Quality Assessment of Privately Managed Public Space: Āgenskalns Market Exploratory Case Study

Abstract

This exploratory study addresses the problem of limited research on quality assessments of newly emerging multi-use market formats that function as social hubs and their management as privately managed public spaces. Using Āgenskalns Market, a revitalised multi-use market hall in Riga, as a case study, the authors apply an assessment framework based on Yuri Impens’ study on covered food halls, incorporating quality criteria from Vikas Mehta’s Public Space Index and the UN-Habitat’s Site-Specific assessment methodology. Leclercq et al.’s works on privatisation of public spaces are integrated in the analysis of “publicness”. This framework evaluates user and observer perceptions across four dimensions: environmental quality and comfort, accessibility and amenities, social experience, and market offer. Data comprised an online survey of 318 respondents and 21 structured observations conducted during summer in 2024 and 2025. The preliminary results suggest users perceive the market as a well-maintained, aesthetically pleasing, accessible space, while identifying room for improvement regarding restroom facilities, indoor thermal regulation, noise mitigation, outdoor weather protection and parking arrangements. As for meaningful use and promoting sociability, findings highlight that flexible seating areas that allow high degrees of temporary personalisation and appropriation, alongside tailored programming and diverse activities beyond retail and dining, play an important role in attracting and retaining diverse audiences. While pricing concerns were noted for specific product groups, exclusionary effects appear to be counterbalanced by openness and inclusivity of cultural programmes and free events. The findings contribute to broader urban scholarship discussions calling for new typologies that better capture the changing character of public space use. This research suggests that private-public partnerships involving multiple stakeholders can enhance “publicness” by promoting inclusivity and social life through accessible infrastructure, diverse activities and free events, as well as enabling opportunities for temporary appropriation by users.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

In recent years, increasing attention has been devoted to the revitalisation of marketplaces and expanding their functions. Studies indicate the emergence of a new format of markets: once primarily commercial spaces repurposed into multi-use community hubs that fulfil various social, economic, and cultural roles [1,2,3]. Such market design trends align with broader sustainability objectives, specifically the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (11.7) to “provide universal access to safe, inclusive, green and public spaces particularly for women and children, older persons, and persons with disabilities” by 2030 [4], which, in The New Urban Agenda, was expanded to “safe, accessible, green, and quality streets, and other public spaces that are accessible to all” [5]. UN-Habitat, which oversees the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, defines marketplaces as public spaces and posits these urban settings can provide various quality of life benefits for city dwellers, including economic opportunities, social interaction, mental and physical health, and access to nutritious food options [6]. In Europe, market revitalisation is undertaken as part of the New European Bauhaus initiative, which focuses on restoring deteriorated urban spaces to create sustainable, visually appealing, inclusive venues that are repurposed to cater to diverse community needs [7].

Despite the potential benefits and increasing relevance of multi-use markets, case studies and systematic research on their quality assessment are currently scarce. Moreover, the governance of such markets as mixed private and public spaces is poorly understood. Although markets are treated as public spaces within some disciplines and assessment frameworks [8,9], academic research on public space typically classifies them as “hybrid”, “quasi” or “semi-public” spaces due to their diverse formats, governance models, as well as commercial functions [10]. This classification gap becomes particularly relevant as these newly emerging types of markets emphasise their role as social hubs.

The paper aligns with broader discussions in public space scholarship calling for new approaches to studying and categorising urban spaces to better capture contemporary realities [11,12]. Specifically, the emergence of new organisational models which blur the lines between public and private space, as well as the observation that people increasingly pursue public life in privately owned or managed public spaces [13]. Researchers raise concerns that the inclusion of private actors in public space production and management may override values such as accessibility, equity, diversity, and inclusion [14]. Given that urban sustainability initiatives strive to foster these exact values, it becomes pertinent to study the quality of privately managed public spaces that pursue public-oriented goals to identify tensions and best practices. In line with this, the exploratory study adapts criteria from public space literature to analyse factors that enhance or hinder a privately managed market’s capacity to fulfil functions associated with public space. For this purpose, two research questions are posed: (1) What public space quality criteria are applicable for assessing privately managed multi-use marketplaces? (2) What do user assessments of public space quality criteria and observed usage patterns reveal about the spatial design, social, and operational performance of Āgenskalns Market as a privately managed public space?

The paper uses a mixed methods approach, combining survey and fieldwork data. The theoretical framework primarily builds on Yuri Impens’ study on covered food halls [15] and incorporates quality criteria from Vikas Mehta’s Public Space Index [16] and UN-Habitat’s Site-Specific assessment methodology [8]. The design of the survey is informed by quality assessment short questionnaire guidelines proposed by Mela et al. [17]. The discussion incorporates perspectives from Leclercq et al.’s work on privatisation of public spaces and its impact on “publicness” [14]. The paper serves as a case study of a privately managed public multi-use marketplace, presenting survey and fieldwork findings on comfort and environmental quality, accessibility and amenities, social experience, and market offer. In the analysis, attention is given to strategies the venue employs to maintain values associated with “publicness”.

1.2. Case Area Description

The object of the study is Āgenskalns Market, a recently revitalised privately managed public market hall located in Riga, the capital city of Latvia. The choice of the venue was motivated due to the following reasons: (1) its management format; (2) the venue is the first of its kind in Latvia to implement a multi-use market design; (3) the management’s pursued concept for the market is public-orientated; (4) the market participated in the EU Horizon 2020-funded IN-HABIT project, the aim of which was to promote inclusive health and well-being in small and medium-sized cities.

The historic food market hall was established in 1898 and remains a significant local landmark in the Āgenskalns neighbourhood with a population of 23,249 (as of June 2024). In 2018, after years of decline, the Riga City Council closed the Āgenskalns Market and initiated a public procurement process to find a long-term partner to oversee the venue’s management and operations. The tender was won by SIA “Kalnciema iela”, a limited liability company with a well-established track record in urban regeneration initiatives, known for its work in the Kalnciema Quarter, as well as its culture and community-oriented approach. A public–private partnership was established: the City Council maintained ownership of the site, and a 30-year lease was granted to SIA “Kalnciema iela” to take charge of the renovation efforts and ongoing management of the marketplace. The condition set by the City Council was that Āgenskalns Market would retain its public market function, and the managing company would continue to invest in its ongoing development.

Starting from 2018, Āgenskalns Market underwent extensive renovations and officially reopened in 2022. Supported by the IN-HABIT project and other sources of funding obtained via entrepreneurship programmes, sponsorship and EU-level research and innovation programmes, the market implemented several infrastructure improvements and community engagement activities.

As for outdoor premises, the front square and courtyard were renovated, and several new facilities and amenities were added (Figure 1 and Figure 2). These included a raised terrace, greenhouse, stage, community garden, a fenced-off waste reduction site, and an accessibility ramp. As for the hall’s interior, the main additions included a community kitchen for workshops and events, a lift to the second floor, and several seating areas. The market’s management reduced zoning for commercial functions to provide sufficiently large areas in the courtyard and second floor for public functions. Revenue from commercial activities gets invested in ongoing maintenance and improvement of these areas.

As part of the IN-HABIT project, these infrastructure improvements were carried out via a co-design process, involving multiple stakeholders and with SIA “Kalnciema Iela” (Ltd.) acting as the main coordinator. Surveys and workshops were conducted to obtain user feedback on needs and desired changes. Based on these, solution proposals were developed and further refined with additional rounds of feedback from community members. Consultations were held with local residents, NGOs, small businesses, companies, Riga City Council, neighbourhood associations, and architects. Specialists were also engaged for certain additions—nutrition and health safety experts for the kitchen, waste disposal companies and environmentalists for the waste facility.

As for promoting community engagement, the market management developed a wide collaborative network with stakeholders (NGOs, community groups, universities, scientific institutions) to organise cultural, educational, social and food-related events. To foster inclusivity, many of these were specifically organised with diverse communities and vulnerable groups in mind. Crucially, the market provides a platform for community groups to organise their own self-initiated events. This arrangement not only provides unique social benefit for specific groups but also ensures their involvement in shaping the identity of the market. In this sense, the market operates through shared governance and community ownership of event programming. Overall, the venue now functions as a popular destination that offers retail, dining, leisure options alongside regularly hosted events. The market attracts not only residents from the neighbourhood, but also visitors from other districts in Riga, other Latvian cities, and abroad.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Research Design and Phases

The study was carried out in three phases. First, a literature review was conducted to identify quality of public space criteria that can be adapted for marketplaces and included in the pilot survey, as well as to use an analytic lens for fieldwork observation data. In the second phase, data were collected by distributing the survey online via the Āgenskalns Market social media platforms. On-site observations were started in 2024 and continued until June 2025, as part of the IN-HABIT project. In the last phase, quantitative and qualitative data from the survey were analysed alongside findings from observation reports, supplemented by data provided from Āgenskalns Market management.

For the literature review, two bibliographic databases were used—Scopus and Google Scholar. The initial search focused on identifying core literature on public space assessment. The subsequent search was narrowed down to publications on marketplace assessment, which used frameworks identified in core papers. Given that the second search yielded scarce results, the scope was expanded beyond peer-reviewed works to include dissertations and grey literature on marketplace design that reference public space assessment methods. Furthermore, recent publications on private management of public spaces were looked up and incorporated in the analysis of results in Section 4.

From the literature review (see Section 3.1), 19 quality criteria were identified and grouped into four sections. These include: (1) comfort and environmental quality, (2) accessibility and amenities, (3) social experience, and (4) market offer.

Table 1. Proposed evaluation criteria mapped to public space assessment frameworks.

Survey Sections	Proposed Multi-Use Marketplace Quality Criteria	UN-Habitat Site Specific Assessment	Public Space Index (Mehta)
Environmental quality and comfort	Lighting	Presence and quality of lighting	Lighting quality in space after dark
	Cleanliness within the market territory	Overall care of the public space, through maintenance and decor	Physical condition and maintenance appropriate for the space
	Noise level	Quality of sensorial experience	Perceived nuisance from traffic noise or otherwise
	Indoor air quality		-
	Indoor temperature regulation		-
	Shelter from weather in outdoor area	Presence of covered areas from rain and heat (shades, etc.)	Climatic comfort of the space—shade and shelter
	The market’s visual attractiveness and aesthetic appeal	Design quality and aesthetic value of furniture, façades, pavements	Perceived attractiveness of place
Accessibility and amenities	Accessibility of infrastructure for people with different needs	Accessibility and presence of qualitative and inclusive facilities	Perceived openness and accessibility/Presence of people with diverse physical abilities
	Availability of chairs and tables	Presence and quality of seating	Places to sit without paying for goods and services
	Availability of parking spaces	Inclusive facilities for private vehicles	-
Social experience	Politeness among market visitors *	-	Sociability and social mixing *
	Politeness of market staff *	-
	Opportunities to meet people and establish new relationships	-
	Opportunities to meet people from different social and age groups	Number and variety of users	Presence of people of diverse ages, classes, ethnicities, and races
	Sense of safety among people at the market	Perception of safety and level of security	Perceived safety from crime during daytime
	Market activities and services tailored for diverse age and social group interests	Presence of different inclusive activities in the public space (for children, elderly, disabled people, etc.)	Range of behaviours and activities
Market offer	Food product variety	-	Perceived usefulness of businesses and other uses
	Non-food product variety	-
	Price range	-

provides a detailed overview of the proposed survey criteria together with the original frameworks from which they were derived. The criteria drawn from the PSI and UN-Habitat frameworks have been reorganised under broader thematic groupings in the proposed version. Not every criterion from these source frameworks is included; this reduction serves to keep the survey concise. Furthermore, while the criteria for environmental quality, comfort, accessibility, and amenities map closely to existing frameworks, those for social experience and market offer are novel additions, adapted by the authors of this paper. These are marked with an asterisk (*) in Table 1. Notably, “politeness of vendors/other visitors” and “opportunities to meet people and establish new relationships” are aspects not included in validated frameworks but deemed important in the context of markets and their capacity to foster sociable “third place” environments. The market offer dimension—covering the diversity of food and non-food products as well as the price range—is an adaptation based on Mehta’s criterion of “perceived usefulness of businesses and other uses”. They are included to capture how the market performs in terms of economic accessibility.

Drawing on the approach by Mela et al. for developing user-friendly instruments to evaluate public space quality, the study incorporated a set of the study’s proposed principles to enhance response rates and data quality [17]. First, the survey was kept short to reduce respondent fatigue. Pilot tests were conducted with 3 researchers and 2 members of the market’s management team to ensure that completing the survey would not take more than 20 min on average, in accordance with studies on optimal online survey length [18]. Second, the criteria are measured with Likert scales ranging from 0 to 5, where 0 signifies “unsure”, 1 indicates a highly negative perception, 3 represents a neutral stance, and 5 reflects a highly positive rating. The addition of “unsure” is a departure from Mela et al.’s approach and was included to distinguish between an ambivalent stance and a lack of opinion or difficulty evaluating a criterion by respondents. Thirdly, open-ended response sections were included after each group of quality criteria.

A key design consideration was the sequencing of survey items. Specifically, respondents would first engage with fixed item questions covering aspects of public space quality in separate sections and then have the option to comment in an open-ended section. The aim was to elicit relevant memories associated with each aspect to prepare respondents for the subsequent open-ended questions, thereby helping ground their answers in lived experience associated with each quality dimension. Moreover, instructions were provided to encourage respondents to consider aspects beyond those provided in fixed-item questions to capture insights not anticipated in the survey’s design. At the beginning of the quality criteria section, instructions were provided to respondents to freely share both positive and negative experiences to encourage diverse feedback.

An additional three questions were included before the section on quality aspects to capture open-ended responses about a recent memorable visit. The aim was to elicit narratives on what visitors find useful and meaningful in the market, uninfluenced by our proposed quality criteria. The first two were multiple-choice questions, asking respondents to select from pre-defined lists (1) what activities they did at the market and (2) with whom they interacted at the market. Both questions included an “other” response for participants to add activities not provided in the list. This section concluded with an open-ended question asking respondents to reflect on their memorable visit and freely write what made the experience salient. Again, both positive and negative experiences were encouraged.

Fieldwork observations were conducted at the marketplace as part of the IN-HABIT project. The primary aim was to capture how visitors, vendors, and maintenance staff use the market and interact with one another, as well as how social and spatial factors influence subjective, social, environmental and economic dimensions of well-being. Because this focus overlaps with the areas of interest outlined in the present study, the data were considered valuable for triangulating with the findings obtained from the survey. Broadly, the observations captured the quality aspects outlined in the survey, though originally the fieldwork framework was designed based on a different structure and aim. The observations captured the dimensions of environmental quality, accessibility, social experience, and market offer by focusing on physical objects, social subjects, and their actions and interactions. The observations were carried out in accordance with a structured protocol (Appendix A).

2.2. Data Collection, Analysis of Survey and Observation Reports

Survey data was collected anonymously from 318 respondents between April and July 2025 via an online structured survey administered through Microsoft Forms. The survey QR code was distributed on Āgenskalns Market’s official social media channels, with the support of the venue’s management. The choice of using targeted convenience sampling was motivated by three factors. First, given resource restraints, it was the most effective means of obtaining a large sample for the study. Second, convenience sampling is widely recognised as a valid method for exploratory studies, as it enables timely, cost-effective data collection from accessible and willing participants. Thirdly, when carried out in a targeted manner, the method provides researchers a degree of control over the sample population [19]. For the purposes of this study, the aim was to focus exclusively on individuals who had visited the marketplace after its renovation; hence, distributing the survey via the venue’s social channels was deemed an effective approach to reach this audience. To further control for relevant inputs, a question was included at the beginning of the survey to clarify whether the respondent had visited the market, thereby screening out participants who had not visited the venue at all.

The authors of this paper acknowledge that the chosen approach comes with several limitations that reduce generalisability. First, the sampling method excludes respondents who are not active on social media or do not use it at all, thus creating selection bias. Secondly, it creates volunteer bias—participants with a vested interest or a positive opinion toward the market are more likely to complete the survey.

In regard to fieldwork, a total of 21 on-site observations were carried out at Āgenskalns Market by five researchers during the summer of 2024 and the spring and summer of 2025. To ensure comprehensive coverage of usage patterns and conditions at the venue, observations were conducted at different times of day, on different days of the week, and during both event and non-event days. Each observation was limited to a particular location within the market during each fieldwork visit (see Figure 2 for reference). The minimum length per observation was 2 h, with some lasting longer, depending on whether a researcher was at an event that lasted longer than the prescribed time limit.

Descriptive statistics were used to outline the percentage proportions for quality aspect ratings results for the whole sample. Open-ended replies were treated as qualitative data and examined using inductive coding and thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns emerging from survey participant responses. Codes were developed iteratively based on multiple readings of the data. In the first phase, responses were labelled with the corresponding quality criteria they referenced (e.g., cleanliness, lighting, seating arrangements). In the second phase, responses were grouped by quality criteria type, and each group was analysed separately to identify and count the recurrence of themes. In regard to results from 21 fieldwork reports, a similar approach was used: responses were examined using thematic analysis, focusing on recurring patterns and noteworthy findings in each subsection—perceived characteristics of market visitors, use of the market, use of space/infrastructure, and social interactions.

3. Results

3.1. Findings from the Literature Review

3.1.1. Quality of Public Space Scholarship Overview

The significance of the quality of public spaces and their impact on various well-being aspects of city inhabitants is well documented and has been studied extensively [16,17]. Evaluation of such settings is crucial for informing effective management, resource allocation, and, importantly, ensuring that diverse user needs are taken into account and addressed accordingly in urban settings [20]. However, while there is substantial research on conventional public spaces such as plazas, streets, and parks, the literature review reveals that research employing similar assessment methods and criteria inventories for marketplace evaluation is relatively scarce. This section outlines key public space evaluation approaches and their proposed quality indicators and explores research that has adapted these frameworks for privately managed marketplaces. The findings in the review inform the selection of criteria for the survey, as well as areas to focus on in fieldwork observation reports.

Public space assessment methods originally emerged as a response to predominantly top-down urban planning—seminal figures such as Jane Jacobs and William H. Whyte laid the groundwork for human-centred and observation-based approaches to urban design by shifting the focus to studying how spatial arrangements interlink with user behaviours, needs, and social interactions [21,22]. Whyte’s research served as the foundation for the development of PPS (Project for Public Spaces), which introduced key criteria that remain relevant in public space assessment frameworks still today: accessibility, comfort and image, usage and activities, and sociability [23]. In the 1990s–2000s, Carr & Francis emphasised the importance of participatory management of public space, further underscoring the significance of actual users’ experiences—their essential needs, rights, and what makes urban space meaningful. Their proposed quality dimensions encompass comfort, relaxation, active and passive engagement with the environment, and discovery [24]. From the 2000s onwards, Jan Gehl, building on his earlier theoretical foundations and observations on the interplay of necessary, optional, and social activities in public spaces, developed a methodology that prioritises sensory experiences and liveability [25]. The Jan Gehl toolkit outlines 12 quality criteria, grouped under dimensions of comfort, protection, and enjoyment. Vikas Mehta synthesised earlier theoretical approaches, building on Gehl and Carmona’s works, to develop the Public Space Index (PSI)—a 42–45 item assessment framework covering aspects of comfort, pleasurability, safety, meaningful activities, and inclusivity [16]. This period is also marked by a proliferation of toolkits that, alongside the Project for Public Spaces approach, started to focus increasingly on participatory methods involving multiple stakeholders and co-creating flexible assessment frameworks that can be adapted for different types of public spaces. Notable among these are the CABE Space Shaper [26], Place Standard Tool [27], and UN-Habitat Public Space assessment toolkits [8]. Crucially, while markets are acknowledged in earlier frameworks as important arenas where public life unfolds, it is only in later approaches which employ adaptable criteria—UN-Habitat Public Space and Project for Public Spaces in particular—that include markets in the list of public spaces the methods are designed to assess.

3.1.2. Adapting a Public Quality Assessment Framework for Marketplaces

Despite the lack of attention devoted to markets in the field, they are recognised as sharing, in part, the spatial and social characteristics studied and deemed significant in works on traditional public spaces. This is particularly true regarding how markets fulfil vital social functions [28,29]. A recent study that investigated these aspects by incorporating public space evaluation criteria explored how three privately managed covered food hall markets in Rotterdam foster conviviality and a sense of place [15].

To address the issue of “publicness” of market halls, Impens reframes them using a broader concept—that of the public realm. He builds on Carmona et al.’s theory, which envisions the public realm as consisting of different layers of public space: external public space (publicly accessible outdoor areas: streets, squares, parks), internal public space (publicly accessible indoor areas: stations, museums, libraries), and quasi-‘public’-space (privately owned or managed external/internal spaces accessible to the public: cafés, restaurants, shopping malls) [15,30]. Impens posits that privately managed market halls fall under the third category of quasi-‘public’-space, while also constituting a public realm in and of itself, encompassing multiple types of spaces and transition zones:

“[…] The covered food hall can be seen as a layer of the public realm, as part of it. This makes that the covered food hall itself is a public realm, including all the stalls and possible public or commercial functions in the plinths. Besides the inside area, the space around it in the form of street and squares is also part of the public realm. These different layers all have their own transition zones, or hybrid zones.”

Consequently, Impens portrays the market hall as a space embodying varying degrees of publicness and privateness. This conceptualisation helps establish a theoretical bridge between public realm and public space literature by identifying overlapping function and quality aspects described in both. He employs these in his analysis of covered food halls while simultaneously accounting for the effects that private management has on such venues. Impens outlines three broad determinants of public realm quality: (1) physical structure, (2) opportunities to use and socialise in a place, and (3) maintenance and organisation behind the first two [15]. The following paragraphs examine these determinants in more detail, focusing on quality aspects identified in Impens’ research and connecting, as well as complementing these with criteria from other frameworks. The overview of the criteria mentioned is provided in Table 1 in Section 2.1.

Regarding physical structure and feature quality, Impens primarily draws on the Public Space Index criteria developed by Mehta Vikas, focusing on the dimensions of comfort, inclusivity, safety, and pleasurability. Mehta emphasises that satisfying basic physiological needs is a prerequisite for environmental comfort in public space. In practice, this entails ensuring optimal micro-climatic conditions—adequate shade, protection from the weather, thermal regulation, and mitigation of noise—as well as implementing anthropometrically and ergonomically sensitive infrastructure and urban furniture design [16]. The latter involves creating spaces that are safe and support mobility and access (walkways, entrances, ramps, elevators, stairs), as well as providing sufficient comfortable seating and areas where people can gather. Crucially, in terms of inclusiveness, spaces need to be accessible and easy-to-use, with the capacity to support a wide range of activities and accommodate users from diverse backgrounds, especially those with physical disabilities and health-related issues [16]. Furthermore, the sensory qualities elicited by physical design also play a vital role in shaping the perception of space. According to Mehta’s broader quality dimension of pleasurability, the imageability and sensory complexity of space contribute to the experience of comfort and pleasure. Specifically, the overall attractiveness of public spaces emerges from a cohort of sensory experiences—lights, sounds, smells, textures, colours, shapes, and patterns from man-made or natural elements [16]. In connection to markets, Impens writes that personalisation of spaces, such as modifying the street front or individual stalls, enhances symbolic aesthetic quality, strengthens place identity, and increases psychological security for users [15]. From this, the following quality criteria are drawn for “environmental quality and comfort” and “accessibility and amenities assessment dimensions”: lighting, cleanliness and maintenance, noise level mitigation, indoor air quality and temperature regulation, outdoor weather protection, accessibility of infrastructure, provision of seating areas, and overall attractiveness and visual appeal.

The criteria for physical structure quality outlined above largely align with adaptable frameworks and guidelines that have been applied for market assessment. They broadly correspond with UN-Habitat’s Site-Specific assessment indicators (comfort, safety, accessibility), as well as the Project for Public Spaces’ Market Cities Programme strategic guidelines for developing successful multi-use markets, which advocate for the development of clean, comfortable, safe, inclusive, and attractive markets [9]. As for privately managed markets, Impens highlights their increased capacity to maintain better-controlled environments with a focus on hygiene and orderliness, but his study does not focus on this aspect in-depth [15]. For this paper, Mehta’s PSI criteria were cross-referenced with those of UN-Habitat’s framework (Table 1) and supplemented with additional relevant criteria. Specifically, parking facility availability and quality.

As for use and opportunities for socialisation, three quality aspects can be derived from Impens’ study: (1) the marketplace’s capacity to function as an inclusive community gathering space; (2) the provision of meaningful and useful activities and services tailored for diverse users; (3) the capacity to foster sociability and conviviality. In regard to the first and third aspects, he suggests a market hall can be conceived as a collection of “third places” under one roof [15]:

“Like third places, covered food halls can be part of the daily life of the customer, and can be the neutral ground for the public to gather. The public realm of the covered food hall combines the different activities that have been mentioned by Gehl […] There is room for the necessary activity of daily food shopping, but also for the optional and social activities of staying longer in or around the covered food hall to meet people or make use of facilities such as restaurants or hospitality services that seem to take in an increasingly important role in the modern food hall.”

The concept of “third place”, coined by Ray Oldenburg, denotes an informal social space separate from home and work where people gather to relax, converse, and create a sense of community. Key to fulfilling this role is its functioning as an accessible neutral ground where regulars can engage in exchanges, fostering a friendly, respectful environment that acts as a leveller of social status [31]. Impens posits that in privately managed market halls, under the right conditions, common sitting areas can embody the characteristics of “third places”. He argues these spaces can serve as hybrid zones where, if permitted to modify seating arrangements flexibly, visitors can temporarily personalise and appropriate space as their own [15]. According to Mehta, flexible space that can be adapted to suit user needs in this manner, coupled with the ability to linger with or without making purchases, is conducive to promoting social interactions and extending time spent in public spaces [16]. Moreover, for such spaces to fulfil this potential, the venue also needs to provide a range of activities that diverse social groups find meaningful and useful. Mehta lists several factors that contribute to the perception of public settings being valuable: (1) their capacity to fulfil practical needs (shopping, eating, entertainment) and special social needs (to gather, express, display, etc.), (2) the availability and quality of goods and services provided, (3) their capacity to promote sociability [16]. Gehl’s framework ties together the above factors and explains how they create a “virtuous cycle” that fosters a sociable and lively environment: he contends that social activities flourish in well-designed urban spaces when people are drawn in by “necessary” activities (like shopping and errands) and prolong their stay by engaging in “optional” activities (like lingering in a café). Engagement in the first two activities provides a fruitful ground for spontaneous encounters and social mixing [23]. In a market, the provision of multiple gathering spaces alongside leisure and retail activities increases the likelihood of this cycle occurring. In addition, the physical design of space, liveliness, and activities specific to the venue are crucial in promoting a sense of safety [15]. Altogether, the following criteria are derived in our study for the assessment of “social experience”: politeness of market visitors and staff (proxies for sociability), opportunities to meet new people and form relations, presence of diverse users, diversity of activities and services tailored for different social and age groups, and sense of safety.

From an organisational perspective, Impens highlights that the key driving factor whether privately managed venues succeed as public spaces is the aim of the managing entity and its pursued concept [15]:

“One could argue that these covered food halls are then firstly commercial business models offering food and gastronomy services, instead of offering a purely public place that is in private hands. It is therefore important what the aim of the owner of a private covered food hall is in the first place: a public space surrounding food or a food place open for public to keep the commercial activities running.”

His observation touches upon a key concern expressed in public space scholarship: the tendency of private actors to prioritise commercial gain at the cost of creating “sanitised” and homogenised public spaces that lack opportunities for social reproduction [14]. Impens cautions that privately managed markets risk evolving toward providing specialised, higher-priced offerings that target narrow consumer segments. This aligns with what Gonzalez and Waley term “boutiquing”—a process where authentic market experiences are transformed into lifestyle products primarily accessible to higher-income groups, potentially leading to the displacement of lower-income visitors whose identification with the venue may wane [32]. Aside from pricing, Leclercq et al. note that privately managed spaces may engender explicit and tacit codes of conduct in terms of behaviours, speech, dress, among others, which can also contribute to the loss of identification and exclusion of groups that do not adhere to such norms [14]. Such trends can potentially threaten a market’s long-term viability in fulfilling the functions of a public space that meets diverse community needs and remains accessible to different groups. To capture this aspect, the framework for this study also includes three criteria for “market offer”: quality and availability of food and non-food products and price range.

However, despite the risks identified above, privately managed public spaces can potentially provide features that help foster access, inclusivity, and sociability. Indeed, Leclercq and colleagues have argued that public life can be enhanced and these qualities maintained, provided these spaces ensure flexibility for temporary appropriation, engaging activities, and a safe, high-quality physical environment [33,34]. Regarding the third aspect, private actors often have more capacity to implement the spatial design features mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and place greater emphasis on hygiene, upkeep, orderliness, and, most importantly, accessibility infrastructure features [15]. As public life shifts from purely public to privately managed spaces, users may increasingly expect higher standards of maintenance and amenities characteristic of private spaces, highlighting their importance in drawing in and retaining visitors [15,30]. Beyond physical maintenance, private managers have the potential to enhance the sociability and attractiveness of their venues through tailored programming of cultural events. Impens highlights that markets can function as adaptable spaces that can include activities beyond their everyday functions, emphasising that events and additional facilities can help build community and create additional reasons for people to gather [15]. This managerial aspect is likewise highlighted in the PPS Market Cities Programme reports, which posit that markets can be shaped into vital public spaces through the organisation of food or health-focused cultural activities and events [9]. This shows that the aspects discussed earlier—safety, quality of physical environment, degree of appropriation, variety of uses, and presence of diverse publics in the venue and what enables them to use space—are key areas of focus for the analysis of the “publicness” of privately managed public spaces [14].

3.2. Description of Research Sample

An overview of the sample is provided in

Table 2. Demographic data.

	N (%)
Gender
Women	281 (88.3)
Men	33 (10.3)
Non-binary/other	0 (0.0)
Do not wish to share	4 (1.26)
Age
16–30	56 (17.6)
31–40	76 (23.9)
41–50	82 (25.8)
51–60	62 (19.5)
61+	39 (12.7)
Invalid inputs	3 (0.9)
Perceived household income level
High	51 (16.0)
Medium	221 (69.5)
Low	14 (4.4)
Do not wish to share	32 (10.1)

. The survey was completed by 318 respondents. The sample was predominantly middle-aged, with the largest group comprising individuals aged 41–50, followed closely by those aged 31–40. The gender distribution is notably skewed, with women representing 88.3% of respondents. Concerning perceived income, 69.5% rated their income as medium, while a smaller portion of 16% reported a high income.

3.3. Market Quality Aspects—Survey and Observation Results

3.3.1. Environmental Quality and Comfort

The overall ratings for environmental quality and comfort criteria were positive, suggesting that respondents largely perceive the market as a pleasant environment (Figure 3). Aesthetic appeal, lighting, and cleanliness scored particularly high among quality aspects in this section. However, minor negative and moderately higher neutral results for indoor temperature and air quality, as well as outdoor weather protection and overall noise levels, suggest there is perceived room for improvement.

The highest-ranked quality aspects for aesthetic appeal and lighting—the former with 90% and latter with 76% of ratings in the positive range (4 or 5). Both criteria received relatively little feedback or suggestions for improvements in open-ended comments.

Despite being the highest-ranked aspect, comments from the open-ended section on memorable visits featured relatively little feedback on visual attractiveness. However, a notable number—56 respondents—commented they enjoyed the overall atmosphere of the market, with a few specifying that visual appearance and maintenance of the premises were contributing factors. Fieldwork reports noted the considerable effort invested in personalising the market while maintaining its distinct historic character and identity. The heritage architecture has been carefully restored and preserved. The indoor area features a large assortment of vendor and dining service stalls, each with their signs and distinct decorations, which, in combination with the varied produce on sale, create a vibrant and pleasurable milieu (Figure 4). Tourists and other visitors were frequently observed taking photos and videos of both interior and exterior areas, with the hall’s chandeliers often serving as the main attractions. Moreover, reports highlight the variability of spatial accommodation and modifications during events, particularly in the courtyard. Event observations showcase the market’s capacity to adopt a wide range of appearances aligned with the specific needs of each occasion (Figure 5).

The third-highest ranked aspect—cleanliness within the market—presented predominantly positive ratings but also revealed targeted concerns in the qualitative responses. While perception of the market’s maintenance on the whole was rated highly, with 75% of ratings in the upper range of the scale. In the criteria section comments, 28 respondents indicated that the venue’s toilet facilities require improvement. Specifically, 8 mentioned queuing and access issues, 18 called for enhanced upkeep efforts, and 3 proposed modernising the facilities to improve comfort. One female respondent suggested adding a child-sized toilet for increased accessibility. Additional maintenance concerns included better upkeep of outdoor areas (3 respondents) and clearing of dishes and cleaning of tables in the dining areas (4 respondents). One respondent recommended providing cleaning supplies and cloths to enable visitors to clean the tables themselves.

Fieldwork reports noted that the market’s premises were well maintained, with one observer emphasising their impression after visiting the renovated venue for the first time that it seemed “untypically clean for a market”. Observers documented two teams of market maintenance staff making regular rounds (at half-hour or hour intervals): one team swept both floors in the hall and emptied/replaced waste bags throughout the whole territory, taking gathered waste to the fenced disposal facility within the market’s territory. The second team focused primarily on table maintenance. Observations noted that in 2025, additional signage had been added on tables that encouraged visitors to bring dishes to collection points themselves. Visitor adherence to cleanliness norms—both explicit and tacit—varied. Some visitors were seen diligently following posted instructions and cleaning up on their own initiative, while others left dishes on tables for staff to collect. In general, a clean environment seemed to encourage visitors to keep it that way. Some issues were noted during peak visitor hours in the terrace area, where people tend to gather more during the warmer seasons. Notably, trash bins located alongside heavily used routes within the market—the hall entrance on the terrace—tended to fill up quicker than in other places, requiring increased staff attention and leaving some visitors unsure where to leave food packaging or remains after meals.

Noise level ratings clustered slightly more towards the middle, with the majority of respondents giving a positive range rating (4 or 5) at 46%, followed by 41% who gave a neutral rating (4), and 9% who gave a negative rating (5). In the criteria section comments, 12 respondents cited concerns: 3 indicated increased noise during specific events (2 mentioned temporary flea market events and 1 mentioned weekend event noise audible in neighbouring houses), 6 cited problems in the second-floor dining area related to music volume and background noises, and 3 noted raised noise levels at times in general without providing additional details.

Fieldwork reports documenting noise levels indicated variability based on the time and day of the week, noting that the level is higher during peak visitor hours. A small number of reports corroborated concerns expressed in survey qualitative responses. One report documented an instance where two concurrent events in the courtyard caused slight disruptions: loud noises from an antique car show in the parking lot would intermittently startle participants of a workshop in the outdoor community “Greenhouse”. As for the second floor, a few observations conducted near the community kitchen noted that, during peak hours, noises from different sources within the hall can have a cumulative effect. Cited sources of louder noises included young infants, pets, equipment being moved on the first floor, occasional louder behaving visitors, and varying background music volume. Furthermore, it was noted that the high ceilings, coupled with the open-gallery second floor design, appeared to amplify sounds when the hall was crowded. However, it should be added that reports also captured multiple instances of visitors working both indoors and outdoors, with observers noting times of the day when it is quieter, and people can find spaces within the market to engage in activities that require peace and prolonged focus.

Ratings for indoor temperature regulation centre in the mid-to-high range, with 46% giving this aspect a positive range score (4 or 5), 35% neutral (3), and 17% negative (2 and 1). In the criteria section comments, 25 respondents mentioned temperature issues at the market: 16 identified indoor heat as an issue (with 11 highlighting the second floor as problematic), 6 reported general heat issues without specific details, and 3 described a lack of warmth indoors (during winter, second floor, restrooms). Given that the survey was conducted during summer months, these results likely reflect seasonal bias toward cooling rather than heating concerns. Regarding indoor air quality, while 49% rated this aspect in the positive range (4 or 5), it is worth noting that 37% of participants rated it as neutral (3) and 12% in the lower range (2 and 1). Open-ended comments also point to this being an area in need of improvement, with 21 respondents suggesting enhanced ventilation—particularly on the second floor (7 respondents)—to ensure better air quality and circulation of aromas from dining stalls, especially during warmer seasons. A number of respondents expressed concerns that aromas from dining stalls may seep into clothes. Notably, air and temperature aspects were often mentioned in tandem in respondent feedback.

Fieldwork reports on the two previous aspects note variability. Two observations conducted at community kitchen indoor events on the second floor on warmer evenings in June yielded contrary findings, with one claiming ventilation systems provided sufficient cooling and air circulation and the other noting that, even though active, it did not seem to reduce heat sufficiently. In the latter case, the report documented workshop participants consuming water and leaving to purchase beverages more frequently, elderly members taking breaks from standing, as well as some using note-taking paper as improvised fans to cool off. Consistent with survey respondent feedback, fieldworkers also noted that heat emanating from dining service stalls appears to impact air quality and temperature indoors during warmer seasons. It should be noted that during the time observations and fieldwork were carried out, the market was in the process of implementing ongoing improvements in this area.

Ratings for shelter from weather (outdoors) clusters in the mid-to-high range, with 36% this aspect as neutral (3), followed by 35% positive (4), and nearly equal distributions between highly positive (5) at 11% and negative (2) at 10%. In open-ended comments, 3 respondents highlighted temperature problems in outdoor areas (insufficient shade was mentioned by 2 respondents—in the front square and courtyard area). No additional information was provided in the fieldwork reports.

3.3.2. Accessibility and Amenities

Ratings for accessibility and amenities show slightly more measured results (Figure 6). While slightly above half of the ratings for accessibility of infrastructure and availability of seating and tables were in the positive range, parking space availability stood out as an area of concern.

Accessibility was a key objective in the market’s restoration plan (activities such as installation of an elevator, building of an accessibility ramp and reorganisation of a parking lot), and survey results appear to indicate successful implementation. This aspect predominantly received favourable ratings, with 53% of respondents scoring it in the positive range (4 or 5). While 27% respondents gave a neutral (3) and 16% a “unsure” rating, importantly, negative ratings were minuscule. The criteria section comments featured 4 replies concerning accessibility: 2 respondents requested improved stroller access at the main and courtyard entrances (one of whom added the width of lift entrances poses trouble for strollers for twins), one respondent highlighted the need for stepping aids to help children reach the public sink on the first floor, and another respondent, who works with people with limited mobility, commended the existing accessibility features.

Fieldwork reports, which documented how elderly visitors, parents with strollers, and people with movement difficulties use the indoor lift and accessibility ramp, indicate that these infrastructure additions are largely effective in facilitating mobility within the market. Reports noted that there is ample space in front of lift entrances on the first and second floors for manoeuvring, and the outdoor ramp’s gentle gradient and width appeared suitable for visitors with more pronounced movement difficulties. One report detailed an elderly woman using a wheeled rollator to slowly descend the ramp from the raised terrace to street level without stopping or encountering difficulties along the way, only hesitating slightly before the end when transitioning over to the asphalt. Furthermore, reports noted that market entrances and the width of certain passages were at times slightly problematic. Specifically, reports documented instances when visitors with strollers and mobility aids encountered difficulties with the main and courtyard entrances to the market when the doors were not secured in an open position. Additionally, over the course of two years, reports documented ongoing implementation of new safety and accessibility features: the addition of safety nets on the second floor railings, bright markings on stair steps in the terrace, as well as signage in multiple languages.

As for parking spaces, 38% rated this aspect positively (4 and 5), a large portion of 30% gave a neutral rating, and 18% gave negative ratings (2 and 1). This was the highest negative score in this section. It also received a large amount of comments (31): 13 respondents cited vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot within the market’s fenced territory from the adjacent street with a tramline as problematic, with 2 respondents emphasising that it can create dangerous situations due to queuing and visibility issues. During the period the survey was carried out, the market introduced designated entrance and exit points to enhance traffic flow—3 respondents had suggested this improvement in open-ended comments before its implementation, and 2 respondents commended the solution when it was put into practice. Furthermore, 12 respondents highlighted the lack of parking spaces, with 2 of them emphasising that the issue is prevalent during events. No further details were noted in fieldwork observations or memorable visit qualitative responses.

Access to seating and tables was largely rated approvingly, with slightly above half respondents scoring this aspect in the upper range—56% positive (4 or 5). However, the neutral (3) score given by 31% alongside 10% negative (2) ratings highlight concerns. This aspect was mentioned in the criteria section comments by 11 respondents: 8 cited occasional shortages of seating and tables (with 1 respondent specifically noting problems during events and another citing this being an issue during peak visiting hours), 2 requested better seating near specific service providers located on the first floor, and 1 recommended adding more outdoor seating options during the summer.

Fieldwork observations corroborate the importance of these seating areas in supporting the market’s function as a public space. Limited access may account for neutral and negative ratings, as seating are key to ensuring visitors can fully partake in the social and leisure activities the market enables. On the whole, reports suggest they successfully function as gathering spaces within the market, offering visitors significant freedom to modify and claim space.

This flexibility is enabled by the provision of several seating areas and the capacity for visitors to freely choose where to sit, independent of where they made purchases from dining service providers or vendor stalls. Thus, visitors can make full use of the tables and seats located in the second-floor dining area, outdoor terrace, community “Greenhouse”, and stage area. Importantly, reports indicated visitors use these areas for several other purposes beyond dining. As one observer describes it, they appear to function as “public living rooms”—a characterisation supported by multiple observations of people lingering for extended periods after meals or without making purchases, as well as engaging in diverse activities: lengthy conversations, working on smartphones or laptops, observing the activities of others, taking pictures or videos, playing board games, among others.

Two fieldwork examples highlighted a particularly high degree of personalisation and appropriation that sitting areas enable. The first was an infant’s six-month anniversary celebration held on the outdoor terrace, where a young father and visiting relatives had rearranged several tables and chairs in a compact configuration to accommodate purchases, baby essentials, and a diverse assortment of meals and beverages assembled from different stalls within the market. The group was present before observation commenced and remained on the terrace when the two-hour period ended—their overall demeanour gave the impression of an unhurried, leisurely mood. The second involved a group of art students who appropriated seven tables for an extended period in the second floor dining area, transforming them into an improvised “workshop” (Figure 7). The students had covered the tables with art supplies and utensils and were using the location as a vantage point from which to paint and sketch the market’s interior for an assignment.

However, some reports suggest that the flexibility to modify and claim space has drawbacks during peak visitor hours. Observers reported crowding in the narrower sections of the second floor and on the outdoor terrace when larger groups occupy a table and borrow additional seats from adjacent tables. In the case of the latter, one report highlighted an instance of a large group taking up space near the entrance of the accessibility ramp, which impeded its use by visitors with strollers. Another report revealed that, in the second-floor dining area, such crowding can inconvenience market staff who collect dishes on moveable trolleys. Moreover, observations of a student group occupying the second-floor dining area for an extended period illustrated how prolonged stays during peak hours can prevent other visitors from finding available tables. While multiple seating areas largely help address this issue, reports noted some visitor frustration in such situations.

3.3.3. Social Experience

Overall results for social experience show positive ratings, especially in regard to sociability, measured as politeness of visitors and market staff, safety, and opportunities for meeting diverse social groups (Figure 8). However, specific areas received a noteworthy proportion of neutral and “unsure” responses: opportunities to form relationships with strangers, and, to a lesser degree, activities tailored for diverse social groups. Notably, the criteria in this section received the lowest number of negative ratings out all four.

Politeness among both visitors and market staff was rated in the positive range (4 or 5) by approximately 80%. These results suggest that respondents generally perceive the market as a sociable and welcoming environment. However, despite the favourable perception, opportunities to meet people and form new relations received a high proportion of “unsure” and neutral ratings at 69%. In the criteria section comments, only 5 respondents commented on these aspects: 2 described their interactions with market vendors favourably, while 3 reported generally positive experiences but noted occasional instances with individual vendors where the interaction was less satisfactory. No comments were provided on opportunities to form new relations or visitor interactions.

Fieldwork reports complement survey findings on visitor and staff politeness, as well as provide more nuanced insights into social mixing and spontaneous interactions among unfamiliar visitors. Regarding the former, observations indicated that visitors not only interact with vendors to buy products but also occasionally engage in lengthier dialogues that go well beyond the purchase-related exchanges. This finding aligned with the qualitative responses about memorable visits, where some respondents noted that they had formed close ties with particular vendors. One respondent described a vendor she regularly interacts with as “extended family”, while others praised the personalised approach vendors take.

As for interactions among visitors, though reports mostly highlight that people tend to interact in small groups they arrive with to the market, they also noted instances where interactions among strangers occur, suggesting the market provides the necessary conditions for social mixing. Interactions among strangers were observed in queues and at vendor stands, with strangers engaging in discussions about products on sale and exchanging recipes. One report documented an exceptional case of multiple strangers forming spontaneous, temporary ties: in the courtyard, children from different families began an improvised ball game, which was later joined by several parents.

Observations during events involving joint activities also showed sustained interactions among participants who were previously unfamiliar with one another—in particular, during educational workshops, such as community kitchen cooking classes, where participants shared a common interest in the topic. No less significantly, reports also captured brief micro-interactions in both event and non-event scenarios. Passerby visitors were observed taking interest in the various events and activities taking place within the market, with some making comments as they walked by, briefly engaging with event participants, or in one reported case, spontaneously joining a workshop. Crucially, visitors were observed engaging in small acts of care, such as holding doors or assisting with grocery bags for elderly visitors and those with mobility issues, which contributes to creating an inclusive and friendly atmosphere in the venue, as well as compensating for minor infrastructure accessibility issues.

Rating for opportunities to meet people from diverse social and age groups also scored highly, with 61% of respondents rating this aspect in the positive range (4 or 5). However, this aspect also received a noteworthy proportion of neutral responses at 27%.

Fieldwork observations indicate that the market is frequented by a range of groups, including local residents, visitors from other city districts, migrants, tourists, families with children, people of different generations, and visitors with mobility difficulties. Reports highlighted that older adults and retirees are the consistent attendees, often visiting daily at the same time and speaking with the same vendors. However, proportionally, retirees were represented less than other age groups on average. Parents with children were observed frequenting the market more on weekends, combining shopping with leisure activities. As for young people and students, their presence varied, with reports noting they frequent the market less on weekday mornings and more during events. The outdoor dining area was observed to be particularly popular among younger visitors. As for ethnic and national diversity, reports note Latvian can be heard most often, but also document the use of English, Russian, German, Spanish, French, and other languages, indicating the market is frequented regularly by tourists and visitors from abroad. People with health-related or mobility difficulties were also reported attending the market, though their presence was less often documented. Importantly, in regard to perceived socio-economic background, reports suggested the market is frequented predominantly by mid- to high-level income visitors.

Ensuring activities and services are tailored for a variety of age and social groups was among the key objectives pursued by the market’s management. In survey ratings, 61% rated this aspect in the positive range (4 or 5). In the criteria comments, 8 respondents provided feedback. Although few, some highlighted perceived income and age bias, noting that activities and services do not seem tailored for the elderly and lower-income groups. Poignantly, two respondents drew attention to the changing character of the venue, emphasising that it seems less like a conventional market and more like a leisure centre. One respondent also provided positive feedback, indicating they appreciated the addition of the children’s play corner on the second floor.

Qualitative responses on memorable visits and fieldwork data revealed that respondents found meaningful engagement through several factors. These included the venue’s multi-use format, which offers a combination of necessary retail and optional leisure functions, varied programming, alongside tailored amenities to facilitate access for families with children and people with mobility issues.

Regarding events, 28 respondents cited them as a reason for visiting the market, suggesting that the diverse programming appeals to different interests. Specific mentioned types of events included concerts, educational workshops, dance nights, car shows, themed market days dedicated to particular food products, and marking personal occasions. Observations demonstrated that, in addition to opportunities for spontaneous social encounters, events fostered a convivial atmosphere. A series of observations of community kitchen workshops in 2025 provided notable examples. At a youth-dedicated session, observers noted parent–child bonding—displays of affection, playful exchanges, as well as joint picture-taking during meal preparation. In another workshop, a participant assisted the host when the equipment briefly malfunctioned. During a food fermentation-themed workshop, participants would actively engage in conversations, exchanging suggestions on techniques. Across all workshops, observers consistently documented expressions of positive affect among participants: laughter, applause, and warm conversations.

As for the multi-use format, 32 respondents cited a list of two or more activities they enjoy in qualitative responses, pointing to the complementary nature of various services and activities within the market. Responses provided varying combinations of dining, retail services, events, and socialisation. These findings corroborate multiple-choice question results on activities engaged in during the memorable visit. The distribution demonstrates that visitors predominantly engaged in necessary functions—purchasing food (81%); however, most also selected optional activities (Figure 9).

Responses in this section also highlight that the market helps foster intergenerational socialisation. In particular, four respondents provided detailed replies on how the market serves as a place for parents, grandparents, and children to meet and bond. These findings align with survey results on socialisation patterns (Figure 10), with the majority indicating they visited the market with their family members (52%) and close friends (34%).

In terms of amenities providing diverse activity options, reports highlighted frequent use of the family area on the second floor (Figure 9), which facilitated market visits for parents with young children. Public amenities—high chairs for infants, coat hangers, a football table, long tables, and a children’s corner with an assortment of wooden toy blocks—create a convenient space where children can engage in play while parents supervise from the adjacent table (Figure 11). Children from different families would often use the play corner simultaneously, fostering interactions among peers. Moreover, parents also used this space to bond with their children, creating an environment that can encourage social mixing between different families.

Sense of safety scored particularly high at 72% respondents giving a rating in the positive range (4 or 5). This aspect had minuscule negative ratings and 23% neutral scores. Two respondents commented on safety. One claimed they found Āgenskalns Market safer than another prominent market in the city, and another shared an observation of security personnel efficiently handling a situation where a fight broke out.

Fieldwork reports captured several scenarios demonstrating a high perception of safety in the market. The most prominent observation was that parents allowed their children to play freely within different areas in the market: the outdoor terrace, courtyard, and second floor family area. As one observer noted, some parents on the second floor appeared comfortable letting their children roam within a rather large radius and move among other visitors. Moreover, during a community kitchen workshop dedicated to adolescents and young children, a report documented parents entrusting event moderators to look after their children while they explore the market or attend to other activities, indicating a high degree of trust in the venue’s staff and partners invited to collaborate on hosting events. Reports also documented occasions when visitors left their belongings—clothes and backpacks—unattended in the indoor area to signal a table is “occupied” while they go purchase meals. In regard to security measures, while some reports noted a security worker making rounds within the premises, they were largely inconspicuous, and no conflict escalations were noted in any of the observations.

3.3.4. Market Offer

Despite of multiple social, educational and cultural functions added to the place to extend its publicness, the farmer market, trade, catering, and services remain the economic core of the market. The market offer survey results are outlined in Figure 12. In regard to products provided at the market, results showed highly positive ratings for food product variety, with 72% of respondents scoring this aspect in the positive range. However, non-food products received predominantly a neutral rating at 48%, suggesting that generally visitors prioritise food purchases.

Notably, the evaluation of the price range received the highest proportion of negative appraisals—41% rated this aspect negatively, while the most frequent evaluation was neutral at 42%. In the comments section, 38 respondents indicated that they found the market to be expensive. Among these, 12 specified that staple food products (meat, vegetables, fruit) were expensive, of whom 6 noted they mainly purchase speciality products. Furthermore, 8 respondents compared prices with other markets and shopping venues, stating that they found Āgenskalns Market to be generally more expensive. Four respondents also emphasised price differences between indoor and outdoor stalls and implied they preferred the latter. Three respondents also justified the higher prices as a trade-off for the well-kept, aesthetically pleasing environment and quality of produce, with one additionally noting that the prices are likely high due to rental charges. No further details were provided in memorable visit responses or fieldwork data on these aspects.

4. Discussion

This exploratory study sought to answer two questions: (1) What public space quality criteria are applicable for assessing privately managed multi-use marketplaces? And (2) What do user assessments and observations of usage patterns reveal about the spatial design, social, and operational performance of Āgenskalns Market as a privately managed public space? The discussion section addresses each question in turn. First, it appraises what results indicate about the proposed framework and its utility. The next sections present principal findings for each quality dimension, highlighting how organisational factors influence the resultant spatial infrastructure and the opportunities for socialisation and use. The section concludes with a focused examination of the negative aspects identified in the data. The two previous sections also incorporate an analysis of how the venue’s management influences its “publicness” according to Leclercq et al.’s criteria.

4.1. Public Space Quality Criteria Adaptation for Multi-Use Market Analysis

To develop a public space quality assessment framework tailored for privately managed multi-use markets, this study used Yuri Impens’ research on covered food halls, which incorporated public space quality aspects in its analysis, as a point of departure. A key reason for choosing this approach was that the objects of his study bore resemblance to Āgenskalns Market’s multi-use social hub format. Vikas Mehta’s PSI was identified as a key framework in Impens’ work. The proposed quality criteria were cross-referenced and supplemented with criteria from UN-Habitat’s Site-Specific Assessment Tool—an adaptable inventory that has been used for marketplace evaluation. Select criteria were added to capture user experience aspects not covered in validated frameworks, but deemed important in the literature review. Specifically, the dimension of “market offer” (Mehta’s “quality and availability of businesses”), as well as “visitor and customer politeness” (proxies for sociability) and “opportunities to form new relations” (social mixing).

A key takeaway from the study is that the proposed assessment framework appears to provide a practical way to gain insights into the physical structure and amenity quality of privately managed markets. This is evidenced by criteria ratings and user feedback that largely corroborate observation reports and remain consistent with the infrastructure improvement priorities already acknowledged and acted upon by the market’s management. This aligns with Lorenzo et al.’s research, which found a high degree of coincidence between laypeople and professionals in their evaluations of physical aspects of public space, underscoring that user insights are a valuable addition to incorporate in urban environment assessment studies [35]. Overall, given that the proposed criteria mapped closely to items in validated instruments from which they were derived, and similar approaches have been successfully tested before [17], this was not an unexpected outcome. This study lends further support to the efficacy of validated assessment criteria from these frameworks and suggests that they can be applied for analysis of privately managed marketplaces.

On the other hand, the selected criteria for evaluating social experience and market offer paint a more complicated picture. While they showcased areas that users perceive are performing well, for some items, the presence of elevated “unsure” and neutral ratings suggests there is room for refinement in both wording and conceptualisation of criteria. Furthermore, unlike physical environment criteria, social experience is more complex to capture quantitatively. In this study, most key insights about use patterns and socialisation were derived from qualitative survey responses and observation data. That said, triangulation between discrepancies of survey ratings and observations unveiled points of interest, as discussed in the following paragraphs in more detail. This underscores that mixed methods in public space quality assessment remain a gold standard for ensuring a higher degree of validity of findings [17]. Lastly, the addition of market offer dimension, focusing on the pricing of products and services, proved useful in highlighting the tension users perceive in the transition to a new market format—the trade-off between enhanced spatial quality and price increases. Overall, the social experience criteria merit further scrutiny and testing with statistical methods to increase robustness.

4.2. Evaluation of Spatial Design and Contributing Organisational Factors

To answer the second question, the following paragraphs outline key findings in survey ratings, qualitative responses and observations, addressing each of the four quality dimensions in turn. The results are examined in the context of the literature review as well as situated in broader public space research, focusing on aspects of the market that perform well, indications of tension, as well as reflecting on how private management influences the resultant physical structure, social use of space, and “publicness”.

Overall, results suggest that visitors perceive the market as an aesthetically attractive, clean, accessible space. Importantly, respondent assessments also brought to light areas requiring attention, as indicated by minor negative scores and moderately elevated neutral ratings related to indoor air quality and temperature regulation during warmer seasons, adequate weather protection in outdoor areas, noise mitigation efforts, and parking arrangements. The most prominent concern was the maintenance and availability of toilet facilities. These findings align with established literature on physical design, which foregrounds physiological comfort as an important prerequisite for public space quality and user satisfaction [14,16,30]. Moreover, the demand for more comfortable facilities and amenities aligns with broader observations in public space research that users tend to appreciate better maintained and safer environments characteristic of privately managed venues, underscoring these as crucial qualities for visitor attraction and retention [14,15].

Crucially, the findings showcased how a privately managed market can enhance “publicness” by making the venue more accessible to diverse social groups via infrastructure improvements. Observations and surveys suggest that the addition of a lift, accessibility ramp, and family area with tailored amenities has made the market easier to use for people with mobility difficulties, seniors, and families with young children. Nonetheless, even with substantial investment in this area, qualitative survey responses indicated visitors would welcome further improvements to enhance the venue’s facilities, especially in terms of amenities for smaller children (stepping stools, child-sized toilets, access for wide strollers). The more diverse users begin to inhabit and use the infrastructure the market, the more the resultant space unveils areas for refinement that were not fully captured during the planning stages of potential space [30]. This underscores the necessity of community involvement in spatial design, ongoing monitoring and maintenance, and, importantly, taking care when planning long-term structural changes to allow for flexible adaptation in the face of new conditions: emerging user needs, climate change impact, effective capacity vis-à-vis increasing visitor numbers [17,18,19].

From an organisational perspective, success in the areas outlined above can be attributed to the public place-shaping approach undertaken by Āgenskalns Market. Quality parameters valued highly by survey participants (lighting, cleanliness, noise level, indoor temperature, accessibility) have been achieved through a concerted effort of the market management team (private actor) and other private, public and civic actors. For example, the IN-HABIT project offered lighting solutions which were further explored and implemented in collaboration with architects and electrical engineers. Cleanliness solutions, including the establishment of a waste sorting and reduction site and introduction of sustainable practices, have come into existence due to collaboration between market managers, waste companies, traders, customers and community members. Reduced noise level comes as a consequence of green solutions and architectural designs—establishing a community garden, planting trees in the outdoor square, and reorganising transport infrastructure in the adjacent streets. Indoor temperature was improved via collaborating with data analytics companies and installing heat sensors and people counters in the halls to promote energy efficient regulation based on statistics. Regarding amenities, the building of the ramp and elevator was made possible by market managers sourcing funding and working with construction companies, engineers, architects, and civic associations working together. The co-creation kitchen was jointly imagined with chefs, architects, nutritionists, technicians and social activators jointly envisaging multiple functions the kitchen would play and embracing various client groups and their doings. The community greenhouse was first erected as an open outdoor construction to be filled with artefacts and doings of community gardeners, table game players, seminar organisers, community bookshelf users and other pop-up communities.

In summary, many of the environmental quality and amenity improvements in the market are an outcome of collaboration between different stakeholders. This testifies to the quality of the place as an outcome of joint activity and participatory process, which also enhances collective ownership of the place. In this regard, our findings align with Leclercq et al.’s observation that collaborative place-making involving multiple public and private stakeholders tends to result in spaces with a higher degree of “publicness” compared to both entirely privately led and entirely publicly led processes [33]. Specifically, in their study, the resultant space of Ropewalks, achieved via private–public partnership, was deemed more “public” by local stakeholders because it safeguarded accessibility for multiple social groups, improved aesthetic quality (a desired outcome by locals), fostered inclusiveness, and retained adaptability. As outlined above, the process behind the design and resultant space in Āgenskalns Market appears to exhibit similar traits and outcomes.

4.3. Evaluation of Opportunities for Use and Socialisation and Contributing Organisational Factors

As for the criteria selected for social experience assessment, these showed a generally positive perception of the market, with high ratings for politeness (visitor and market staff), safety, and opportunities to meet diverse age and social groups, indicating that the market overall fosters an inclusive and sociable atmosphere. While survey results revealed uncertainty regarding opportunities to form new relations, on-site observations noted slightly more frequent instances of spontaneous social mixing among unfamiliar visitors during events and vendor interactions. A key finding in both survey and observation data indicates that the provision of diverse optional activities and events beyond dining and retail, combined with flexible seating areas that allow for a high degree of temporary personalisation and appropriation, are important not only in creating a sociable and meaningful environment for diverse users but also in safeguarding “publicness”.

The seating areas at Āgenskalns Market exhibit similar characteristics to those of the Fenix Food Factory, which Impens found functions closest to that of a conventional public space among the three food halls examined in his study [15]. The Fenix Factory’s management sought to implement a “public living room” or “traditional village square” concept, allowing visitors to purchase food from various stands to consume freely in a sitting area of their choosing within the venue, regardless of where it was bought. The same principle is implemented in Āgenskalns Market. Crucially, both venues demonstrated a high degree of temporary personalisation and appropriation of seating areas by visitors. In Āgenskalns Market, observations indicated that visitors engage in several activities beyond dining for long periods—conversations, work, people watching, leisure, personal celebrations, painting, improvised games, among others. These patterns correspond with Mehta and Boson’s observations on the crucial function of seating provision in “third places” [36]—extending visitor stays via prolonging activities afforded by the venue, which in turn fosters interaction by providing a neutral ground for socialisation.

From an organisational standpoint, findings outlined above align with research on privately managed public spaces, which emphasise greater flexibility for space appropriation as a key ingredient in preserving “publicness” by enabling more opportunities for meaningful engagement [14,34]. In Āgenskalns Market, temporary appropriation is enhanced by seating areas being designated as public zones not tied to specific vendor stalls or service providers. This allows visitors to freely use these areas for extended periods without making purchases, as well as to reconfigure seating arrangements flexibly to accommodate various needs. However, it should be noted that allocating space for public functions was implemented at the cost of decreasing commercial zoning in the market. This highlights an important management tension: private actors pursuing a public-oriented concept for the venue must balance investment in maintenance and development of infrastructure for public functions with revenue generation to sustain such goals.

In regard to diversity of activities and services tailored for various social groups, the findings in Āgenskalns Market aligned with Impens’ proposition that the combination of necessary and optional functions promotes social activities and visitor retention [15,16,25]. Survey results on memorable visits provide the strongest evidence. While most respondents indicated they engaged in necessary activities such as food purchasing, this was rarely their sole activity; the majority marked at least one or more additional activities—dining, leisure, and socialisation. This suggests that the venue’s activities and services have a complementary effect, allowing users to address several needs in one place. This can be interpreted as a key reason why the venue is attractive for different interest and age groups. Crucially, findings indicated that the venue is conducive for intergenerational socialisation, with families being cited in qualitative responses on memorable visits as the group most often visiting the market. Furthermore, tailored programming appears to provide additional reasons for visiting the market, which further enhances sociability. Indeed, while opportunities to form new relations received a high proportion of neutral and “unsure” ratings, observations noted that thematic events that bring together groups sharing common interests can help foster interactions among strangers.

From an organisational standpoint, the market management’s provision of shared ownership of programming and a wide network of collaboration partners has resulted in varied events which continue to evolve alongside communities’ needs and interests, thus contributing to the venue remaining meaningful to diverse communities. Furthermore, regarding concerns about urban residents increasingly retreating to the private realm and the consequent decline of informal social interaction practices in the public spaces, Āgenskalns Market’s provision of community gathering “third places” that combine diversity of uses and tailored events can be seen as a significant catalyst for enlivening public life and tackling isolation [31,37].

Besides interactions among visitors, sociability is promoted by the venue preserving forms of socialisation characteristic of traditional markets. Specifically, observations showed that some visitors develop and maintain close ties with market vendors who take care of and show interest in the lives of their customers. These findings align, in part, with Sophia Watson’s observation that vendors can act as the “social glue” that, unlike in other shopping venues like malls and stores, helps foster a more open, informal form of communication [13]. Furthermore, the acts of care captured in observations also align with Watson’ study, though in Āgenskalns Market, it is not just vendors, but also visitors who were observed assisting visitors of vulnerable populations. These aspects are considered important in maintaining the venue’s “third place” character and fostering inclusivity.

4.4. Barriers to Inclusivity and Competing Visions of the Market

Aside from perceived positive impacts, the study also highlights areas of concern. A subset of open-ended responses on the suitability of activities and services in the market for different groups indicates that some visitors feel excluded from the benefits offered by the market. Survey results regarding the market’s offer, particularly price range, show that whilst availability and quality of services and goods appear to be contributing factors for engagement and repeat visits, pricing is seen as a sore point by respondents. A small number of respondents perceived that the market’s benefits are primarily accessible to middle- and upper-income visitors. This is supported by observation findings that lower-income groups are less represented at the market. Although Āgenskalns Market does not pose formal and intentional barriers to access for people of different social groups, results suggest that the pricing of staple food products poses economic barriers for some visitor demographics.

On the one hand, this can be interpreted as the early signs of a trajectory that Gonzalez and Waley identify in their research on traditional market gentrification through revitalisation programmes. Specifically, rising prices and access to services primarily for middle-income consumers can result in the displacement of lower income groups—rather than abruptly deciding to stop frequenting the market, these visitors may gradually start to distance themselves from it as they lose identification [34]. In line with Mehta’s “meaningful activities” dimension, this would detract from practical usefulness in terms of services and goods provided by the venue, as well as affect “pleasurability” in the sense that changing aesthetics may differ from what the group feels comfortable with [16]. This can also potentially result in tacitly perceived forms of exclusion that Leclercq et al. caution about; specifically, lower-income users may perceive the space engenders conduct that does not align with their own [14].

However, high price levels in Āgenskalns Market should be viewed in the context of two factors. Firstly, private actors are dependent on commercial revenue to ensure the ongoing maintenance and development of infrastructure dedicated to public functions, alongside social engagement programming. Even with diversified funding sources—from projects and private investments—management indicated that costs remain significant. While literature on privately managed public space raises concerns over private actors prioritising commerce over public good [14], this case exemplifies a management approach striving to balance long term sustainability and public benefit, as well as the exclusionary risks their solutions carry. This finding underscores the need for follow-up research focusing more deeply on funding strategies for privately managed public spaces, specifically examining barriers and examples of efficient practices. This is especially relevant, as the market format is novel in Latvia.

Secondly, the discount programmes and free-of-charge activities and events provided by the market must also be acknowledged. Potential economic exclusion effects that may undermine “publicness” are counterbalanced by the openness and inclusivity of educational and cultural programmes implemented at the market. Survey open-ended replies on the market offer dimension revealed an important divergence of perspectives: while some justified price increases as an acceptable trade-off for enhanced spatial quality and expanded scope of activities, others found these benefits overshadowed by pricing concerns. Essentially, the tension becomes that of two competing visions of the market—as a conventional retail venue that provides affordable shopping alternatives versus a multi-use food hub that combines retail, dining, leisure, and events. It can be reasoned that groups solely interested in the former are more likely to lose identification, while for the latter, it can potentially enhance engagement through an expansion of meaningful uses. Overall, this finding highlights the need for further research on how to foster inclusivity of lower-income patrons.

5. Conclusions

This exploratory study adapted public space quality criteria for a newly emerging type of multi-use market format to analyse how users perceive its spatial design and opportunities for use and socialisation. Organisation behind these aspects was taken into consideration in the analysis to evaluate how private management influences a venue’s “publicness”.

In the context of broader initiatives to foster sustainable urban environments that promote the quality of life for inhabitants, the question of how private management of public spaces can contribute or hinder the achievement of such aims is a topical issue. Public space scholars raise concerns that private management of public spaces runs the risk of diminishing their “publicness” via exclusion of specific demographics, overfocusing on commercial gain, homogenising urban settings, and limiting users’ capacity to appropriate such spaces. Opposing scholars posit that a shift towards the privatisation of public spaces is becoming more commonplace and that such a shift calls for new approaches and research to better capture contemporary realities. Accordingly, this paper’s findings align with those of Leclercq et al. and Yuri Impens who propose that not all cases of private management diminish a venue’s capacity to maintain values associated “publicness” that foster quality of life for its users [14,15].

The study yields three principal contributions. First, it suggests that a validated public space assessment framework can be successfully adapted for evaluating privately managed multi-use marketplaces. The adapted criteria proved useful in identifying aspects of physical infrastructure quality users value highly, as well as areas in need of improvement. However, social experience criteria require additional refinement, and triangulation with fieldwork observations remains essential to obtain a nuanced understanding of interaction patterns. The new addition of the “market offer” dimension was valuable in revealing tensions and user perceived trade-offs between spatial quality improvements and pricing concerns.

Second, the case study of Āgenskalns Market showcases how a managing entity’s pursued concept and place-making process play a vital role in creating a venue retain “publicness” and users find valuable. The study suggests that a private–public partnership format where the market’s management coordinates collaboration with multiple public, private, and community stakeholders has resulted in venue design that meets the needs of diverse users. The participatory co-design approach, deployed in the early stage of the market’s revitalisation, appears to have been pivotal in achieving this result. The findings suggest that the market’s physical structure, with its tailored accessibility features, amenities, adaptable outdoor space, and flexible multiple seating areas, serve as a foundation which provides not only affordances for user self-motivated activities (work, play, conversations, etc.), but also the means for enhancing sociability via the provision of complementary activities (services and events). The ongoing shared ownership of event programming, involving NGOs, neighbourhood associations, and community representatives, appears to be conducive to ensuring the development of the market’s identity remains in line with local community interests.

Concerning the safeguarding of “publicness”, this was achieved by management allocating zones within the market for public rather than commercial use. A crucial contributing factor is that users are allowed a high degree of temporary personalisation and appropriation of seating areas. This provision helps foster a “third place” environment where people can freely linger and socialise, without feeling pressured to make purchases to use the space. Furthermore, investment in infrastructure and amenities has fostered accessibility for more diverse publics, notably families with young children, seniors, and people with mobility or health difficulties. Diversity of activities, including free events and community-curated programming, also plays a role in attracting and retaining different social groups, as well as promoting longer stays, meaningful engagement, and social mixing.

Third, the study identifies tensions inherent in privately managed venues pursuing public-oriented goals. The primary challenge involves maintaining and further developing infrastructure and free programming that serve public functions while simultaneously producing sufficient revenue and sourcing funding to ensure the sustainability of the pursued concept. The increase in prices of certain products was identified as one consequence of this balancing act. This poses an economic barrier that can undermine “publicness” by excluding lower-income groups who primarily value the market as an affordable place to purchase food. This also illuminates a tension regarding the market’s transition to a new format. It captures contrasting user demographic expectations: some value the market primarily in the “traditional” sense as a retail venue offering affordable food, while others appreciate it as a multi-use social hub.

There are key limitations of the present exploratory study. First, the demographic profile of the sample. While age groups were represented well, gender and perceived income heavily leaned towards specific demographics (88.3% female, 69.5% self-reported middle income), reducing the overall generalisability of results and options for comparison. Future studies would benefit from more targeted sampling strategies, such as approaching market users on-site at different times and days of the week, as well as during different seasons. Moreover, given the presence of selection and voluntary biases in the sampling method for the survey, specific groups are less represented. Firstly, user that do not hold a vested interest in the market and do not appreciate its new format; secondly, users that do not use social media platforms or lack digital literacy.

Future research should address three priorities. First, developing and validating more robust criteria for assessing social experience in marketplace settings. Second, examining funding strategies and business models that enable privately managed public spaces to sustain their public-oriented goals while simultaneously ensuring financial viability and inclusivity for vulnerable groups. Third, follow-up research is needed targeting groups who were less represented in this study and identified at risk of exclusion.