The term “Gentrification” was first introduced by Ruth Glass to refer to the eviction and displacement of London’s working class by wealthier residents (Glass, 1964). However, this terminology has undergone substantial change as (Ley, 1978), whose work was influenced by Daniel Bell’s work related to the post industrial society (Bell, 1973), introduced the “consumption-based theory” that emphasizes social and cultural shifts and the “production -based theory” of (Smith, 1979), that also, on the other hand, concentrated on the economic aspect and explained gentrifcation as a result of the “rent gap” process, that depends on the declined property values that pave the way for profitable redevelopment (Sýkora, 1993).

Later, the concept of gentrification was broadened to encompass public spaces in addition to the housing market. According to scholars such as Sarah (Brouillette, 2009)and Benjamin (Grant, 2003), gentrification entails the renovation and redevelopment of commercial areas, parks, and retail establishments, resulting in the symbolic and physical exclusion of original users (Clark, 2010). This process, as shown in Figure 1, indicates that public space are now subject to commercialization, commodification, and marketization as a result of population movement, public policy, and the flow of private capital, causing the displacement of the orginal users, with new users from higher socio-economic backgrounds, who are intersted in investing fixed capital into the space and its surroundings (Zuk et al., 2018) ,(Clark, 2010).

The progression of gentrification has been identified through five distinct waves ((Aalbers, 2019); (Hackworth & Smith, 2001)). These waves demonstrate that gentrification is no longer limited to small-scale residential revitalization but also includes the contribution of large-scale financialization and privatization in the process of urban development. This has had an impact on public spaces, introducing new forms of gentrification such as commercial gentrification and green gentrification (Gant, 2016).

Commercial gentrification occurs when upscale retail facilities such as cafes, restaurants, and boutiques replace the neighborhood’s existing stores, leading to the displacement of the existing business owners with others who seek maximum profit from their businesses (Gonzalez & Waley, 2013) (Wang, 2011). As for green gentrification, this process involves the transformation of deserted urban areas into parks and green areas to fulfill the residents' demands (Wolch et al., 2014).

To detect gentrification, various methods and techniques have been developed through research. Six variables derived from the Canadian census have been used in studies to evaluate neighborhood gentrification in areas such as Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal (Walks & Maaranen, 2008). Also, (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001), as shown in Figure 2a, offered a more thorough approach by classifying the indicators into three categories, which are primary, secondary, and leading indicators ((M. & A, 2016); (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001)). Gentrification cannot be applied everywhere similarly, due to cultural and social differences. So, it is important to understand the context where gentrification may occur, as shown in Figure 2b

Commercialization and privatization are posing a growing danger to urban public spaces as a result of the neoliberalization movement in cities ((Németh & Schmidt, 2011); (Amin, 2008); (Geniş, 2007); (Mitchell, 2003)). Since cities are now under the influence of capitalism, the concept of “private cities” has emerged, marking the end of public space (Glasze et al., 2005) ,(Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space, 1992).

Privatization is defined as the transfer of public lands to private interests for commodification and securitization purposes, leading to both symbolic and physical exclusion ((The politics of public space, 2006); (Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space, 1992)). Governments support this action to solve challenges such as the collapse of the state welfare (Marcuse, 2009), as well as to reduce management costs ((Rosen & Razin, 2009); (Geniş, 2007)).

This issue have been criticized by planners and geographers such as Henri (Lefebvre, 1968), who in his theory “ the right of the city”, addressed the private cities issue by claimimng that people have a right to be involved in the design and use of public spaces (Harvey, 2008) (Lefebvre, 1968) and argued that social, economic, and political aspects influence the nature of public spaces (Lefebvre, 1991).

The shift to privatization transforms public spaces into profit-driven areas that lead to spatial exclusion and segregation, contradicting their initial purpose of being equally accessible to everyone (Fredua, 2017). This act restricts user mobility and access, causing exclusionary practices, such as inaccessibility for people with impairments and racial discrimination, as the government collaborates with the private sector to redesign and police the public space as it fits them (Low, 2006).

The debates on the concept of publicness started with the model proposed by (Benn & Gaus, 1983), which distinguished public spaces from private ones through three key variables: access, agency, and interest. Access is divided into four sub-dimensions, which are physical access, access to activities, access to information, and access to resources (Akkar, 2005). Other academics, as shown in Figure 3, have also added to our knowledge of publicness. According to (Arendt, 1958), a public space needs to be usable and accessible by everyone and last for various generations.(Dijkstra, 1999) added to this concept by identifying accessibility-affecting elements, including design, pricing, and proximity. Similarly, five spatial rights – accessibility, freedom of action, physical change, and ownership- were identified by (Carr, 1992) to define publincness (Erten, 2011). Also, the significance of accessibility, use, ownership, and the capability to promote social interaction are emphasized in other approaches, introduced by Kevin Lynch (1981), Young (1990), and Kohn (2004) (Erten, 2011)

Several models, as shown in Figure 4, have been used to evaluate the level of publicness in urban spaces (Mantey, 2017). These models offer an extensive understanding of a space’s accessibility and inclusivity, which is considered crucial for identifying potential gentrification that may occur in a public space due to the privatization and commercialization of this space.

For example, (Németh & Schmidt, 2011) propose the “Tri-axial” model to assess by taking into consideration three key factors: ownership, administration, and users/uses. Also, (Varna & Tiesdell, 2010) proposed five aspects, which are ownership, control, civility, physical configuration, and animation, in their “Star Model”. Finally, (Mantey, 2017), as shown in Figure 5, simplified the publicness indicators into three primary factors, which are diversity, management, and accessibility. This simplified classification is an essential instrument for determining how public a space is.

Battersea Park, as shown in Figure 7, is a large Victorian park that has faced a series of attempts to commercialize and privatize the public space. In 1951, under the supervision of the Greater London Council, the park, which includes a zoo and sports facilities, was put to commercial use for the first time with the Festival of Britain pleasure gardens, which attracted public criticism due to the charged admission fees.

The act of commercialization, as shown in Figure 8, has continued as proposals for a theatre and cinemas were made, as well as hosting the event of Formula E races from 2014 to 2016. Only ten percent of the park was open to the public during these races, which required the installation of temporary structures and metal fencing.

The Park’s transformation from an open public space to a more private and commercial space was further highlighted, as shown in Figure 9, by the opening of a new facility called “Go Ape”, which offered distinct play spaces for those who could afford to pay.

West London’s ancient Gunnersbury Park (as shown in Figure 10) has changed from a privately held estate to a public space that faces commercialization. The park was purchased by the nation and, under the supervision of Hounslow and Ealing borough councils, was made public after serving as a vacation residence for royalty and prestigious families.

However, because of poor maintenance, the Gunnersbury Park Community Interest Company (CIC) was established in 2018 as a new governance approach. A noticeable commercial trend (as shown in Figure 11) appeared within the park premises, including the establishment of ticketed cinema, screenings, and music festivals. Public access was restricted for extended periods of time due to the occurrences, which necessitated the installation of fences and other temporary structures. Also, as shown in Figure 11, the opening of a new café, operated by a commercial chain, has raised concerns over social exclusion due to physical and financial obstacles.

Greenwich Park, as shown in Figure 12, is a historically green public space that has undergone a temporary, high-profile privatization event. Due to its proximity to the main Olympic sites, the park was chosen to host the equestrian events during the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. This necessitated the construction of a sizable arena and other related facilities, which the public opposed (as shown in Figure 13), because of access limitations and environmental concerns. The park was closed to the public for several months during the events, with tickets only sold to wealthy equestrian enthusiasts.

Not applicable

The author declares that there is no competing interest.