Typology Public Realm Authhor

Creating a Typology for Public Realm in Egyptian Urbanism

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


of 16


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


of 16


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.


of 16


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


of 16


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


of 16


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


of 16


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.


of 16


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


of 16


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:


of 16


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


of 16


» 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.


of 16


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


of 16


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.


of 16


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


of 16


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.


of 16


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford

http://books.google.com/books?id=q0NNgjY03DkC&printsec=frontcover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780156180351

Typology Public Realm Authhor

Documents

Transcript of Typology Public Realm Authhor