Fair point… the term does get used quite broadly: covering everything from design considerations around ensuring that the space is flexible and supportive of “different activities” (in an open-ended sort of way), to the more prescriptive notions around the sorts of activities that ought to take place in a space (a ‘programme of events’… though not so regimented as all that).

I do think that there’s also a lot of the latter approach that weaves through planner discourse these days… one that comes with the urge to recreate some of the cool aspects that exist on streets elsewhere in the world. There’s a real desire to create lively, open streets that comes without realizing that the truly organic sort of liveliness isn’t something that can be manufactured… it has to evolve. (Which is not to say that you can’t do wonders in a short time frame – witness New York!).

The ‘cool streets’ that people often visit on their travels have a certain element of friendly chaos on them, randomness, bits of “grit” (to use Matt Hern’s favourite term). They may be regulated, and they may be programmed, but they also are a little more laissez-faire too… and thus have a richer identity and more of a life of their own. That was my point, really, that there’s a sweet spot between planning and over-planning.