[R&T] Essay_Three

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.