social dimension summary arnav

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


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.


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.


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'.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

social dimension summary arnav

Documents