SPATIAL ELEMENTS THAT CREATE THE QUALITY PUBLIC SPACE Adelina Fejza, Gregor Čok: PROSTORSKI ELEMENTI, KI USTVARJAJO KAKOVOSTEN JAVNI PROSTOR

Public space is an essential element of human wellbeing and the overall development of the city and society. This paper pres-ents a brief outlook of the past and present situations related to the planning and use of public spaces in urban environments. In doing so, this paper addresses the fi nding that public spaces gradually lose the focus of quality in them, and as time goes by, these spaces are reshaping even in human-unfriendly places. The purpose of this presented research is to fi nd out what are the key elements that create a quality public space. To achieve it, it is used a comparative–descriptive method comparing two relevant pieces of literature or authorial approaches, Henaff and Strong's “Public Space and Democracy” and Pérez-Gómez's “Attunement”. These two examples fulfi ll the criteria of having diff erent interdisciplinary approaches toward public space, explained through diff erent periods and backgrounds. It is found that the crucial elements these authors suggest for building qualitative space are well-grounded. As such, they can be implemented in an integrated physical form because they base on the human factor or the physical presence and experience in space. In the conclusion part, a suggestion was made to include these elements in the process of planning and designing public spaces in the context of the challenges of modern living culture.


INTRODUCTION
Open public spaces together with the matrix of streets, form the pattern of the city upon which all the build-up structures organize. It defi nes the city by being an »open-air living room for city dwellers« (UN-Habitat, 2018, p. 6). Public space manifests in diff erent spatial forms such as squares, parks, neighborhood outdoor space, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, boulevards, etc. (UN-Habitat, 2018, p. 3). It is (should be) a multi-functional and inclusive area where life happens in the form of outdoor activities, various cultural, political, and social events, trading, movement, etc. (Global Public Space Toolkit, 2015, p. 4). The places represented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 are considered good examples of that kind of space. Suffi cient open public space successfully connected within a city, enables the cities to upgrade the quality of life and improve its function (UN-Habitat, 2018, p. 3). »It is for urban planning to establish and organize these public spaces, and for urban design to facilitate and encourage their use, in the process enhancing a sense of identity and belonging« (Global Public Space Toolkit, 2015, p. 4).
As the world is constantly changing, every discipline also faces changes in its domain. Ancient architecture has formed spaces that indicated encountered participation, where we understand ourselves through others, enabling human freedom and bodily communication (Pérez--Gómez, 2017). Modern urbanism has signifi cantly put low importance on the idea of city space as a meeting place for people, the overall public space, and the walking experience in it (Gehl, 2010, p. 3). Nowadays, the situation is diff erent. Private interests are escalating, technology reshapes the real world into the virtual, and the economic and political domain is skeptical about the symbolic values of the space (Pérez-Gómez, 2017). Lawrence Herzog (2006, p. 5) argues about the current situation in Mexico, where the public space is gradually reshaping into something unrecognizable and unmeaningful. Transitional countries are additionally facing the issue of shrinkage or unactive public spaces. It seems like we are losing the focus of quality over quantity, compromising some of our basic spatial needs just for short-lasting benefi ts For example, in North Macedonia, with its capital city of Skopje, most of the public spaces within collective housing buildings are not in their intended function. They are not properly designed and managed, and they seem like they don't serve at all for a collective urban living (Figure 4 and Figure  5). The human presence is missing, and what dominates is    the ramp access toward the underground parking, parked cars on the ground fl oor, and fences around the parcel that disables the pedestrian fl ow and accessibility. Sahan (2021, p. 1) states there is a need for serious consideration of the relationship between humans and the urban surrounding. Pérez-Gómez (2016, pp. 15-20) makes a brief overlook of the past, the present, and the future of public spaces. He argues that historically it was the architect's responsibility to provide a sense of home in the city, where the public life prioritized the human experience, which is the opposite of the present situation ( Figure 5), where public spaces have converted into places for consumption and transit. He emphasizes that it becomes even more drastic when we add the infl uence of technology which converts physical communication into virtual, neglecting the rooted human need for live dialogue and touch and putting our psychosomatic health into question. De Graaf (2017, p. 121) has a similar view for the virtual realms, pointing out that nowadays, the public space is not the only place that defi nes us as a collective. There are other virtual platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. who challenge the perception of public space. Pérez-Gómez (2016, p. 20) highlights only two main possible paths for architecture in the twenty-fi rst century who are opposite; it may intensify the human worth and capability, or it may intensify the production of even more digital environments. He wholly supports the fi rst path. This paper also supports the human approach in creating quality public spaces. It delves into a literature review and focuses on extracting and fi nding the answer to the question: what are the key elements that create a quality public space?

METHODS
Seeking an answer, we have used a comparative-descriptive method of two relevant pieces of literature. The purpose of this literature review is to outline and extract the key spatial elements that create a quality public space. Those elements will be a subject of description/comparison. The fi rst selected literature is by Henaff and Strong "Public Space and Democracy" and the second one is by Pérez-Gómez "Attunement". Even though there is a plethora of literature or various authorial discussions and research approaches about public space, the selected ones seem crucial and appropriate for answering the research question. The selection criteria for choosing these two was: authors having diff erent interdisciplinary approaches toward the fi eld of public space and authors explaining their affi rmations of public space through diff erent periods and backgrounds. In this way, we can see distinctive points of view and have a wider chronological overlook of the extracted quality elements.
For justifying the fi rst criteria, Henaff and Strong (2001) are trying to defi ne what qualities a space must have to identify as "public" by connecting it with democracy. They make this connection because these two notions have in common their participants. They interact and manifest their democratic values within the public space. Public space and democracy cannot exist without its participants. Whereas Pérez-Gómez (2016) also has an interdisciplinary approach in his purpose for attunement. He connects philosophy, phenomenology, and neurobiology with architecture and urban design. The book's main idea is in confronting the diffi culties of a spiritual place in this nondualist reality and point out its signifi cance on human well-being and sustainability, one in which architecture can and should make a crucial contribution. For justifying the second criteria, Henaff and Strong (in the introductory chapter) refer to ancient times as a background for explaining their statements and defi nitions. Whereas, Pérez-Gómez refers to the contemporary problems as a background for his affi rmations.
Through this literature review, we have identifi ed the key elements that these authors refer to for defi ning a quality public space, and we fi nd them crucial for the future planning of public spaces.

Chronological facts
Public space has been reshaped a lot through the years, and it will continue to reshape. It dates since the Ancient Greek (900-338 BC) when Agora represented this space (Caves, 2004, p.10). Agora was the central place of the town which had social, political, artistic, and economic value, serving as a market and formal or informal gathering space. Later, in this formation occurred the open-air gymnasia and the theatre. After Greek Agora, Roman Forums carried out its idea, consisting of the same activities and values as Greek Agora, including temples, basilicas, shops, and other amusement areas like the theatre and public baths. During medieval times, the market was the central function and attraction in public spaces -it was formed mainly in front of a public building or some roads intersections. In the Renaissance period, public spaces were surrounded by buildings with unifi ed facades, which enhanced the harmony and value of this place. Renaissance Plazas played a crucial part in the local social order and cultural development. (Chitnis, 2021).
In the Modern Era, the meaning of public space changed signifi cantly due to industrialization and the rising urban population, which resulted in urban sprawl (Fainstein, 2021) and automobile-dependent movement. It increased the need for new recreational places within the city as parks and playgrounds (Fainstein, 2021), but on the other hand, signifi cantly put low importance on the idea of city space as a meeting place for people, the overall public space, and the walking experience in it (Gehl, 2010). Nowadays, we are also facing signifi cant changes in public space. The impact of globalization, the privatization of shared public spaces for commercial reasons (Nilsson, 2012), and the technological upgrade reshaped the contemporary public spaces into the concept of shopping malls (Chitnis, 2021) which isolates people from the outside environment. This approach leaves a signifi cant change in the urban fabric, city image, and the health and psychology of the inhabitants. Henaff and Strong (2001, pp. 2-4) fi rstly seek to defi ne the public space by comparing it with three other space types, claiming that »aside from being public, space may also be private, sacred, or common«. What distinguishes them is the standards that must be fulfi lled for someone to have access to that space. A private space, besides the standards for access, is also characterized by the virtue of ownership, »such space is one's own space«, and they control it (Henaff and Strong, 2001, p. 2). The sacred space doesn't have the virtue of ownership because it is »land reserved to the gods«, and it has a sacred dimension, not human. As opposed to a sacred place, the common space doesn't represent any religious dimension, and it is not a public space because it is created by nature and given to humans, such as the sea, forest, etc., they can't own it or control it.

Henaff and Strong -"Public Space and Democracy"
By making a simple diagram of these types of spaces (Figure 6), Henaff and Strong (2001, p. 4) concluded that: »Spaces may be human or divine; they may be a manifestation of the being that owns them, or not«. So, they defi ned public space as a space that is created »by and for humans« even though there are debatable rules that control its creation; it represents an accomplishment of mankind. It doesn't have the ownership virtue, and it is accessible by those who meet the standards. Public space is a rival representation of what can be brought or taken from the public life of a person who shares it with others.
When it comes to what qualities a space must have to be public, Henaff and Strong (2001, pp. 5-8) analyzed the public buildings and Agoras of ancient Greek and the philosophers: Hippodamus, Plato, Nietzsche, etc., and they defi ned three qualities: being open, artifact, and theatrical. They state that the quality of openness determines a clear vision of the location itself and the access in it; the quality of an artifact explains human nature for trying to shape the place and enhance communication; and the theatrical quality implies the human interaction by defi ning a space connected with sight or vision and presentness. By seeing the others and being seen by the others, the aspect of publicness emerges in that space. According to them, the quality of theatricality divides into two diff erent sub-qualities determined by the relationship between people in public space. The fi rst one is intransitivitywhich means a nonreciprocal relationship between people involved, and the second one is transitivitywhich means a reciprocal relationship between people involved.
Democracy as a term originates from the ancient Greek word "democratia" which means "rule of the people" (Liddell and Scott, 1999). It »does not mean politics as a way of life… But it does mean politics (citizenship) as a way of living: an expected element of one's life« (Daly et al., 2000, p. 112). Democracy represents the »institutionalization of freedom« (U.S. Department of State -IIP, 2013).
By defi ning these three qualities of public space -open, artifact, and theatrical; Henaff and Strong (2001, pp. 9-12) conclude that: »democracy is necessarily built into any conception of public space«. They explain that the essence of the public space is in its democratic form, nothing can hide, and everybody has the right to observe and interact with all that appears in public. The authors note that democracy requires transparency and visibility, which only public spaces can provide. It has its roots in ancient Greek, where the need for public debate, shared knowledge, and public law decisions emerged. In this way, the newly political, juridical, intellectual, and religious aspects of life; were formed in the public spaces of the city, which represented a convenient space for direct expression and development. »Democracy manifests itself within that space; the public expression of its being resides in its very being« (Henaff and Strong, 2001, p. 12).  Henaff and Strong, 2001, p. 4) Public space is connected closely with the practice of democracy since its creation. When united, they have the power to impact humans life and the overall urban environment, a fact that was evident in ancient Greek when the intellectual class emerged. That's why public space that supports democracy is a quality space because it enables society's development. Parkinson (2012) also embraces this powerful connection. He adds that nowadays, democratic freedom and actions still require physical public space, even though virtual social platforms are overtaking it, and public spaces are becoming more restricted and controlled.

Pérez-Gómez -"Attunement"
Pérez-Gómez (2017), in one of his lectures at the University of Sydney, argues about the theatrical value of public spaces by making a historical review of the theatre that defi ned the public realm back in the 18 th century and how it has transformed drastically at the beginning of the 19 th century in Europe. He argues that in the 18 th century, human religious and political values were intervened within these theatrical conventions. It was a place where all the main events took place. The theatre itself had a continued perspective that represented an imitation of the urban life where everybody had the right to speak and, even the audience, showed contentment or discontentment for the performances. Pérez-Gómez (2017) explains that in the 19 th century, drastic changes occurred when the theatre was no longer a resemblance of the city life. It became a simulative entertainment on stage, where the audience had to keep a certain distance from the scene and to be disciplined and quiet. He argues that such cultural transformation aff ected the overall human life, undervaluing and ignoring public participation. This societal transformation had a signifi cant impact on architecture, turning its primary meaning into creating private dwellings. Pérez-Gómez (2017, 18:03) highlights that even this historical retrospective denotes that the primary function of architecture was »to open up communicative spaces for focal actions, disclosing a political, social, or mythological order to a community, making, therefore, a good life possible, a wholesome life, both healthy for the body and the mind«. He considers communicative spaces the same as public spaces.
Compared with Henaff and Strong, who do not mention architecture and its role in constructing a quality public space, Pérez-Gómez is interested in public space as a potential result in architecture and urban planning. In his purpose for creating an attunement, Pérez-Gómez (2016, pp. 127-128) argued that nowadays, when it comes to a design decision; we neglect the narrative, emotional, and cultural aspects of a place by focusing only on the physical attributes, analyzing them only objectively and superfi cial. He states that what happens between humans and objects -is the act of perception, a subjective feature that cannot be compared with "nothing" because diff erent places infl uence us to think diff erently. The qualities of the space can be perceived directly through our senses and consciousness, but this is a complex issue for technology because it tends to ignore the value of such perception, and gradually reshapes our spatial experience from actual real perception into a virtual one. An addition to the action of perception is the action of movement, which was argued by Schmarsow (as cited in Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 148), claiming that people can observe the space through movement also. Pérez-Gómez (2016, p. 48) relies the concept for attunement on the German word Stimmung. This word is an association of atmosphere and mood and suggests »a stable "tunedness" of the mind, the attunement of embodied consciousness«. How can we apply this concept in contemporary architecture to create a possibility for attunement? He argues that we have a situation where urban planning and design reduces and focuses on calculational proportions, urban traffi c, and monotonous housing blocks, providing a neutral space for better control. Meanwhile, ignoring the atmosphere of public spaces results in forming a negative mood such as anxiety and emotional discomfort (Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 26).
Atmosphere may be the main aim of the architect that is slightly unreachable (Wigley, 1998). It can be compared with the French word "ambiance", meaning a »"cheerful" to "melancholy, " "light" to "oppressive"« activity (Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 27). Hermann Schmitz (1969, as cited in Rigby, 2011, p. 143) notes that atmosphere doesn't come just from the inner self because it is a form of emotion that results during some spatial experience. According to Pérez-Gómez (2016, p. 30), atmosphere challenges the virtual communication of the present time by prioritizing bodily presence and experience. It also challenges modern architects such as Le Corbusier, who followed Durand's decisions for unifying the architectural drawings into precise lines, using a grid and focusing only on solving a problem, meanwhile avoiding the atmospheric features and intuitive expression because they are impossible to materialize. Anyway, he adds that some architects embrace the atmospheric value, for example, Peter Zumthor -whose buildings diff er by creating atmospheres that »reveal qualities of place that appear as autochthonous, resonant with the activities to which rooms and spaces in his projects are particularly dedicated« (Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 30). Zumthors' work represents Adolf Looss' statements about the importance of recognizing a feeling -to create the desired outcome (Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 30). The situationist Guy Debord (as cited in Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 30) also contributed to the sphere of urban design, defi ning the modern planned city as incapable of creating unique perceptible atmospheres.
Moods are intertwined directly with the atmosphere of a place, they come to our inner self in the form of emotion, but we cannot materialize and project them in a particular space; they imitate natural and manmade spaces, establishing »cognition, action and thought«, as claimed by Pérez-Gómez (2016, pp. 36-39). The author states that »emotions are crucial for cognition; they have a life-enhancing, evolutionary origin and are borne out of the body's engagement in the world« (Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 36). That is why qualitative architecture should focus on creating atmospheres and moods that result in positive emotions, positive life, healthful humanity, sense of belonging, homeness, and socialness. »The inner is the outer« (Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 36). Pérez-Gómez (2016, p. 166) also highlights that the attunement space has the risk to not result in impacting us in a way it is envisioned by "Stimmung". Anyway, »enactive understanding and embodied perception are crucial to our grasp of Stimmung« (Pérez-Gómez, 2016, p. 166); it has potential for further development of contemporary architecture and urban design. He concludes that spiritual aspects of a place can have global positive feedback on health and sustainability, in which architecture should have the crucial part in the process of creating it. Just as Vitruvius (ca. 25 BCE) believed that a well-designed city is in harmony with nature, climate, orientation, and proportion of buildings -creating a balanced life between man and the environment -Pérez-Gómez (2016, pp. 14-21) classifi es well designed city as a feeling of attunement with the surrounding -which has a vital meaning in human psychological health and well-being. He states that this attunement in a certain place, provided by human actions may be the most lasting feature that architecture gives to humanity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Based on the reviewed literature, the key elements that create a quality public space are: open, artifact, theatrical (Henaff and Strong, 2001), atmosphere and moods (Pérez--Gómez, 2016). Eventhough, they are formed through diff erent approaches and diff erent background periods, the essence in all of them is the same, and it is the human dimension in the space itself, the bodily presence and experience ( Table 1). The quality of being open, artifact and theatrical are all interlinked with the human perception, recognition, and interaction within the public space. Spatial atmospheres that create moods of positive emotions have a direct connection with the inner human spirit. Based on that conclusion, we have formed an integrated diagram which is a combination of both authors' affi rmations (Figure 7), and it represents the key elements that create a quality public space.
These quality elements can be designed only with an interdisciplinary approach in urban planning and design, collaborating with disciplines such as urban anthropology and urban sociology, that study the human aspect in public spaces, their behavior, social needs, movements, feelings, perceptions, use of space, etc. Although, as Pérez-Gómez (2016) mentioned, all these elements are subjective features and are diffi cult to measure and materialize; anyway, the risk of not achieving the envisioned goal is way lower if urban planners and architects consider them. Architects have the skills, knowledge, and intuition to plan these kinds of quality spaces through interdisciplinary collaboration and direct communication and involvement with the users. De Graaf (2017) also encourages people's involvement in creating the city. »Taking part is not just a matter of refl ec- Figure 7: Integrated diagram of elements of quality public space, a combination of Henaff and Strong (2001) and Pérez-Gómez (2016) affi rmations. ting on its current state but also a matter of self-refl ection« (De Graaf, 2017, p. 374). Also, through collective participation in the management and maintenance of public spaces within residential areas, the quality of public spaces can be eff ectively increased (Mandeli, 2010, pp. 170-171). Marcus states the same, arguing that this strategy »provides a profound sense of shared responsibility and community« (Marcus, 2003, p. 6.9/10). The community should also have the right to use the public space however they decide, and even there is a law that forbids some activity, they still have the power to fi ght the law and prove them they are right (De Graaf, 2017, p. 121).
By analyzing theoretically Henaff and Strong and Pérez--Gómez and reaffi rming their claims with other authors' conclusions; we can state that -architecture and urbanism that aim to produce good buildings and spaces should consider the non-material aspects such as human interaction, human feelings, human perception, human needs, human participation; while analyzing and designing the physical attribute of places and buildings. This approach is essential because it is directly connected with the mental state of the human being, providing positive life and healthful humanity that goes hand in hand with the increase of economic and sustainable indicators. »Well-designed neighborhoods inspire the people who live in them, whilst poorly designed cities brutalize their citizens« (Rogers, 2010, p. ix), as Gehl (2010, p. 9) says: »First we shape cities -then they shape us«. Nowadays, it is worth questioning whether the public spaces that we fi nd -spatial but empty, new but unattractive, programmed but dysfunctional, as illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5, lack the human dimension as a top priority in the process of urban planning and design. »Public space is made up of more than parks, plazas, and sidewalks; it is a shared world where individuals can identify with one another and see themselves through the eyes of others« (Kohn, 2004, p. 7).
Even though the human approach to planning and design was argued a long time ago, now it requires even more commitment in the contemporary culture of living, where we deal with all kinds of superfi ciality in this fi eld. The newly framed diagram about quality public space (Figure 7) represents a step beyond superfi cial planning and design. It consists of more abstract notions of operation, but at the same time, they are closer to the human physical and spiritual dimension. They can guide architects and other concerned professionals toward a better possible future for these spaces.