Theories of architecture by Adrian Kan

THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM ARC2224 PROJECT PART 2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ESSAY

PHILADELPHIA AND KUALA LUMPUR

NAME: KAN JIA WEI ADRIAN ID: 0319384 TUTOR: MR NICHOLAS NG

TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT 1.0 INTRODUCTION

PAGE 3

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO PHILADELPHIA SITE

1.2 INTRODUCTION TO KUALA LUMPUR SITE

1.3 MICRO SITE INTRODUCTION

2.0 COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS

2.1 SOCIAL ACTIVITY

2.2 CONTACT POINT TYPE

2.3 CONTACT INTENSITY

2.4 LIFE BETWEEN BUILDINGS

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO PHILADELPHIA SITE

Figure 1.1 Photo of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia is the largest and capital city of the state of Pennsylvania with a rich cultural and historical background, finding its modern roots from the colonial eras of two to three centuries ago. Delaware River, which was located along present day Philadelphia, was noted by colonists for its strategic location and proximity to water sources, which were seen an important linkage towards trade and military usage at that time. Over time, Philadelphia transformed itself from a humble small colony into the fifth most populous city of the United States, consistently scoring highly in yearly liveable cities index as well as accessibility indexes conducted by many organisations.

1.2 INTRODUCTION TO KUALA LUMPUR SITE

Figure 1.2 Photo of Kuala Lumpur City Centre.

Kuala Lumpur, by comparison, is a relatively new city, blossoming as a tin mining hotspot in the 19th century. Chinese immigrants arrived in droves via mainland China or the British government, with hopes of cashing in on the latest global commodity as industrialisation kicked off. Naturally as more people began to flock over to the site communities and residencies were built up in and around the area. Throughout the 20th century as the tin mining industry began to decline Kuala Lumpur soon turned itself over from a tin mining area into the central business and residential hub, slowly replacing Penang and Melaka as the long-time hubs that have been in place since the Portuguese colonial days. Modern day Kuala Lumpur is now the capital of Malaysia and the main city with the fastest growth and development in the whole country being situated in this city.

1.3 MICRO SITE INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.3 Aerial views of Philadelphia (TOP) and Petaling Street (BOTTOM) showing the location of Walnut Street (YELLOW), Rittenhouse Square (RED) and Petaling Street (RED).

Micro site analysis on Philadelphia was centred in and around Walnut Street, whereby the street runs along very busy commercial, social and political hubs within the city and is used extensively by the locals throughout the day. Rittenhouse Square, a park of large scale located right in the middle of the city, runs along Walnut Street and is used by the locals and tourists alike as a location of activity and relief from the concrete jungle immediately outside the square. Petaling Street is an area in Kuala Lumpur with rich historical value which served as the business and trade district used by the community that settled in the area early on. Modern Day Petaling Street is now a tourist hub that promotes itself as a historical site with plenty of cultural offerings to be had.

2.0 COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS 2.1 SOCIAL ACTIVITY

Rittenhouse Square and Walnut Street that runs adjacent to it plays home to many different forms of social activity, which are not localised to just recreational activities that one may associate with a park. Regular Sunday markets as well as flea markets are held along the park, with products ranging from arts and crafts to food items being sold there. Furthermore, during the winter months the park would sometimes become an ice skating area for the locals, as well as a gathering area for Christmas activities which may include community carolling, and Christmas markets. Petaling Street and its surroundings, by comparison, is mainly a business district today and is famous among tourists for being a location to purchase local souvenirs and cultural crafts. However, most trade conducted at Petaling Street is not conducted by immigrants which bear no relation to the predominantly Chinese heritage that it presides on. Locals also frequent the food outlets at Petaling Street which has remained largely localised among the Chinese community, and the historical temples which number in 3 receive their fair share of visitors from all around the country and world as well. Overall, the social activities that precise Rittenhouse Square and Petaling Street are very stark in contrast. Though they have similar activities in the form of markets, this is where their similarities end. Based on observation activities in Rittenhouse Square is very community based where interactions with not only your immediate peers are present but also interactions with the community in the form of social activities such as square activities which promote a sense of community and togetherness. In contrast, Petaling Street social activities are more focused towards your ownself and your circle of peers only. The interactions towards the site may be had such in the case as going to a temple but other than that any contact or communication with anyone else in the public is limited to none.

Figure 2.1 The Flea Market That Runs Along Rittenhouse Square.

Figure 2.2 Winter in Rittenhouse Square.

Figure 2.3 The Entrance to Petaling Street Market.

Figure 2.4 Generic Souvenirs That Can Be Found In Petaling Street.

2.2 CONTACT POINT TYPE

Philadelphia has been rated consistently as one of the most walkable cities in the contiguous United States for good reason. The culture of walking to your destination and less reliance on private motor vehicles is stark especially in the city. Therefore, contact points around the city are heavily pedestrian based. Locations such as pedestrian crossings and traffic stops suddenly become contact points of the area due to the large amounts of users being brought to the area by their needs. Sidewalks, benches and shops that run along the sidewalk suddenly become more prominent contact points as people use the streets more often and thus become the integral contact point. By comparison, Petaling Street, and Malaysia in general is a country that relies heavily on private transportation for circulation. Therefore, less importance and activity is placed on the streets and pedestrian crossings. Instead, the contact points around the site are destination based, in that the location of the destination itself becomes the contact point as users are dropped off to their destination directly by the user of private vehicles. For instance, where in Philadelphia and Rittenhouse Square the traffic stop at the corner may become a contact point as the stop run along to the square, in Petaling Street the contact point would be at Petaling Street itself or at the food court nearby rather than it being at the traffic stop outside Petaling Street. As such, the contact point types between Philadelphia and Petaling Street is very different, mainly due to the types of social activity and transportation type that is implemented by both societies. The usage of private vehicles in Malaysia can also be attributed to the unbearable weather, which the heat can get quite uncomfortable for anyone who might want to walk instead. Philadelphia in contrast sees the four seasons every year with weather fluctuations and overall weather which make it comfortable for foot travel.

Figure 2.5 Contact Points Along Walnut Street, Small and Large in Numbers.

Figure 2.6 Contact Point of Petaling Street, Large and Focused On One Landmark.

2.3 CONTACT INTENSITY

Contact intensity is directly correlated to the types of contact points that is present on the site. Therefore, in Philadelphia and Rittenhouse Square, with the contact points type being pedestrian based, the contact intensity is significantly less BUT occurs in many more areas and more frequently. To elaborate further, in a single journey from point A to point B, the pedestrian that walks from his origin point to his destination would experience a multitude of contact points as he crosses each street and waits and the pedestrian lights. Moreover, the benches that are present and located everywhere in Rittenhouse Square would also mean that the user would easily locate and pass through contact points frequently on his journey. In comparison, where Petaling Streetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contact points is destination based as mentioned before, the user would experience far less contact intensity compared to their Philadelphia brethren, but the intensity of the contact point when experienced would be on a far large magnitude. To explain, due to everyone that visits the area being dropped off or having their final contact destination at Petaling Street itself rather than the streets and intersections around it, contact intensity would occur at a much higher scale as everyone converges to meet at the same area. So, to conclude, the contact intensity between Philadelphia, Rittenhouse Square and Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Street can be said as being the polar opposites of each other due to the nature of their contact point types. This cultural mindset of contact point intensities also translate to a much large scale, whereby large shopping malls are popular and abundant in Malaysia where everything is under a single roof as compared to the United States where shops are lined up across streets in the outdoors.

Figure 2.7 Walnut Street Contact Intensity, High In Numbers But Low in Intensity.

Figure 2.7 Petaling Street Contact Intensity, One Large Intense Contact Area.

2.4 LIFE BETWEEN BUILDINGS

In this study of Philadelphia and Kuala Lumpur, the linkage and comparisons of these cities and their respective points elaborated above is to be linked with Jan Gehl’s work on “Life Between Buildings” (1987). In this study, two chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 will be used as explanations and comparisons towards the two cities. Chapter 2, “Prerequisites for Planning” is written based on the planning and construct of buildings and facilities that correlate to the senses of the users, the writer states that the communication factor that is to be achieved from the cultural and societal makes of the city as well as the dimensions of not only the city confinements, but also the dimensions of the people in relation to the site, buildings, and context. As Philadelphia is focused heavily towards walking as their main mode of transport around the city, the dimensions of the location can be seen to be geared heavily towards the human scale. For example, this can be seen from the intimate ways in which the intersections are planned, in that places like Rittenhouse Square emphasises on human interaction with facilities for human stay and recreational activity, as well as their main commercial streets boasting rows upon rows of commercial shops that are not more than 3 stories high. All these points toward a scale that is based heavily on the human perspective and eye level, how the human interacts with its slow pace of walking and how buildings are never dwarfed and colossal in size where the most intense contact activity occurs. In comparison, Petaling Street and its surroundings contain buildings of varying height and size, ranging from the most-humble of shop-houses to the highest of hotel towers, showing an inconsistent size and scale planning that presides the culture’s altered perception of scale and time as a result on over reliance on private motor transport. In Chapter 4, or “Spaces for Walking, Places for Staying”, Jan Gehl (1987) writes on about how spaces for essential human activity is a must in relation to the context of the site. It is emphasized that different and distinct locations for walking, standing, seeing, hearing, and interacting must be present to achieve a sense of a pleasant place in regards to every respect to the context.

With this, Philadelphia consistently shows once again that all these points are greatly implement in and around their city, as a result creating soft edges around sites and distinct areas, zones, nodes, and landmarks which create a very pleasant journey and stay for the locals and users as stated by Jan Gehl time and time again in his literature. This in turn, helps to also create a sense of belonging in the community as well. In contrast, Petaling Street implements these spaces with no consideration of another aspect or any thought to the context as it can be seen throughout the site that the spaces created for walking, staying and standing bear no resemblance or correlation towards one another, reflecting the severe lack of sense of community and individualist social behaviour that the people of Malaysia lives on. Ultimately, through the reading of Jan Gehlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s text the comparisons of both sites are stark and clear, which reflect the maturity and critical thought that many developed countries possess over countries that are less developed.

3.0 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the work of Jan Gehl, “Life Between Buildings” (1987) proved a point that has already been found out from the start, in which of the stark contrast in all forms of urbanistic rules and associations that is seen from Philadelphia and Kuala Lumpur. Where Philadelphia is seen as the model city in urban development and human implementation, Kuala Lumpur in contrast is seen like a hot mess and a mishmash of singular ideas thrown in together to form a city. However, with extremely different mindsets, both these systems have flourished in their respective areas and would not be present today had it just been implemented for the sake of it. Humans, however the situation, would learn to adapt and assimilate into a context and bring it to be their own in due time. This, contrary to what should be “right” or “wrong” in the studies of urban planning, is ultimately what makes this world so interesting and diverse with different cultures sporting different ways, their own ways, of what a city and city life should be, coined in their very own terms for their very own usage.

[2032 WORDS]

4.0 REFERENCES 1) "Chinatown Of Malaysia - The Wonders Of Petaling Street & Madras Lane | Motormouth From Ipoh - Malaysian Food & Travel Blog". J2kfm.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 2) "Explore Historic Philadelphia". Philadelphia - Official Visitor Site - visitphilly.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 3) "Gehl â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Making Cities For People". Gehl. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 4) "Gehl's Philanthropy Scores One For Conservation". Archive.lakecountrynow.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 5) "HIDTA Points Of Contact". The White House. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 6) "Philadelphia History:". Ushistory.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 7) Planet, Lonely. "History Of Kuala Lumpur - Lonely Planet Travel Information". Lonelyplanet.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 8) "Social Activities | City Of Norwood Payneham & St Peters". Npsp.sa.gov.au. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. 9) "The History Of Kuala Lumpur". Worldtravelguide.net. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.