Karaçor, Elif Kutay2020-04-302020-04-3020162239-59382239-6101https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2016.v5n3p51https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/4273WOS: 000385393700006Most of researchers from various disciplines assert conflicting definitions about public spaces. In this context, when some researchers express the decline of public spaces, others claim that the contemporary public spaces are quite inclusiveness and revival. However, the common features expected from all public spaces are: provide opportunities for social life, include various activities, convenient to use by access and linkage, and has unique identity with image. It is accepted that all these features contribute to publicness of public spaces which increase the sustainable development of the city. Aim of this study is to determine publicness of different urban spaces types and making comparison among them. Thereby, publicness dimension of urban spaces which have public or private ownership will be revealed and a new contribution to public space arguments will be made. Duzce city center was chosen as a research area since its rapidly development and transformation process after the 1999 earthquakes. As a research method, different public space types were illustrated and these illustrations were interpreted by site observations. Consequently, publicness and public use were found as not directly related with their public or private ownership, so political and commercial forces behind urban spaces that influenced on public life were debated.en10.14207/ejsd.2016.v5n3p51info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesspublic spacepublicnessprivatizationArticle535158N/A