Discovering the meaning of contemporary urban squares for its users—a case study of Poznan, Poland

The paper situates urban squares within the long history of public open spaces, emphasizing their evolving roles and continued importance for city life. Despite extensive research on urban public spaces, there is relatively little focused work on what roles squares play in the daily lives of users and what meanings users attribute to them. Multifunctionality, rapid spatial change, and the fast-paced lifestyles of urban residents may obscure or render unconscious the meanings people assign to squares. The study aims to broaden understanding of meanings attributed to urban squares by addressing: (Q1) How important is using urban squares to their users? (Q2) What meanings are attributed to urban squares by their users? (Q3) How does a person classify an urban space as a square?

Historically, squares trace to Greek agoras and Roman forums, evolving through medieval marketplaces, Renaissance and Baroque prestige squares, and declining prominence during the Industrial Revolution and modernist planning. Revitalization from the 1960s re-centered human scale and reasserted squares as vital social and cultural nodes. Contemporary literature frames squares as integral to the built environment, emphasizing their connections to surrounding buildings, streets, and other spaces, and their roles in health, sociability, and community development. The review distinguishes function (legal/spatial designation) and use (observable activities) from meaning (semantic, symbolic, and experiential dimensions shaped by perception, history, and culture). Place meanings arise from emotional connections, experiences, and socio-cultural factors (e.g., gender, norms), and can change with physical redesigns or over one’s life course. Subjectivity in meanings poses methodological challenges for generalization. Mixed-method approaches, combining surveys and qualitative methods (e.g., IDIs/FGIs), are common. Cultural context, high dynamics of spatial and social change, and temporal obsolescence of findings are noted. Despite many studies on squares’ social and spatial dimensions, the specific meanings attributed to them and the processes by which they are identified remain underexplored.

A mixed-method design combined individual in-depth interviews (IDI) and a CAWI survey conducted in parallel. Primary data were collected. IDIs: Ten Poznan residents who use city squares participated (diverse in age and gender). Interviews (April–June 2021) were highly structured, conducted online (MS Teams) due to COVID-19, referenced the pre-pandemic period, and followed theoretical saturation. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively in NVivo using open coding. CAWI: Conducted May 2021 among Poznan residents; 384 respondents (320 reported using city squares). Sampling was stratified via online panels to reflect age and gender distributions but was not fully representative. Statistical analysis used t-tests and Pearson correlations in SPSS. Outputs included descriptive summaries, word cloud, maps (QGIS with OpenStreetMap), IDI quotes, and charts. Spatial scope: The study covered 15 central spaces—13 administrative squares officially named by the Poznan City Council Committee on Culture and Science and 2 additional spaces commonly perceived as squares in a pilot study. In the survey, respondents could indicate up to three most-used squares from this closed set; IDI participants were not constrained to this list and could nominate any spaces they perceived as squares.

- Importance of using squares: Among users (n=320), 54.4% rated use as very important and 13.1% as important. Negative responses totaled 7.2% (2.8% definitely not important, 4.4% not important). By age, the highest combined important/very important was 50–59 (85%), followed by 40–49 (71.9%) and 70+ (70.5%). Negative responses were highest among 18–29 (13.6%) and 30–39 (9.5%). Neutral responses (neither important nor unimportant) were highest at 60–69 (38.9%) and lowest at 50–59 (10%). - Two understandings of squares: Squares function as (1) administrative squares (defined by official names and signage) and (2) mental squares (defined in people’s minds). Some spaces fit both. - Mental identification factors: Users identify squares mentally via three factors: (1) physical characteristics (e.g., large open, paved, flat, spacious, with seating, greenery, art), (2) possible activities (based on experience and environmental information), and (3) location in the urban structure (often central, historic areas; rarely peripheral areas among detached housing). Physical features were most influential, followed by activities; location was least influential. - Role of surroundings and flexibility: Adjacent buildings and services shape square identification and use. Parks and waterfronts were often cited as mental squares when they provided expansive, flexible, co-use spaces. Designed forecourts (e.g., in front of shopping malls) and riverside areas, though not intended as squares, functioned as recognizable meeting and activity spaces. - User associations: Dominant associations were rest, meeting, recreation, events, and leisure; moderately frequent were festival, culture, gastronomy; others referenced activities and physical attributes. - Eleven meanings identified (co-occurring and transformable): meeting space; social space; tourism space; cultural space; art space; manifestation space; recreation space; dining space; market space; transit space; learning space. Meanings can shift via temporary or permanent spatial reconfiguration (e.g., adding stages, stalls, seating, greenery). - Relative salience in IDIs (theme counts): recreational (32), cultural (24), social (9), meeting (7), art (5), dining (5), market (4); least frequent: tourism (2), learning, transit.

Findings corroborate literature that urban squares are multifunctional and polysemic, with meanings overlapping and shifting according to spatial organization, events, and surrounding land uses. The twofold categorization—administrative versus mental squares—clarifies how users’ place meanings extend beyond formal designations and are grounded in physical affordances, perceived activities, and urban context. The tight coupling between squares and adjacent buildings/functions reinforces the importance of context-sensitive design and management. A notable concern is the higher incidence among younger adults (18–39) of reporting square use as unimportant or indifferent, aligning with broader trends of necessary-use dominance and potential displacement of public life to privatized alternatives like shopping centers. This raises risks of squares degrading into non-places lacking shared meanings. Enhancing alignment between user values, place affordances, and management may mitigate disengagement, particularly for younger cohorts. Overall, understanding place meanings can inform user-centered urban design, reinforce community identity, and support socially responsive management of public spaces.

The study identified 11 co-occurring meanings of urban squares in Poznan and highlighted that users often conceptualize squares beyond administrative definitions, forming mental squares based on physical features, activity affordances, and urban location. Squares are commonly understood through the lens of activities, especially recreation and leisure, and in relation to their spatial context and adjacent functions. Quantitative results underscore the overall importance of squares to residents while revealing a concerning trend among those under 40 who more often deem squares unimportant or indifferent. The work advances theoretical understanding in human and cultural geography and offers applied insights for designing and managing squares to better align with user meanings and needs, including programming events and configuring spaces to support multiple, flexible meanings. Future research should compare square meanings with other public spaces (parks, streets), examine smaller cities and rural contexts, and conduct cross-cultural and longitudinal studies to track changes over time.

- Scope limited to urban squares in Poznan; results are context- and time-bound and not generalizable to other cities or globally. - Survey conducted in 2021 shortly after COVID-19 onset; timing may have affected responses; longitudinal repetition is warranted. - Sampling stratified to reflect age and gender but not fully representative; CAWI may exclude those without internet access or digital literacy; limited ability to clarify questionnaire items. - IDI limitations include potential question misinterpretation and retrospective framing to pre-pandemic experiences; mitigations included paraphrasing and reminders. - The closed set of 15 squares in the survey constrained selections, though IDIs were open; spatial scope focused on central districts and administrative squares plus two additional perceived squares.