Post on 04-Feb-2023
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 1 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
Title: Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism Author: Ahmed M.Salah Ouf Affiliation: Professor of Urban Design, Cairo University Table of contents:
1. Introduction and definitions 2. Morphology and Public Realm Classifications 3. Public Realm Typology in Egypt 4. A Typology of the Public Realm for Cairo 5. Conclusion and future research
Abstract:
Public realm in our cities consists of all places that do not have restricted public access: areas
that are public in use even if they happen to be on a private property. It is a main component of
any city morphology that defines people’s satisfaction with the overall urban context. In places
where the public realm is only expected to facilitate urban functions; the city become boring
and unfriendly. Egypt after January 25th, 2011 revolution is rediscovering its public realm, that
is yet to be classified and designed as a city amenity. This research discusses the need for public
realm typology in Egypt.
Keywords: public realm, typology, Egypt urbanization, revolution in the public place
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 2 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
1- Introduction and definitions
Typology is defined in the English Merriam-Webster dictionary as the study of or analysis or
classification based on types or categories. Urban typology is a classification of urban
components according to certain criteria that correspond to the purpose of that classification, if
no purpose existed, creating a typology would be pointless. For example, creating a
classification (a typology) of urban areas based on the age groups of the local population might
be best fit to the purpose of providing appropriate education. If the purpose of the typology is
the provision of health care facilities then the criteria would need to be based on sex, age,
study of infectious diseases, number of the population suffering from chronic diseases, wellness
standards and other relevant criteria.
Public realm in our cities consists of all places that do not have restricted public access: areas that are public in use even if they happen to be on a private property. Public realm is mostly the not built-up areas of the city (void) that the “public” can use including pedestrian paths, road networks, public transport hubs, areas between buildings, parks, water fronts, observation points, water fronts, public open space, etc. However; built-up areas can house components of the public realm when public activities and public access is granted; for example privately developed malls and entertainment parks would be considered public realm. A discussion of what makes public access is necessary in every community as some places with restricted access such as places for children, places for the physically challenged and alike might fit the criteria for being public realm components. Other restricted access areas such as parks and facilities within gated communities do not fit the definition of public realm but still might be considered as public realm in special occasions or festive times. Similarly; public realm typologies need to be created for a purpose and to be based on criteria relevant to that purpose.
Creating a typology for the urban public realm is necessary for more than one reason; improving research on public realm phenomena, selection of a proper urban management approach for each type, assist designers to better understand the requirements of the different public realm typologies and to guide local communities’ decisions on future public realm type needs. It is also clear within that understanding that more than one public realm typology is possible for each local community depending on the reason for its creation. 2- Morphology and Public Realm Classifications
Merriam Webster dictionary’s definition of the word “Morphology” is the form and structure of
an organism or any of its parts; when applied to the field of urbanism the term urban
morphology still meant the same: study of urban form and structure of human habitats or any
of its parts. Lewis Mumford in his book The City in History, 1961 studied the evolution of cities
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 3 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
and their urban components marking the origin of research on Urban Morphology. We might
also claim that city morphology was an issue since the garden city concept of Ebenezer Howard
1889; where he had a good vision of the future city form, relationships among its components
and areas of public access (public realm) within the city which he marked in the central business
district, central park and the grand avenue. Most planners and architects of the previous
century also presented clear ideas about future city form (morphology) that had plenty of
public access areas (public realm) - such as “Tower in the Park” of Le Corbusier (Barnette, 2011,
p.334) which left the whole city floor as a public realm. General architecture direction of CIAM
1930 Athens charter, defined the critical areas for planning as dwelling, work, recreation,
transportation and a fifth category for “buildings or groups of buildings that are remnants of
past cultures” (Barnette, 2011, p.27). Except for the dwelling category; CIAM’s other four
critical areas for planning are public areas within which an integrated public realm is expected
to develop.
Overall urban typology of the city image as proposed by Kiven Lynch in 1961 had a purpose of
creating a better urban form; legible, navigable and usable. Urban typology was simple: five
physical components that make a visually distinctive urban form when added together and four
main criteria that make each of the components important in the overall mental structure. In
his other book “what time is this place?” he was interested in the dimension of heritage and
accumulation of history within the city but his typology stayed visual/physical for the overall
city form. Lynch’s typology became common amongst architects and city planners without
denying the fact that social and economic impacts on physical form were clearly acknowledged
in both his books “The Image of the City” of 1961 and “Good City Form” of 1984 as well as in his
other publications. Lynch’s typology assumed that the public had access to the areas (public
realm) from which they can see the city’s physical components; but still some of the visual
components they see are not part of the accessible realm.
Rob Krier produced his analysis of public open space networks showing city plans in the form of
solid and void (black and white graphics) that became a standard analytical methodology in the
field after his book “Urban Space” of 1979. The purpose was to guide architectural design in
producing better physical environments making the proposed typology more of a catalogue of
possible open space layouts that have historic precedents. Understanding the glory of existing
urban fabric in Europe was seen as a good start for creating better urban environments in the
future. The typology was simple: void in the urban fabric evolved in different physical forms of
urban open space; making a typology of forms of the public realm which was not very useful for
managing the city.
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 4 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
When the purpose of classification was focused on socio-cultural aspects of the urban form; as
the case for Christopher Alexander; the proposed urban typology became the language of
patterns in 1977. For Alexander; the whole city is composed of patterns that evolved over time
in response to socio-economic and environmental conditions making the building blocks of the
urban language within a specific culture. The resultant urban form is then expected to be
whole; paving the way for the idea of a growing whole as explained later in the new theory of
urban design in 1987. The proposed urban typology is based on human activity and behavior
that proved to be successful for that context within a specific form, size and spatial
characteristics. Though resulting in hundreds of patterns that add up together to create a
“whole” urban environment; the typology is defined by human interaction within space
creating a repeated pattern and the basis of a language that typology might be useful to
manage urban functions & city activities.
Jane Jacobs in 1961 in her attack on conventional city planning ideas as the cause of boring and
car-dominated urban form established an alternate vision to cities that typified them into lively
and dead. The typology was simple and the main criterion was the ability of pedestrians to
perform their activities at will throughout the city to make the city vivid, pleasant and safe. A
city that is dominated by cars was considered dull and void of human activities; good urban
neighborhoods were seen as those with better human interaction and pleasant pedestrian
contexts. Opposed to the separation of land uses that leave downtowns dead after work hours,
to the designation of quiet residential areas with very low densities only fit for raising families
(suburbanization), and to the car-dominant city design; Jane Jacobs preached the need for
mixed land uses, higher urban densities and designated pedestrian spaces to bring life to the
city. The simple typology of dead and alive urban areas was easy to analyze and to use by those
who seek to design vivid urban settings with human activities. Public access on foot was seen as
the main criteria for making the city alive, consequently; Jane Jacobs was a main preacher for
more integrated public realm throughout the city. This basic typology might be useful to city
managers in their distribution of activities on a city scale.
Oscar Newman in 1973 produced his classic work for the defensible space where safety of the
users was the main focus. Because of a predefined purpose by the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to investigate the issue of crime in public housing projects of
the 1950’s in the US; a classification was born to determine safe outdoor spaces and others
susceptible to crime together with characteristics of both that cause crime/safety susceptibility.
The concept of passive surveillance and the need for direct visual contact between inside and
outside spaces became standard criterion for open space design after this landmark research.
The two-tiered typology was meant to direct future design of safer housing areas and to allow
residents of housing areas to control the safety of their environments through self-help and
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 5 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
neighborhood watch. This typology was mainly concerned with classifying urban public spaces
within public housing areas and did not extend to cover other parts of the city, however, its
results paved the way for researching the issue of security in other urban contexts. Any
successful typology for the public realm needs to consider the criteria that make public spaces
safe.
William Whyte in 1980 produced another classic urban design research on the social life of
small urban spaces, or spaces between buildings, where he, carefully, studied social
interactions in small city spaces: a research for “The Street Life Project” that started in 1970 to
look for public spaces in New York. Main difference between Whyte and other authors was his
micro approach to study the city rather than the macro approaches adopted by Lynch, Krier,
Jacobs and Alexander. William Whyte’s research did not create a typology but rather started a
trend for researching public activities before intervening in the planning and design of the
public realm.
However, cross cultural comparisons in the field of public realm research should be dealt with
carefully because it is not always reliable; cultural differences might be so grave that the whole
concept of “public vs. private” or “formal vs. informal” would change our understanding of a
typology. Culture is defined as the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs,
values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations,
concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in
the course of generations (Samovar and Porter, 1994). Consequently; culture that represents a
specific group of people (community) is “location-tied” belonging to the place where these
people live. Public realm as a component of the place where communities live is also culture-
dependent and location-tied; so that public realm typology, ideas and solutions cannot be
swapped blindly across cultural boundaries. In addition; continuous evolution of the local
culture changes the community’s perception of the public realm components and methodology
compared to other communities making the creation of a public realm typology a cultural-
loaded research topic.
Over the short term; the ideas of civilization “A” might appear vastly superior to those of civilization “B”. But over the long term it could turn out that apparently
“primitive” practices of civilization B were based on millennia of trial and error and incorporated deep wisdom that was unintelligible to civilization A.
Kenneth E.F. Watt , natural history Magazine, Feb 1972 in Kaplan and Kaplan 1982, p.3
3- Public Realm Typology in Egypt As mentioned earlier, creating a typology needs to have a purpose, relate t human activities,
provide safety requirements, afford desirable behavior patterns and be culture-savvy. Current
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 6 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
categorization of public realm in Egypt is done on a city level by municipalities for the purpose
of creating municipal departments to manage city services such as public parks, streets and car
parking, sewage, public transportation, health etc. Consequently, there is no country-wide
public realm register because the detailed data collected for that purpose would not have a
practical use on any level higher than the city level. The purpose of creating public realm
typologies in Egypt was clear: easier urban management and the provision of municipal
services. For that reason; national parks, zoos, botanical gardens and alike were never put in
one category as public amenities but rather registered in the ministries responsible for their
administration. For example; zoos and botanical gardens have a register in the ministry of
agriculture, nature reserves have a register at the ministry of the environment, and national
parks have a register on a governorate-by-governorate level for the purpose of providing them
with agricultural work, irrigation water and maintenance. The concept of a general public
realm for use by the general public as recreation -or to satisfy their right to the city- was not a
declared purpose. This multiplicity of responsible entities over the different components of
public realm makes it difficult to find out all the locations, areas and names of any public realm
component in any city on one list. Creating a typology for the public realm in Egypt for the
purpose of providing the general public with “public realm as an amenity” is yet to be created.
Managing the city for efficiency rather than managing the city to respond to human activities
was clear during the last thirty years in Egypt; development of the public realm was monitored
carefully to reduce the possibilities of street demonstrations and public discussions. That
philosophy resulted in a “blind eye” policy towards informal economic and social activities
within the local areas as long as they do not pose any direct political threat. Right to the city
concept was never entertained in Egypt’s urbanization till 2011 and the public realm as an
amenity was intentionally ignored. Problems of the public realm surfaced lately because the
public felt that they have right to the city and the governments had the political will to deal
with the newly acquired rights of the users. People gathering on the streets surrounding the
stadium after a football match were dealt with as informal purposeless gatherings and not as an
expression of a social need for celebrating a match result. Spaces around the stadium were
planned for functional movement of the fans only (access and egress) but gatherings were seen
as a security breach and a needless political hazard. If we read the new right to the city
movement after January 25th, 2011 in Egypt properly; there is a need to redesign the overall
public realm within the city to respond to the socio-economic needs of the public rather than
merely providing the necessary functional needs for urban activities.
Urban designers in Egypt inherited a clear mental “Dichotomy” between approving informal
street activities in most of the old city districts as creating a favorable urban character while the
same activities are condemned as “chaotic” out of that context. Informal street activity in older
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 7 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
city districts in Cairo and other Egyptian cities have gradually developed within a compact urban
tissue, spontaneous street pattern and very relaxed public realm usage interfaces that brought
public and private uses to the public realm. Informal activities are flexible and temporary
allowing for the same place to be used by different groups in different times for different
activities. Genius of informality is its adaptability, flexibility and ability of all users to participate
in shaping the urban context together with the government:
The promotion of temporary use is still evolving as an approach to urban development in which government initiates instead of regulating, pays more consideration to what is on the land, takes smaller steps, gives more serious consideration to input of all players and focusses on process rather than product. Bishop and Williams, p.187.
Public realm of more contemporary areas within Cairo (planned and formally constructed) does
not appreciate informal activities on the street and had clear distinction of public realm
components on cluster, neighborhood and district levels. Older city districts usually do not
provide designed spaces for public use but rather integrated small areas off the street for both
formal and informal socio-economic activities. The main difference is that modern public realm
for Cairo was developed based on some formal criteria while older districts evolved naturally
using undisclosed design and development criteria that are still being researched. Up to 2011;
Informal gatherings anywhere in the city were feared as possible sources of security problems
for the political regime.
Creating a public realm typology for Egypt will need to discover the deep social and economic
characteristics within both modern and old urban districts of Egyptian cities in order to assure
its success and usability. In addition; typology of urban space as discussed by Krier, Kaplan and
others might be a good base for research on the physical and spatial characteristics for the
public realm so that both intangible and tangible aspects of the public realm need to be
considered. The whole research about public realm typology needs further studies of the
overall urban morphology of our cities, social structure of the city, economic activities within
the city before we define a suitable public realm typology. Arranging for all necessary studies to
be completed might take some time especially during times of major social and political unrest;
making it necessary to propose a temporary typology for the public realm to facilitate its
functioning. Although this proposed typology will not be perfect or complete; it would be a
good start for further research on the topic. Comprehensive has always been a better
theoretical alternative for academic research; however, fragmented approaches, muddling
through, mixed scanning and other peace-meal alternatives always proved faster in promoting
results and less demanding on data accumulation and research preparation.
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 8 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
Following is an informed proposal for public realm typology for Egyptian public realm based on
initial fieldwork by the author with photographic assistance of post graduate students as will be
credited in the following text. The proposed public realm typology depends on the author’s
fieldwork research (January 25th 2011 till July 2013) on:
1. Formal versus informal activities in the public realm.
2. Cairo’s urban morphology
3. Spatial distribution of activities in the public realm
4. Typology by CARR et.al. 1992 that has good typological components to assimilate
4- A Typology of the Public Realm for Cairo Understanding that place is only created when space becomes memorable and have recognizable features; public realm components will always be referred to in the general categories as spaces.
Space provides the context for places but derives its meaning from particular places. E Relph 1967 p.2
Freedom to use the public realm after the January 25th 2011 revolution in the absence of
community guidance or street control; resulted in each social group trying to re-produce its
public place interface that it developed within the limits of its local areas into the general public
realm. Every social group celebrated its public realm interface out in public; they did not need
collective agreement of such interfaces by other public realm partners in the spirit of the
revolution that had no leader. Street traders, inappropriate parking and similar public realm
activities were not born after the revolution but were only exported from the local alleys to the
main public space. To get a better understanding of this existential situation where people
coming from all over the city to make a statement that they existed; I quote Martin Heidger
1957, p.19 as appeared in E.Relph 1976, p.3:
“’place’ places man in such a way that it reveals the external bonds of his existence and at the same time the depths of his freedom and reality”. It is a profound and complex aspect of man’s experience of the world.
The proposed public realm typology by Carr et. Al., 1992, had 11 main types of publicly utilized areas within a city that cross the boundaries of formal-informal, public-private developed areas, natural-manmade, open-closed and all similar distinctions of the public realm as discussed above:
1- Public Parks (public/central park, downtown parks, commons, neighborhood park, mini/vestpocket park
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 9 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
2- Playgrounds (playground, schoolyard, ..) 3- Greenways and Linear Parkways 4- Streets (pedestrian sidewalks, pedestrian mall, transit mall, traffic restricted
streets, town trails, ..) 5- Squares and Plazas (central square, memorials, ..) 6- Community Open Spaces (community garden/park, ..) 7- Found/Neighborhood Spaces (everyday spaces, neighborhood spaces, ..) 8- Markets 9- Atrium/Indoor/Marketplaces (Atrium, marketplace/downtown shopping center, 10- Urban Wilderness 11- Waterfronts (waterfronts, harbors, Beaches, Riverfronts, Piers, Lakefronts ..)
Carr et. al. classification is mainly descriptive and is subjective based on location, sensory perception and feelings of the context rather than being objective depending on specific criteria or community opinion for determining each category and sub-category of the public realm. This classification is a good assimilation for the Egyptian public realm because of its inclusion of social, economic, environmental, and cultural in addition to the physical characteristics of the public realm components. Creating a similar classification for the public realm in Egypt will need to analyze the basic Carr et. al. categorization; the author suggests five main groups of public realm components: park, street, Outdoor Space, Indoor Space and natural space (urban wilderness, water front, etc.):
1. Parks a. Public Parks b. Playgrounds c. Greenways and Linear Parkways
2. Street a. Streets
3. Outdoor Space a. Squares and Plazas b. Memorials c. Community Open Spaces d. Found/Neighborhood Spaces
4. Indoor Space a. Markets b. Atrium/Indoor/Marketplaces
5. Natural Space a. Urban Wilderness b. Waterfronts
The main grouping of the Carr et. al. classification of the public realm covers almost all the
necessary categories for Cairo but might be adapted by adding the following sub-categories:
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 10 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
1. Hill side vantage points to cover hillside of Moqattam overlooking Cairo and similar
conditions in few other cities of Egypt
2. Desert outing and desert safari to cover desert encounters in more than one location
around cities at upper Egypt and Cairo.
3. Traditional street bazar and informal street market to cover both the informal and
formal open air market space.
4. Masjid place as clearly encountered in every city. Church place is not that obvious
mainly because church activities do not spell out except in eastern or Christmas
festivities and not on weekly basis as that of the masjid.
5. The microbus stop -public transportation hub- that proved itself as a formal/informal
functional sub-category necessary to respond to the needs of the lower economic strata
in the public realm of Egypt
6. The public forum where people go out to express their ideas, demonstrate or have
public gathering for one reason or another has become a main component of the public
realm that should be considered in the years to come.
Consequently; public realm typology for the cities of Egypt might consider the following
components:
1- Park » Public Park » Playground » Greenway and Linear Parkway
2- Street » Main Street » Traditional bazar » Informal retail Street » Microbus stop
3- Outdoor space » Square and Plaza (formal/informal) » Memorial Place » Community Open Space » Masjid Place » The Public Forum » Found/Neighborhood Space
4- Indoor space » The Mall
5- Natural Space » Urban Wilderness
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 11 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
» Desert Outing and Desert Safari » Water Front » Hillside vantage point
Each of the proposed categories and sub-categories would need thorough fieldwork research in
Cairo and other cities to create clear descriptive definitions and design guidelines that
municipalities and local communities can adopt to develop the public realm. Following is a brief
introduction of some of the unique public realm categories for the Egyptian context:
1- Masjid Place
A Public Place that exists in every town (small or large) where Friday and Ramadan prayer
activities extend informally out to the street in front of the main masjid (rarely formal)
accompanied by temporary or short-term commercial activities. The Masjid Place becomes
partially pedestrian at time of the prayers where vehicular traffic yields for pedestrians. Such
place is usually not formal in shape and most of the time partially shaded as per the local
community’s financial capabilities and importance of the Masjid.
Sayidah Nafeysah Masjid Place in Cairo, 2012
2- Memorial Public Place
One of the oldest urban places in most Egyptian cities that was planned and designed to be a main public space with good visual qualities in front of a main formal building or the city’s train station (Egypt was second only to Britain in adopting rail for public transport) or to mark an important location within the city.
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 12 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
Kayed Ibrahim Place, Alexandria Tahrir Square, Cairo, 1982
3- The Informal Retail Street (The Souq)
The informal retail street is most of the time informal open air market that allows for day-
to-day shopping and marginal retail. It started in lower income neighborhoods but extended
after the January 25th revolution to almost all city districts.
Attaba informal traders, 2011 Street traders, alHussain, Historic Cairo, 2013
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 13 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
4- The Microbus Stop
Widely spread function all over Egyptian cities for the lack of proper public transport and approved stop locations. An Informal Activity on an informal location without physical integrity of its own as it usually take part off the street making it vulnerable to police chase. A very important place till a proper transportation hub is created in the future. It should disappear in the future, but needs to be organized and formalized for the near future.
Sayeda Aisha main Microbus stop, 2010 Sayda Sukainah local microbus stop, 2010
5- Main Street
Most utilized public place in any city as Egyptians, especially in the less fortunate economic areas where streets are the only abundant public realm component over plazzas, squares and parks as per the fieldwork in 2012. The street in Egyptian urbanization does not necessarily have a side walk, and if it does, there is no guarantee that it will be used for pedestrians but rather an extension of the shops’ display facing it. Mixed vehicular traffic and pedestrians together with street vendors and traditional cafes is always the norm that we need to take a decision of ways to deal with.
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 14 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
Attaba street, downtown Cairo, 2010
1- The Water Front
Areas overlooking the river Nile in almost all cities of Egypt with banks that used to belong
to private housing development up to the twentieth century when it started to be used as a
public asset.
Public waterfront, Zamalek, Cairo, 2010 Waterfront, Shatbi, Alexandria, 2007
2- Hillside vantage points
Hillside of Moqattam in Cairo is a good example of a vantage view area for the rest of the
city that needs to be protected as a public realm component for all city admirers. Public
uses are already in place on top of the hill while the rest of the hillside was mainly
connected to private use and unmarked views for the local streets of the housing
development.
View from Moqattam to Cairo Citadel, 2013 Undeveloped Hillside of Moqattam, 2013
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 15 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
7- The Public Forum
Many locations have developed naturally inside the existing urban contexts as a public forum to discuss ideas, and connect to the rest of the community about the political evolution of the Egyptian context. None of these locations were designated as public places like a park or an urban arena but rather cross roads, transportation hubs and normal wide city streets. As was discussed in other studies; that non-existence of a public arena for the use of pedestrians was intentional to deter public demonstrations and political unrest (Ouf 2012). The public forum is a new public realm component that did not exist prior to January 25th 2011 revolution that started to evolve into even more diversified categories to be a place to feel free to take your family or friends for a walk in a good summer night, or a place to get a quick traditional meal or a cup of tea or a grilled corn on the cob.
Tahrir Square, Cairo, 2012 Rabaa Adawya Square, Cairo, 2013
Conclusion and future research
Public realm in our cities consists of all places that do not have restricted public access: areas
that are public in use even if they happen to be on a private property. It is a main component of
any city morphology that defines people’s satisfaction with the overall urban context. In places
where the public realm is only expected to facilitate urban functions; the city become boring
and unfriendly. Egypt after January 25th, 2011 revolution is rediscovering its public realm, that
is yet to be classified and designed as a city amenity.
Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism
Page 16 of 16
Ahmed M.Salah Ouf, PhD
More research is necessary on public realm typology for the cities of Egypt; but main categories
for this typology were proposed by the author as follows:
Park
Public Park
Playground
Greenways and Linear Parkway
Street
Main Street
Traditional bazar
Informal retail Street
Microbus stop
Outdoor space
Square and Plaza
Memorial Place
Community Open Space
Masjid Place
The Public Forum
Found/ Neighborhood Space
Indoor space
The Mall
Natural Space
Urban Wilderness
Desert Outing and Desert Safari
Water Front
Hillside
vantage point
More research is still necessary to document and catalogue each of the sub-categories and
define for each the basic characteristics and design needs.
References: 1. Fieldwork in the area of (Ezbet Khaiullah - Batn el-Bakara, Cairo) for the urban design
course in Shorouk academy of Cairo, directed by the author. 2. Site visits in Cairo starting February 2nd, 2011 on till July 12th, 2013 by the author. 3. Edward Relph, Place and PLacelessness, London: Pion ltd. 1976 4. Bishop and Williams, The temporary city, p.187. Routledge, 2012 5. Bob Giddings et Al. 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN
International Vol. 16, 3, 202–212 6. Lewis Mumford, The City in History, San Diego, Harcourt Inc, 1961; Paperback, Harvest
Books (October 1968) ISBN 978-0-15-618035-1 7. Jonathan Barnette, City Design, Routledge, 2011
8. Stephen Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan edit., Humanscape: environments for people, Ulrich’s Books Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1982.
9. Carr, S., M. Francis, L. Rivlin and A. Stone. 1992. Public Space. New York: Cambridge
University Press.