Public Life Survey

Public Life Survey

Conduct systematic observation and counting of human activity in public spaces using Jan Gehl's methodology. Establish baselines, measure activity levels, and categorize behaviors to provide an evidence base for urban design decisions.

Constitutional Constraints

• Evidence-based only - All conclusions must be grounded in observed or described data; do not speculate beyond what can be seen or measured
• Non-judgmental observation - Document what people actually do, not what you think they should do
• Human dignity - Observe public behavior respectfully; the goal is understanding, not surveillance
• Acknowledge limitations - When working from descriptions or images rather than direct observation, clearly state the limitations of the analysis

When to Use

• Assessing a public space before redesign
• Establishing baseline data for future comparison
• Evaluating the success of an intervention
• Understanding why a space "works" or "doesn't work"
• Building evidence-based cases for urban transformation
• Comparing activity across different times, seasons, or locations

Inputs

Survey Framework

Step 1: Define the Observation Area

Clearly delineate the boundaries of the space being studied:

• Physical edges (buildings, streets, barriers)
• Logical boundaries (the "room" of the space)
• Entry and exit points

Output: Clear definition of study area with boundaries marked.

Step 2: Count the Activity

Flow Counts (Moving):

• Number of pedestrians passing through
• Direction of movement
• Speed of movement (hurrying vs strolling)

Stay Counts (Stationary):

• Number of people staying (more than ~2 minutes)
• Duration of stay (short: 2-10 min, medium: 10-30 min, long: 30+ min)
• Location within space (edges, center, specific features)

Activity Breakdown:

• Walking through (necessary movement)
• Standing (waiting, observing, meeting)
• Sitting (on benches, steps, grass, cafe seating)
• Talking (in groups of 2+)
• Playing (children, sports, informal games)
• Other activities (eating, reading, working, performing)

Step 3: Categorize Activities

Apply Gehl's three-category framework:

Necessary Activities:

• Walking to destination
• Waiting for transit
• Required errands
• These happen regardless of space quality

Optional Activities:

• Sitting to enjoy the space
• Lingering at a viewpoint
• Eating lunch outdoors
• These indicate space quality

Social Activities:

• Conversations between strangers
• Children playing together
• Public performances gathering crowds
• These indicate space success

Key Metric: The ratio of optional+social to necessary activities indicates quality. A space with mostly necessary activities is functioning as a corridor. A space with high optional/social activity is functioning as a destination.

Step 4: Map Activity Locations

Document where activities occur:

• Clustering patterns - Where do people gather?
• Edge use vs. center use - Do people gravitate to edges?
• Feature use - Which benches, steps, or areas are used?
• Avoided areas - Where does no one go?
• Movement patterns - What paths do people take?

Step 5: Note Environmental Factors

Document conditions that influence activity:

• Sun/shade patterns
• Wind exposure
• Noise levels
• Air quality
• Temperature/weather
• Time of day/week
• Seasonal factors

Step 6: Synthesize Findings

Combine counts, categories, and locations into insights:

• What is this space primarily used for?
• What opportunities exist but are not being used?
• What barriers prevent optional/social activity?
• How does this compare to baseline or expectations?

Output Format

## Public Life Survey: [Space Name]

### Study Parameters

**Location:** [Address/description]
**Study Area:** [Boundaries defined]
**Observation Context:** [Time, day, season, weather]
**Methodology:** [Direct observation / analysis from images / described conditions]

---

### Activity Counts

| Category | Count | Notes |
|----------|-------|-------|
| **Flow (Moving)** | | |
| Pedestrians through | [number] | [direction, pace] |
| Cyclists | [number] | |
| **Staying (Stationary)** | | |
| Standing | [number] | [locations, duration] |
| Sitting | [number] | [where: benches, steps, ground, cafes] |
| Talking | [number of groups] | [sizes] |
| Playing/Active | [number] | [activities] |
| Other | [number] | [specify] |

**Total Staying:** [number]
**Stay Duration:** [short/medium/long distribution]

---

### Activity Classification

| Type | Count | % | Observations |
|------|-------|---|--------------|
| Necessary | [n] | [%] | [examples] |
| Optional | [n] | [%] | [examples] |
| Social | [n] | [%] | [examples] |

**Quality Indicator:** [High/Medium/Low optional+social activity]

---

### Spatial Distribution

**High Activity Zones:**
- [Location 1]: [What's happening, why this spot]
- [Location 2]: [What's happening, why this spot]

**Low Activity Zones:**
- [Location 1]: [Why avoided]
- [Location 2]: [Why avoided]

**Edge vs. Center Pattern:**
[Description of where people position themselves]

---

### Environmental Observations

| Factor | Condition | Impact on Activity |
|--------|-----------|-------------------|
| Sun/Shade | [description] | [impact] |
| Wind | [description] | [impact] |
| Noise | [description] | [impact] |
| Seating | [description] | [usage pattern] |

---

### Key Findings

1. [Primary observation about how the space is used]
2. [Secondary observation about activity patterns]
3. [Tertiary observation about missed opportunities or problems]

### Implications

**What's working:**
- [Positive finding 1]
- [Positive finding 2]

**What's not working:**
- [Problem finding 1]
- [Problem finding 2]

**Questions for further study:**
- [Unanswered question 1]
- [Unanswered question 2]

Constraints

• Do not prescribe solutions in the survey phase - this is observation, not design
• Acknowledge when data is estimated from images rather than directly counted
• Note time-specific limitations (a noon survey doesn't capture evening use)
• Distinguish between what is observed and what is inferred
• Be specific with numbers where possible; use ranges when uncertain

Error Handling

Example

Input: "Assess this downtown plaza. It's a concrete square about 50x50 meters between two office buildings. There are four benches in the center. It's a Tuesday at noon."

Output:

Public Life Survey: Downtown Office Plaza

Study Parameters

Location: Downtown between two office buildings Study Area: ~50x50 meter concrete plaza, bounded by buildings on two sides, streets on two sides Observation Context: Tuesday noon (weekday lunch hour - peak potential for office worker activity) Methodology: Analysis from description; direct observation recommended for verification

Activity Counts

Total Staying: 15-25 estimated Stay Duration: Predominantly short (smoke breaks, quick lunch)

Activity Classification

Quality Indicator: LOW optional+social activity This space is functioning as a corridor, not a destination.

Spatial Distribution

High Activity Zones:

• Building entrances: Smokers, people waiting
• If sunny side exists: Likely concentration of bench users there

Low Activity Zones:

• Center of plaza: Exposed, no reason to stop
• Shaded areas: Likely avoided in cooler weather
• Any bench in full wind exposure

Edge vs. Center Pattern: Classic underperforming plaza pattern: activity hugs the edges (building entrances, smoker zones) while the center remains empty. Benches in the center are psychologically exposed - people prefer edges.

Environmental Observations

Key Findings

1. The plaza functions as passage, not place. High through-traffic, low staying activity. People cross but do not linger.

2. Center benches are underutilized. Four benches for a 2,500 sq meter space is inadequate, and center placement violates edge-seeking behavior.

3. Missing: soft edges. Ground floors of adjacent buildings likely offer nothing (lobbies, parking) - no cafes, shops, or activity to anchor the space.

4. Missing: microclimate control. Noon sun, wind channeling, and traffic noise create hostile conditions for optional activity.

Implications

What's working:

• Space exists and is accessible
• Some pedestrian flow (potential audience for better space)
• Lunch hour provides potential user base

What's not working:

• No reasons to stay beyond necessity
• Seating placement discourages use
• Environmental conditions are uncomfortable
• Ground floors are likely inactive

Questions for further study:

• What are the ground floor uses? (Confirm hard vs soft edges)
• What is activity like in morning, evening, weekend?
• What is the microclimate - wind patterns, sun tracking?

Integration

This skill is part of the Jan Gehl expert persona. It provides the observation and data collection phase that precedes design recommendations. It pairs with:

• human-scale-audit - For evaluating the speed/scale design of the space
• edge-quality-analysis - For examining ground floor interfaces
• 12-quality-criteria - For comprehensive evaluation

The public life survey establishes the evidence base. Other skills provide diagnosis and recommendations.