Page - 126 - in Mobile Culture Studies - The Journal, Volume 3/2017

126 Mobile Culture Studies. The Journal 3 2o17 Patrick Naef | Using mobility and urban planning to implement atmosphere lie-Hamilton 2008, Moody & Melia 2014, Karndacharuk & al. 2014) were more productive. Karndacharuk et al. (2014, 215) define shared space as ‘a public local street or intersection that is intended and designed to be used by pedestrians and vehicles in a consistently low-speed environment with no obvious physical segregation between the various road users in order to create a sense of place, and facilitate multi-functions.’ If it did not define how to achieve this on a practical level, the so-called ‘Buchanan Report’ in the UK laid the base for the development of ‘environmental areas’ to face the hegemony of motorized traffic in the sixties, and proposed how a street could be adapted for mixed use by vehicles and other users (Karndacharuk et al. 2014). As mentioned in the definition above, if traffic signs and regulations are to be replaced by social rules, a ‘sense of place’ has to be created to encourage cooperative and sharing behaviour between users. For Soulier (2012), shared space philosophy can teach us the differences between ‘road’ and ‘street’ management. The modal use of the street is different from that of the road; we are moving from the idea of ‘dividing’ to one of ‘sharing’ (both translated in French by the same verb ‘partager’): ‘As much the modal logic of the road (to divide) is easy to grasp and to apply, the modal logic of the street (to share) is delicate and subtle.’ Atmosphere has thus an active role to play in the management of the street. With its capacity to ‘bring people together’ (Bissel 2010, 278), it can enhance place sharing and contribute to organizing flows and co- presence, without reverting to an over-signalization process that leads to what Soulier maintains is a ‘sterilized’ streetscape. While the use of vehicles is still increasing, several initiatives have contributed to what is often defined as ‘traffic calming’. As stated by Thomas, after the industrial development, the 21st century, ‘largely embedded in environmental preoccupations and in a search for genera- lized accessibility – gets pacified.’ (2013, 2) After years of car hegemony, one can observe in Europe a multiplication of concrete actions in favour of soft mobility: the general resurgence of the tramway, the development of bicycle-sharing systems and the creation of ‘encounter zones’ (Thomas, 2012). For Thomas (2012, 47), encounter zones respond to a ‘philosophy of slowness’, contributing to a transit toward new models of urbanity. Encounter zones seem even more important in this process, if we consider Gehl’s observations which show that a specific site can influence the whole city life: ‘Just as cities can invite city life, there are many examples of how the renovation of a single space or even change in furniture and details can invite people to a totally new pattern of use.’ (2010, 16) Since the seventies, traffic calming has been materialised in contrasted, but somehow si- milar ways, and some cities throughout Europe have acquired a status of model. Delft in The Netherlands was one of the first cities to consider giving priority to pedestrians in some areas of town, after reclaiming the concept of ‘woonerf’ initially developed in the locality of Emmer- hout. In France, the city of Chambery also became a pioneer in the eighties in terms of traffic calming, after implementing a priority for pedestrians in many streets, including sections with heavy traffic. These areas then constituted the basis for the realisation of what will be officially labelled as ‘encounter zones’ in 2008 in French legislation. In Switzerland, the concept of the ‘encounter zone’ was officially incorporated into legislation in 2002, after the principle was tested in the municipalities of Burgdorf and Saint-Blaise. In the Swiss case, as in the French and Dutch examples, these areas are characterized by a priority for pedestrians and a low speed limit for motorised vehicles (20 km/h in Switzerland). Regarding the notion of shared space defined