The social Dimension
Public Places Urban Spaces
Matthew Carmona, Tim Health,
Taner Oc and Steve Tiesdell
The social
dimension of urban design raises issues of the value of design effects and the
decisions on individual and group society. Designers attempt to deliver certain
social goals that can truly benefit public space. This paper attempts to
discuss the methods and examples of how designers change and influence public space
in a two-way process by society creating space and at the same time space
influencing society.
The notion that space and society are closely related doesn’t seem to be
a ground-breaking theory but as this chapter discusses in 24 pages it is
nothing to be sniffed at. The
relationship between space and society becoming a two-way process is evident
from our surroundings: people adapting to space and space adapting to people
and society. In 1989 Dear and wolch argued that: “social relations can be constituted
through space”. Therefore by shaping the environment designers can influence
certain activities and social reactions to any given location.
The chapter begins by dividing this subject into five key aspects; the
relationship between people and space, the public realm and life,
neighborhoods, safety and security and finally accessibility. The first aspect
of this paper discusses determinism, the theory that humans are influence by
space and the change in their environment that dictates how a person behaves.
Some things in the environment will give or take away certain opportunities
that an individual can or cannot do. Porteous (1977) and Bell et al (1990) both
examined how environmental effects can influence an individual. Bell concluded
that design does matter but not absolutely to how a person reacts to space- an
important factor is the personality of the individual in the situation. As this
paper outlines: “The choices made in any particular setting depends on each
individuals own situation and characteristics”.
Similarly to what bell
perceived Gans (1968) observed how a powerful environment can give a certain
effect to individuals that manipulate how space is used. Equally Gehl‘s theory
found in Life Between Buildings (1996) encourages the concept that: “designers
cannot make place but they can create more places of potential”. He divides
public spaces into three categories: Necessary, Optional and Social activities.
These all have different drivers as their agenda to the space but one thing
between them all is critical and that is the quality of the space. The quality
gives a hint to the opportunities within that space and what the space is
intended for. Maslow (1968) identifies the hierarchy of basic human needs that
can be read together with Gehl’s theory of what public spaces are divided into.
Maslow theory introduces five basic human needs; such as physiological, safety,
affiliation, appreciation and self-actualisation. These five human needs if
completed by society according to Maslow meets all the human needs an
individual needs in a civilised society.
Generally these needs are ‘soft-wired’ into the human psyche depending
of culture and learnt characteristics of society. These different cultures and
societies inhabit distinctive rules, which according to Lawson (2001) ‘govern
their use of space’. Lawson goes on to suggest that the behavior used in space
therefore is an unconscious reaction triggered by certain prompts in the
environment.
Unfortunately as this
paper discusses public space that encourages social experience is on the
decline: the works of William, Jacobs, Davis, and Carter also describes this
observation. This statement often ends with the similar concept that designers
can advocate good behavior by creating good designs. However there lies
something that is frowned upon and in some cases not possible in design and
that is to control society by design. It is inevitable that all space that is
designed will at some stage be used as something its cause didn’t intend.
However to not give society an active environment for the soul reason that
society may misuse an item is avoiding the issue that is the problem. The main
concept of the urban designer is to design to allow the individual to have
choices in their environment and to then mange the use of the environment
after.
The public realm has a physical
and social dimensions, it is understood in this text as a setting for the
agenda of either private or public space. This agenda either facilitates public
life or social interaction that can be termed as sociocultural public realms.
This paper then moves on to describe the functions that take place in the
public realm; public space becomes a forum for political action and
representation. According to Loukaitou-Sideris and Benerjee the public realm is
a “neutral or common ground for social interaction… it is a stage for social
learning, personal development and a place for information exchange”. This
section concludes with an example by Boyer who argues that ‘public’ refers to a
whole collective but in reality the public sphere is fragmented and
marginalized into groups to which many have no voice or representational
standing in the public sphere.
This stage links nicely
the issue of the decline in the public realm and the current trend of things
becoming privatized. “Actives that were once only available in collective and
public form have increasingly become available in individualized and private
forms” This issue is not help by the increase in the use of cars and the
shopping mall. Both these contemporary subjects abandon the city centre. These
will inevitably lead to public spaces becoming less and less intensions to
create new ones and maintain current space to create a vicious spiral of
decline.
One thing that is still
operational is the idea of the neighborhood and the concept of new towns. These
ideas according to this paper should be spaces that are balanced and provide
identity and character that also allows sufficient opportunities for working
and home life. These spaces should be safe and secure and allow for
accessibility. Public space must help stop crime and prevent victimization by
design processes that think about space as conversations that discuss space with
the user as hints on how to use the space and what is and is not tolerated. Whatever
the strategy though space must be successful as people places and accessible to
all.
The role of architecture
and landscape design therefore is to deliver particular social goals that
encourage certain behavior to happen is public spaces. It is important to allow
choices for individual to benefit socially from space, and to also make sure
these spaces are accessible and secure. However as this paper concludes
economic and social trends are making public space a rare and difficult thing
to deliver.