Flexible, Healthy and Liveable Public Spaces
The relationship between health and urban design is inherently complex due to the multiplicity of spatial, environmental, and social factors that interact within the urban system, where places— conceived as socio-physical constructs (Carmona, 2019; Sepe, 2023)—shape human behavior, wellbeing, and social dynamics. As demonstrated by studies from Speck (2012), Montgomery (2013), and Barton (2016), the built environment affects happiness, social belonging, and opportunities, emphasizing that place-making influences not only functional but also emotional and cultural dimensions of urban life.
The concept of positional value (Carmona, 2014, 2019) frames the multidimensional worth of a place—economic, environmental, social, and cultural—which must be recognized in urban interventions that strive for long-term sustainability and equity (CABE, 2006). In this context, the quality of place is linked not only to aesthetics or comfort, but to indicators such as inclusiveness, vitality, accessibility, safety, and the capacity to support healthy behaviors (Carmona & de Magalhaes, 2009). Public spaces, especially when designed for flexibility, allow for dynamic use across time, users, and social needs, thereby enabling adaptation to demographic shifts, climate events, and evolving patterns of mobility (Capolongo et al., 2018).
As the WHO and others stress, urban health is determined by access to clean air, green areas, mobility infrastructure, and resilience against socio-environmental stresses, which are increasingly urgent in the face of rapid urbanization and the climate crisis (Talukder et al.). Strategies for healthy cities must therefore integrate greenblue infrastructure, compact urban form, social cohesion, and multi-functional public realms that accommodate both spontaneous and programmed uses (McCay, 2017).
The “Healthy Streets” approach (Sauders, 2017) provides a framework where design prioritizes walkability, social safety, and everyday usability for all citizens, recognizing that transport, equity, and placemaking are fundamentally interconnected. Lastly, the Covid-19 pandemic has reinforced the essential role of open public spaces as not only physical resources but as flexible places that sustain social interaction, urban vitality, and public health at multiple scales.
Objectives
The working group aims to identify and analyze international best practices related to public spaces that promote health, livability, and inclusiveness, with the goal of generating transferable knowledge and recommendations for urban and spatial planning. In particular, the group will explore the multiple dimensions that contribute to the well-being of people in public spaces, recognizing that while the feeling of comfort may be intuitive, the underlying spatial, social, and environmental factors that produce it are complex and multifaceted.
Key issues to address in the selection of case studies:
- Liveable public spaces
- Healthy public spaces
- Liveable Campus and University Public Spaces
- Healthy streets
- Foodscapes for healthy food routines
- Flexible public spaces for multirisk places
- Waterfronts
- Proximity public spaces
- Places for aging and fragile people
- Parklet, pocket parks, pop-up parks
Participants
Coordinator: Marichela Sepe, DICEA Sapienza Università di Roma
Members:
- Dimitra Babalis, Università di Firenze
- Matthew Carmona, The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL
- Claudio De Magalhaes, The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL
- Aleksandra Marinkovic, University of Nis
- Danielle Sinnett, UWE Bristol
- Tim Towhshend, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University
Partner: GUDesign network (www.gudesign.org)
