A precedent study on a square and a city that are examples of public spaces that work. We had to analyze the precedents in order to understand the elements which create the conditions of good urban design and present our findings.

The concept of urban planning is not an exact science but there are definitely good ideas on how a modern city should be built in order to create a lively city. This project used Jan Gehl's theories of building sustainable and livables cities from his book, Cities for People.

Piazza Navona vs. New York City
The subject of this case study was to understand the elements of creating an excellent livable urban space, specifically a case study of Piazza Navona in Rome, Italy. The challenge was to understand what made Piazza Navona work as a world-class plaza/city square and compare it to urban planning at the city scale, in this case, New York City. We did an in-depth analysis to truly understood how Gehl's concepts can truly elevate a city space and usher people in to make lively streets.

We made a very controversial conclusion at what Gehl states as essential elements of a "city for people" such as soft, lively edges, affordances for sitting, paths for people to bike, intimate meeting environments, space to play, and room to walk were not always conclusive evidence of a good space.

Coney Island - Exception Case
The case of Coney Island runs against the principles of what we studied and even though it embodies all the aspects of what Gehl considers as factors of a livable space, it doesn't work - Coney Island is a prime example of failed urban planning. However, our team concluded that although these elements do exist on Coney Island, that rather than being essential components, they are byproducts and catalysts of a successful urban space.