Sociability in Public Space: Case study research about the Thomas van Aquinostraat in Tilburg-West

(1)

Sociability in Public Space

Case study research about Tilburg and the

‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ in ‘Tilburg West’

Master Thesis: Charlotte de Wit

Radboud University Nijmegen – Municipality of Tilburg

Figure 0.1: ‘’Hey heb je binnenkort tijd voor een ba(n)kkie met mij’’. Taken at the Thomas van Aquinostraat (De Wit, 2020).

(2)

SOCIABILITY IN PUBLIC SPACE

Case study research about Tilburg

and the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ in ‘Tilburg West’

Charlotte de Wit – s1030058

August 2020

Master thesis Human Geography

Specialisation Urban & Cultural Geography

Supervisor Radboud University Nijmegen: Rianne van Melik

Social Department - Municipality of Tilburg

(3)

Preface

Ever since I was a child, I was always very much interested in cities. I did not draw any houses, but prepared numerous folders of city plans in which I organized neighbourhoods, markets, sport facilities, and many other things; again and again. That was a first sign, that ultimately directed me to this master study, and to do my master thesis about a current topic in cities. Somehow, creating places for humans was always a subject that interested me. I became even more aware of this during a certain period in my study where I got acquainted with the concepts such as ‘Placemaking’ and ‘the city at eye-level’. The funny thing is, that I am born and raised in the rural area and which I still really love. However, the vibrations of a city always catch my thoughts. The differences between cities and the rural area are interesting: in planning and design, in infrastructure, and in the way people live and behave.

I aimed to write a master thesis to be proud of. Something that was worthy to conclude my period as a student, and something that fits my interest the best. During the research process I experienced even more the importance of my topic: sociability in public space. This topic will be further explained in this master thesis.

I definitely enjoyed the learning process of writing my master thesis. And, during the writing of my master thesis the spreading of the (worldwide) Coronavirus (COVID-19) appealed to my flexibility as a person. It required a change in my methods for data collection and a creative and alternative look at my approach. For that reason, I am even more proud of the final result and the way I could expand my knowledge about the research topic.

Finally, I would like to thank some important persons who helped me in order to get the best out of this master thesis. First of all, my supervisor Rianne van Melik; she advised me well with providing useful and helpful feedback. I also want to thank my supervising colleagues from the Municipality of Tilburg – Maud Homan and Daphne van Mierlo – for the guidance at the Municipality of Tilburg and the great support and hints for my thesis. In addition, I am very thankful for all the people who participated in interviews, conversations and survey studies. Finally, I am also grateful for my family and friends that supported me during my period of studying. Also, my fellow students and friends were indispensable by supporting me and helping with reflection and interaction regarding each other’s process and work during the past few months.

I hope you will enjoy reading my master thesis! Charlotte

(4)

Summary

Modern cities have been increasingly aware of the importance of a social and healthy living environment. Cities worldwide are facing issues concerning social, mental and physical health (Rainwater, 2016). The city of Tilburg – the case study within this master thesis – is aware of these issues as well and aims for an inclusive and healthy city (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a). As the stimulation of encounters and social interaction in public space contributes to a liveable city, this master thesis focuses on the social role of a city (Kelly et al., 2012). The central concept of this master thesis concerns ‘sociability’ which is about people’s intrinsic tendency/motivation to meet others (Simmel, 1949).

The objective of this thesis is to research the feasibility of stimulating sociability in public space. Therefore, the main theory concerns the ‘Dialectic Triangle’ of Lefebvre at which distinction has been made between the conceived, perceived and lived perspective (Lefebvre, 1991). The way people use public space - and how sociability appears - was researched (perceived perspective). Moreover, the ability - of the local government and other stakeholders - of stimulating sociability in public space was researched (conceived ideas). Also, the (lived) experiences of public-space users (citizens of Tilburg) played a major role in this research. The theoretical framework focuses on the function of encounter of public space, on levels of interaction, on ways to achieve sociability in public space and many more. In order to achieve the research objective, the main research question is formulated: How would it be feasible to

stimulate sociability within public spaces in Tilburg?

In order to answer this main research question, ‘mixed methods’ were used. Qualitative methods were used including five in-depth interviews, five different moments of observations in Tilburg and eight informal conversations. Additionally, two survey studies were carried out (with 283 respondents) which included quantitative as well as qualitative questions.

(5)

By use of ‘mixed methods’, many data were collected which formed the story of

sociability in Tilburg (and the specific case about the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ in the

western suburb of Tilburg). The research showed that the feasibility of stimulating sociability in public space can be done in different ways. Several elements (such as benches or greenery) in the physical design can contribute to that but investing in the time after the initial development of a location is crucial. Sociability is not a ‘design-issue’, it is more a ‘programming-issue’ at which activity and social programming can contribute to sociability in public space. However, one critical note: to what extent is it possible to create a spontaneous process like meeting in public space? It remains a process that is difficult to create and cannot simply be imposed. Additionally, factors influence the outcome of sociability, such as multiculturalism and individualization.

Besides the fact that sociability in a neighbourhood is not easily achieved, the need for

more social contacts with fellow citizens does not seem to be an issue for most citizens. Where

good contact and recognition of local residents are experienced as important in relation to a safe feeling, there is no need for even more contact with local residents. The citizens experience their social contacts as sufficient. Social interaction in public spaces such as parks, squares or streets (such as ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’) is often limited to fleeting encounters or low-level interaction such as greetings or small talk. The ambition of the local government and other stakeholders to create social neighbourhoods seems to exceed the needs and experiences of citizens concerning sociability. This clearly outlines the ‘Dialectic Triangle’ of Lefebvre, in which experiences and needs from individuals can differ from conceived ideas from local government and other stakeholders.

(6)

1. Introduction

1.1 Sociability in cities

‘’Hey heb je binnenkort tijd voor een ba(n)kkie met mij’’

‘‘Hi, will you have time soon for a cupper (“bakkie”) on the bench (“bankkie”) with me?’’

The invitation written on the ‘Social Sofa’ located at the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ in Tilburg (see frontpage) can be regarded a symbol for stimulating social contact. The objective of the ‘Social Sofa’ – a concept originated in Tilburg – is to stimulate social binding in public space, and therefore to act against a disconnected neighbourhood (Social Sofa, 2017). The implementation of such ‘Social Sofas’ is a relatively easy method to do, but an important one. Nowhere in the world are people are as lonely as in cities (Hospers, 2015). Research has shown that people living in cities are more anonymous and lonelier than people not living there. Since the number of inhabitants in cities is high compared to rural areas, one may expect that meeting others would be easy. However, meeting other people seems more difficult than expected (Berger, 2017). The fact is that the social issue of loneliness influences the wellbeing of citizens. They become less healthy and feel less healthy due to this loneliness. Moreover, the citizens can experience difficulties with creating and maintaining social contact with other citizens (Kelly et al., 2012).

A reason why anonymity and loneliness occur in cities is explained by Tönnies. He made a distinction between ‘Community’ (‘Gemeinschaft’) and ‘Society’ (‘Gesellschaft’), which concerns the difference between the pre-industrial and industrial society. ‘Community’ concerns a close unity at which the feeling of togetherness is high. Whereas, in ‘Society’ contacts between people are more anonymous and there is a lack of social cohesion. Because people do not know each other well, they feel like they cannot rely on each other. Social relations are not based on trust and favours, but more on pragmatic principles (Tönnies, 1887/2002). Although Tönnies applied the concepts for the pre-industrial and industrial society, this can also be referred to as the distinction between rural (Gemeinschaft) and city (Gesellschaft) (Hubbard, 2015). Social relations based on pragmatic principles instead of togetherness can stimulate anonymity and the social issue of loneliness (Kelly et al., 2012).

Despite the ‘anti-social’ anonymity and the loneliness that occur in cities, cities do have the ability for stimulating social interaction. Cities are able to stimulate social relations between citizens because they provide places where people can interact with people with similar interests as well as people with different interests. Moreover, the diversity in offering places to meet is immense; think of cafés, shopping areas, squares, parks, footpaths and many more. Within this master thesis, the term ‘public space’ is used to describe social meeting places. These places can include public as well as private places, indoors as well as outside. The focus is mostly on social places outside that are publicly and freely accessible. Therefore, the concept of ‘public space’ is a flexible concept. Stimulating social interaction and encounter in public space between the citizens can contribute to a liveable city. Thereby, social connection gives us the feeling of involvement: from accidental interactions on streets, to close contact with family and friends (Kelly et al., 2012).

Sociability – described by Simmel – is an interesting concept when it comes to

interaction and encounter. Sociability is about people’s intrinsic tendency to meet others. ‘’One

is associated with others and that the solitariness of the individual is resolved into togetherness’’ (Simmel, 1949, p.254).

(9)

‘’Both the generic ability of human beings to establish some kind of social relationship with others, which, depending on circumstance, may be spontaneous or organized, supportive or conflicting, instrumental or simply gratifying, and the manifold concrete forms this inclination assumes as groups, associations, communities, crowds, on the basis of certain types of needs and interests’’ (Costa, 2013 as cited in Gallino, 1993,

pp. 592-593).

This intrinsic tendency from people to meet others is an interesting phenomenon in the current situation. During the writing of this master thesis, a worldwide virus – the Coronavirus – also reached the Netherlands. Many people were in social isolation and not allowed to interact with others face-to-face. This is a development that influences sociability in public space, because having social interaction in public space was not allowed. A further description about the Coronavirus in terms of this master thesis research is described in Section 3.2.1.

Nowadays, the need for social cities seems high, which makes the complex concept of sociability interesting. Therefore, municipalities – like Tilburg - have the ambition to create social and healthy cities (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a). However, this can be quite difficult because it is not always feasible to create attractive places for every citizen. Citizens are not easy to manage. Therefore, it can be questioned if people are prepared ‘drinking coffee’ with others because of a ‘Social Sofa’ in their neighbourhood (as been said on the ‘Social Sofa’ on the front page). This raises the question to what extent it is feasible to stimulate sociability in public space. Lefebvre described that urban space is more than a simple context, it is a facilitator of social production (Hubbard, 2018; Lefebvre, 1991). According to Lefebvre, one can distinguish between conceived, perceived and lived social spaces. Additionally, he raised the crucial question of how a place is conceived, and how it is experienced by people (Lefebvre, 1991). This master thesis researches this difference in relation to the concept of sociability. Also, it will investigate different experiences of public-space users and other stakeholders. As a case study, I researched the city of Tilburg. In order to illustrate sociability at a specific location, the research zoomed in on the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ in ‘Tilburg West’ (‘Het Zand’). The case study will be further explained in Section 1.5 and 3.1.

As mentioned in the preface, for many years I am very fascinated in the way cities are created. Also, the role of citizens within that process is essential. The importance of the social function of places related to social developments triggered me to write this master thesis about sociability in public space. It is interesting and relevant to find out what is conceived about a place, and how it is experienced by the users. Only when understanding this connection, this can lead to a more human-based, qualitative city.

1.2 Research objective and questions

The objective of this research is to get a picture about the potential/feasibility of stimulating sociability in public space. Therefore, the ability of local government and other stakeholders of developing and managing sociability in public space was researched. Moreover, the actual use and the experiences of public-space users (citizens of Tilburg) have played a major role in this research. The Municipality of Tilburg - as well as other local governments - are aware of the importance of a social and healthy living environment (Rainwater, 2016). Therefore, they aim for an inclusive and social connecting city (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a). For that reason, it was researched how they process this ambition in their policy, and how the citizens experience this ambition. This has been done by making a comparison between the actual use and experiences of the public-space users and the conceived ideas of the Municipality of Tilburg and other stakeholders.

(10)

In order to achieve the research objective, a main research question is formulated:

How would it be feasible to stimulate sociability within public spaces in Tilburg?

The research is focusing on to what extent and how stimulating sociability is feasible in public space. The term ‘feasible’ includes the practical side of feasibility, from development to management/programming. Moreover, the term ‘feasible’ also includes the desirability. Is there really a need for the stimulation of sociability in public space? It is relevant to stimulate sociability since social interaction contribute to a liveable city (Kelly et al., 2012). In order to answer this research question, Tilburg as a city is researched including the focus on the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ in ‘Tilburg West’.

Three research sub-questions are defined contributing to the answer of the main research question. These sub-questions are related to Lefebvre’s Dialectic Triangle (Lefebvre, 1991):

• How do the local government and other stakeholders develop and manage

public space in order to achieve and improve sociability in their city?

This sub-question refers to the ambition of the actors of the conceived perspective to create social cities. These actors include the Municipality of Tilburg, consultancy in urban planning ‘Plein Civiel’, the adjacent healthcare institution ‘De Tongerlose Hoef’ and social organization ‘Contour de Twern’. They were chosen because they were involved in the project of the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ as explained in Section 1.5 and 3.1. The actors want to promote sociability in public space. It is investigated how the actors of the conceived perspective define the concept of sociability, how they intend to bring sociability to the city and how they intend to maintain it.

• How is the public space currently being used by the citizens of Tilburg?

This sub-question is about describing the objective space (perceived perspective). It is relevant to get insights about the way public space is used, and how sociability occurs in public space.

• How is sociability in public space experienced by the citizens of Tilburg?

This sub-question refers to the main experiences of citizens in Tilburg in general concerning sociability in their neighbourhoods. The citizens of Tilburg – defined as the actors of the lived perspective – shared their experiences and ideas concerning sociability. Next to the general view about experiences from Tilburg citizens, the specific case study of the renewal of the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ served to verify the experiences of sociability at a specific location. In that way, insight is gained on how ‘lived space’ is experienced.

1.3 Societal relevance

Cities must serve as healthy habitats inviting people to live healthy, meet other people and participate in society (Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur, 2018). Social networks are important for receiving social support. Besides that, the absence of a social network can lead to loneliness. People with social networks have a bigger chance to live longer and healthier. Having social networks influences people’s physical and mental health (Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur, 2018). The living environment can be used as an instrument to create these social networks. Think of urban gardens, parks or public squares in

(11)

neighbourhoods. Public space can contribute to these goals which eventually lead to a healthy society. Health is not only about physical and mental wellbeing, but also concerns social health and resilience (Institute for Positive Health, n.d.). The living environment must invite citizens to be active and meet fellow citizens. In addition, citizens should be involved in processes of changes in their city as well, otherwise this can obstruct the success of the development of their city (Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur, 2018).

The Municipality of Tilburg is aware of the importance of a social and healthy living environment. In the Municipality of Tilburg, the average “health level” of citizens is low comparing to many cities in the Netherlands (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a). The Municipality of Tilburg has released a note about ‘Positive Health’ of their citizens in October 2019. According to this note, ‘Positive Health’ is a comprehensive concept which Machteld Huber developed (Institute for Positive Health, n.d.). Especially topics about ‘city of connection’ and the ‘social basis’ are in line with this master thesis and objectives of the Municipality of Tilburg (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a). These aspects are of even more importance because of the multicultural society which is a part of the identity of Tilburg. In comparison to other cities in the region, Tilburg has a higher percentage of citizens with a non-western background (GGD, 2019a). In any case, the Municipality of Tilburg aims to become an inclusive city, where every citizen feels appreciated and can be part of the development of the public space (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a).

Tilburg is not the only municipality aware of the importance of a social and healthy living environment. A lot of cities worldwide are facing similar issues concerning social, mental and physical health (Rainwater, 2016). In the province ‘Noord Brabant’ – where Tilburg is located – several municipalities are aware of the importance of a social and healthy living environment. For example, the Municipality of Eindhoven has a strong vision concerning social issues in cities. It is important that the public space in neighbourhoods can stimulate a healthy and social lifestyle. The living areas must support movement and interaction (Gemeente Eindhoven, 2019). Also, the Municipality of Breda states that there is a need for meeting-spots in public space, and that social cohesion is crucial for the liveability and safety in a neighbourhood (Gemeente Breda, 2018). Next to that, the smaller municipality Loon op Zand, states that participation from inhabitants is crucial for the development of public space (Gemeente Loon op Zand, 2014). It can be concluded that the Municipality of Tilburg is not the only municipality dealing with social and spatial issues. Many municipalities have the ambition of creating healthy, social and liveable cities. Moreover, this ambition is an important discourse in policies of municipalities. However, it can be difficult to implement this ambition in public space. For example, the diversity and variety of citizens lead to more anonymity and less social control, which blocks the realisation of this ambition (Ostaijen & Peeters, 2011). The rising diversity – and therefore the possible gap between citizens – makes it even more important to stimulate sociability in public space to reduce this gap. Therefore, having sufficient insights about how people experience practices concerning sociability in the city is important to accomplish this ambition. This research can be useful for the Municipality of Tilburg because the outcomes can provide recommendations for their policy. In addition, these outcomes may be relevant for other locations and municipalities.

1.4 Scientific relevance

Sociability and other related ideas are researched by several sociologists, such as Simmel, Gehl or Wilson (Simmel, 1949; Gehl, 2011; Wilson, 2016). These sociologists are naming different aspects of sociability with a different view and different frame of interpretation. For decades, these sociologists are speculating about the concept of sociability. Still, the concept

(12)

is very present in the context of a city, maybe even more than ever. Watson (2006) claimed that the public space has the potential for letting social groups interact and mingle. Sociability is important because cities are growing and becoming increasingly diverse in socio-economic as well as cultural and religious profiles (Peterson, 2016). Therefore, the role of public space within sociability is relevant because the use can be pressured by influences like diversity.

One interesting discussion concerns the theories about interaction of Goffman and Gehl. It involves the importance of casual encounters and sociability in daily life. Gehl is fascinated about the interaction of people in public space and confirms that this interaction is easily created in urban settings (Gehl, 2011; Barnett, 2003). On the other hand, Goffman claimed that ‘co-presence without co-mingling’ is very current in urban settings. He is more critical because there is a crucial difference between real interaction (co-mingling), and just the presence of people in a space (co-presence) (Goffman, 1963, Lofland, 1998). But, according to Wilson (2016), fleeting encounters in urban settings can accumulate into in-depth interaction. This debate about different levels of interaction provides more insights about the value of sociability in public space.

Another debate is about the attractiveness of places to people, to which several theories are responding. For example, Whyte argued that designing attractive places is not that difficult. However, in practice it seems difficult to realise these attractive places (Whyte & Underhill, 2009, p. 109). This is in line with the theory of Lefebvre about conceived, perceived and lived spaces (‘Dialectic Triangle’). Places can be differently experienced then as they were conceived. Places can be developed for a specific target group, but this specific group may not necessarily want to use that place (van Melik & Pijpers, 2017). Lefebvre suggested that humans are able to create spaces by just living in the space (Fuchs, 2018; Lefebvre, 1991). So, this debate is about how citizens experience the place, and that their idea of attractiveness actually can differ from the idea of local government and other stakeholders.

Thus, different sociologists contribute to different debates about sociability in public spaces. In the theoretical framework these debates are further discussed. The master thesis concerns the scientific debate about how places are conceived, perceived and how they are experienced. Therefore, Lefebvre’s dialectic triangle forms the common thread by researching the three perspectives (Fuchs, 2018; Lefebvre, 1991). By applying Lefebvre’s ‘Dialectic Triangle’ to sociability, it is possible to explore the feasibility of stimulating sociability in public space. Moreover, the current developments around the Coronavirus lead to new perspectives concerning sociability in public space. The two debates about the levels of interaction and the ‘Dialectic Triangle’ are combined and empirically tested in order to answer the main research question.

1.5 Case study research – Municipality of Tilburg

For this master thesis research, the city of Tilburg served as a case study. And more specific, the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’ in the western suburb of Tilburg located in the neighbourhood ‘Het Zand’ served as a specific place to illustrate the concept of sociability in public space better in practice. In 2018, this location (including surrounding streets) needed a sewers and pavement renovation. When the municipality planned this renovation, they also had the intention to achieve other valuable goals from the ‘Stadsstrategie’ (City’s Strategy) of the Tilburg Municipality (Gemeente Tilburg, 2015). For that reason, social goals had to be included into the renovation plans. These social goals will be further explained in Section 3.1. The Municipality of Tilburg is aware of the necessity of including social goals in public place development. One reason actually is the fact that the average health condition level in Tilburg is low compared to other cities in the Netherlands (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a). Therefore, the

(13)

Municipality of Tilburg started to pursue a policy to solve social/health issues by developing public space (Gemeente Tilburg, 2015; Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a).

This master thesis research has been carried out in consultation with the internship organisation, part of the social department of the Municipality of Tilburg. The Municipality wanted to gain more insights about how people experience the results of a refurbished place like the ‘Thomas van Aquinostraat’. For the municipality, it is important to focus on the citizens of Tilburg and how their way of life can improve. The municipality note mentioned earlier about ‘Positive Health’ is in agreement with that (Gemeente Tilburg, 2019a). As a part of that, the Municipality is trying to link the spatial and social domain in order to improve the (social) wellbeing of their citizens. Therefore, four interventions of development, management, user regulation and communication are important when striving for a social public space (Van der Zwan, & van den Brink, 2020). This shows how topical this subject is for the Municipality of Tilburg, which makes this city a perfect case study for this research. In Section 3.1, the case study is further explained.

1.6 Outline master thesis

This master thesis starts with the introductory chapter where the research questions are elaborated, the relevance of this research is discussed, and the case study is briefly explained. The second chapter includes the theoretical framework at which important theories are discussed. It concludes with the conceptual framework. In the third chapter, the research plan is elaborated including the methodologies and an extended explanation of the case study. Chapter four describes the story of sociability in Tilburg based on results and analyses of the collected data. In Chapter five, the conclusions of the research results are discussed. The empirical findings are verified against the theories that were used for this research. Finally, important reflections (such as relevance and context) are discussed in the sixth chapter. Moreover, limitations and recommendations are discussed in that chapter. In the appendices, additional information is attached regarding the methodology (such as interview guides, protocols, survey questions and the codebook) and the neighbourhood ‘Het Zand’. Specific data is included in separate documents.

(14)

2. Theoretical framework & Conceptual model

The theoretical framework elaborates on the main concepts that are mentioned earlier in this master thesis. It is important to investigate what different sociologist have already written about useful concepts such as sociability and public space. The literature research helps with measuring the empirical insights, which are elaborated in the next chapters.

In the first section, the phenomenon of social cities is explained followed by an explanation about the central concept ‘sociability’. How sociability occurs in public space and how it influences our health is discussed in Section 2.2. Moreover, the function of encounter and different levels of interaction in public space are discussed in this section. However, social interaction is not always pre-given, which is discussed in Section 2.3. In Section 2.4, it is discussed how (and if) sociability can be achieved in public space by explaining the feasibility, and influences of development and management. However, one needs to take into account that individuals can experience things differently than for example local government and urban planners are conceiving things. This is discussed in the end of this chapter by using the ‘Dialectic Triangle’ of Lefebvre (1991). The conclusion is written down followed by a conceptual framework.

2.1 An introduction to social cities

Historical developments have brought a change in modern cities. Nowadays, cities are more than places of ‘production’ as they were in the 19th century. Modern cities are more often social places of fun (Brunt, 1996). Over the years, cities are more used as places for social activities; like shopping or going to museums (Müller, 1998). Moreover, cities have become places of atmosphere; places where emotions, feelings, values and experiences are present, rather than only the physical infrastructure, economics and institutional power (Unwin, 2016; Ernste, 2015).

Public spaces in cities play an important role in influencing the atmosphere, emotions and experiences (Akkar Erkan, 2007). Public space is seen as the common ground where functional as well as ritual activities of people are carried out which creates a community. These activities are part of daily life routines, or during periodic events. Different types of public spaces can be parks, streets, plazas, playgrounds and many more (Carr, et al., 1992). Back in the days, public spaces were literally extensions of people’s homes because of the small houses they had. For that reason, people were often outside. Although our houses are bigger now, public space is still very important (Müller, 1998). They are ‘means of movements’ between people, information and objects in-between different sectors. Next to the political, economic and the ecological role of public space, the social role is also important (Akkar Erkan, 2007). Social characteristics are shared by cities regardless the geography, size or cultural identity (Smith & Lobo, 2019). Public spaces have the ability of providing places where people are able to engage with each other (Akkar Erkan, 2007). In public space, people can have pleasant conversations which requires attentive individuals. They do this by verbal expressions and subtle gestures (Müller, 1998). Not only public spaces have the ability of providing places where people can gather. Also, semi-public or private places can foster the feeling of community. Lefebvre called it ‘social space’ at which he referred to the fact that in human society all spaces are social: as well public as private spaces (Lefebvre, 1991). ‘’Social space

is a social product’’ (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 26). As mentioned in Section 1.1, the concept of ‘public

space’ has a flexible definition in this master thesis. It concerns places where social gathering and encounters can occur. All the different potential ‘social’ public spaces strengthen each

(15)

other and are therefore able to stimulate sociability. These potential meeting places include physical as well as virtual spaces where people can interact; from public places as social media, parks and squares to semi-public or private places such as restaurants and pubs.

There are a lot of fitting concepts when it comes to social cities, think of ‘social capital’ from Bourdieu (1986), or ‘social cohesion’ (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000). The concept of ‘sociability’ is interesting when it comes to this master thesis research because it generally includes people’s motivation for interacting with other people (García Cabeza & Tegelaars, 2019). Georg Simmel explained the concept sociability as people’s intrinsic tendency or motivation to meet others and interact. In addition, it includes the feeling of togetherness (Simmel, 1949). As mentioned earlier, the need for sociable cities is high in the modern cities since influences such as anonymity and loneliness are present (Berger, 2013). That is what makes the interrelation between sociability and public space interesting. Within sociability, people do not only interact for instrumental motives, they come together because they simply want to be with others. The exchange of contacts is the instrument of a subjective purpose like interest and connection (Simmel, 1949). According to Simmel, society is a result of sociability and exist only as a ‘crystallization’ of multiple connections or relationships between people (Simmel, 1949: Costa, 2013). It is about different social impulses that are motivated by several reasons to connect with others. These random impulses have the goal to create a unit which is society (Simmel, 1949). The research question is about the feasibility of achieving sociability in public space. Therefore, the establishment of social relations in public space is central within this master thesis.

2.2 Sociability in public space

Since the concepts ‘public space’ and ‘sociability’ were explained in the previous section, this section discusses the interrelation between these concepts. In this master thesis, the concept of sociability in public space is explained by two main aspects: the function of encounter in public space and the levels of interaction. Before these aspects are elaborated, it is interesting to further investigate the concept of sociability by discussing the influences of sociability on citizens’ health.

2.2.1 Influences sociability on health

Sociability has impact on people’s individual wellbeing. Once is said that for living a long and healthy life, a few things are indispensable. One of them concerns strong social connections with others. Happiness and a good health increases when people are feeling connected with others (Myers & Diener, 1995). Cities can play a role in this by supporting opportunities for citizens to connect by offering places of encounter (Coffin & Young, 2017). According to Jane Jacobs, social interaction can give people the feeling of belonging to a community (Jacobs, 1961).

This feeling of belonging is of high importance when it comes to the concept of ‘Positive Health’ which is introduced by Machteld Huber (Institute for Positive Health, n.d.). Health is not only about the absence of diseases but includes much more than that. Health is based on humans, resilience and on what is making their life meaningful. It contributes to the ability of humans to have control on emotional, physical and social challenges they experience in life (Institute for Positive Health, n.d.). The ‘model of Positive Health’ includes several dimensions about different aspects of health. These aspects include the function of the body, and the daily

life functions. Also, the mental wellbeing of people, the meaning and quality of life is part of

‘Positive Health’. In addition, it includes social participation which is about communication and

(16)

are in line with the subject of this master thesis. As mentioned in Section 1.1, citizens live their lives in an anonymous way and can experience loneliness in the city (Hospers, 2015). Therefore, the concept of sociability is essential because it includes the feeling of belonging, social order and social solidarity which contributes to the ‘Positive Health of citizens’ (Kelly et al., 2012; Institute for Positive Health, n.d.).

Next to the social aspect, cities are able to encourage a healthy lifestyle which also influences the quality of human health. Exercising must be part of the daily-life routine of citizens. Also, gathering places, paths and fresh foods must be accessible for people (Coffin & Young, 2017). When public space consist of green areas, fresh air and nature are brought to a city. Moreover, they are appealing for humans because of the proximity of nature and the feeling of sunshine. This influences the mental wellbeing (Coffin & Young, 2017). Next to that, green areas like parks are places where movement and social interaction can occur. When a place is able to engage all senses of an individual, a healthy lifestyle can be reached: design which is multisensory increases community’s integration and independence (Coffin & Young, 2017).

One can conclude that the experiences of places is fundamental for influencing our mental, physical and social health positively. Also, places can influence our local decision-making, our democracy, our empowerment and community togetherness (Carmona, 2018). Sociability in neighbourhoods can clearly influence our ‘Positive Health’ by giving us the feeling of community and connection (Myers & Diener, 1995).

In the next sections, the main aspects of sociability are further discussed. Firstly, the function of encounter in public space is discussed. Secondly, two different levels of interaction in public space are discussed. These main aspects form the common thread within this master thesis when it comes to the concept of sociability.

2.2.2 The function of encounter in public space

As aforementioned, public spaces can provide places where people can interact with one another (Akkar Erkan, 2007). These places of encounter can stimulate sociability. Several sociologists advocate for the importance of the function of encounter in public space (Whyte & Underhill, 2009; Jacobs, 1961; Oldenburg, 1996). Urban planner Whyte called the streets of a city ‘the river of life’: a place where people can come together. Therefore, small urban places can be priceless and make the city (Whyte & Underhill, 2009). Jacobs argued that the public space of cities are ‘its most vital organs’. If streets have an interesting appearance, the city itself has an interesting appearance (Akkar Erkan, 2007; Jacobs, 1961).

Jacobs stated that density, buildings and variety in function contributes to a social city. When a city is thriving, people can be found at the streets at every moment of the day. This is crucial for the diversity of a city of functions, buildings and people. The streets of a city must be seen as a stage for citizens where they can perform their ‘sidewalk ballet’. This varies from walking through the neighbourhood to having small talk with the neighbours (Jacobs, 1961). The phenomenon ‘sidewalk ballet’ is about the connection between passer-by and neighbours. These connections contribute to a social neighbourhood, but also make streets friendly, enjoyable and vital (Jacobs, 1961). Jacobs said that every person has its ‘own role in the ballet (Van Melik, 2015; Jacobs, 1961). This sidewalk ballet appears in the streets of the city and must meet several conditions. Think of diversity in buildings, functions and types of identities (Jacobs, 1961). More diversity and variety will lead to unexpected meetings. Moreover, Jacobs argued that diversity in function of a district is important: a location must include at least more than one function to make streets lively (Coffin & Young, 2017; Jacobs, 1961). As aforementioned, streets are more than parts of the infrastructure; they have atmosphere and

(17)

social meaning (Unwin, 2016; Ernste, 2015). Klinenberg called it social infrastructure at which he referred to places where strangers are able to meet with their fellow citizens. Places such as libraries, parks and community centres can contribute to the social life of people. These places do not only have an instrumental role, the places let people experience the city as welcoming and inclusive and therefore have a crucial role in developing and maintaining social relations (Klinenberg, 2018). Next to that, most streets are quite easily accessible for everyone. In order to understand our cities better, we have to take to the streets. Cities can offer a lot for every person, just because the city can be made by everyone.

How infrastructure and streets are built, influences the value of a ‘sociopetal place’. ‘Sociopetal places’ are places that bring people together and foster community. Conversely, ‘sociofugal places’ separate people and discourage interaction (Coffin & Young, 2017). When the amount of traffic is low in a street, this place can better serve as a place of encounter. This is not the case when the amount of traffic is high in a street. When the amount of traffic is of such a level, most people even do not know their neighbours across the street. In addition, ‘sociopetal places’ also occur at a smaller scale. Take for example a simple bench: the way benches are placed determine if a place is ‘sociopetal’. When benches are placed next to each other, this stimulates less social interaction compared to benches places right across each other. Then, people are more ‘forced’ to look at each other which increases the possibility of social interaction (Coffin & Young, 2017

)

. Different (small) interventions decide if places stimulate encounter or not. ‘Sociopetal places’ of encounter are places designed to have social meetings. This can appear in public spaces, but also in semi-public or private spaces. Sustainable and social contact between different groups can appear in micro-publics (Amin, 2002). For example, this can include community centres, libraries, sport clubs or cafés. Community centres are spaces of recognition where social encounters are informal and familiar because the visitors are known by each other. These places can lead to a better understanding of other cultures because people are in connection with each other. Activities at these places can cause cultural destabilization. Such micro-publics are crucial for engagement and to overcome cultural (ethnic) differences. Therefore, these spaces can serve as social places where intercultural encounters can occur (Amin, 2002).

‘Third Places’ is how Oldenburg called these places where people can gather (Oldenburg, 1996). He called it ‘public gathering places’ which mainly includes public places like main streets and parks, but also semi-public places like restaurants and community centres. Literally seen, ‘Third Places’ is the space between home (‘First Place’) and work (‘Second Place’). According to Oldenburg, ‘Third Places’ form the centre of the vitality of a community. Neighbourhoods can be unified because of ‘Third Places’. ‘Third Places’ – in contrast to ‘First’ and ‘Second’ places – allow people to have informal conversation and enjoy people’s presence on neutral ground. Oldenburg – together with other sociologists – emphasized the importance of informal public places of encounters (Oldenburg, 1996). Places of encounter can contribute to sociability in a neighbourhood (Coffin & Young, 2017). At these places of encounter, different forms of interaction can appear, which is discussed in the next section.

2.2.3 Interaction in public space

In Section 2.1, sociability was described as people’s motivation to meet and interact with each other. This means that some kind of interaction between people is necessary to stimulate sociability (Simmel, 1949). The purposes of people to interact contains of four conditions: connectedness, comfort, multifunctionality and sociability (Peterson, 2016). Also, not every

(18)

type of interaction is the same. In this master thesis, two forms of interaction are elaborated: low-level interaction and meaningful interaction.

Sociability in everyday life at ‘low-level’ are ‘’one facet of mutual acknowledge’’ (Valentine, 2008, p. 324). These low-level activities of togetherness can include sharing a bench or holding the door. In cities, these low-level activities can appear in massive ways because the chance of having any form of contact with people is certainly there. Think of getting on a bus, stepping in a taxi, seeing tourists, meeting neighbours and many more: ‘’such

civil exchanges as small achievements in the good cities.’’ (Valentine, 2008, p. 324).

Furthermore, strangers who are in the same situation – think of people that both walk the dog – are more tended to start a conversation. Whyte called this ‘triangulation’. It is a process at which external influences provides connection between an individual and strangers (Whyte & Underhill, 2009). These encounters are experienced as pleasant and safe. Fleeting contacts – ‘’eyes on the streets’’ - will increase trust which is crucial for the feeling of safety according to Jacobs (Jacobs, 1961, p. 54).

Goffman made a distinction between focused interaction and unfocused interaction. Unfocused interaction is about interpersonal communication. This arises at a location just because of someone’s presence or gestures – without any in-depth contact. Focused interaction is about people’s visual attention by having eye contact or a conversation. Goffman called this ‘encounters’ which can be non-verbal as well as verbal (Goffman, 1963). Despite people have often eye contact, they still do not always recognize each other. This interpersonal contact of people still influences our behaviour in interacting with other individuals in our civil society (Goffman, 1963).

Also, Jan Gehl emphasized the importance of low-level interaction. Gehl is fascinated about the interaction between human beings, and their surroundings. According to Gehl, these interactions can be created through simple mechanisms like activities in public space (Gehl, 2011; Barnett, 2003). There are three forms of activities: necessary, optional and social activities. Necessary activities are activities you need to do, think of going to work or school. Optional activities are activities that are not compulsory, but that you can choose to do ; think of taking a walk outside or getting a coffee. This can depend on factors like weather conditions or motivation. Social activities are activities that depend on the presence of other people in public space. This can be greetings, conversations but also passive contacts like hearing someone talk. These activities appear spontaneously. Gehl claims that good places include more optional activities but also make the necessary activities last longer. This means that good public space provides more opportunities for optional and social activities (Gehl, 2011).

The more people can do at a place, the longer they will stay. Gehl described sociability as the ability of talking to strangers and meet people ‘accidentally’. These casual encounters are of crucial value in daily life of citizens (Gehl, 2011; Barnett, 2003). Although accidental meetings sound fleeting and small, it still influences our feeling of belonging to a community (Kelly et al., 2012). Helen Wilson is more critical about the ‘fleeting encounters.’ Low-level or fleeting encounters brings little meaning and hardly transform beliefs and values of people. Nevertheless, these fleeting encounters can accumulate which can gradually shift people’s behaviour and relations over time (Wilson, 2016). In that way, low-level interaction can change into meaningful interaction.

Meaningful interaction can make people more tended to open the heart and discuss

personal problems. Sometimes, the unfamiliarity of the other individual makes it more accessible to start those conversations. This anonymity provides the necessary protection to discuss such personal topics (Müller, 1998). ‘Meaningful contact’ is a concept that is introduced by Valentine (2008). This kind of interaction can change values and stimulate tolerance among

(19)

different people (Valentine, 2008). Valentine argues that meaningful contact cannot occur by each other’s proximity only. Having respectful and meaningful contact with others is something more than just behaving in public space and being kind to others (Valentine, 2008). In public space, there is a gap between people’s practices and their liberal values: ‘’If we are to produce

meaningful contact between majority and minority groups which has the power to produce social change, this gap needs to be addressed. We need to find ways in which everyday practices of civility might transform prejudiced values and facilitate liberal values to be put into practice.’’ (Valentine, 2008, p. 330).

Meaningful contact can stimulate more tolerance and less prejudice among different groups. Paying attention to encounters between multiple identities – think of social and cultural differences such as age, background and ethnicity - is important according to Valentine (2008). This attention can increase sociability in a neighbourhood. Rising migrations have led to a bigger heterogeneity in the Western cities of Europe. These superdiverse cities can be seen as the world at a smaller scale (Vertovec, 2007). One can better understand urban development when one has more insights in the diversity and dynamics of the citizens of a city (Pijpers, 2015). Public spaces are crucial places when it comes it stimulating urban diversity (Peterson, 2016). However, more effort is necessary when there is less social recognition, think of differences in generation or culture. One can state that a better understanding of other groups will only appear fully, when the contact of people is meaningful (Valentine, 2008). People are trying to find similarities to be able to interact with people from other groups (Goffman, 1963). Social contact may include friction, but this will lead to new perspectives for the city life (Pijpers, 2015). However, this friction makes people also more tended to start a conversation with someone from the ‘same specific group’. For example, migrants in diverse neighbourhoods have significantly more contact with people from the same background (Pijpers, 2015). This comes from the informality and solidarity of people and is called ‘mutual accessibility’ (Goffman, 1963).

Allport developed the concept ‘contact hypothesis’ at which he refers to the fact that mixing different groups of people can lead to a reduction of prejudice or misunderstandings between social groups (Allport, 1954 in Valentine, 2008). Understanding, social integration and trust will grow between these social groups (Pijpers, 2015). Thereby, it can produce the feeling of familiarity between unfamiliar people. People are willingly to exchange contacts with others in public space despite their differences (Valentine, 2008). Diverse contacts can be called ‘bridging social capital’, which refers to ‘loose and heterogeneous’ contacts (Aabø, Audunson & Vårheim, 2010). For having a positive influence on multiculturalism in neighbourhoods, building bridging social capital is necessary. People are exposed to groups of people with different interests and values than their own (Aabø, Audunson & Vårheim, 2010). These connections between people with diverse backgrounds can prevent exclusion and other negative externalities and stimulate social solidarity, tolerance and even economic growth (Gelderblom, 2018; Van Melik, 2015). Something that occurs less often within ‘bonding social capital’, which describes the connections between people with the same background. When there is less contact between different groups of people, it is less likely that people have positive ideas or opinions about different groups of people (Pijpers, 2015). Public space plays an important social role when it comes to social integration. Public space has the ability to welcome everyone, and to bring different groups together regardless of their gender, age, class or ethnic origin. For that reason, people can intermingle and form a heterogeneous, multi-cultural society (Akkar Erkan, 2007).

(20)

2.3 Social interaction in public space is not pre-given

Although public spaces have the ability to bring different groups together, one can be critical (Akkar Erkan, 2007). It should be noted that social interaction is not pre-given, and several aspects can be the reason for that.

Firstly, people must have a reason to mingle (Denzin, 2014). It is necessary to take into account that interaction between people with different backgrounds is not easily achieved. Amin (2002) stated that it can be difficult to stimulate encounter between different groups of people. People can feel anxious and uncomfortable about encounters with others (Valentine, 2008). The emotions can be contradictory when it comes to ‘other people’ which means that people can be anxious but also curious for example. Having encounters with diverse people can be enjoyable, but also exciting (van Melik & Pijpers, 2017). Likewise, a city’s streets can be seen as spaces of transit (Amin, 2002). When walking the streets, exchange and connection between unfamiliar people is quite low (Valentine, 2008). Within semi-public spaces, it is easier to stimulate people to engage with each other because they have a common purpose within a specific context (Amin, 2002). In the end, these differences between people’s identities can obstruct people’s intentions to interact. The scale of the public-space use has grown in the past years. For a large group of people, the daily living environment does not only include their own neighbourhood. Nowadays, the daily living environment has more expanded. Mostly, mixing different groups of people often happens in the direct public living environment (Musterd, & Ottens, 2002). Therefore, it is more even more difficult to stimulate encounter between different groups of people.

Secondly, processes of individualization are entering modern cities. Because of this process, social cohesion and social control are decreasing which can influence individual’s social wellbeing. From the individualistic approach, individuals are rational creatures striving for their self-interests (Elchardus, 2007). This can be called intellectualism; in cities we react with our head and less with our heart. In that way we have the freedom to be who we want to be. Relations between citizens are more based on pragmatic and rational principles, which is also stated by Tönnies (1887/2002) (Ernste, 2015). One is not seeing fellow citizens as real individuals, but only as someone within a specific role for that moment. People do not know how to react to others, which leads to blunted contact (Ernste, 2015). Therefore, people are avoiding social contacts by creating their own bubbles. They do this by reading books, listening to music or staring at their mobile phones (van Melik & van de Schraaf, 2020). The rising heterogeneous society in combination with the rising trend of technologization are influencing sociability in neighbourhoods. Technological developments are creating public spaces which are individualized and where the interaction is soulless (Unwin, 2016). The question is: are people more interested in their individual lives and less interested in a cohesive neighbourhood where people can interact with one another?

To continue on that; some people are recognizing each other and scanning other’s presence, but do not seek any interaction. In that way, people can continue their individualized lives. Goffman called this civil inattention (Goffman, 1963). Lofland described it as followed:

‘’civil inattention makes possible copresence without commingling, awareness without engrossment, courtesy without conversation (Lofland, 1998, p. 30).’’ People have a quick look

at strangers but will pass them as if there is no one. People are present, but do not mingle. They are doing activities of ‘situational withdrawal’, so they are able to stay as the ‘stranger’. This can include the earlier mentioned use of mobile phones, but also reading a book (Goffman, 1963). Goffman’s situational withdrawal is about creating private spaces. People are creating private bubbles within public space (Soenen, 2006). According to Valentine (2008, p. 326), this “contributes to incivility in public space as individuals move in and through

(21)

locations while locked in the private world of their conversations with the remote other”. People

are taking their private world into the public realm, without having any attention for this public realm (Soenen, 2006). Because of that, interaction in public space is definitely not pre-given. Without a doubt, low-level interaction can be useful to stimulate sociability in a neighbourhood (Gehl, 2011; Barnett, 2003). However, in order to create tolerance and togetherness in a neighbourhood, meaningful contact is necessary (Gelderblom, 2018; Van Melik, 2015). As aforementioned, these meaningful encounters can change people’s values and will enrich the sociability. Nevertheless, both kind of interactions will contribute to a social society. Still, one should be aware of the fact that interaction is not pre-given. One should question if interaction can appear in public space easily. Moreover, are people really interested in interaction with fellow citizens in public space or do they want to stay in their private bubble (Soenen, 2006)? These critical notes are important to take into account during the empirical fieldwork of this master thesis.

2.4 Achieving sociability in public space

As aforementioned, historical developments have changed the city from a practical to a more social place (Brunt, 1996). Within these social cities, contemporary social issues concerning loneliness and anonymity are more visible. Hence, stimulating a social city is necessary (Hospers, 2015). Therefore, local government and other stakeholders want to develop public space in cities in such a way that sociability can be achieved, and interaction can be stimulated (Gemeente Breda, 2018; Gemeente Eindhoven, 2019; Gemeente Loon op Zand, 2014; Gemeente Tilburg, 2015).

Sociability can be achieved by creating attractive places for humans based on ‘Placemaking’ (PPS, 2007). ‘Project for Public Spaces’ (PPS) is a non-profit organization which helps with building up strong communities and sustaining public spaces (PPS, n.d.). They are committed to create public spaces for humans with ‘Placemaking’ (PPS, 2007). Ideas from urban pioneers like Jacobs and Whyte were used to establish ‘Project for Public Spaces’. As aforementioned, urban planner Whyte called the streets of a city ‘the river of life’, at which he refers to the fact that streets are places where people come together (Whyte & Underhill, 2009). But also, Jacobs stated that for making a lively neighbourhood, focussing on social and cultural importance is necessary (Jacobs, 1961). Moreover, Gehl argued that human beings must always be the starting point when developing space (Gehl, 2011). ‘Placemaking’ concerns ordering the living environment (Coffin & Young, 2017). But next to the development of a physical design, the right management is also important in order to create places that attract people (PPS, 2007). People with different ages, backgrounds, and status must have sufficient access to a place. ‘Placemaking’ is about stimulating people to play a role in the development and management of a place. Moreover, it concerns improving and reimaging a place in order to create a stronger connection between a place and people. The intention is to create public spaces in which health, happiness and well-being of humans can be improved (PPS, 2007).

‘Project for Public Spaces’ describes a successful place by use of four aspects from ‘The Place Diagram’ (PPS, 2007). The first aspect is about uses and activities. This refers to the fact that people must feel attracted to a place in order to join activities. The second aspect concerns comfort and image, at which people must feel comfortable at a place. The third aspect is about access and linkages. Places must be accessible for people, and the connection with other places should be sufficient. The fourth aspect is about sociability. The environment must be sociable, at which people are re-visiting the place in order to gather with people (PPS, 2007). Sociable environments are places where people have plenty of opportunities to meet

(22)

other people (PPS, 2007). According to Whyte, people’s social life in public space ultimately leads to an improvement of the quality of life of people and society, whereby places must stimulate interaction and civic engagement between communities (PPS, 2007). When social life is supported by a place, people are more tended to like that place. Moreover, spaces with a friendly appearance will attract people (Coffin & Young, 2017). The feelings of belonging, safety and being part of a community is important (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Public space is a physical space where people can have social meetings. Therefore, function of encounter in public space prevent the places of being empty zones (Van Melik, 2015).

2.4.1 Feasibility of public places for everyone

‘Placemaking’ sounds promising in order to create sociable environments for humans (PPS, 2007), but how feasible is it to create these sociable environments? ‘Placemaking’ leads to available public spaces for everyone, made by everyone (PPS, 2007). ‘’The strongest and

most vibrant communities are those that include and embrace all people.’’ (Coffin & Young,

2017, p. 198). Moreover, places are free accessible for everyone (Coffin & Young, 2017). Unfortunately, the perfect public space hardly exists, because the public space users are diverse (Van Melik, 2015). Therefore, ‘places for everyone’ are difficult to accomplish because experiences can differ. Thence, it is difficult to create public spaces at which everyone is satisfied with the result. Some people do like meeting places, while others do not like them. Therefore, the one-size-fits-all formula is not always applicable for every type of space (Van Melik, 2015). One of Whyte’s famous quotes is still applicable for today’s society: ‘’It is difficult

to design a space that will not attract people. What is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished.’’ This quote clearly describes the common struggle to create attractive places

for everyone (Whyte & Underhill, 2009, p. 109). Jacobs stated the following: ‘’Cities have the

capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody’’ (Jacobs, 1961, p. 238). The precondition for involving everyone is crucial, but

difficult to achieve. There would be many sociable places if it was easy to create places where every citizen was involved. For that reason, some kind of social exclusion occurs in cities since involving every citizen is impossible. Unfortunately, the number of social exclusions is higher in cities than elsewhere (Bergen, et al., 2014).

As aforementioned, people’s experiences of public space can differ significant (Coffin & Young, 2017; Van Melik, 2015). When a neighbourhood exists of multiple identities of people, it can be more difficult to accomplish places that everyone likes because interests and values mostly differ even more (Aabø, Audunson & Vårheim, 2010). The multiple identities can differ based on social and cultural characterises. Moreover, not every place is accessible for every person. Some places are not accessible for people with a disability, elderly, or places that are difficult to reach because of infrastructure (Coffin & Young, 2017). One cannot take the accessibility for granted because this can be obstructed by the smallest things (such as small pavements, or infrastructure) (PPS, 2007). Places can create opportunities as well as barriers for people: ‘’The design of the built environment constantly reminds us of our position

in every hierarchy. The size and quality of space have always been indicators of social status, whether it is the size of a house, the exclusiveness of a neighbourhood, or the proximity to a window in an office building.’’ (Roslyn Lindheim, p. 189 as cited in Coffin & Young, 2017).

‘Placemaking’ is able to contribute to better accessibility of places since the objective is to create places for everyone by everyone.

The last reason concerns people’s motivation to be involved in the development of their neighbourhood. One must realise that not all individuals are willing to defence their living environment (Newman, 1996). However, citizens should somehow invest in their living