To learn more about the topic, I got in touch with interior architect and lecturer of interior design at Vilnius College of Design, Judita Striukienė.

When we hear the term public space, we usually think of the outdoors. "Places like parks, gardens, and squares are often popular city attractions," Striukienė told Bored Panda. "They not only provide environmental and recreational benefits but also form a city's identity."

However, public spaces can also be indoors. "These interiors can be both functional and aesthetic," Striukienė said.

"Think of health service establishments, for example. A well-executed professional interior design can even have a positive effect on the patients. It can relieve their stress and put them in a calmer state of mind."

In fact, Kjetil Trædal Thorsen, the co-founder of the architecture firm Snøhetta, argues that architects must begin considering indoor space just as public as outdoor space.

"Maybe with the sole exception of railway stations, public space is generally understood as outdoor space," Thorsen wrote. "Whether in the United States or in Europe, especially now with heightened concerns around security, there seems to be this determined way of privatizing everything that is indoors, even as we are increasingly aiming to improve access to public space outdoors. But in the layered systems of our cities of the future, we will need to focus on the public spaces that are found inside buildings—and make them accessible."

To get his point across, Thorsen highlighted a map of Rome made in 1748 by Giambattista Nolli. It only had two distinctions—what was private and what was public. "Whether it was indoor or outdoor, whether there was a church space or a plaza, it didn't really matter. [The map] told a different story of the city."

"There are some examples from today—the roof of our Oslo Opera House is outdoors, for instance, but it's on the building and publicly accessible. Opening up the Louvre and trying to let people walk through it 24 hours a day—as with the museum's recent takeover by the artist JR—is another way of not making a distinction between indoor and outdoor public space."

Thorsen thinks such decisions are essential to the way new architecture typologies develop, and architects should definitely have an influence on them.

"In certain situations, accessibility to indoor public space is enough," he said. "In other situations, you have to define the program for the particular indoor or outdoor spaces to be adequate. To use the example of the roof of the Opera House in Oslo again, it was basically programmed only for one thing, and that's to be walked on, for a promenade. But on occasion, it could be reprogrammed to hold an outdoor concert. Or it could be reprogrammed against the original intention by skaters or by a biker who actually drives his motorbike up and down the roof."

The city belongs to its citizens. No matter if we're talking about what's inside or outside. And, according to Thorsen, these two dimensions can even intertwine.

"Maybe the outdoor can be programmed in such a way that it unlocks the possibility of the public spaces indoors. There's always a bit of urban planning in designing interiors. There's always a bit of interior design in an urban space. There's no question that interior architecture is professionalizing itself as well—interior architects are not seen as decorators of interior space anymore. The same is true of landscape architects. And those are only the traditional design professions," the architect said.

Of course, that doesn't mean that every architect needs to be trained in every specialized profession. What Thorsen meant was that the industry is lacking an overall understanding of how people should collaborate.

"That's why we've introduced transposition as a working method in our office, where you not only sit around tables with a lot of specialists, but you actually swap professions during creative workshops," he said. "The only thing that can save the essence of architecture is some kind of collaborative model like this."

By adopting this model both in education and practice, Thorsen believes we would be better equipped to fully understand the effects of programming.

"We are usually generalists enough to understand that a change of use is sometimes demanded and that we shouldn't try to desperately hold on to certain kinds of programming. But the profession itself should, in my opinion, really contain that kind of knowledge, simply because it’s so tightly connected to the actual design task."

As these pictures show, we need to improve the relationship between buildings and the public. And Thorsen thinks there's no way we can do that without getting directly involved in programming ourselves.