behavior, 16,
235-262.
Jackson, J. B. (1984). Discovering the vernaclllar landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment & Behavior, 5, 145-
16l.
Kaplan, K, & Kaplan, S. (1987). The garden as restorative experience: A research odyssey.
Control as a Dimension of   Quality 171
In M. Francis & R. Hester (Eds.), Proceedings of the Meanings of the Garden Conference (pp,
334-341). Davis, CA: University of California, Center for Design Research,
Kimber, C. T. (1973). Spatial patterning in the dooryard gardens of Puerto Rico, Geographical
Review, 63, 6-26.
Kinkowski, W, S, (1981), The mailing of America. New York: Morrow,
Langer, E, (1983). The pSyc1lOlogy of control. Los Angeles: Sage.
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-
328.
Le£Court, H. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ; Erlbaum.
Lennard, S. H., & Lennard, J. L. (1984). Ptiblic life in urban places, Southamptom: Gondolier
Press.
Levine, C. (1984, June), Making city spaces lovable places. Psychology Today, pp, 56-63.
Lofland, L. (1973). A world of strangers: Order and action in urban public space. New York: Basic
Books.
Lofland, 1. (in press). Social life in the public realm: A review essay, Journal of Contemporanj
Ethnography,
Lynch, K (1981), Good city form. Cambridge, MA M,LT, Press,
Nagar, A. R, & Wentworth, W. R. (1976). Bryant Park: A comprehensive evaluation of its image
and use with implications for urban open space design. New York: City University of New
York, Center for Human Environments.
National Gardening Association, (1987), Gallup Poll National Gardening Survey, Burlington, VT:
Author,
Nicholson, S. (1971). Theory of loose parts; How not to cheat children. Landscape Architecture,
61, 30-34.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Project for Public Spaces. (1981), What people do downtown: How to look at mainstreet activity,
Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Project for Public Spaces. (1984). Managing downtown public spaces. Chicago: Planners Press,
American Planning Association.
Prus, R. (1987). Developing loyalty: Fostering purchasing relationships in the marketplace,
Urban Life, 15, 331-366.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment. Los Angeles: Sage,
Saegert, 5., Mackintosh, E., & West, S. (1975). Two studies of crowding in urban public spaces.
Environment & Behavior, 7, 159-184.
Schroeder, H, (in press), Research on urban forests. In E. Zube & C. Moore (Eds.), Advances
in erzvironment, behavior & design (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum Press.
Seamon, D" & Nordin, C. (1980). Marketplace as place ballet. Landscape, 24, 35-41.
Sennett, R (1977), The fall of public man. New York: Basic Books,
Sommer, R (1983), Social design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stewart, J., & McKenzie, R L. (1978). Composing urban spaces for security, privacy & outlook.
Landscape Architecture, 68, 392-398.
Stokols, D. (1987). Conceptual strategies of environmental psychology. In D. Stokols & I.
Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Volume I, pp, 41-70), New York:
Wiley,
Storr, R (1985), Tilted arc. Art in America, September, 73, 91-97.
Tyler, T. R" Rasinki, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice satisfaction with leaders:
Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
72-81.
Ulrich, R S. (1979). Visual landscapes & psychological well being. Landscape Research, 4, 17-
19.
Ulrich, R 5., & Simons, R. F. (1986), Recovery from stress during exposure to everyday
172 Mark Francis
outdoor environments. In J. Archea et a!. (Eds.), Proceedings of flle 17th Environmental Design
Research Association Conference (pp. 115-122). Washington, DC: Environmental Design
Research Association.
van Vliet, W, (1983). An examination of the home range of city and suburban teenagers.
Environment & Behavior, 15,567-588.
  A. (Ed.). (1987). Public streets for pubUc use. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Wandersman, A. (1981). A framework of participation in community organizations. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 27-58.
Warner, S. B. (1987). To dwell is to garden. Boston: Boston University Press.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Re-
view, 66, 297-333.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation
Foundation.
Wiedermann, D. (1985), How secure are public open spaces? Garten + Landschaft, 85, 26-27.
Wortman, C. (1975). Some determinants of perceived control. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 31, 282-294.
Zube, E. H. (1986, April), Public landscapes and public values. Lecture given at the Department
of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada,
Zube, E. H., Sell, J, L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application,
and theory, Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.