What is a “Place” and Why a “Place” Matters

The Background of “Placemaking.”

As mentioned in the previous article, the concept behind “placemaking” originated in the 1950s-1960s. Jane Jacob and William Whyte pushed the revolutionary idea of “making city spaces designed by people” and challenged the authorities for their top-down planning approach.

But the term placemaking was not coined until forty years ago by Fred Kent, the founder of the Project for Public Spaces (PPS). As this organization claimed, placemaking is about “public space.” At its core, it focuses on the “process” of civic engagement, a bottom-up planning approach, building partnerships, and empowering local communities. “It can be privately owned, but the place is accessible to anyone,” says Mary W. Rowe, Senior Fellow with PPS.

The WHY Behind Emphasizing “Places.”

The misconception that “placemaking” is equivalent to bold-image murals, colorful streets, or hosting temporary events in any in-between urban spaces is widely-spread.

It is not hard to imagine why the public audience has such a vague understanding but vivid memory of “placemaking.” Though “a picture says a thousand words,” after all, it is difficult to describe a “process” through photos you might have seen in a town-hall presentation.

But here, I want to focus on “Place” from the word “placemaking” and share another perspective that might deserve our attention and understanding.

“Why it is so important to emphasize ‘place’ when we talk about ‘placemaking,” you might ask.

The Connotation Behind “Place”

Dictionary tells us the definition of the word “place”:

a “place” is…

• A specific area or region of the world.
• A building or area that is used for a particular purpose
• A building, part of a building, or area used for shelter.

For decades, when talking about “placemaking,” many of us have focused on “people of the space,” “public space,” “space in between buildings,” “open spaces,” etcetera.

However, we must remember the essential location-specific attribute embedded in this vocabulary. That being said: 1. focusing on the uniqueness and distinctiveness of each “place.” 2. tailoring these local characteristics into people’s lives. The above should also be considered as the basics of “placemaking.”

Defining “Place” From The Census Perspective

Secondly, the “place” defined by the U.S. Census Bureau has a specific geographic location with legal and statistical concerns. The bureau defines two kinds of “place”: 1. a place either is legally incorporated under the laws of its respective state or 2. a statistical equivalent that the Census Bureau treats as a census-designated place (CDP).

Rethinking Typology With “Places.”

In a sense, the case studies I am sharing here are because of their uniqueness in their locations.

For example, the “care center” (in Fujisawa, Japan) was thriving because of its strategic location in their neighborhood. The program is hidden in a cluster of ordinary single houses close to public transportation and other essential services.

Compared to other exotic tourist destinations, the “farm brewery” (in Monkton, Maryland) is a better tourist spot because of its added health benefit to its local community. People who live within 1–2 hours of driving range can mentally experience being pulled away from their regular daily routine to a rural fascination.

Even with only a quarter of the size of a typical European plaza, the “urban park” (in Merrifield, Virginia) gives comparable economic impact to their local district. Based on their geographic demography, events and activities have been designed during the planning phase. Neither the “historic” plazas or the “modern” urban park targeted tourists as their primary audience. But because these activities are so locally successful, people who travel to these locations for other purposes will also engage in those open spaces.

Hey! Where Are We Going Next?

“68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN”

When facing an even denser urban environment in the next 30 years, the pledge of maintaining 2°C is still our current homework. We need to be mindful of what we “make” to our surrounding environment.

Inclusiveness + Distinctiveness

For decades, the placemaking movement has developed many tactics during planning processes. For example, they conduct surveys, host local gathering events, temporary exhibitions, transform a vacant spaces for local users, and many more.

Even though the tactics are many, they all have one goal: to bring out an inclusive city. With inclusiveness, we can work more positively for the increasing urban migration.

The concept of “distinctiveness” seems counterintuitive to “inclusiveness.” However, we can undoubtedly reach these two milestones with a well-managed place.

Statistic facts + Geographic attributes

Statistically, the census tells us where we are and where we are going as a whole. Its data and information help us determine a suitable use of our land, area, or dwellings. Geographically, each location has different resources; therefore, each place has its strength to combat climate change and its potential to deal with urbanization.

A healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants

“the third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, mean economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.”

— Franklin Roosevelt from his 1941 States of the Union address

Recent events on the pandemic, the war, the recession, or the labor shortage make our world seem in tremendous danger. And we seem to be steps backward from the “freedom from want.” However, for all its imperfections, our place is still in a better state than we might think. You will find facts, evidence, or sketches in the following chapters to figure out where we can go next.