Producing ownership through play: everyday public space practices in the Frankenberger neighbourhood
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/jau.2026.23970Abstract
Play is commonly associated with childhood as a creative and productive activity that supports learning and innovation. However, its relevance extends beyond childhood and offers a critical lens for examining the consumption-oriented and rationalised patterns of contemporary urban life. In public space, playful activities often emerge as spontaneous and voluntary practices through which individuals engage with their surroundings, develop a sense of belonging, participate in shaping everyday spatial use, and move beyond purely functional or passive interpretations of space. In this article, owning space is understood not as a legal or formal condition, but as a situational and experiential process enacted through everyday use, interaction, and spatial adaptation by city residents. Such practices demonstrate how public space can be actively produced through use rather than passively consumed, and how everyday activities may resist tendencies toward standardisation and privatisation.
This study investigates the relationship between play theory and urban public space through a case study of the Frankenberger Neighbourhood in Aachen. Moving beyond playground-based and child-centred interpretations of play, the research focuses on playful and social practices embedded in everyday public space use, while critically engaging with processes of privatisation and control. The study draws on systematic observations, behavioural mapping, visual documentation, and questionnaires designed to explore users’ preferences, choices, and expectations regarding public space. Together, these methods illustrate how residents participate in and activate public space through playful practices, how owning space is produced through everyday use, and how such insights can inform public space design. The article argues that urban designers and planners can support more inclusive and playful public spaces not by prescribing specific functions, but by enabling spatial conditions that allow users to shape, reinterpret, and co-produce space through their everyday practices.
Keywords:
play theory, urban public space, everyday practices, owning space, public space designHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Jason Aronson Inc.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.
Burgess, J. (2001). The production and consumption of environmental meanings in the mass media: A research agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(4), 243–253.
Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play and games. Free Press.
Canter, D. (1974). Psychology for architects. Applied Science Publishers.
Carmona, M. (2022). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158457
Chitrakar, R. M., Baker, D. C., & Guaralda, M. (2022). How accessible are neighbourhood open spaces? Control of public space and its management in contemporary cities. Cities, 131, Article 103948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103948
Constant, N. (1960). New Babylon. Internationale Situationniste, 3, 3–6.
Constant, N., & Debord, G. (1958). Amsterdam Declaration. Internationale Situationniste, 2, 31–34.
de Lima Amaral, C. V. (2016). Private control and public openness. The development of London’s public spaces since the Mayor’s 2009 manifesto. The Journal of Public Space, 1(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v1i1.15
Duivenvoorden, E., Hartmann, T., Brinkhuijsen, M., & Hesselmans, T. (2021). Managing public space – A blind spot of urban planning and design. Cities, 109, Article 103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103032
Franck, K. A., & Stevens, Q. (2006). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799574
Gałkowski, M., & Antosz, P. (2022). The hidden boundaries of public space: Awareness of civil rights restrictions in privatized urban squares in Poland. Cities, 127, Article 103722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103722
Garau, P. (2015). Global public space toolkit: From global principles to local policies and practice. UN-Habitat.
Gehl, J. (2004). Public spaces and public life. Danish Architectural Press.
Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-525-0
Glasow, P. A. (2005). Fundamentals of survey research methodology (MITRE Technical Report). MITRE Corporation.
Goličnik, B. (2005). People in public space: Analysing movement behaviour and cognitive experience. Urban Design International, 10(1), 19–29.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. Edinburgh University Press.
Heynen, H. (1999). Architecture and modernity: A critique. MIT Press.
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Beacon Press.
Işık, P. (2025). Rethinking public space through play theory: A study of social and spatial dynamics in Aachen and Diyarbakır [Doctoral dissertation, RWTH Aachen University]. https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/1022914/files/1022914.pdf
Işık, P., Reicher, C., & Sezer, C. (2023). Public space and play theory: Reading Aachen through the play theory. Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning, 7(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.24306/TrAESOP.2023.01.003
Ittelson, W. H. (1970). Behavioural mapping: A method for studying the use of space. Environment and Behavior, 2(4), 369–385.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
Kohn, M. (2004). Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203495117
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)
Lefebvre, H. (2001). Everyday life in the modern world. Continuum. (Original work published 1968)
Li, X., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2022). Flexibility and openness in public space design: Supporting everyday urban life. Urban Design International, 27(3), 245–259.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process. John Wiley & Sons.
Madanipour, A. (1999). Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(6), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1068/b260879
Madanipour, A. (2010). Whose public space? International case studies in urban design and development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203860946
Madanipour, A. (2015). Public space and the challenges of urban transformation in Europe. Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (2019). Rethinking public space: Between rhetoric and reality. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-019-00087-5
Mahdjoubi, L., & Spencer, B. (2015). Designing inclusive environments. Wiley Blackwell.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press.
Mumford, L. (1996). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1961)
Németh, J. (2009). Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2463–2490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342903
Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057
Purcell, M. (2013). The right to the city: The struggle for democracy in the urban public realm. Policy & Politics, 41(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655639
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
Sandercock, L. (1998). The death of modernist planning: Radical praxis for a postmodern age. In M. Douglass & J. Friedmann (Eds.), Cities for citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age (pp. 163–184). John Wiley.
Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man. Knopf.
Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W. W. Norton & Company.
Sennett, R. (2002). The fall of public man. Penguin. (Original work published 1977)
Shaftoe, H. (2008). Convivial urban spaces: Creating effective public places. Earthscan.
Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. H. Wolff, Trans.). Free Press.
Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell.
Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a theme park: The New American City and the end of public space. Hill and Wang.
Stevens, Q. (2007). The Ludic City: Exploring the potential of public spaces. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961803
Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487574338
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.
Talen, E. (2008). Design for diversity: Exploring socially mixed neighborhoods. Architectural Press.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Conservation Foundation.
Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the center. Doubleday.
Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Blackwell.
Zukin, S. (2011). Naked City: The death and life of authentic urban places. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195382853.001.0001
View article in other formats
CrossMark check
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.