A Playful Review of Public Spaces: Comparative Analysis of Social and Gender Dynamics in Frankenberger Park and Parks Around Diyarbakir Walls

Abstract

Play theory is vital for understanding how interactions in public spaces break cultural and spatial barriers, foster creative self-expression and create inclusive urban environments. This study examines Frankenberger Park in Aachen and the parks of surround Diyarbakır walls to explore how social structures and activities shape playfulness in these spaces. Through play theory and analysis of cultural and gender norms, the research identifies shared and unique traits of the locations. It examines how play theory can reshape gender norms in public space, redefine public–private boundaries and create opportunities for both individual freedom and collective interaction, offering new directions for inclusive urban design.

Keywords

play theory gender dynamics urban design public–private boundaries individual–collective interaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agamben

(2007). In praise of profanation. In Agamben

(Ed.), Profanations (pp. 73–92). Zone Books.

Amati

Stevens

Rueda

(2023). Taking play seriously in urban design: The evolution of Barcelona’s superblocks. Space and Culture, 27(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331323123215

ArchDaily. (2023). Playful cities: 7 public projects designed for fun. https://www.archdaily.com/999892/playful-cities-7-public-projects-designed-for-fun

Bechtel

Zeisel

(1987). Observation: The world under a glass. In Bechtel

Marans

Michelson

(Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioural research (pp. 11–41). Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Becker

H. S.

(1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it. University of Chicago Press.

Beebeejaun

(2016). Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1255526

Begall

Grunow

Buchler

(2023). Multidimensional gender ideologies across Europe: Evidence from 36 countries. Gender & Society, 37(2), 177–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432231155914

Bondi

(1998). Gender, class, and urban space: Public and private space in contemporary urban landscapes. Urban Geography, 19(2), 160–185.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

10.

Butler

(2004). Undoing gender. Routledge.

11.

Caillois

(2001). Man, play and games. University of Chicago Press.

12.

Carmona

(2010). Contemporary public space, part two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574801003638111

13.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

14.

Council of European Municipalities and Regions. (2022). The European charter for equality of women and men in local life (3rd ed.). https://ccre-cemr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Charter_2022_EN.pdf

15.

de Certeau

. (1984). The practice of everyday life. University of California Press.

16.

Denzin

N. K.

(1989). Interpretive interactionism. Sage.

17.

Diyarbakır Kültür Envanteri [Diyarbakır Cultural Inventory]. (2011). Diyarbakır city walls. Diyarbakır İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü.

18.

Donoff

Bridgman

(2017). The playful city: Constructing a typology for urban design interventions. International Journal of Play, 6(3), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1382995

19.

Duncan

(1996). Bodyspace: Destabilizing geographies of gender and sexuality. Psychology Press.

20.

Elshafie

S. M. M.

Spinaci

A.-S.

Keleg

M. M.

(2024). Play for all: Towards inclusive public spaces for young women in Cairo. The Journal of Public Space, 9(2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v9i2.1797

21.

European Institute for Gender Equality. (2025). Time for power: Gender equality in institutions in Europe must act now. https://eige.europa.eu/newsroom/news/time-power-gender-equality-institutions-europe-must-act-now

22.

Fenster

(2005). Gender and the city: The different formations of belonging. Journal of Gender Studies, 14, 217–231.

23.

Fenster

(2015). The right to the gendered city: Different formations of belonging in everyday life. Journal of Gender Studies, 14(3), 217–231.

24.

Fraser

(1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.

25.

Geertz

(1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.

26.

Gehl

(2010). Cities for people. Island Press.

27.

Gehl People. (2018). Düsseldorf cycling health check. https://www.gehlpeople.com/projects/dusseldorf-cycling-health-check/

28.

Gilloch

(1996). Myth and metropolis: Walter Benjamin and the City. Polity Press.

29.

Golicnik

Marusic

(2012). Behaviour mapping: A new approach to understanding the role of public spaces in community life. Journal of Urbanism, 5(1), 51–72.

30.

Hall

E. T.

(1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday.

31.

Harvey

(1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell.

32.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

33.

Huizinga

(1950). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Beacon Press.

34.

Isik

Reicher

Sezer

(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

35.

Jacobs

(1961). The death and life of Great American Cities. Random House.

36.

Kerr

J. H.

Apter

M. J.

(1991). Adult play. Swets & Zeitlinger.

37.

Kitchin

Freundschuh

(2000). Cognitive mapping: Past, present, and future. Routledge.

38.

Lefaivre

(2007). Ground-up city: Play as a design tool. 010 Publishers.

39.

Lefebvre

(1991). The production of space. Blackwell.

40.

Lefebvre

(2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life. Continuum.

41.

Lester

(2014). Play as protest: Clandestine moments of disturbance and hope. In Burke

Jones

(Eds.), Education, childhood and anarchism: Talking Colin Ward (pp. 198–208). Routledge.

42.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

43.

Madanipour

(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

44.

Madanipour

(2003). Public and private spaces of the city. Routledge.

45.

Mardin

. (1990). The sociological dimension of the public space. Turkish Studies, 1(1), 1–15.

46.

Massey

(1994). Space, place and gender. Polity Press.

47.

McDowell

(1999). Gender, identity and place: Understanding feminist geographies. University of Minnesota Press.

48.

Mitchell

(1995). The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 108–133.

49.

Mitchell

(2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. The Guilford Press.

50.

Mumford

(1996). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Harcourt.

51.

Pain

(2001). Gender, social safety and the design of public space. Urban Studies, 38(5), 921–933.

52.

Pérez de Arce

(2018). City of play: An architectural and urban history of recreation and leisure. Bloomsbury.

53.

Schensul

J. J.

LeCompte

M. D.

(1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires. AltaMira Press.

54.

Sennett

(1977). The fall of public man. Alfred A. Knopf.

55.

Sennett

(2012). Together – The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. Allen Lane.

56.

Shaftoe

(2008). Convivial urban spaces: Creating effective public places. Earthscan.

57.

Sicart

(2016). Play and the city. Navigationen: Zeitschrift Für Medien- Und Kulturwissenschaften, 16(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/1580

58.

Simmel

(1950). The metropolis and mental life. In Wolff

K. H.

(Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel (pp. 409–424). Free Press.

59.

Stavrides

(2016). Common space: The city as commons. Zed Books. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350219267

60.

Stevens

(2007). The Ludic City: Exploring the potential of public spaces. Routledge.

61.

Stevens

(2023). Discovering the playful affordances of urban spaces. In Kamalipour

Aelbrecht

Peimani

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of urban design research methods (pp. 127–134). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003168621-15

62.

Sutton-Smith

(1997). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.

63.

Tanyeli

Gerçek

(2013). Violation and exhibition of spatial privacy in Istanbul: A tense history and 41 photographs. Metis Yayıncılık.

64.

Thorne

(1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Rutgers University Press.

65.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.

66.

Turner

(1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. PAJ Publications.

67.

UN-Habitat & Shared City Foundation. (2021). Her City: A guide for cities to sustainable and inclusive urban planning and design together with girls (3rd ed.). https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/03/02032021_her_city_publication_low.pdf

68.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.

69.

Yin

R. K.

(2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.

70.

Yoon

Chang

Adams

(2018). Interrelations of patriarchal beliefs, gender, collectivism/individualism, and mental health. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2018.1511520

71.

Young

I. M.

(1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.

72.

Yuval-Davis

(1997). Gender and nation. Sage.

73.

Zeffane

(2017). Gender, individualism–collectivism and individuals’ propensity to trust: A comparative exploratory study. Journal of Management & Organization, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.57