Table 4 User need input of Korba, EHliopolis and Banks Street, New Cairo public spaces survey results (Author)
Heliopolis_EL Korba and Roxy Street | New Cairo_Banks Street | Community character | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | User evaluation of Gehl’s criterion aspects | User need input | ||
Protection | Traffic | Overcrowded, yet worth the visit. More safe in the space and protected from bad weather by trees. | Less crowded and better in finding parking spots at night-time. Less safe and needs more light. | • Clear signs for space legibility • More and easier parking required |
Harm | ||||
Pollution | ||||
Comfort | Walking | Enjoy staying, walking and sitting the place. Crowded space but worth staying in the various offered seating options. Enjoy window shopping and options for different activities at different times. | The space is essential for services and running errands not long visits. No variety of seats but enjoy the cafes and restaurants. Use parked cars as gathering spots to talk and linger for specific age group. | • Good accessibility for diverse users • Children friendly and age diversity appropriateness • Public services (prayer areas and public toilets) • Bike friendly (bike lane provided) |
Standing | ||||
Sitting | ||||
Seeing | ||||
Talk and hear | ||||
Playing | ||||
Enjoyment | Scale | Enjoy watching a vintage place, with special architecture ornaments. | No specific view or defined architecture identity. | • Homogenous architecture • Landscape and greenery • Water elements • Maintenance and cleanness |
Climate | ||||
Aesthetics | ||||
Quality | User input to criteria | |||
Additional aspects | • Places with unique vibe and essence • Diversity and variations • Sustainable and adaptive to user needs | Place essence (to be added criterion) | ||