Date post: | 13-May-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | arnav-saikia |
View: | 257 times |
Download: | 11 times |
1 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
PUBLIC PLACES- URBAN SPACES
The Dimensions of Urban Design
Matthew Carmona, Tim Heath,
Taner Oc and Steven Tiesdell
Architectural Press
Chapter-6
SOCIAL DIMENSION Summary
Arnav Saikia (2013MUD007)
INTRODUCTION:
Urban Design's Social Dimension can be defined as the relationship between space
and society. This chapter focuses on six key aspects of Urban Design:
the relationship between people and space
the concept of the public realm
neighbourhoods
safety and security
the control of public space
PEOPLE AND SPACE:
The relationship between people and their environment starts with architectural or
environmental determinism, where the physical environment has determining
influence on human behaviour.
the physical form of a room clearly affects what its users can &cannot
do- a window in an otherwise solid wall allows a person to see out; a solid
wall without a window does not afford that opportunity
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
2 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
By shaping the built environment, urban designers influence patterns of human
activity and thus, of social life. Dear & Wolch (1989) argued that social relations can
be:
Constituted through space - where site characteristics influence settlement
form.
Constrained by space - where the physical environment facilitated or
obstructs human activity.
Mediated by space - where the friction-of-distance facilitates, or inhibits, the
development of various practices.
The relationship between people and their environment is best conceived as a
continuous two-way process in which people create and modify spaces while at the
same time being influenced by those spaces.
THE PUBLIC REALM:
The public realm has 'physical' (i.e. space) and
'social' (i.e. activity) dimensions. Public life
involves relatively open and universal social
contexts, in contrast to private life, which is
intimate, familiar, shielded, controlled by
individual, and shared only with family and
friends.
space with few or no street-level
doors is less interactive space with more number of street-
level doors is more interactive
more interactions less interactions
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
3 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
Defining Public Space:
"Public space relates to all those parts of the built and natural environment where
the public have free access. It encompasses- all the streets, squares and other right
of way, whether predominantly in residential, commercial or community/civic uses;
the open spaces and parks, and the "public/private" spaces where public access in
unrestricted (at least during daylight hours). It includes the interfaces with key
internal and private spaces to which the public normally has free access."
(Carmona et al 2004: 10)
The relative 'publicness' of space can be considered in terms of three qualities:
Ownership- whether the spaces is publicly or privately owned.
Access- whether the public has access to the place.
Use - whether the space is actively used and shared by different individuals
and groups.
Public Life:
Public life occurs in social space used for
social interaction, regardless of whether it is
publicly owned or privately owned space,
provided it is accessible to the public.
Public life can be broadly grouped into two
interrelated types - 'formal' and 'informal'.
The Public Realm:
The public realm can be considered to be the sites and settings of formal and
informal public life. The concept of physical public realm extends to all the space
accessible to and used by the public, including:
External public space - those pieces of land lying between private
landholdings (e.g. public squares, streets, highways, parks, parking lots,
stretches of coastline, forest, lakes and rivers.). These are all spaces that are
accessible and available to all.
Internal public space - various public institutions (libraries, museums, town
halls, etc.) plus most public transport facilities (train stations, bus stations,
airports, etc.)
External and internal quasi- 'public' space - although legally private, some
public spaces - university campuses, sports ground, restaurant, cinemas,
theatres, nightclubs, shopping malls - also form part of public realm but
includes privatised external public spaces.
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
4 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
Accessible Public Realm:
The criterion of universal access (open to all) suggests a single or unitary public
realm. A constructivist interpretation, however, suggests there is no single or unitary
public realm since a space that is public for citizen A may not be public for citizen B.
The Democratic Public Realm:
The key functions and qualities of the public realm relate to a notion of a
'democratic' (and political) public realm - one that has a physical or material basis,
but which variously facilitates and symbolises socio-political activities regarded as
important to democratic citizenship.
The Decline of the Public Realm:
Use of public realm has been challenged by
various developments, such as increased
personal mobility- initially through cars and
subsequently through the internet. Public realm
activities like leisure, entertainment, gaining
information and consumption can be satisfied at
home through the television or the internet.
Domestication of such activities has meant the
public spaces are less significant as a focus of
people's lives.
NEIGHBOURHOODS:
Overlaid on the physical and spatial design of a neighbourhood were more social
ideas and objectives, such as social balance (mixed communities), neighbour
interaction and the creation of identity and sense-of-community. Three interrelated
strands of thinking thus informed neighbourhood design:
1. Neighbourhoods have been proposed and/or designed as a planning device
- that is, as a relatively pragmatic and useful way of structuring and organising
urban areas.
2. Neighbourhoods have been proposed and/or designed as areas of identity
and character to create or enhance a sense-of-place.
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
5 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
3. Neighbourhoods have been proposed and/or designed as a means of
creating areas of greater social/ resident interaction and enhancing
neighbourliness.
Some ways how design can support neighbourhood diversity, Talen (2009a: 184-5):
by showing how multi-family units can be accommodated in single-family
blocks.
by designing links between diverse land uses and housing types.
by creating paths through edges that disrupt connectivity.
by increasing density near public transit.
by demonstrating the value of non-standard unit types like courtyard housing,
closes and residential mews.
by fitting small businesses and live/work units in residential neighbourhoods.
by developing codes that successfully accommodate land-use diversity.
by softening the impact of big box retail development in under-invested
commercial strips.
by designing streets that function as collective spaces.
by connecting institutions to their surrounding residential fabric.
SAFETY AND SECURITY:
People face a variety of threats in the urban environment - crime, 'street barbarism';
acts of terrorism; fast-moving vehicles; natural disaster/phenomena; and unseen
problems such as air pollution and water contamination.
Creating a sense of security and safety is an essential prerequisite of successful
urban design.
Fear of Victimisation:
A distinction should be made between
'fear' and 'risk'- the difference between
'feeling safe' and actually 'being safe'.
In response to fear-of-victimisation many
people take precautionary actions either
to avoid the risk or, where risk avoidance is
not possible or desirable, to reduce their
exposure through risk management. Hence
fear-of-victimisation is a cause of exclusion
not just from particular places but from
much of the public realm.
Many people are fearful of certain parts of urban areas, such as pedestrian
subways, dark alleys and areas that are deserted or crowded with the 'wrong kind of
people'.
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
6 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
Crime, Disorder and Incivility:
In pubic space it is important to distinguish between criminal and disorderly
behaviour since it is often disorderly rather than criminal behaviour that is
problematic.
Approaches to Crime Prevention:
'Dispositional' and 'situational' represent two main approaches to crime prevention.
The dispositional approach involves removing or lessening an individual's motivation
to commit acts, through education and moral guidance. The main thrust of the
situational approach is that once an offender has made the initial decision to offend
(i.e. has become motivated) then the techniques make the commission of that
crime in that particular place more difficult.
Situational measures manipulate not just the physical but also the social and
psychological settings for the crime. There are four overarching opportunity
reduction strategies:
Increasing the perceived effort of the offence.
Increasing the perceived risk of the offence.
Reducing the reward from the offence
Removing excuses for the offence.
Opportunity Reduction Methods:
Opportunity reduction methods have been developed within the mainstream urban
design literature with key themes of activity, surveillance, territorial definition and
control. Jacobs argued that, rather than by police, the 'public peace' was kept by
an intricate network of voluntary controls and standards and that sidewalk,
adjacent uses and their users were 'active participants' in the 'drama of civilisation
versus barbarism'.
Hillier, based on his research concludes:
The relative safety of different dwelling types is affected by the number of
sides on which the dwelling is exposed to the public realm (flats are most safe;
detached dwellings least safe).
Living in higher density areas reduces risk, with ambient ground-level density
(as opposed to off-the-ground density) correlating particularly strong with
safer living.
Good local movement is beneficial, but larger-scale through-movement
across areas is not.
Where large-scale movement exists, the greater movement potential
provided by more integrated street systems lower risk.
Relative affluence and the number of neighbours has a greater effect than
layout type, whether grid or cul-de-sac.
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
7 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
Larger number of dwellings per street segment reduces risk in grid, dul-de-sac
and mixed-use areas.
Higher wealth increases safety in flats by decreases it in houses, particularly in
low-density cul-de-sacs.
Dwellings should be arranged linearly on two sides of the street in larger
residential blocks that allow good local movement but that are not over-
permeable.
Criticisms of Opportunity Reduction Approaches:
Opportunity reduction approaches are criticised on two main grounds - their image
and the possibility of displacement.
i. Image: Use of opportunity reduction techniques has often raised concerns
about the image presented and the ambience of the resulting environment
e.g. resulted in the emergence of highly defensive urbanisms.
ii. Displacement: By restricting opportunities for crime in one location simply
redistributes it. Displacement takes different forms:
Geographical displacement- the crime is moved from one location to
another.
Temporal displacement - the crime is moved from one time to another.
Target displacement - the crime is moved from one target to another.
Tactical displacement - one method of crime is substituted for another.
Crime type displacement - one kind of crime is substituted for another.
CONTROLLING SPACE: ACCESS AND EXCLUSION-
While by definition, the public realm should be accessible to all, some environments-
intentionally or unintentionally- are exclusionary and are less accessible to certain
sections of society. If access control and exclusion are practised explicitly and
widely, the public realm's publicness is compromised.
Lynch and Carr (1979) identified four key public space management tasks:
Distinguishing between 'harmful' and 'harmless' activities - controlling the
former without constraining the latter.
Increasing the general tolerance towards free use, while stabilising a broad
consensus of what is permissible.
Separating - in time and space - the activities of groups with a low tolerance
for each other.
Providing 'marginal spaces' where extremely free behaviour can go with little
damage.
Exclusion can be considered in terms of the following:
i. Excluding conducts: Managing public space can be discussed in terms of
preventing or excluding certain undesirable social behaviours. 'Exclusion
Zones'- zones designed to be free of some undesirable social characteristics
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
8 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
for example, smoke-free zones, campaign and politics-free zones, vehicle-
free zones, skateboard-free zones, mobile/cellphone-free zones, alcohol free
zones etc.
ii. Exclusion through design: Includes
physical exclusion being the inability to
access or use the environment,
regardless of whether or not it can be
seen into. Economic access, a form of
direct exclusion can be practised by
charging an entry fee. Exclusion through
design is typically a passive means of
exclusion.
iii. Excluding people: These kind of exclusions are more active and prevent the
entry of certain individuals or social groups. They include exclusion on the
grounds of conduct (behaviour over which people have a choice) as well as
on the grounds of status (factors over which people have no choice- skin
colour, gender, age, etc.)
The 'Policing' of Public Space:
Managing and 'policing' public space commonly involve more than just the public
police. Policing needs to be considered in terms of 'social control' and in terms of
public and private police.
Jones & Newburn (2002: 139) distinguished different types or levels of social control:
Primary (formal) social controls - these are direct and are exerted by those for
whom crime prevention, peacekeeping, and investigatory and related
policing activities are a primary and defining part of their role.
Secondary (informal) social controls - these are more indirect and are exerted
by those for whom social control activities are an important secondary
aspect in their role.
Tertiary (informal) social control - these are also indirect and are those exerted
by 'intermediate' groups within local communities.
EQUITABLE ENVIRONMENT:
If urban design is about making better places for people, then the 'people' referred
to are all the potential users of the built environment - old/young, rich/poor,
male/female, those able-bodied and those with disabilities, the ethnic majority and
ethnic minorities.
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
9 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
Disability, Aging and Exclusion:
For many - the disabled, the elderly, those with young children in pushchairs,
pregnant women, etc , various physical barriers prevent them from using the public
realm.
The US-based Centre for Universal Design defined the principles of universal design
as follows:
Equitable - the design should be
usable by people with diverse abilities
and should appeal to all users
Flexible - the design should cater for a
wide range of individual preferences
and abilities.
Simple and intuitive - use of the design
should be easy to understand,
regardless of experience, knowledge,
language skills or current
concentration level.
Perceptible - the design communicates necessary information effectively to
the user, regardless of ambient condition or the user's sensory abilities.
Tolerance for error - the design minimises hazards and the adverse
consequences of accidental of unintended actions.
Low physical effort - the design can be used efficiently and comfortably with
a minimum of fatigue.
Size and space for approach use - appropriate size and space is provided for
approach, reach, manipulation and use, regardless of the user's body size,
posture or mobility.
Burton & Mitchell (2006) demonstrated a range of design features and helping to
deliver six design attributes:
Familiarity - streets that are recognisable, with long established forms and
features and designs that are familiar to older people.
Legibility - streets that help older people to understand where they are and to
identify which way they need to go.
Distinctiveness - streets that reflect local character in their built form and uses
and thereby give a clear image of place.
Accessibility - streets that enable older people to reach, enter, use and walk
around places they need or wish to visit, regardless of any physical, sensory or
mental impairment.
Comfort - streets that enable people to visit places of their choice without
physical or mental discomposure and to enjoy being out of the house.
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
10 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
Safety - streets that enable people to use, enjoy, and move around the
outside environment without fear of tripping or falling, being run-over or being
attacked.
Mobility, Wealth and Exclusion:
Mobility can also be considered in terms of car-based and non-car-based
accessibility. Groups with low mobility also tends to have low accessibility.
Auto-mobility is a 'source of freedom', whose flexibility enables car drivers to travel at
speed at any time in any direction. Cars also provide a means of security. Lower
income groups, devoid of the luxury of owning a car, rely on public transport. The
poorest people tending to live in the least safe and healthy environments with the
greatest likelihood of environmental hazard such as floods and pollution. Exclusion
for such groups is a product of inaccessible facilities, poorly managed parks and
public spaces, dilapidated housing, living in locations with high traffic volumes, and
the disturbance, pollution, noise and potential injury this causes.
Exclusion of the Young:
At many public places, certain groups of people such as, the poor, homeless
teenagers etc are excluded on the basis of appearance, e.g. hairstyle etc. They are
also excluded because of their pastimes, e.g. skateboarding, regarded, by some, as
'anti-social' because of the conflict it creates with other groups and due to the
damage to street furniture.
Rather than positively designing for and managing such activities, the more
common strategy is to banish such uses to dedicated spaces, and to design or
police them out of shared spaces.
Cultural Difference and Public Space:
Cultural difference should be celebrated rather than alleviated. As communities
have become more ethnically diverse, these notions of different cultures colliding in
the melting pot of public space can also be extended to how different ethnic
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
11 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
groups use space, and to concerns that
these different patterns of use are
inadequately recognised in urban design
processes.
In urban design is to be appropriately
responsive to the needs of local populations,
it is critical to understand the diversity of
views and perspectives among minority
groups as well as among the majority
population - though, for a range of religious
and cultural reasons, some minority groups
are particularly hard to engage in
participatory processes.
Certain spaces provided opportunities for dissimilar people to mix:
Neighbourhood and semi-domestic spaces, such as shared forecourts, school
lobby etc.
Neighbourhood parks where young people interacts.
Local markets encouraged casual encounters between who would otherwise
not come into contact.
Gender Perspectives:
It has been observed that in most of the environmental designs - intentionally or
unintentionally- women are excluded. Women make up over half the population
and have very different lifestyle and patterns of movement to men. Many women
spend a greater portion of their time in and around the home environment, they
take shorter cross-town rather than into- centre trips.
Women frequently experience inconvenience and obstruction in the designed
environment, inadequate solutions are imposed on them and they encounter a
widespread lack of knowledge and understanding among professionals about how
they use space.
(Cavanagh 1998: 169-1)
An example of gender blindness is that there is a general under-provision of female
public toilets where as women, who for biological reasons need to use toilets more
often and for longer time.
Inclusive Design:
Keates & Clarkson argue that, whatever the product, inclusive design is not a niche
activity, nor one addressing 'special needs', instead, it is about ensuring design
outcomes are of greatest value to the widest possible range of users.
| S o c i a l D i m e n s i o n S u m m a r y
12 | A r n a v S a i k i a ( 2 0 1 3 M U D 0 0 7 )
By its very nature, good design is inclusive and is the responsibility of all built
environment professionals, as well as land and property owners. Inclusive design thus
aims to:
Place people at the heart of the design process.
Acknowledge diversity and difference.
Offer choice where a single design solution cannot accommodate all users.
Provide for flexibility in use.
Create environments that are enjoyable to use for everyone.
CONCLUSION:
More than any other dimension, urban design's social dimension raises a host of
issues concerning values and difficult choices regarding the effects of urban design
decisions on different individuals and groups in society. While the aim should e to
create an accessible, safe and secure, equitable public realm for all, economic and
social trends can make his increasingly difficult to deliver requiring urban designers
to consider their values and their actions in designing and creating public spaces.