Spaces of Interacion: Quality not Quantity - The Case of Bogota, Colombia by Camila Gutierrez Plata

Spaces of Interaction: Quality not Quantity The case of Bogotá, Colombia

Camila Gutiérrez Plata

GRACIAS CP, LG, MG, SG, JA, MP, FB, EP, GD

Spaces of Interaction: Quality not Quantity The case of BogotĂĄ, Colombia Camila GutiĂŠrrez Plata Thesis Advisor: Stephen Gray Master of Architecture in Urban Design Harvard Graduate School of Design

INDEX

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 4

1 PUBLIC SPACE AS SPACES OF INTERACTION . . . . . . . . . . 6

Spaces of Interaction Analysis of Public Space Public Space in Latin America Social Interactions Social Life Social Capital

..........8 . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . 18

2 PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Focus of Public Space in Bogotá - Time Line . . . . . . . . . . 22 Key Moments of the Social Role of Public Space . . . . . . . . . . 28 Bogotá’s Current Approach to Public Space . . . . . . . . . . 34

3 PUBLIC SPACE MATRIX AND INDEXES . . . . . . . . . . 40 The Public Life Diversity Toolkit The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces The Star Model - Measuring Publicness Evaluating Public Space Assessment of the Conditions that Make Public Space Habitable in Colombia The Future of Public Space Analytics

. . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . . . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . . 46 . . . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . . 52

4 NEW METHODOLOGIES FOR BOGOTÁ . . . . . . . . . . 54 Two Levels of Analysis Spaces of Interaction General Index From Survey to Index SIGI Comparisons In Depth Analysis Matrix

. . . . . . . . . . 56 . . . . . . . . . . 58 . . . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . . . 62 . . . . . . . . . . 64 . . . . . . . . . . 66

5 TESTING THE NEW METHODOLOGIES IN BOGOTÁ . . . . . . . . . . 68 SIGII - 16 Spaces in Bogotá SIGI - Category Comparisons SIGI - Condition Comparisons In Depth Analysis - Two Spaces How are these methodologies useful?

. . . . . . . . . . 70 . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . . . . . 82 . . . . . . . . . . 88 . . . . . . . . . 126

Bibliography Annexes

. . . . . . . . . 132 . . . . . . . . . 134

INTRODUCTION

Public space is a crucial component of cities, both in its physical terms and its social aspects, for it is where social cohesion is formed and where sense of belonging is born. For a public space to achieve these, it must foster social interactions or urban encounters between strangers in the city. Bogotá’s history of public space is interesting for some of its initiatives have been innovative both in social and physical terms. It seems like the city has understood the important role of the public realm in society, yet not a lot of what is understood is applied to the design and planning of the spaces themselves. This thesis has the purpose of showcasing how Bogotá has failed many times to produce public spaces that foster interactions because the lens of analysis and design of these responds mostly to quantity and not quality. Five main chapters compose this document: 1) understanding the importance of public space as a place for interaction; 2) a review of how Bogotá has understood, produced, and analyzed public space; 3) the various ways in which public space has been analyzed in terms of the physical and the social components; 4) propose new methodologies Bogotá should be applying to address public space; and 5) analyze several public spaces in Bogotá to showcase how these new methodologies can reveal insights into producing public space that encourages interactions and thus fosters social cohesion and sense of belonging to the city. The approach taken in both the historical/theoretical analysis and the analysis of spaces with the proposed methodologies, is one that considers that public space cannot be understood or designed only contemplating spatial physical aspects. It is crucial not only to understand the context both in physical and social terms, but also to understand the social behaviors of the people in them. Public spaces should be considered as Spaces of Interaction to emphasize on the social importance of public space which is a result of the interactions that occur in the space between citizens of different backgrounds.

Photograph by author.

1 PUBLIC SPACE AS SPACES OF INTERACTION

SPACES OF INTERACTION

10 Photograph by author.

SPACES OF INTERACTION The public realm is the space where citizens meet with strangers, it is, theoretically, the space where anyone can express their opinion and it is meant to be a space where everyone is free. This was the case several decades ago, but as Robert Putnam expressed, several situations of the contemporary society, like technology, privatization of public space, and other factors, are decreasing the amount of social capital of communities1. One of the reasons why networks are not formed between citizens, is because they do not meet outside the private sphere, limiting the amount but also the type of people one interacts with due to several forces. Public space has diminished its role in societies, and is recently starting to come back as an essential aspect of cities. As Marmorstein, Neilsen and Juul point out: “When the inhabitants entrench themselves – as an upshot of the common space being driven away by private interests and self-serving considerations – the society’s cohesive force vanishes and concomitantly its potential to evolve” 2. Since the interactions that used to happen in the public realm now tend to happen in the private sphere, citizens have less and less contact with strangers and Richard Sennett’s ideal city, which should do its best to heal society’s divisions of race, class and ethnicity, just doesn’t exist 3. Several designers and mayors, with the knowledge from sociologists and anthropologists who have studied the urban and the relations of people in the public realm, have begun to focus efforts into the production of public space, knowing its effect on society. Although this tendency is looking in the right direction, due to the way public spaces are analyzed and designed, the effort ends up creating spaces that do not necessarily improve the conditions of the public sphere. As any other subject that has to do with cities and societies, the situation in each is different and so are the approaches to improving the urban conditions. In the case of Bogotá, and of most Latin American cities, the general approach has been to increase the amount of public space, area of public open spaces. Although this is a fruitful endeavor, for many lack due to a high amount of informal urbanization, it completely ignores the social aspects of how public spaces work. By understanding that public spaces are really Spaces of Interaction, as a researcher, as a designer, as a planner, or as a city mayor, one will give as much importance to the amount of space as to the quality of the spaces created, a quality measured on how much its physical elements and its context, influence and encourage more interactions between citizens. David Seamon’s concept of place-ballet, which happens only in supportive physical environments, is where many time-space routines -a set of habitual bodily behaviors which extends through a considerable portion of time - and body-ballets -“a set of integrated behaviors which sustain a particular task or aim”- fuse in a place, resulting in an environmental vitality; “it generates a strong sense of place because of its continual and regular human activity” 4. The notion of place-ballet is particularly interesting because it

is a way of understanding space and time with people. Maslow5 and Steele6 both acknowledge that sense of belonging and shared symbolic identification are human needs. Shared symbolism can only be achieved if people are in the same space and perceive it not in a similar way, but as a space with symbolic meaning. Public spaces should be the space where place-ballet not only happens but is fostered, because there is a higher chance that there will be more diversity participating in it. By understanding public spaces as spaces for interaction, one can produce that supportive physical environment which Seamon believes is essential for place-ballet to take place. There are several conditions of the context, both physical and social, that define a space’s potential to generate interactions. These conditions range also in scale, for the location of a space within a city and district is crucial, but so is the design of the space and the elements within it, and the perception of individuals in the space. In order to create spaces of interaction in the city it is essential that all scales are taken into account, for no public space will be active if the conditions of its context or its design are not focused on this goal. Bogotá is aware of how important public space is, but what it seems to overlook is that its importance comes from the social dynamics of the space much more than just its existence as a public open area. Changing the frame through which public space is looked at to that of spaces of interaction, Bogotá will manage to continue increasing the amount of public space in a way that has a more positive impact in the society. One way to begin to do so is by changing the way in which spaces are analyzed and the considerations taken to design or redesign public spaces.

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. «Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.» Journal of Democracy 65-78. 2 Marmorstein, D A, T F Nielsen, y F A Juul. 2011. Public Space: The familiar into the strange. Copenhagen. 3 Sennett, Richard. 2006. «The Open City.» Urban Age. Berlin: London School of Economics. 1-5. 4 Seamon, David. 1980. «Body-Subjet, Time-Space Routines, and PlaceBallets.» In The Human Experience of Space and Place, edited by Anne Buttimer y David Seamon, 148-165. London: Croom Helm London. 5 Maslow, Abraham H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. 6 Steele, Fred. 1973. Physical Settings and Organizational Development. Reading: Addison-Wesley. 1

ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SPACE

Manipulated Photograph from Google Streetview by author.

12 Manipulated Photograph from Google Streetview by author.

ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SPACE

Public space has mostly been analyzed through two main lenses: through the behaviors of people in them, and that of the physical space itself, but few have done so by analyzing both and their effect on the other. This division is reflected in the way in which public space is designed, for although designers desire to create spaces for people, without the deep understanding of human sociology and behavior, it is very hard to have a greater impact. Additionally, those who study public space through the behaviors of people, having little knowledge of the design of spaces, seem to overlook how the spatial context and the specific design of a space affect how people act and interact. One of sociology’s main topics of study is micro-sociology or “smallscale sociological analysis that studies the behavior of people in face-to-face social interactions and small groups to understand what they do, say, or think” 1. When micro-sociologists have studied interactions in public space they do so to understand the behavior of humans in the public sphere, but in no way do they analyze the physical and spatial components of spaces, as if they do not affect people interact. On the other hand, urban design and the related disciplines, tend to study the physical space and its elements, separate from the interactions that happen in it. Spatial designers most often have the goal to improve or at least change the way people behave, including their interactions, but without a real understanding of these. Architect Jan Gehl also recognized that “social activities and their interweaving to form a communal fabric have received considerably less attention” 2. By understanding public space as spaces of interaction, both the analysis and design of them takes into account both lenses and takes advantage of the knowledge generated by both disciplines. Doing so can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the spatial and social dynamics of spaces; how the space and the context affect interactions in public spaces, and thus how they can be fostered through urban design and spatial design. Bell, Kenton. 2017. Open Education Sociology Dictionary. Last access: 26 of May de 2018. https://sociologydictionary.org/microsociology/. 2 Gehl, Jan. 1971. Life Between Buildings. New York: Island Press. 1

Casa del Pueblo House of People

PUBLIC SPACE IN LATIN AMERICA

Los palacios del pueblo son las plazas. Sobre el asfalto o la piedra el paso es un cuchillo y cada labio un grito. De calle a calle el mundo crece. Vivifica el murmullo del gentío alguna verdad amordazada y descubierta apenas en el aire. Yo creo que en cada plaza, esquina a esquina y calle a calle, el pueble se descubre. Se mira rostro a rostro y allí se reconoce y se hace fuerte. Toma alguna palabra olvidada y la hace suya, igual que cuando hace el amor o siente al aire. La casa del pueblo son las plazas y somos allí todos y ninguno. - Alfonso Chase

Plazas are the palaces of the people, On asphalt or stone The passage way is a knife and each lip a scream. From street to street the world grow. Animating the murmur of the crowd Some gagged truth discovered as soon as it hits the air. I believe that in each plaza, corner to corner and street to street, people reveal themselves. We look at one another face to face we recognize each other and make ourselves strong. Take some forgotten word and make it yours, the same as when you are making love or sensing the air. The houses of the people are the plazas and there we are, everyone and no one.

PUBLIC SPACE IN LATIN AMERICA

As Clara Irazábal wrote, based on several authors, “public space is a prerequisite for the expression, representation, preservation, and/ or enhancement of democracy”, yet the reality in many countries in the Americas is that public space has also been used by totalitarian regimes 1. “In times of crisis, and also during extraordinary collective celebrations, it is common for the population to mobilize in public spaces” 2, for these are where everyone, at least theoretically, can express themselves. All the Latin American cities that became colonized by the Spanish, were founded around a main plaza surrounded by all the power of the church and State. These are the most important spaces of this “democracy”, although they have not always been open for all citizens. Public space has always been an important aspect of Latin American cities, but the majority, in the last decades, have grown dramatically, mostly through informal settlements, in which there is few public space. Even the formal growth has “regrettably, […] occurred without much expansion of public spaces. On the contrary, the prevalent trend has been to focus on transport infrastructure, shopping centers, and exclusive enclosed communities.” 2. Like Jordi Borja wrote, the crisis of public space in Latin America is happening in both of its dimensions: as the organizing element that gives continuity and articulates the different parts of the city, but also as the place for exchange and collectivity, the place for community expression and urban identity3; because public space is “not only a mise-en-scene for diversity and difference, public spaces are sites for the negotiation of values, rights, duties, and rules of sociability in a community” 2.

Irazábal, Clara. 2008. “Prologue: Ordinary Places, Extraordinary Events in Latin America.” In Ordinary Places Extraordinary Events, edited by Clara Irazábal, 7-10. New York: Rutledge Taylor & Francis Group. 2 Irazábal, Clara. 2008. “Citizenship, Democracy, and Public Space in Latin America.” In Ordinary Places Extraordinary Events, edited by Clara Irazábal, 11-34. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 3 Borja, Jordi. 2003. “Ciudad y planeación: La urbanística para las ciudades de América Latina.” In La Ciudad Inclusiva, edited by Marcelo Balbo, Ricardo Jordán and Daniela Simioni, 81-104. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas. 4 Saldarriaga Roa, Alberto. 2003. “The Plaza de Bolívar of Bogotá: Uniqueness of Place, Multiplicity of Events.” In Ordinary Places Extraordinary Events, edited by Clara Irazábal, 126-143. New York: Roudledge Taylor & Francis Group. 1

“The city breaths through its public space”, and thus it becomes important that planners and promoters of the Latin American urbanism seek to re-frame the question of public space to return to it the protagonism that it had in the past “that must be recovered to make the city about the urban expression of these years” 3. The Plaza de Bolivar in Bogotá is a good example of this search, for it “has witnessed tragedies, but also events whose aim is to transcend the ongoing drama in the search for hope for a peaceful existence.” 4 , which has been made possible because of its redesign in 1961. A redesign whose intention was to open the main public space since the city’s foundation, to all its citizens, from a fenced garden to a neutral and completely accessible flat surface. But the focus of returning the role to public space cannot be done only to the “historical center”, for “public space is the city, [and] all the city is historical” 3. It is important in this matter, to understand that public space has different scales and roles, and that it is not about creating many Plazas de Bolivar, it is about understanding the specific context of the Latin American public space role in each context and within the different parts of the city.

Civic Mixing

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

Civic Mixing Diagram - Gehl Institute, Public Life Diversity Toolkit

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

There have been some approaches to studying public space in the 1970’s and 80’s that started analyzing space through both lenses of space and interactions, one of which was architect Jan Gehl. He categorized the activities that happen in public space in three main categories: 1) the necessary activities, like walking to work or running errands, which are not dependent of the physical space for citizens have no choice on whether to realize them or not; 2) optional activities, like playing soccer or sitting on a bench to eat, only happen under favorable exterior conditions because citizens have the desire to do them, a desire which is related to time and place; and 3) social activities, like conversations, communal activities, or children playing, which depend on the presence of others in the space for they occur spontaneously. “This implies that social activities are indirectly supported whenever necessary and optional activities are given better conditions in public space” 1. The presence of others in the spaces is affected by the space in both physical and contextual terms. Social activities were categorized by Jan Gehl and later by the Gehl Institute as social mixing which ranges from low to high intensity of contact. “Social mixing occurs on a spectrum from aloneness to close friendships” 2 and within these are the activities that make up “civic mixing” which are the types of interactions that foster tolerance and social cohesion when they happen in the public realm. The three types of activities are: 1) passive contact, which is just being in the presence of others; 2) chance contact, which is a non-personal interaction; and 3) familiar stranger contact, which happens between people who recognize each other but don’t necessarily know each other’s name, like those with whom you share time in a space regularly2. These interactions lead, as mentioned by several academics specially in sociology, to social cohesion, greater tolerance and an increased sense of belonging of citizens to their neighborhood and the city. 1 2

Gehl, Jan. 1971. Life Between Buildings. New York: Island Press. Gehl Institute. 2016. The Public Life Diversity Toolkit. Gehl Institute.

SOCIAL LIFE

The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces

SOCIAL LIFE

Willian Whyte was also interested in the interactions of people inside public spaces which he developed in his book and film, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. He realized that some spaces attract more people and generate more interactions, and began analyzing what spatial elements were key to producing social life in public spaces. All this based on one of his first conclusions through observation, “what attracts people most, it would appear, is other people” 1. The goal of the research was to “find out why the good plazas worked and the bad ones didn’t, and come up with hard guidelines [to] have the basis of a new code” and policies of design of public space in order to make these encourage social life in them1. For Whyte the definition of a successful public space is that which has an active social life, one where people are in contact with others, and these can make “a tremendous difference [...] to the life of a city” 1. What Whyte meant by social life of public spaces is the human aspect of these. He referred to the way people act in a space in response to the different elements that influence their actions. The social life comprehends both the direct interactions between people and the more passive activities like watching others or sitting in the shade. The social life of spaces is crucial for the city, something that Whyte realized while observing kids playing on 101st street. His argument is that the way spaces are designed and the elements in them are crucial to define that social life and thus the city should have strict regulations to foster it in all public plazas. 1

Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1979. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces.

SOCIAL CAPITAL

20 Photograph by author.

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social capital has many definitions that differ according to the discipline of whom is using the term. Robert Putnam, a sociologist and political scientist, who has focused on public policy, defines it as “the features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” 1. For Putnam, social capital is vital for communities, because it facilitates coordination and cooperation to achieve shared benefits. Since the base of social capital are the social networks formed in communities, the interactions that happen in spaces where people come together, are crucial for the generation of social capital. “The core concept of social capital is that social networks matter, both for those in the networks as well as sometimes for bystanders as well” 2. Public spaces, are opportunities that have the potential to build up the social capital of communities. For Sander and Lowney, one of the ways in which social capital is formed is through informal interactions, meaning those that tend to happen between people that barely know each other and in an unexpected way2, like Gehl’s chance contact. “Formal ties are more likely to ensure that these ties persist over time” 2, public space becomes the place where informal ties can happen and then turn into formal ones. There is another type of social capital, that called bridging which means the networks and norms that create “social ties that cut across differences such as race, class or ethnicity” 2, this one can begin to be engendered in a space where people can interact with others they would not meet in their private lives. Spaces of interaction have the potential to generate social capital at different scales within the city. This potential, which can be made effective through the encouragement of interactions in well design public spaces within diverse contexts, allows spaces to have a positive impact in the dynamics of the city and its citizens1. Putnam, Robert D. 1995. «Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.» Journal of Democracy 65-78. 2 Sander, Thomas H., and Kathleen Lowney. 2005. Social Capital Building Toolkit. Cambridge: John F. Kennedy School of Government. 1

Photograph by author.

2 PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ

FOCUS OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ - TIME LINE

24 Photographs by author.

FOCUS OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ - TIME LINE Before critiquing Bogotá’s approach and proposing new methodologies and ways that the city should be studying and proposing public space, it is crucial to understand what the city has done in terms of public space. The focus towards public space has changed through time and through the different political positions of the mayors of the city. To understand these shifts and the different roles that public space has played in the city, the first step was to create a time line with key regulations, plans, and interventions that have shaped the way in which public space is produced or analyzed in Bogotá. An important aspect of this analysis is to understand what each key element proposed and what the real impact of them was. At least on paper, the city of Bogotá, with the different mayors and institutions, has shown an understanding of the importance of public space in the city and its society; but the way in which these were implemented or the designs they led to do not necessarily express that understanding in its social terms. A historical analysis can enlighten different trends or specific moments that had an important impact in the city’s public space. The moments were chosen because in some way or another and with different intensities, they mention the social aspects of public space. Awareness the level at which each proposal talked about the physical and the social leads to an understanding of the focus on public space at the time. It is also important to look which scale each of the regulations, plans, or interventions addressed, for the scale has a direct impact on the conception of public space and its social role. The scales range from city plans to the human scales; each has a different scope that can address different scales. Since the goal is to demonstrate when Bogotá considered public space as spaces of interaction, it is important to understand that all scales affect this condition, for not only the design of the space itself has an impact on the amount of interactions that happen in it. The context in which it is placed has as much impact in its level of dynamism as the placement of elements of urban furniture within the space. The analysis through time exposes the changes that have taken place in the conception of public space and it is also the basis for the current approach. Analyzing past interventions can give the city references of those that have had the most impact and to be able to change or redesign those that did not. Bogotá is known internationally for several of public space related interventions and programs, mostly through the invention of the Ciclovia, Antanas Mockus’ civic culture campaign, Enrique Peñalosa’s ideas on public space, and the first large scale implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit system. Since Bogotá’s foundation in 1538 by the Spanish with the traditional main plaza, the city of Bogotá has given importance to its public space. This time line exposes key moments since 1900; some are visions and others regulations that clarify the disconnection between discourse and action.

THE FOCUS OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ - TIME LINE

Alba Castro, José Miguel. 2013. “El plano Bogotá Futuro. Primer intento de modernización urbana.” ACHSC (Universidad Nacional de Colombia) 40 (2): 179-208. 2 Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 2017. El Espacio Público de Bogotá entre 1900 y 1960: Una mirada socio-espacial a su conformación como resultado de la evolución morfológica y trazado urbano. Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 3 Cortés Solano, Rodrigo. 2007. “Del Urbanismo a la Planeación en Bogotá (1900-1990) Esquema Inicial y Materiales para Pensar la Trama de un Relato.” Revista Bitácora Urbano Territorial (REDALYC) 1 (011): 160-213. 4 Observatorio del Espacio Publico de Bogota. 2016. Las Zonas Verdes y Zonas Comunales en Bogotá. Bimonthly Bulletin, Bogotá: Defensoria del Espacio Publico. 5 Régimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 1998. «Decreto 1504 de 1998 Nivel Nacional.» Diario Oficial (Secretaria Jurídica Distrital de la Alcaldía Mayor de Bogota D.C.) NO. 43357. 6 Régimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 1999. «Decreto 170 de 1999.» Registro Distrital (Secretaria Jurídica de la Alcaldía Mayor de Bogota D.C.) No. 1863. 7 Régimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 2000. «Decreto 1003 de 2000.» Registro Distrital (Secretaria Jurídica de la Alcaldía Mayor de Bogota D.C.) No. 2269. 8 Departamento Nacional de Planeación. 2005. Visión Colombia II Centenario: 2019. Bogotá: Departamento Nacional de Planeación. 9 Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2013. Sentido Urbano I: una mirada al espacio público de Bogotá. Bimonthly Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 10 Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2013. Setnido Urbano II: una mirada al espacio público de Bogotá. Bimonthly Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 11 Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1979. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces. 12 Gehl, Jan. 1971. Life Between Buildings. New York: Island Press. 13 Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. 14 Régimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 1989. «Ley 9 de 1989.» Diario Oficial (Secretaría Jurídica Distrital de la Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C.) No. 38.650. 15 The Constitution Project. 1991 (rev 2005). Colombia’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2005. Translated by Peter B. Heller, Anna I. Vellve Torras, and Max Planck Institute Translated by Marcia W. Coward. Oxford University Press, Inc. 16 2017. Sociedad de Mejoras y Ornato de Bogota. Dirigido por Sociedad de Mejoras y Ornato de Bogota. 1

1538

1863

Foundation

Federal District

THE FOCUS OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ - Time line 50’s: “The inhabitants of the city find in these urban interventions (those of the process of modernization after the social and political happenings) trust in public space as a place for encounter and recreation...” 2

Plano Bogotá Futuro (Society of Improvements and Ornament of Bogota) - First attempt to plan a modern city under the international principles of city planning “The area of parks and public gardens should not be inferior to a tenth of the urban area [...] ideally 15% and 20% for streets” “Construction of a system of open spaces, at convenient distances, connected by park-avenues articulated to roofed markets and cemeteries.” “Plazas had to be open and hygienic, but mainly artistic.” 1

“Democratization of public space with the Centennial Exhibition - creation of spaces of free access, that were before limited to the social hierarchy”. 2

Law 88 of 1947 - Regulatory Plan for Future Growth and Land-Use Creation of the first Regulatory Plan which included diagonal boulevards, neighborhood parks, garden plazas and urban parks - for the enjoyment, sports, and recreation of the citizens. Development of public space in the city with an emphasis on the connection between urban parks and residential areas. “The wellbeing of the social collective becomes priority” (Karl Brunner Director of the Department of Urbanism)

Plan Centro - situating public space and urban management as the main protagonists. Urban Design at a smaller scale than traditional planning, as an instrument of management rather than conceptually attached to the idea of space of contact or the place for common good. 3

Inauguration of the El Dorado Airport - Bogotá as a city of the world. But tradition still segregated (by income) the use of public space.

New District Plan to adapt the theories of modern urbanism adjusted to the realities of the strong migrations and formations of informal settlements.

Decree 1504 of 1998 (National) - Regulation of the management of public space in the Territorial Ordinance Plans: Defined which were considered public spaces, what constitutes a public space: 1) Natural or intervened vegetation, and 2) Urban furniture.5

Urban plan to build a new neighborhood with internal areas of public use for recreation.

Pilot Plan by Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener - leaving the streets and the parkways for the ville radieuse.

Decree 215 of 2005: Master Plan for Public Space - “It must be understood as a city project, that is to say as a social construction that materializes in the space and territory and that give account, not only of the physical conditions, but also of the citizen capacity to develop the urban components in a process of appropriation and construction of a humanized space.

Law 9 of 1989 - “Public space is the set of public properties and the architectonic and natural elements of private properties, destined by their nature, use, or affectation, to the satisfaction of collective urban necessities that transcend the limits of individual interests of inhabitants.”14

Decrees 566 and 567 of 1976 Creation of the Ciclovia as a space for citizens to take back the city (from the automobiles) and to interact in the public realm.

Pablo Páramo and Andre M. Burbano Arroyo - Assessment of conditions that make habitable the public space of Colombian cities

Decree 1003 of 2000 - Adoption of the Sidewalks Handbook for all public spaces of pedestrian circulation. 7 To accompany the 1999 Urban Furniture Handbook.

Fisrt Biennale of Public Space in Rome

1st Sentido Urbano: A Look at Public UN-Habitat - Global Space in Bogotá - the city needs to Public Space Toolkit reformulate the vision of public space, Observatory of Public not as a residual product of private Space - Development urbanization, both formal and informal, of Indicators for but as the central structure to plan the Gehl Institute - Public Life Public Space and their city. “The city in its physical dimension Diversity Toolkit Visualization is a place of encounter, relation, exchange, reflection, and collective creation.” Yet still the indicators are: Total Public Space per Inhabitant, Creation of the Observatory Effective Public Space per Inhabitant, of Public Space of Bogotá - to and Green Public Space per Inhabitant. 9 harmonize the communication between entities related with 3rd Sentido Urbano: this version public space, and to integrate is completely about the economic the different actors through a benefits of public space and how digital platform and outreach to take advantage of this. of activities.

98 - 200 Mayor Enrique Peñalosa

1910

23-25

Decree 28 of 1933: Creation of the Department of Urbanism - First Public Works Plan Decree 10 of 1917: Creation of the Society of Embellishment of Bogotá, later Society of Improvements and Ornament of Bogotá, philanthropist organization that helped supply the needs of the people that the city could not. 16

Bogotazo - The murder of Gaitan, a leftist politician, caused an uprising where many buildings and the tram system were burned.

30s: “In this decade changes of the use of public space can be seen: communal spaces are now spaces of encounters, much more than plazas. The public space is used for recreation, enjoyment, meetings and debates, discussion, family distraction. The streets evolved and became stages, not only used for transit, but used for recreation and culture with a social emphasis, accompanied by recreational, cultural, educational or commercial public amenities.” 2

Del Centro, el Centro Plan - immediatist planning to showcase demonstrative projects (bike-ways, lighting, tree planting, sidewalks) without a deeper meaning or planning. 3

Jane Jacobs - The Death and Life of Great American Cities “...how cities work in real life, because this is the only way to learn what principles of Jan Gehl - Life Between planning and what practices Buildigns in rebuilding can promote “An understanding for the subtle social and economic vitality qualities, which throughout the in cities, and what practices history of human settlements, and principles will deaden had been related to meetings 13 these attributes.” of people in the public spaces [...] life between buildings as a dimension of architecture, urban design and city planning.”12 New design for the Plaza de Bolivar (main plaza) from a garden to a modernist empty hard plaza, designed for protests and congregation. Democratization of public space. “The redesign of the plaza is a metaphor for the city and its public space: fences, fountains, impediments are removed, and social integration is fostered.

William H. Whyte - The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces “This book is about city spaces, why some work for people, and some do not, and what the practical lessons may be.” 11

2000

2005

95 - 98 Mayor Antanas Mockus - Civic Culture Campaign 2001 - 2003 Mayor Antanas Mockus Decree 170 of 1999: the city of Bogotá adopts the Urban Furniture Handbook which specifies which elements can be used to design any public space and how to position them in the spaces. 6 This was Peñalosa’s project for equity in the city by designing all public spaces, no matter their location, with the same standards. Colombia Vision II Centennial: Search for Amiable Cities of which one of the goals is adequate public space. One goal is to achieve a more egalitarian society through the distribution of public goods and services like public space, to a) bridge regional and social gaps, b) build amiable cities, and c) forge a Colombia’s Constitution of culture of coexistence. 8 1991 - “Article 82: It is the duty of the State to watch over the protection of the integrity of public space and for its assignment to common use, which has priority over the individual interest.”15

Decree 6 of 1990: Urban Structure and Planning - Urban regulations to give order to the change and growth of the City and its Public Space. “This decree ‘discovers’ the collective character of public space.” 3

2011

2012

2013

2014

2nd Sentido Urbano: A Look at Public Space in Bogotá Involvement of community in public space creates a sense of belonging. Studies the indicators created by Jan Gehl, only the Quality Criteria, and then still refers only to the three indicators. 10 DADEP First diagnostic of public space in Bogotá - 3 Indicators: 1) effective public space: all public space minus streets and sidewalks; 2) green public space, parks; and 3) total public space. Vikas Mehta - Evaluating Public Space

Georgiana Varna Measuering Public Space: The Star Model

2015

2016

2017

1st Bimonthly Bulletin from the Observatory of Public Space classification of public spaces: 1) Green Areas: Permanent space open and mainly green, with public domain or use, part of the effective public space and used for recreation. 2) Green and Communal Areas: Part of these plots are destined for the construction of public communal amenities: kindergartens, schools, communal rooms, etc. 3) Communal Areas: these allow for the construction of public amenities that provide social services for culture, health, training, wellbeing, and provide functional support for public administration. 4 Technical Report of Indicators of Public Space - area per inhabitant indicators + new indicator: Corrected Compactness which establishes the relation between built volume and effective public space.

THE FOCUS OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ - Scale and Focus of Lens

REAL SOCIAL CHANGE SOCIAL PHYSICAL

1910

23-25

CITY

DISTRICT

SITE

INDIVIDUAL

2000

2005

2012

2013

2014

2016

2017

THE FOCUS OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTÁ - TIME LINE

Focus of Lens - Physical and Social The graph on the top shows the focus, social and physical, of each intervention exposed in the time line. What becomes clear, is that although there have been several moments in history where public space was understood by its social significance, Bogotá’s policies, regulations, and plans have had a stronger focus on the physical aspects of public space. There have been some moments when the social was reflected on the policies and actions, like when the Ciclovia was invented, the purpose of which was to return a main component of public space to the people, and to bring back social encounters to the public realm. What is most clear is that in the last decades the focus has completely turned to the physical, to the quantity of public space and to the materiality and maintenance of it, but without truly understanding the social impacts. Finally, the graph shows the real social change that has happened; this as a way to show which interventions or regulations had a real impact on the social aspects of public space in the city. There are several mismatches between the apparent focus on the social and the effect: all interventions before 1961, which have a high focus on the social, had no real impact because the public space of the city was still segregated, used mostly by the higher classes of the city, and located near their residences. A statement was made with the redesign of the Plaza de Bolivar, which opened the access of the main and most symbolic public space of the city to all citizens. This intervention shows how what had been said as early as 1910 with the Centennial Exhibition, came true half a decade later. There have been two key moments when a big social change has happened: the creation of the Ciclovia in 1976, and the period from the new Constitution in 1991 through Mockus’ civic culture campaign. The

90’s were the most extensive period where the social focus had an impact on the use of public space in the city. The end of the 90’s was not as good, because Peñalosa’s discourse on equity through using the same urban furniture in all spaces, created spaces that were not as attractive and thus the interactions in them did not increase as much as expected.

Scale of Lens - City, District, Site, Individual Since the first plan for the city in 1923, Bogotá’s focus on public space has almost always considered the big scale, understanding public space as one of the main structures of the city, mainly by the roads rather than the spaces themselves. Around the same time, and up to now, the scale of the district has always been part of plans and new regulations. The scale of the spaces themselves, the plaza, the park, the boulevard, was the most constant at which the city addressed public space, until the change of the century when the focus has been mostly on district and city level, relying on the previous regulations and projects of the smaller scale; at this scale, if anything, the city has only updated some of the handbooks of urban furniture. The scale of the individual, as the focus on the social, has not been the scale at which changes in the city are made. In none of the indicators and reports created by the city has there been a focus on how space is perceived by people or how they use it, and how the other three scales affect the interactions and actions of citizens in the public spaces.

KEY MOMENTS OF THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PUBLIC SPACE

30 Photographs by author.

KEY MOMENTS OF THE SOCIAL ROLE - FOUNDATION

Pre-Columbian and Spanish Foundation 1538 Bogotá was founded in one of the territories of the Chibcha, a group of the Muisca indigenous society. This group, which inhabited a greater territory, was divided into five federations of which the strongest was the Bacatá, located in the savannah of Bogotá. There were various settlements in the territory, but since the buildings were made of mud and cane, there is little evidence to their organization other than oral stories 1. According to Hardoy, “the pre-Columbian cities emerged with almost no planning [and determined by the] combination of ecological and religious reasons” 1. As Paramo and Cuervo expose, the only “public space” in these settlements was the space between buildings which formed a circle around the space, and the ceremonial center where the community got together1. The Spanish imposed a new logic to the city as a tool to control the indigenous groups, a logic based on a rectangular grid and on private property. At the core of the city was the Plaza Mayor which had a “symbolic significance of power, supported by the threat of the eternal punishment and the terror of physical punishment” 1 of the colonizers over the pre-Columbian communities. For the Spanish the plaza was a place for religious and civic ceremonies, and for the market1, but also as a representation of the powers of their “civilization”, military, government, and religion. The main square, which was basically the only public space other than streets, became the center for the political and religious life of the community1, a community, of course, limited to the ones in power. 1

Paramo, Pablo, and Monica Cuervo. 2006. Histoia Social Situada en el Espacio Publico de Bogota desde su Fundacion Hasta el Siglo XIX. Bogota: Universidad Pedagogica Nacional.

KEY MOMENTS OF THE SOCIAL ROLE - REDESIGN OF PLAZA DE BOLIVAR

Redesign of the Plaza de Bolivar 1961 The Plaza de Bolivar has a long history since its initial design as the Plaza Mayor of the Spanish Vice royalty, and urban element that shaped the rectangular grid of the city. At that time, the plaza had a central column where people received punishments. After the Independence the Republic’s Congress was built and the traditional market that happened in the square was banned. The center of the plaza was occupied by a statue of Simon Bolivar that substituted a water fountain that was used by the citizens. By 1881, the plaza was enclosed with an iron fence and designed as an English garden1. All of the configurations that advocated for public use were limited to the higher classes of the society, limiting the access to some of groups of the population. In 1948, with the murder of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, a leftist politician, the citizens, especially those with lower incomes tired of the inequality, took over the city, sacked many retails and buildings, and burned the tram system. The plaza was redesigned in 1961 by Fernando Martinez, “returning it to the condition it has today, open, without obstacles so that people get together, conforms the most important metaphor the city and its public space have: the removal of fences, fountains, and impediments, to promote social integration” 2. The square is now composed by a continuous surface with the statue of Simon Bolivar surrounded by a platform where people can sit. The Plaza is now the space where all types of civic events happen, from concerts and aerobics classes, to political speeches and protests and manifestations. Duarte Martinez, Diana Carolina. 2016. “Lo que Usted no Conocia de la Plaza de Bolivar de Bogota.” Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota. September 3. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://bogota.gov.co/article/temas-de-ciudad/culturay-recreacion/lo-que-usted-no-conocia-de-la-plaza-de-bolivar-de-bogota. 2 Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 2017. El Espacio Público de Bogotá entre 1900 y 1960: Una mirada socio-espacial a su conformación como resultado de la evolución morfológica y trazado urbano. Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 1

KEY MOMENTS OF THE SOCIAL ROLE - CICLOVIA

Decrees 566 and 567 of 1976 - Ciclovia is Established

1976 - Ciclovia1

After activist Jaime Ortiz Mariño used the bicycle as a symbol of revolution as he says it “symbolizes individuality, civil rights, women’s rights, urban mobility, simplicity, the new urbanism, and, of course, environmental consciousness” 2. This was all a response to the car taking over the city and a general trend following the United States into suburbanization. The Ciclovia began in 1974 when the group of activists asked the city to close two main avenues during a Sunday which led to around 5,000 people going to the street to bike2. The Ciclovia was instituted by law in 1976, as an activity that would take place every Sunday and holiday from 7 am to 2pm. Today the Ciclovia closes more than 116 kilometers of Bogotá’s main avenues for bikers and pedestrians to use. The Ciclovia was later supported by Mayors Mockus and Peñalosa, who continued developing how the Ciclovia worked and the number of streets and avenues that close. Around 1.7 million people on average2, almost a quarter of the city’s population, go out on the streets to bike, walk, run, or eat. The purpose of the Ciclovia was to return a main component of public space to the people, to, at least for a few hours a week, make the biggest body of public space available to all citizens no matter their income or background. One of Ciclovia’s most important achievements was to bring back social encounters to the public realm3. Every Sunday, even when it is raining, it is possible to see the diversity of Bogotá’s population sharing public space and passively and actively interacting with others. Still today, the change made by the Ciclovia, has a great impact in the way people behave in the city. Ciclovia is probably the best example of how public space can be a Space of Interaction. Torres, Andrea, Olga Sarmineto, Enrique Jacoby, Michael Pratt, Thomas L. Schmid, and Gonzalo Stierling. 2010. “The Ciclovia-Recreativa: A MassRecreational Program with Public Health Potential.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health S163-S180. 2 Barcaly, Eliza. 2017. “Bogota Closes its Roads Every Sunday. Now Everyone Wants to Do It.” Vox. July 30. Accessed May 2, 2018. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13017282/bogota-ciclovia-open-streets. 3 Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 2017. El Espacio Público de Bogotá entre 1900 y 1960: Una mirada socio-espacial a su conformación como resultado de la evolución morfológica y trazado urbano. Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 1

2015 - Ciclovia

KEY MOMENTS OF THE SOCIAL ROLE - MOCKUS’ CIVIC CULTURE CAMPAIGN

Mockus’ Civic Culture Campaign 1995 - 1997 In the 90’s Bogotá was one of the most dangerous cities in the world due to the drug problems Colombia had. The city had grown a lot in very little time, which led to a very chaotic city where no one really felt safe or any type of belonging. Antanas Mockus, a mathematician and philosopher, who at that point had been revoked as provost of the Bogotá National University, began his campaign as mayor of Bogotá. Since his political campaign, Mockus advocated for an improvement of the civic culture of people, he believed that most of the problems of the city were because of the attitude of the people1, that had resulted from a “gap or ‘divorce’ between law, moral, and culture - which are the three systems that regulate the human behavior” 2. His proposal as mayor was a campaign for Civic Culture, “a set of programs and projects undertaken to promote civic coexistence through a conscious change of conduct” 2. The idea of the campaign, according to Mockus, was not to change the laws or the moral, but to change some habits and customs2. “An effort was made in Bogotá to understand and improve the cultural regulation of interactions between strangers”, as one of the causes of the chaos and a way to improve the quality of the city through pedagogy, “since the public sphere depends, to a big extent, on the quality of these interactions” 2 . To achieve this, the city trained citizens who would act like mimes interpreting the faulty behaviors within the public realm and publicly shaming people’s bad behavior1. In addition to this, the city distributed cards to citizens on streets and cars which had a side showing a thumbs-up hand and a white background, and on the back a thumbs-down hand with a red background, intended to be used by citizens to point out faults or good behaviors from other citizens 2. The use of the cards was surprisingly successful, resulting in an impressive change of the quality of interactions between the citizens in the public space. The change of attitude towards the public sphere was impressive and returned some of public space’s important role to the day to day life3. 2009. Cities on Speed: Bogota Change. Directed by Andreas Dalsgaard. Produced by NHK. Performed by NHK. 2 Mockus, Antanas. 2001. Cultura Ciudadana, Programa Contra la Violencia en Santa Fe de Bogota, Colombia 1995 - 1997. Technical Study, Washington D.C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrllo. 3 Mockus, Antanas. 2005. “Politicas de Redefinicion del Espacio Publico: Construccion del Sentido de lo Publico e Innovacion Urbana.” In Redefinicion del Espacio Publico - Eslabonamiento Conceptual y Seguimiento de las Politicas Publicas en Colombia, edited by Gabriel Murillo and Victoria Gomez, 39-62. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes. 1

1995 - 1997 - Mockus’ Civic Culture Campaign

KEY MOMENTS OF THE SOCIAL ROLE - URBAN FURNITURE HANDBOOK

Urban Furniture Handbook 1997 In 1997 the city of Bogotá, led by Mayor Peñalosa, created a public competition for the design of the pieces of urban furniture that would be used in the design of public spaces in Bogotá. The qualities that the different elements had to have were: simplicity, functionality, and durability. By compiling the best proposals, the city created a Handbook of Urban Furniture that became part of the regulations with the Decree 170 of 1999. The idea of equalizing the elements in public space was to inform the design of every public space in order to achieve a more equitable city in which the space in a lower-income neighborhood had the same quality as that in the higher-income areas of the city1. It also had the goal of creating an image of unity and good quality of public space all over the city2. This initiative has an admirable purpose, one that has not been taken into account before, not only because it has a focus on equity but mainly because public space seems to have an important role in achieving that equity. Even so, the proposed regulations neglect the importance not only of the elements in the public space but the way they foster or not interactions. The Handbook does not contemplate how these elements work beyond their technicalities, and besides a few very simple examples (top image) there is no real proposal of how these elements should be placed in spaces in relation to each other. This is one of the clearest examples of how the city makes efforts to improve public spaces, but does not even contemplate why these spaces are important and how they should be designed in order to achieve the goals they set out for public space. Peñalosa, Enrique. 2005. “Espacio Publico, Igualdad y Civilizacion.” In Redefinicion del Espacio Publico - Eslabonamiento Conceptual y Seguimiento de las Politicas Publicas en Colombia, edited by Gabriel Murillo and Victoria Gomez, 63-98. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes. 2 Secretaría Distrital de Planeación - Taller del Espacio Público. 2007. Cartilla de Mobiliario Urbano - Actualización 2007. Handbook, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 1

top: An example of location of elements in a space; bottom: list of elements

BOGOTÁ’S CURRENT APPROACH TO PUBLIC SPACE

Parque Tercer Milenio - Felipe Restrepo Acosta

36 Plaza de la Hoja - Author

BOGOTÁ’S CURRENT APPROACH - SENTIDO URBANO During Gustavo Petro’s mandate, the city of Bogotá produced a set of reports on public space. This, again, is proof that the city has real interest in public space and its role in the city. But the topics that are analyzed in the reports shows a clear approach on quantity and not quality.

1st Sentido Urbano 2013

vs.

In the first report, the analysis is based on the figures of amount of effective and green public space in comparison to international standards. (Effective public space is a legal concept in Bogotá which refers to the entire area of public space minus the area of roads). The study goes as far as to analyze the distribution of the different categories of public space in the different localities and quantifying which of them have the lowest standards. The report also points out goals for public space: 1) sufficient amount of public space per inhabitant, 2) public space accessible to all, 3) change the segregational character of public space, and 4) maintain high standards of urban and architectural quality to guarantee their use and enjoyment. Yet nothing is analyzed or proposed in these terms. The only indicators proposed are: Total Public Space per Inhabitant, Effective Public Space per Inhabitant, and Green Public Space per Inhabitant 1.

2nd Sentido Urbano 2013 The second report is interesting because in its research component cited the indicators created by Jan Gehl but only the Quality Criteria, which refers to the quality of the space. Yet the report only studies the three indicators of the previous report 2. In this report there is more detail about the location of the effective public space in the Zoning Plan Units (the second political subdivision of the city, bigger than neighborhoods). The report also proposes which areas within each UPZ should be turned into public space in order to achieve the international standard of 10 square meters of public space per inhabitant. Maps of the three types of public space - 1st Sentido Urbano Report

Although there is a clear interest in understanding public space, the analysis and the proposals are still mainly based on quantity and make little or no reference to quality. There is no initiative to produce different indicators that would lead to a different conception of public space and its quality. Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2013. Sentido Urbano I: una mirada al espacio público de Bogotá. Bimonthly Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 2 Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2013. Sentido Urbano II: una mirada al espacio público de Bogotá. Bimonthly Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 1

left: map of effective public space in a Zonning Plan Unit; bottom right: map of effective public space necessary to achieve 10m2 per inhabitant.

BOGOTÁ’S CURRENT APPROACH - NEW INDICATOR

Technical Report of Indicators of Public Space 2017 In 2015 the Public Space Observatory was created, which has the goal of analyzing, collecting, and publishing data about public space in the city. It presents “trustworthy and up to date information about the dynamics of public space”1. The reports they have been creating are mostly based on Area per inhabitant indicators and the distribution in the city. A Technical Report of Indicators on Public Space was made by the Observatory in 2017 which wanted to construct indicators to “give accounts year to year of the state of the public space of the city1. The report analyzes the usual indicators of public space per inhabitant and how they are distributed in the city. It also analyzed vegetation through number of trees per inhabitant and their location, the amount of sidewalks per inhabitant, ecological vulnerabilities, among others. One interesting and new indicator is the Corrected Compactness which establishes the relation between built volume and effective public space through a pixelation of the city2. What is interesting about this indicator, is that it is the first that is looking at a smaller scale of the urban in terms of public space. The intention is not, as it should be, to understand what the impacts of the built density around public spaces is, but at least it refers to public space in relation to other components of the city. The report has a chapter which theoretically is about the use of public spaces in Bogota, but the only indicator mentioned is the use of CAMEPS, which are contracts made with social or juridical organizations who get the right to use certain public spaces in exchange for maintenance and management of it2. The study is about the location of these in the city. The fact that even the chapter dedicated to use does not talk about the use of the spaces, is clear evidence of the approach the city has to space. Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota. 2018. Observatorio del Espacio Publica de Bogota. Accessed May 2, 2018. http://observatorio.dadep.gov.co/acerca-del-observatorio. 2 Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2017. Reporte técnico de indicadores de espacio público. Technical Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 1

Map of Corrected Compactness in the city

BOGOTÁ’S CURRENT APPROACH

Bogotá’s Current Approach - Quantity not Quality There is a clear interest from the city, especially with Peñalosa as mayor again, to continue improving public space because there is a clear understanding of its role in society. The approach, though, considers mostly the city scale at its most superficial form. That is not to say that there are not good spaces being built today, it is to point that overlooking other aspects that influence how people interact and use spaces, leaves out an essential component of public space. The results are that many new public spaces are almost abandoned and only those that are completely needed by the communities, are in use. The general approach to public space, both in its analysis and design, is about quantity and distribution in the city, but for public spaces to be spaces for interaction, there are many more components to be considered. There needs to be a focus on public space as more than just open space, as more than just an indicator of area per inhabitant. They way through which a city looks at public space is reflected in how it produces and improves it, which is why it is necessary to change the lens and focus of Bogotá’s different institutions who participate in the production and maintenance of public space.

Photograph by author.

3 PUBLIC SPACE METRICS AND INDEXES

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS

42 Photographs by author.

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS

The second step to propose new methodologies, after having analyzed the focus and approach of the city of Bogotá, was to look at several ways in which public space has been analyzed taking into account the activities in the space. All the references studied have different focuses around what they wanted to analyze in public space; what is relevant from all of them, is that in their own way they contemplate the activities and dynamics in public space. The first referent analyzed is Gehl through the Public Life Diversity Toolkit which focuses on public space and public life, based on previous work by Gehl and research done by the Gehl Institute. William Whyte studied the interactions and elements that affect these. The Star Model proposed by Georgiana Varna, measures the level of publicness of public spaces. Vikas Mekhta proposes a method that measures public spaces through what he calls the ‘qualities’ of public space. Phelps is beginning to study the use of data to understand public space and how people use it, as part of the movement of big data. And finally, Paramo and Burbano, Colombian psychologists who study the habitability of public space in Colombian cities through a survey with indicators which affect the perception of public space. All of these methodologies of analysis have been proposed in different contexts and with different intentions, but studying each helps produce new methodologies based on work that has been done before. The focus of the methodologies proposed in this document is that of how different public spaces are Spaces of Interaction, for which some of the metrics or indicators proposed in the methods studied are not as relevant.

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - JAN GHEL

The Public Life Diversity Toolkit The Gehl Instituteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public Life Diversity Toolkit was developed based on Jan Gehlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work on public space throughout the years. Their way of measuring public space is based on both the spatial / physical elements and conditions, and on the activities and interactions that happen in the spaces. The toolkit is divided into two sets of metrics: the Public Life metrics and the Public Space Metrics. The Public Life Metrics are concerned primarily with the types and amount of activities that occur in the space, how people interact with others in the space and with the space itself, and with the demographics of the citizens. These are categorized by scale: 1) Individuals, 2) Groups, and 3) Networks. Public Life depends on the volume of people in a space and how they interact, and also on the diversity of the people who use the space. On the other hand, the Public Space Metrics refer to the physical components of the space in three categories: 1) Street-scape which refers to the elements within the space, 2) Blocks, which speaks of the quality of the space, of the surrounding buildings, and of neighborhood amenities, and 3) Urban Form, which is mostly about the conditions of the context in demographic and formal terms. What is interesting about this toolkit is that it looks at both the social and physical components of public space. The method through which they acquire the data is through observation, interviews, and data analysis. Another important aspect is that it does not only consider the space itself but also the context in which it is placed, because they have understood that this also affects the activities that people realize in the space and the social interactions between citizens in it. 1

Gehl Institute. 2016. The Public Life Diverstiy Toolkit. Gehl Institute.

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - JAN GHEL

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS Streetscape 1. Seating 2. Lighting 3. Trees 4. Bus stops 5. Programming 6. Pavement quality 7. Pavement material 8. Sidewalk width

PUBLIC LIFE METRICS Individuals 1. Volume of people who recognize familiar faces 2. Volume of people who have spoken to a person outside of their social group 3. Areas in a space that invite social mixing 4. Catalysts for social mixing 5. Mode of transport to place 6. Rates of Instagram use in the space 7. Demographics: age, race, income, educational attainment, gender, home location 8. Favorite places 9. Qualitative information Groups 10. Pedestrian and cyclist volume 11. Volume and diversity of stationary activities 12. Rates of social groups 13. Duration of stay Networks 14. Social-shed of a place 15. Socioeconomic diversity of a place: socioeconomic characteristics of the home neighborhoods of the people who spend time in a space

Blocks 9. Quality of the place Public Space 12 Quality Criteria Protection 1. Feeling safe - protection against traffic accidents 2. Feeling secure - protection against crime and violence 3. Protection against unpleasant sensory experiences Comfort 4. Opportunities to walk 5. Opportunities to stand/stay 6. Opportunities to sit 7. Opportunities to see 8. Opportunities to talk and listen 9. Opportunities for playing and exercise Delight 10. Scale 11. Opportunities to enjoy the positive aspects of climate 12. Positive sensory experiences to enjoy the positive aspects of climate

10. Price variety of neighborhood amenities 11. Building facade activation rating 12. Number of entries per linear foot Urban Form 13. Median household income 14. Educational attainment 15. Race + Ethnicity 16. Urban connectivity value

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - WILLIAM H. WHYTE

The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces Willian Whyte, through his research on The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, concluded on some of the metrics that conduce a space to have a Social Life. All the proposed elements and amounts of them, result from the analysis of several spaces analyzed during his research. More than the specific amounts, which were useful to change the regulations on public space for the city of New York, what is interesting of his proposal are what he considers to be the key components of a public space that encourage interactions in it. Some of the metrics are more related to the physical aspects of the space, which affect the activities realized in it, and others focus on the activities themselves. Some aspects to highlight from his conclusions are that he advocated for food vending to increase the activity in squares and what he calls ‘triangulation’ which speaks of an object, person, or activity that becomes a stimulus in the space that results in people interacting with the situation as well as with others who are also enjoying set experience. One of the most interesting observations is that active spaces always have ‘a mayor’ or actor that knows the space and when everything is in order. These are crucial actors in a space because they can be trusted to know when there is a disturbance in the dynamics of the space. 1

Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1979. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces.

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - WILLIAM H. WHYTE

1. The Life of Plazas - How do people use plazas? What do they do? 2. Sitting Space - Minimum of 10% of the area; 1 linear foot of sitting space for every 30 square feet 3. Sun - Access to sun should be protected but a space without sun can still work (air rights, height of buildings around) 4. Wind - Absence of winds and drafts 5. Trees - Ratio of trees to area; trees close to sitting areas; trees on sidewalks. 6. Water – If water is used it should be accessible 7. Food – Food vendors (as a measure of activity and as a supporter of activity), regulations that allow a maximum of area to be used for food kiosks 8. The Street – Open corners; at least 50% of frontage should be retail and food uses; the transition between street and space should be seamless; sight-lines are important; spaces shouldn’t be sunk (unless for a very compelling reason). 9. A Mayor – an actor in the space that knows what is out of order. 10. Effective capacity – capacity is self-leveling, under-use is the problem not overuse. 11. Triangulation – stimulus by an object, person or activity

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - GEORGIANA VARNA The Star Model - Measuring Publicness The approach by Georgiana Varna towards measuring public space is based on what she calls five meta-themes or dimensions of publicness. These are based in the different ways of defining and conceptualizing public space in literature about the subject. The five dimensions are: ownership, control, physical configuration, animations, and civility.

social needs are met. According to Lefebvre 6, “these have been neglected for a long time in favor of individual needs” 5. Animation is concerned with the activities and engagement that happen in public space, both active and passive. In terms of publicness, a space is more public when there is presence of a high diversity of people, engaged in a variety of activities.

Ownership, which defines if the space is legally public or private, is the first and most direct way of starting to define the publicness of a space. Varna considers this a crucial aspect of public space because the ownership of the space impacts directly in its character. A big concern that has emerged in the studies about public space is the phenomenon of the privatization of public space. To Varna, privatization is the formation of the “so called ‘pseudo-public space’ (Mitchell 1995 1, Banerjee 2001 2), ‘quasi-public space’ (Dovey 1999 3) or ‘themed public space’ (Van Melik et al. 2007 4).” 5. These spaces are shopping malls, or privately-owned waterfronts, that can be perceived as public yet still are privately owned and thus are controlled by the owner.

The last dimension is that of Civility which refers to the maintenance of the space “so that they are clean, friendly and inviting areas” 5. It depends on both the presence of cleaners and maintenance workers, as well as the attitude of the people in the space towards it. This dimension is important because the way a space is cared for has a direct impact in the perception of the space from its various users. The perception of the space is not only important for the individual but also becomes part of a collective feeling towards the space that can be propagated and decrease the number of new visitors.

The second dimension is Control, which refers to the amount of freedom citizens have in the space. Fundamentally, public spaces are democratic and guarantee “the right to speak freely and gather” among others 5. There are several methods through which control is achieved in public space, sometimes diminishing the rights of the citizens in the space. This dimension is one that can have both positive and negative perceptions, for citizens need or expect there to be a certain amount of control so that they feel safe, but not so much that they feel they cannot express freely. Physical Configuration, the third dimension, refers to the physical aspects of the space. She divides this into two main scales: 1) the macro-design, which refers to the “relationship with its hinterland”; and 2) the micro-design, “the specific design features of the place itself” 5. Both are influential in the publicness of the space, macrodesign because of its location, boundaries, and connections to the greater physical environment. In terms of the micro-design, the way the space is designed and the elements in it define which activities can happen by supporting them with physical elements. Varna based this dimension mostly on the analyses done by William H. Whyte and Jan Ghel, who through observation came up with spatial guidelines or needs a public space must offer to increase its publicness. The previous meta-theme has a direct effect on the fourth dimension, Animation, which is concerned with the way people behave and act in public space. Through different lenses and disciplines, public space is understood as the place where public life happens, where

For each of the dimensions, Varna develops a set of indicators that are then given a score. Each dimension has the same weight, although she mentions that there is possible improvement by giving different weights to each in relation to their relevance to publicness.

Mitchell, Don. 1995. “The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers (85): 108-133. 2 Banerjee, Tridib. 2001. “The Future of Public Space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places.” Journal of the American Planning Association (67 (1)): 9-24. 3 Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating power in built form. London: Routledge. 4 Van Melik, Rianne, Irina Van Aalst, and Jan Van Weesep. 2007. “Fear and Fantasy in the Public Domain: The development of secured and themed urban space.” Journal of Urban Design (12): 25-42. 5 Varna, Georgiana. 2014. Measuring Public Space: The Star Model. Burlington: Ashgate. 6 Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. Writings on Cities. Translated by Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. 1

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - GEORGIANA VARNA

Ownership - Ownership status

More Public

Less Public

OWNERSHIP Publicly owned space with public use

Privately owned space with public use

CONTROL Free use and a comforting police presence

Overt and oppressive control presence - human and electronic surveillance; highly visible security presence

Control - Control technology: CCTV cameras - Control presence: Police / guards presence - Control Design: sadistic street furniture - Control signs Civility - Physical maintenance and cleansing regime of hard landscaped areas and street furniture - Physical maintenance and provision of green areas - Physical provision of basic facilities: public toilets - Physical provision of basic facilities: lighting

PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION Well connected/located within the movement system; strong visual connection to external public realm beyond space; without obvious entrances and thresholds; a wide range of supports for a wide range of activities

Poorly connected/located within the movement system; poor visual connection with external public realm; with explicit entrances and thresholds; narrow range of supports creating a limited potential for activities

ANIMATION A large and diverse public engaged in a variety of activities

Dead public space: few people engaged in few activities

CIVILITY Cared-for; well-kept; inviting

Untidy, vandalized, dirty and uninviting

Physical Configuration Macro-design: - Crossings - Public walkways - Cycle routes - Fences Micro-design: - Sitting opportunities - Standing opportunities - Opportunities for active engagement and discovery - Active frontages Animation - Diversity of activities - Presence of street vendors and entertainers

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - VIKAS MEHTA Evaluating Public Space For Vikas Mehta, in Evaluating Public Space, good public space “is accessible and open, is meaningful in its design and the activities it supports, provides a sense of safety, physical and environmental comfort and convenience, a sense of control, and sensory pleasure”. He presents Five Dimensions of Public Space that must be accomplished by public space in order to achieve what good spaces are meant to be.

he defines certain metrics for each of the dimensions. The scoring gives each dimension 10 points that are distributed between the different variables which also have different weights. By applying this method of analysis, Mehta is able to compare different public spaces and understand what makes them worse or better public spaces. The data needed for each of the dimensions is collected both by observation and surveys with the users of the spaces.

The first is Inclusiveness which refers to how accessible the space is to varying individuals and groups and how well their various activities and behaviors are supported or not. This responds both to the ability to reach the space, referring to the distribution of public spaces, proximity and connectivity to other parts of the city; and the ability to enter the space to use it. The second dimension is Meaningful Activities because, according to Mehta, space becomes meaningful when it is useful, when it supports activities that are symbolically and culturally meaningful to individuals or groups (ie. shopping, eating, entertainment, and display, express, discuss, debate, demand and protest.) This is directly affected by the land use diversity of the context immediately surrounding the space and the bigger scale. Meaningful activities are those that support sociability, for that is the most important aspect of a good public space according to Mehta. The third dimension exposed by Mehta, is Safety which refers to both the ability to feel safe from social factors and from physical factors. The first is managed by the presence of stores and nonresidential properties, physical elements like street lights, and the personalization of properties surrounding the space, like plants, decorations, etc.. Mehta mentions that there is normally a negative perception when there is too much policing or litter, graffiti, vandalism, and poorly maintained buildings. As for physical factors, he mostly means feeling safe from vehicular traffic. The fourth dimension is Comfort, which refers to the psychological level of comfort. Comfort to him refers to both physical effects like anthropometrically and ergonomically sensitive spaces, and environmental effects, the protection from natural elements and the provision of shelter. The second one referring to temperature, sunlight, shade and wind. The visual display of the Public Space Index.

Finally, the fifth dimension is that of Pleasurability which he says is achieved when spaces are imageable. For spaces to have an image in citizens’ minds, they must have a high level of spatial quality and sensory complexity.

Mehta, Vikas. 2014. «Evaluating Public Space.» Journal of Urban Design 19 (1): 53-88. 1

Mehta then proposes a framework to analyze public spaces in which

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - VIKAS MEHTA PUBLIC SPACE INDEX Inclusiveness 10 pt 1. Presence of people of diverse ages (0.4) 2. Presence of people of different genders (0.4) 3. Presence of people of diverse classes (0.4) 4. Presence of people of diverse races (0.4) 5. Presence of people with diverse physical abilities (0.4) 6. Control of entrance to public spaces; presence of lockable gates, fences, etc. (1.0) 7. Range of activities and behaviors (1.0) 8. Opening hours of public space (1.0) 9. Presence of posted signs to exclude certain people or behaviors (1.0) 10. Presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, guides, ushers, etc. intimidating and privacy is infringed upon (1.0) 11. Perceived openness and accessibility (2.0) 12. Perceived ability to conduct and participate in activities and events in space (2.0)

33. Perceived safety from traffic (2.0)

Meaningful Activities 10 pt 13. Presence of community-gathering third places (2.0) 14. Range of activities and behaviors (1.0) 15. Space flexibility to suit user needs (1.0) 16. Availability of food within or at the edges of the space (2.0) 17. Variety of businesses and other uses at the edges of the space (1.0) 18. Perceived suitability of space layout and design to activities and behavior (2.0) 19. Perceived usefulness of businesses and other uses (1.0)

Pleasurability - For detached plaza, square or park 10 pt 34. Presence of memorable architectural or landscape features (imageability) (1.0) 35. Sense of enclosure (1.0) 36. Variety of sub-spaces (1.0) 37. Density of elements in space providing sensory complexity (1.0) 38. Variety of elements in space providing sensory complexity (1.0) 39. Design elements providing focal points (1.0) 40. Visual and physical connection and openness to adjacent street/s or spaces (1.0) 41. Perceived attractiveness of space (2.0) 42. Perceived interestingness of space (1.0)

Comfort 10 pt 20. Places to sit without paying for goods and services (2.0) 21. Seating provided by businesses (1.0) 22. Other furniture and artifacts in the space (1.0) 23. Climatic comfort of the space â&#x20AC;&#x201C; shade and shelter (2.0) 24. Design elements discouraging use of space (1.0) 25. Perceived physical condition and maintenance appropriate for the space (2.0) 26. Perceived nuisance noise from traffic or otherwise (1.0) Safety 10 pt 27. Visual and physical connection and openness to adjacent street/s or spaces (1.0) 28. Physical condition and maintenance appropriate for the space (1.0) 29. Lighting quality in space after dark (1.0) 30. Perceived safety from presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, guides, ushers, etc. providing safety (1.0) 31. Perceived safety from crime during daytime (2.0) 32. Perceived safety from crime after dark (2.0)

Pleasurability - For Street 10 pt 34. Presence of memorable architectural or landscape features (imageability) (1.0) 35. Sense of enclosure (1.0) 36. Permeability of building facades on the street front (1.0) 37. Personalization of the buildings on the street front (1.0) 38. Articulation and variety in architectural features of building facades on the street front (1.0) 39. Density of elements on sidewalk/street providing sensory complexity (1.0) 40. Variety of elements on sidewalk/street providing sensory complexity (1.0) 41. Perceived attractiveness of space (2.0) 42. Perceived interestingness of space (1.0)

Pleasurability - For attached plaza, square or park 10 pt 34. Presence of memorable architectural or landscape features (imageability) (0.7) 35. Sense of enclosure (0.7) 36. Variety of sub-spaces (0.7) 37. Density of elements in space providing sensory complexity (0.7) 38. Variety of elements in space providing sensory complexity (0.7) 39. Design elements providing focal points (0.7) 40. Visual and physical connection and openness to adjacent street/s or spaces (0.7) 41. Permeability of building facades on the street front (0.7) 42. Personalization of the buildings on the street front (0.7) 43. Articulation and variety in architectural features of building facades on the street front (0.7) 44. Perceived attractiveness of space (2.0) 45. Perceived interestingness of space (1.0)

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - PÁRAMO AND BURBANO

Assessment of the Conditions that Make Public Space Habitable in Colombia Andrea M. Burbano Arroyo and Pablo Paramo made a research with the goal of finding which conditions of public space affect their habitability, their use. One of the indicators in the national study called ‘How are cities doing?’, is that of public space as a measure of the quality of life in the cities analyzed. According to Burbano and Paramo, the development of this indicator in comparison to others is very poor and so they produced this research to tackle that scarcity. They believe that public space is an essential component of the quality of life in cities and thus must be evaluated in much more detail. “Public space, as the place where social practices gestate that contribute to the encounter between people, must be habitable and, thus, impact the quality of urban life” 1. By habitable they mean when the space satisfies the human needs, which in the case of public space must achieve certain conditions both physical and not. These conditions are spatial, of equity, of security, and of comfort, to be able to make use, stay, feel comfortable, identify, and appropriate public spaces. The method used consists of a tool with 49 reagents of which 48 explore the gradient to which each contribute to the habitability of the space (the last was the general qualification of the habitability fo the space), which are qualified in a scale of 5: does not contribute (-2), low contribution (-1), indifferent (0), contributes (1), contributes significantly (2), and do not know. These 48 reagents were the result of the analysis of different literatures on the matter, and also on interviews that took place in the public space of the different cities. With the results of surveys with 740 people, the research team, through different research tools, concluded with a graphic that organizes the indicators into five categories: 1) Cultural activities, 2) Economic exploitation, 3) Environment, 4) Infrastructure, with a subdivision for accessibility, and 5) an indicator by itself, Displaced, indigents, and drug addicts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

What is most interesting of the research are the indicators proposed, not so much the results. Basing the contribution of each through the perception of citizens is important, but it also relies on what people are used to talking about in the city, which is normally what fails the most (ie. road network, sport facilities, respect for transit rules, etc.). The research would be even more powerful if the perception was compared to actual data recovered from field work. 1

Páramo, Pablo, and Andrea Milena Burbano Arroyo. 2013. “Valoración de las condiciones que hacen habitable el espacio público en Colombia.” Territorios 28: 187-206.

Top - Level of contribution of each indicator to the habitability; Below categorization of indicators

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - PĂ RAMO AND BURBANO

CONDITIONS THAT INFLUENCE IN A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE WAY THE HABITABILITY OF PUBLIC SPACE IN CITIES 1. Predominant weather in the city 2. Ability to protect yourself from weather changes - excess of rain or heat 3. Atmospheric pollution perceived in the city 4. Possibility to have religious/political/artistic manifestations 5. Presence of homeless or drug addicts 6. Presence of displaced people 7. Diversity in that which can be observed and experienced 8. That they have an identity - a public space can be differentiated from another 9. Pedestrian zones that exist around the city 10. Opportunity to have social contact with others 11. Cultural elements - sculptures, monuments, art pieces, etc. 12. Free cultural activities that happen in the city for the general public - parades or concerts 13. Aesthetics or harmony of the facades of buildings 14. Accessibility to public spaces from where I live 15. Accessibility that public spaces have from the different modes of transportation 16. Existence of bike ways 17. The Open Streets for Bikes on Sundays and holidays 18. The urban furniture - benches, telephone booths, street lights, trash cans, etc. 19. Maintenance of the urban furniture 20. Ramps that facilitate the movement of strollers or people with disability 21. Presence of natural elements - plants, trees, animals 22. Existent spaces for sports 23. Quantity and location of public bathrooms 24. Cleanliness of the city in general

25. Quality of lighting at night 26. Signal posts - transit, maps, etc. 27. Graffiti or painting on walls around the city 28. Exterior auditive publicity 29. Exterior visual publicity 30. Presence of security cameras 31. Presence of police or security guards 32. Availability of spaces of recreation for kids 33. Availability of spaces of encounter for the youth 34. Opportunity to develop multiple activities - BBQâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, sports, passive recreation 35. Sale of food and beverages on the street 36. Informal commerce and sales of streets 37. Noise on streets 38. Public space free of foul odors 39. Spaces free of cigar smoke 40. Citizen respect for the rules of cohabitation and use of public spaces 41. Equitable public space for all genders 42. Respect of transit rules 43. Public space for all - kids, youth, adults, elderly 44. Quality of the street network 45. Presence of musicians on the streets 46. Presence of jugglers on street lights 47. Presence of pianos, accordions, or other musical instruments on streets and spaces that people can use 48. ATMs of banking corporations 49. In general, how habitable do you consider public space is in your city?

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - BRIAN PHELPS

The Future of Public Space Analytics According to Brian Phelps, public space “brings people together to socialize, recreate, and work. More pointedly, it attracts people to the city, builds relationships, and spurs innovation and new ideas that fuel a city’s economic growth” 1. Yet he wonders if the new spaces being designed “fulfill their promise”, which is why it is so important to evaluate spaces after they have been implemented, to understand if they are achieving that or not. Phelps argues for a continuous summation of clarity and resolution of the specific conditions and context of public spaces, through the now possible collection of detailed real-time data. What he finds most relevant about the collection of data, is that the by incorporating sensors into the design, the system can provide information about the use of the space 24/7 (ie. number of people, how long they stay, etc.). What is most useful about this data is that it can also be compared and analyzed together with other types of data, like weather conditions, or other more physical aspects, like building permits, which allow for researchers to make relationships between components and conditions of the context and how they affect activities in public space. “All of this enables [designers’ to make more informed decisions rather than anecdotal observations and assumptions” 1. One of the most beneficiary aspects of big data collection, is that numbers are what drive city investments and they can help advocate for public space with supporting evidence. The important questions are: “what do [designers and managers] want to know and why? What is just noise? What is appropriate to collect?”. The graph shows some of the information that could be collected to help understand public space and the use of it. It is divided into five main categories: 1) Environment, 2) User, 3) Use, 4) Social Media, and 5) External data. Some of these are data collected with on-site sensors, others through individual phones, and lastly data that can be collected in other sources (ie. government, social media, etc.). 1

Phelps, Brian. 2015. “The Future of Public Space Analytics.” The Agile Landscape Project. February 16. Accessed 02 10, 2018. https://theagilelandscape.com/2015/02/16/the-future-of-public-space-analytics/.

PUBLIC SPACE METRICS - BRIAN PHELPS

Photograph by author.

4 NEW METHODOLOGIES FOR BOGOTÁ

GENERAL SPACES OF INTERACTION INDEX

TWO LEVELS OF ANALYSIS IN DEPTH SPACE ANALYSIS MATRIX

NEW METHODOLOGIES - TWO LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

From analyzing Bogotá’s proposals for regulations, projects, plans, and indicators, it is clear that the social aspect of public space has been mentioned and “taken into account” but it has not been reflected in the different actions the city has taken to improve public space. As shown before, there have been several approaches to public space, worldwide, that consider the social aspects of spaces as well as the physical, and both at different scales. Bogotá is aware of the importance of public space in shaping society, which is why the city needs new ways of analyzing and understanding public space in order to change their current attitude which is based mostly on quantity. The proposed methodologies to analyze public space are based on the different proposals studied, but also on visits to public spaces in Bogotá which allow for these indicators to be contextualized and understand the specifics of the city.

The second analysis is more complex for it requires interviews, informed observation, and data analysis, to define how the space is working in relation to the context and how people interact with the spaces and other citizens in it. It is a way to understand how spaces are working and what changes need to be done in order to make them fulfill their potential as spaces of interaction. This methodology is organized with a matrix, a counter-position of four scales (city, district, space, and individual) and the conditions that make up public spaces (diverse interactions, connectivity, physical/ spatial, and mixed-uses). This matrix allows us to ask pertinent questions considering both the scale and the focus of the lens, and to produce conclusions that respond to the different components of public space that make them encourage social interactions between diverse citizens.

Two types of analysis are proposed, both analyzing spatial and social components of public space, but different in that one can be done faster and at a big scale, while the other one requires time and people educated in the process. The first methodology is to acquire data through a simple survey which is then analyzed to create the Spaces of Interaction General Index (SIGI), an index that allows the city to compare several spaces and understand if they are or not achieving their goal of encouraging social interactions and why. As with any other survey, the amount and diversity of people surveyed is crucial to the accuracy of the conclusions that can be made. As a result of the data collection methodology, the results are still subjective and should be used and analyzed having this in mind. After having calculated the SIGI for as many public spaces as the city desires, again the more the better, several analyses can be made to understand what aspects at district scale are influencing the amount of interactions that happen in the space. The conclusions that can be made through this method are meant as a first and general analysis of spaces, and should not be the only analysis made to understand the current state of public spaces nor to design or redesign new spaces of interaction in the city.

These two methodologies expose how important it is to look beyond area per inhabitant as a measure for “good public space” in Bogotá, and any city for that matter. In order to take advantage of the potential of each public space, the city must understand all the variables that affect and shape how people behave and interact in them. In a city that receives more and more people from other cities and towns, public space has a crucial role to increase social cohesion and a sense of belonging that improves the quality of life of all inhabitants. These new ways of looking at public space might allow the city to project public spaces that help bridge differences and produce a society that is more equitable. Peñalosa’s proposal to use the same elements in all public spaces no matter the income of those who live around it, is an interesting proposal to generate equity, but it limits the potential of public spaces by narrowing the focus on only the physical. These new approaches seek to inform the city about its public spaces in order to act upon realities that are expressed in the amount of people that interact and make use of public spaces.

TIME

SPACES OF INTERACTION GENERAL INDEX

ACTIVITIES LOCATION

PERCEPTION

VISITS

Graph to show the index and its various categories

NEW METHODOLOGIES - SPACES OF INTERACTION GENERAL INDEX

Spaces of Interaction General Index

TIME 30 pt Frequency (0-15 pt) Transition vs Stay (0-15 pt)

ACTIVITIES 30 pt Type of Activity (0-30 pt)

VISITS 15 pt Amount of people (0-15 pt)

PERCEPTION 15 pt Sense of Danger (-5-0 pt) Low Interest (-5-0 pt) Low Imageability (-5-0 pt) Quality (0-15 pt)

LOCATION 10 pt Closeness (0-10 pt) Un-reachability (-10-0 pt)

The SIGI is a tool to measure how a public space is more, or less, a Space of Interaction. This method is a way of comparing public spaces in a macro scale with very general information (in this case acquired through a digital survey, Annex 1) that gives us a first take on the spaces and that allows us to choose which spaces to look into with more detail (see next chapter). The idea behind the creation of this index, is to be able to compare several spaces and rate them in a scale of how they are or not Spaces of Interaction; this allows us then, to do an analysis of their spatial conditions and to try to figure out which spatial and contextual factors have allowed and shaped these spaces to encourage more, or less, interactions between strangers. The index is divided into 5 main categories that are each given a score according to their relevance in defining Spaces of Interaction; the minimum score for a space would be -25 and the maximum 100. The main two categories are TIME and ACTIVITIES, which refer most directly to the amount of interactions in a space. As this is an initial analysis, there is no field data on the interactions that occur in each space, for this matter we consider both the frequency and how long people stay in the spaces, and the types of activities that people realize in them. Due to their importance in defining the SIGI, these two categories each account for 30 points. A second set of categories are those pertaining to the number of VISITS and the PERCEPTION of the space; these are each assigned 15 points. Although the amount of visits could also be considered more pertinent to the interactions, the fact that people have been or go to the space, does not mean that they meet others in the space, while the amount of time they spend and the types of activities they realize, are a more relevant indication of the amount of interactions. Perception is an important part of this research because it characterizes how both the space and the interactions in them influence the people that use them. Although this is true, perception is better understood through field work, the indicators used here from the survey are not as precise and thus are not considered as meaningful for the SIGI. Perception is defined by the perception of the quality of the space as positive and sense of danger, low interest, and low imageability as negative. Finally, the category of LOCATION is included in the SIGI because it affects how many people get to the space, either because they live, work, or study near it, or negatively if they do not know how to get there.

TIME + Frequency of visits (% of one time visits x 2 + % of occasional visits x 5 + % of routine visits x 8) - Transition vs Stay (Normalized average score x 15)

ACTIVITIES + Type of activity (% of necessary activities x 10 + % of optional activities x 20)

VISITS - Amount of people who have been to the space (% of interviewed people who have visited the space x 15)

FROM SURVEY TO INDEX

PERCEPTION - Sense of danger (% of danger x -5) - Low Interest (% who prefer other spaces x -2 + % who aren’t interested x -3) - Low imageability (% who don’t know the space x -5) + Quality of the space (Normalized average score x 15)

LOCATION + Closeness to other activities (% who work, live or study near the space x 10) - Unreachability (% who don’t know how to get there x -5 + % who think it’s too far x -5)

NEW METHODOLOGIES - SPACES OF INTERACTION GENERAL INDEX

TIME 30 pt Frequency 15 pt How many times do you visit the space? Once Occasionally Once a month Once a week 2-3 times a week Every day Never been

% Once

% Occasional

PERCEPTION 15 pt Quality 15 pt What is the quality of the space?

% Routine

Average / 3

x 15

% No interest % Prefer other spaces

x -3 x -2

% Dangerous

x -5

Transition/Stay 15 pt How much time do you spend in the space? 0 - 5 minutes 5 - 10 minutes 30 minutes 1 hour More than 1 hour Never been

% Transitory % Stay

x 10

No interest -5 pt Why haven’t you been? No interest Prefer other spaces

Danger -5 pt Why haven’t you been?

% Necessary

% Optional

Low Imageability -5 pt Why haven’t you been? Don’t know it

x -5

x 20

LOCATION 10 pt Closeness to other uses 10 pt Do you live, work, or study near the space? Live near Work near Study near None

% Yes % No

% Dangerous

x 10

VISITS 15 pt People who have been 30 pt Have you visited the space? Yes No

x3 x2 x -2 x -3 x1

Dangerous

ACTIVITIES 30 pt Type of Activity 30 pt Reasons why you go to the space Part of my route Recreation Eat Play - Sports Rest Meet acquaintances Cultural event Never been

Very good Good Bad Very bad Never been

Unreachable -10 pt Why haven’t you been? x 15

Don’t know how to get there Too far

% Near other activity

x 10

% Don’t know how to get there % Too far

x -5 x -5 63

SIGI COMPARISONS

A L

Example graph of the comparison of spaces

NEW METHODOLOGIES - SIGI COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT SPACES

CATEGORY

TIME ACTIVITIES VISITS PERCEPTION LOCATION CONDITIONS

SITE URBAN CONTEXT DEMOGRAPHICS

SIGI to Compare Different Spaces The idea of the Spaces of Interaction General Index is to be able to compare various spaces and find common negative and positive aspects of the spaces that influence the amount of interactions that happen in them. The index should be calculated for several spaces, the reasoning for deciding which spaces to compare can be done by type of public space (square, park, etc.), by specific areas of the city, randomly, or any logic. The first step to compare the spaces by, is to arrange the spaces based on the 5 categories of the index. This analysis allows the city to find which aspects need more improvement either for specific spaces or better yet in general for public space in the city. A second comparative analysis based on the results of the SIGI is that of organizing the spaces in terms of different conditions of the spaces, of the urban context, and of the demographics around the space, in order to understand which of these affect the amount of people in the spaces. The first set of comparisons of the spaces themselves, for example, can be area of the space and year of design or redesign. The urban conditions of the context can be the uses of the buildings around, the built density, the ratio of building height to area of the space, among others. Finally, the comparisons of the demographics can be the density of population, the income diversity, and such other considerations. These three sets of comparisons can inform the way in which the context influences what happens in the spaces and thus inform where public spaces should be located in the city and what the urban conditions around should be in order to make public spaces truly spaces of interaction.

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS

66 Photograph by author.

NEW METHODOLOGIES - IN DEPTH ANALYSIS

In Depth Space Analysis A second type of analysis is that of the specific spaces which requires a much more in-depth analysis of the conditions of the space and the context. This method is based on a matrix that contemplates both scale and crucial components that make public spaces spaces of interaction, in order to create guiding questions for an analysis of the physical and the social spheres. This matrix is a result of the study of the different ways in which public space has been and is being measured around the world, but also of the visits made to several spaces in Bogotá, that allowed for the questions to respond to general concerns of public space but also to specifics of the city. The questions in the matrix have different ‘products’: diagrams, maps, graphs, among others graphic tools, that can help analyze it and compare it with other spaces as well. The columns of the matrix respond to four scales: CITY, DISTRICT, SITE, and INDIVIDUAL. The CITY scale refers to all the conditions of the space in relation with the rest of the city in its physical composition but also its networks. The DISTRICT scale is defined by a 500-meter radius around the space which seeks to understand the particularities of the zone where the space is located. The SITE scale involves the space itself and the immediate surroundings, the streets or buildings that surround it. Finally, the INDIVIDUAL scale deals with the citizen, the user of the space, the person who interacts with the spaces and with others in them. All scales within the city affect the way a space works and so it is important to analyze

them all, for an intervention at one scale might have a bigger impact on the social character of the space. The rows are defined by four key components that make a public space a space that fosters interactions: HUMAN, CONNECTIVITY, PHYSICAL/SPATIAL, and MIXED-USE. The HUMAN dimension is a critical aspect that needs to be analyzed to understand how a space is used and if it encourages interactions; it is defined by the demographics but also by the perceptions of the people. CONNECTIVITY is thought as both the connection of the space to networks of the city but also to the accessibility of the space by the citizens. The PHYSICAL/SPATIAL dimension refers to the environment, the tangible and the perception of it. The last component is the USE which entails both the intended uses and the activities that happen. The result is a matrix that creates questions at the four scales about the four components. The resulting products represent the different conditions of the space, what it is lacking and what is exemplary and could be replicated in other spaces. It can also help decide which simple interventions can have an impact in the amount of people that interact in the space. When this analysis is done to many spaces, it will also help to understand which aspects are more relevant in the search for more interactions, and thus will also inform the design and location of new public spaces around the city.

USE

PHYSICAL/ SPATIAL

MATRIX

CONNECTIVITY

HUMAN

CITY

DISTRICT (500 m radius)

SITE

INDIVIDUAL

NEW METHODOLOGIES - MATRIX INDIVIDUAL

- What is the income diversity in the context? - Do people live, work, study, or recreate in the context? - What is the population density around the space (residential and jobs)? - What is the average age in the context?

- Are there street vendors in the space? - Are the facades surrounding the space active? - Do any of the surrounding buildings spill into the space? - How many different activities happen in the space at the same time? - Do furniture elements encourage interactions? - Does the space offer possibilities for different levels of privacy of interactions? - Are there people standing? - Are there people sitting? - Are there people walking?

- Do people recognize others in the space? - Do people stay in the space or do they only cross it?

- How many transportation stops in the context? - How many modes of transportation in the context? - Are there any main pedestrian flows in the context? How long does it take to get to the space from different centralities or extremities?

- How many transportation stops in the space? - How many modes of transportation are in direct contact with the space? - Are there any main pedestrian flows surrounding the space? - Does the space have defined entrances?

- Is the space physically accessible to all citizens? (Ramps) - Do people know how to get to the space?

- Where is the space located in the city in relation to natural elements? - Do citizens know the space? (no matter their spatial relationship to the space)

- How tall are the buildings in the surrounding context? - What is the open space ratio of the context? - Is the context perceived as safe?

- What are the heights of the surrounding buildings in comparison to the size of the space? - Is the space lit at night? - Are there spaces for seating? - Are there spaces for walking? - Are there spaces for standing? - Are there trees? - Is there protection from the sun? The wind? The noise? - Is there protection from traffic? - Is the space well maintained? - Is the space clean? - Are the elements in the space working/in good condition? - On how many sides is the space surrounded by streets?

- What is the perceived condition of the space? - Do people feel safe in the space?

- Is the space located within an agglomeration of a certain use? - Is the space located in a special zone of the city? - Is the space located in one of the main centers of the city?

- Is the context mixed use? - Which is the predominant use in the area? - Are there festivals, carnivals, or other temporal activities in the district? (ie. Ciclovia)

- What are the uses immediately surrounding the space? - Are there several uses surrounding the space? - Are there uses in the space? - Are there any intermittent activities that happen in the space?

- What types of activities do people do in the space? - Are there various activities happening in the space?

CONNECTIVITY

HUMAN

SITE

PHYSICAL/SPATIAL

DISTRICT (500 m radius)

USE

CITY

- Population - Is the space located in a dense area (residential population and jobs)?

- How far away from the main arteries of the different modes of public transportation? - Is the space connected to other open spaces?

Photograph by author.

5 TESTING THE NEW METHODOLOGIES IN BOGOTÁ

SIGI - 16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ

TESTING THE NEW METHODOLOGIES - 16 SPACES IN BOGOTĂ

To show how the methodology can be applied and what types of conclusions and insights can emerge from this new way of looking and analyzing public space, sixteen spaces were selected as a small sample. The spaces were chosen as representations of what, to the author, can be or have the potential of being, metropolitan public spaces; metropolitan in the sense that they have the character to attract people from the entire city and beyond, as symbolic or emblematic spaces in the city. Or that responded to specific regulations or periods of the history of BogotĂĄ. The spaces chosen vary in size to start tackling the idea that more is better; by looking at spaces of different sizes it is possible to see what the effect of their size is. This is a limited sample that serves as an example of how the analysis would be used, but the greater the number of spaces analyzed, the better the conclusions and insights will be. The spaces analyzed were: Plaza de la 85 Plaza de la 97 Plaza Monumento a los Caidos Plazoleta Chorro de Quevedo Parque de los Periodistas Plaza San Victorino Plaza del Rosario Parque Santander Parque de los Hippies Plaza de Lourdes Plaza de la Hoja Parque de los Martires Plazoleta de las Sillas Parque Tercer Milenio Plaza Fundacional de Suba Parque El Virrey The data for this analysis was acquired through the survey (see Annex 1) which was distributed digitally and in person. 204 people answered it which is a small sample and though it allows to make general conclusions, a complete analysis should represent much more of the population of the city.

After analyzing the 204 surveys, each space was given its score for the Social Interaction General Index. Above are the spaces organized from that which is least a Space of Interaction on the left, to the one that is most on the right. Of the spaces chosen the one that is least a space of interaction is the Plaza Fundacional Suba which has a score of 18.3, compared to that of the Parque El Virrey which has a score of 64.91. What becomes clear from the scores is that even the best Spaces for Interaction are lacking, but mainly that thirteen out of sixteen are below the score of 50, demonstrating that spaces in Bogotรก are not used as much as their potential.

SIGI - CATEGORY COMPARISONS

The organization of the spaces in terms of the SIGI permits the city to focus on two main things: the first is to understand the general conditions of public space in the city; and second, to know which spaces are lacking and thus make the more in depth analysis to understand what could needs to change in order to take advantage of their potential and improve the quality of life of the citizens. Since this analysis was made with public spaces chosen because they have the capacity to become, or continue being, symbolic metropolitan Spaces of Interaction, an insight that comes to light is that although these have the conditions to increase the social interactions between diverse citizens, they are limited by different aspects to understand what it is that has to change, the analysis continues with the proposed comparisons of the categories and conditions of the spaces.

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SPACES OF INTERACTION GENERAL INDEX

Low SIGI

High SIGI

A L

Plaza Fundacional Suba

A L

Plaza de la Hoja

A L

Parque de los Martires

A L

Parque de Parque Monumento los Hippies Tercer Milenio a los Caídos

A L

Parque de las Sillas

A L

Plaza del Rosario

A L

Plaza 97

A L

Plaza de Lourdes

A L

Parque de los Periodistas

A L

Plaza San Victorino

A L

Parque Santander

A L

Plaza 85

A L

Chorro de Quevedo

Parque Virrey

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SPACES OF INTERACTION GENERAL INDEX

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI - TIME SCORE

Low SIGI

High SIGI

25 Parque Virrey

20 Plaza San Victorino Parque Santander

10 Plaza 5 Fundacional Suba

-5

-10

-15

Plaza de la Hoja

Parque de los Martires

Parque Parque de Tercer Milenio Monumento los Hippies a los Caídos

Plaza del Rosario Parque de las Sillas

Chorro de Quevedo Plaza 85

Parque de los Periodistas

Plaza 97

Plaza de Lourdes

5 The category of Time shows a general trend up. Plaza San Victorino has a particularly high score for Time in comparison with the general score which is a result of people going there to buy things, an activity that takes time and includes walking through the plaza. In general people do not spend a lot of time in public space, ten out of the sixteen spaces have a score of less than 15 points, half the amount possible for the Time score. Public space in Bogotá has become in most cases a space of circulation between one private space to another, which reduces the quality of interactions between diverse citizens who cross the space without even realizing they are in the presence of others.

-5

-10

-15 77

16 SPACES IN BOGOTĂ - SIGI - ACTIVITIES SCORE

Low SIGI

High SIGI

Parque Tercer Milenio

-5

-10

-15 78

Plaza Fundacional Suba

Plaza de la Hoja

Parque de los Martires

Parque de los Hippies

Monumento a los CaĂdos

Parque de las Sillas

Plaza de Lourdes Plaza del Rosario

Plaza 97

Parque de los Periodistas

Plaza San Victorino

Parque Santander

Chorro de Quevedo

Parque Virrey

Plaza 85

5 The types of activities that people do in the spaces are very influential in how many interactions happen in them because it defines both the time spent in the space but also the attitude people have while in them. All but the two spaces with the highest SIGI are below 15, half the possible score, underscoring the fact that the activities that happen in public space are mostly necessary activities related to circulation, as also shown by the Time scores. Optional activities, which tend to last longer, do not happen very often, reducing the probability that several activities happen at the same time and thus decreasing the interactions that happen in the spaces.

-5

-10

-15

16 SPACES IN BOGOTĂ - SIGI - VISITS SCORE

Low SIGI

High SIGI

10 Parque de las Sillas

5 Plaza de la Hoja

-5

-10

-15

Plaza Fundacional Suba

Parque de los Martires

Parque Monumento Tercer Milenio a los CaĂdos Parque de los Hippies

Plaza de Lourdes Plaza del Rosario

Plaza 97

10 Parque de los Periodistas

Plaza San Victorino

Parque Santander

Plaza 85

Chorro de Quevedo

Parque Virrey

The Visits category, which has 15 as the maximum score, shows that most of the spaces, eleven, have been visited by more than half the people surveyed. This fact increases the chances that the spaces are being visited more often and thus the probability of more interactions. In the In Depth Analysis of the other parks it would be relevant to see what has affected this score for the remaining five spaces; is it because the space is hard to reach? Is it because people do not know that it exists? Is it that the space has a bad reputation? This category allows the city to focus on these types of questions for the specific spaces that have a lower score.

-5

-10

-15 79

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI - PERCEPTION SCORE

Low SIGI

High SIGI

30 The category of Perception is essential because it influences how much people visit the space, at which times of the day and week, and for how long. The results for the sixteen spaces is the one that correlates least to the final score, underscoring how perception actually diminishes the positive consequences of the other categories. A clear example is that of the Plaza San Victorino which has a Perception score of -4.29, placing it five places bellow the best space. Only two of the spaces have perceptions below zero, but four others have it bellow 1 which can barely be considered a positive perception. All but one space have scores bellow 7.5, half the maximum score, which is a clear evidence that the general perception of public space in Bogotá is negative and is one of the reasons why people only use it for necessary activities.

Parque Virrey

0 Plaza Fundacional Suba -5

-10

-15 80

Plaza de la Hoja

Parque Parque de Tercer Milenio los Hippies Parque de los Martires

Plaza 85

Plaza 97

Monumento a los Caídos

Plaza del Rosario Parque de las Sillas

Plaza de Lourdes

Parque Santander

Parque de los Periodistas Plaza San Victorino

Chorro de Quevedo

-5

-10

-15

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI - LOCATION SCORE

Low SIGI

High SIGI

30 Location is the category in which the scores varied the least, for all the spaces have scores bellow five, half the maximum score, and only one has a negative score. Since Location in this index is measured through its closeness to citizen’s activities and the spaces are chosen because they have the potential to be Spaces of Interaction at a metropolitan scale, the fact that people do not live, work, or study near the space is not as relevant. In any case, only four spaces (Parque Tercer Milenio, Parque de los Martires, Plaza de la Hoja, and Plaza Fundacional Suba) have unreachability scores lower than 10%, of which one is the furthest away from the city center.

Plaza -5 Fundacional Suba

Plaza de la Hoja

Parque de los Martires

Parque de Parque los Hippies Tercer Milenio Monumento a los Caídos

Parque de las Sillas

Plaza del Rosario

Plaza 97

Plaza de Lourdes

Parque de los Periodistas

Plaza San Victorino

Parque Santander

Plaza 85

Chorro de Quevedo

Parque Virrey

-5

-10

-15

-15 81

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI - ALL CATEGORIES

Low SIGI 30

-5

-10

-15 82

High SIGI

Time Activities Visits Perception Location

-10

-15

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI CATEGORIES

When all the categories are placed together, some spaces stand out, particularly the case of Plaza San Victorino which places five bellow the best Space of Interaction, yet there are big variations between the scores for the different categories. Both Perception and Location are low, counteracting the high scores for the other categories which are comparable to those scored by the best Space of Interaction, Parque El Virrey. Another similar example is the Plaza Lourdes, which has relatively high scores for Time, Activities, and Visits, and yet is close to the middle in terms of the general score. Something that becomes clear from this graph is that the best Space of Interaction out of the sixteen spaces, has a very high score for Time, meaning citizens go to the space specifically to spend time in it. An important step forward for the city having this in mind, would be to find out, through the In Depth Analysis, which aspects of the space are what attract more people to stay for longer periods of time. This can give clues as how to improve this score for the rest of the spaces. As this is one of the two spaces which could be considered metropolitan parks because of their size, and the other, the Parque Tercer Milenio, is in the lower half of the general classification, understanding how it encourages citizens to stay longer is an essential aspect to unpack and replicate in the latter. More general observations for all the spaces have already been mentioned but it is relevant to emphasize on them, as they affect public space beyond the particular spaces. Perception is low for all spaces which showcases how Bogotanos feel towards public space, as an unsafe and un-enjoyable place to interact with others, in contrast to private spaces, which results in interactions between people with diverse backgrounds becoming very improbable. The score for Activities is also relatively low for all the spaces analyzed which underscores that people use these public spaces mostly for necessary activities which are less probable to cause interactions between citizens, and even less those described by Gehl as familiar stranger contact. There is almost no ‘usual crowd’, no people that others recognize and thus make the space more familiar as well. As mentioned before, this comparison allows us to find general problems or conclusions, but it can also be useful to prioritize the In Depth Analysis for those spaces that have lower scores. It also points out which aspects to look closer into to begin with in that analysis.

SIGI - CONDITION COMPARISONS

The second set of comparisons for the Spaces of Interaction General Index is about different conditions of the space and its context. This part of the analysis is important because it is a first attempt to understand which aspects affect how much a public space is a Space of Interaction. To exemplify which types of conditions can be compared and what sorts of insights derive from them, the following section proposes this comparisons: in terms of the Site conditions, the size of the spaces and the time of design and last redesign of the space; in terms of the Urban Context, a comparison of the percentage of different uses in the context; and finally to exemplify a comparison of the Demographics of the context, the density of both residential and working population around the site. These are just examples of analysis that can be done by comparing the spaces in relation to the SIGI. Other conditions that could be used for Site related conditions are: number of trees, spaces within the space, ratio of seating spaces to area, among others. For the Urban Context other comparisons could be: proximity to modes of transportation, built density, amount of open space in the context, etc.. And finally, in terms of Demographics other comparable conditions are: average age, income, gender, all about the population both living or working in the context. All these conditions in some way or another affect the number of interactions that happen in a space and the types of interactions, which is why having an understanding of them in relation to the SIGI is relevant.

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI SIZE OF SPACE

Low SIGI

High SIGI Responding to Bogotá’s current approach to public space, a comparison f the size of spaces seems relevant. This graph clearly shows that more area is not necessarily better in terms of the amount of social interactions that happen in a space. The Parque Tercer Milenio is the biggest public space analyzed and it is the fifth worse in terms of the SIGI. The Plazoleta Choro de Quevedo, on the other hand, is the second smallest and the second-best Space of Interaction. This is not to say that bigger spaces are better or worse, but as a sign that quality is just as important as quantity and that Parque Tercer Milenio’s potential to create a huge Space of Interaction is wasted by not understanding other essential components of the urban context and of the site that encourage social interactions.

16 Ha Parque Tercer Milenio

6 Ha

16 Ha

6 Ha

Parque Virrey

2 Ha

Monumento a los Caídos

Plaza de la Hoja

1 Ha

1 Ha Plaza San Victorino Parque de los Martires

Plaza Fundacional 0 Ha Suba

Parque de los Hippies Plaza del Rosario Parque de las Sillas

Plaza 97

Plaza de Lourdes

Parque de los Periodistas

Parque Santander Plaza 85

0 Ha Chorro de Quevedo

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI YEAR OF DESIGN OR REDESIGN

Low SIGI

High SIGI

2020

2010

Plaza Fundacional Suba 2016

2020

Chorro de Quevedo 2017

Plaza de la Hoja 2015

2010

2000

2000 Parque Parque de Tercer Milenio Monumento los Hippies 2002 a los Caídos 2004 2003

1990

Another aspect of the site that is interesting to compare is when the space was first designed and the year of its last design. What this analysis helps to illuminate, is which spaces might be in need of redesign and also how different policies and regulations affected the design of some spaces. A following step to further analyze from this graph would be to look closer into the regulations at the turn of the century and why the spaces last designed during this time vary so much in how good they are at being Spaces of Interaction. These were all created after Peanalosa’s Urban Furniture Handbook which might point to the fact that guaranteeing quality of materials and furniture is not enough to develop the potential of public spaces. In the case of the Plazoleta Chorro de Quevedo, the last space to be redesigned, the city can look at which aspects of the intervention have encouraged more interactions to happen and replicate them by contextualizing them in other spaces.

Parque de los Martires 1991

1980

Parque de las Sillas 2001

1970

Plaza 97 1999

Plaza de Lourdes 2001

Parque de los Periodistas 2001

Plaza San Victorino 1999

Plaza 85 1999

Parque Virrey 1999

Plaza del Rosario 1988

1980

1970

Parque Santander 1960

1960

1960 1550

1990

1850

1812

1968

1886

1988

1598

1832

16 SPACES IN BOGOTĂ - SIGI PERCENT OF USES

Low SIGI

High SIGI

The uses that surround a space are very relevant to the number and type of activities that can happen in a public space, for they define how many people there are at different times of the day and week. Normally offices are more active during the day and housing during the night. Commercial uses are more active during the entire day, especially if they support both the office and housing uses. The graph exemplifies some of these hypothesis through the case of the Plaza Fundacional Suba, which has mainly only residential uses in the context and its SIGI score is very low. The Plaza Monumento a los Caidos, on the other hand, has a high percentage of offices but very few residential, limiting its active hours to those of the office workers. In general, all the spaces have low percentages of commercial use, which could help activate the spaces and increase the amount of optional activities (which as shown before is low in all spaces).

70%

60%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Plaza Fundacional Suba

Plaza de la Hoja

Parque de los Martires

Parque de Parque Monumento los Hippies Tercer Milenio a los CaĂdos

Parque de las Sillas

Plaza del Rosario

Plaza 97

Plaza de Lourdes

Parque de los Periodistas

Plaza San Victorino

Parque Santander

Plaza 85

Chorro de Quevedo

Parque Virrey 87

16 SPACES IN BOGOTĂ - SIGI DENSITY (Residential + Jobs)

Low SIGI

High SIGI

The higher the density of citizens around a space, the higher the probability that there will be people using the space. When looking at density of population it is crucial to look at both residential and working population, for this defines when the space is active and how many people are in the context no matter their relationship to it. Although it is hard to measure floating population, it would be relevant to also bring it to this equation, especially since the particular spaces chosen in this sample are meant to be metropolitan Spaces of Interaction and thus not only depend on the constant population. From the graph it can also be deduced that density in the context does not guarantee the use of the space, but what does increase the chances of encounters is a mix of both. The two spaces that have density of jobs bellow 5,000 people per hectare, are in the lower half of the general classification.

40,000 p/ha 35,000 p/ha 30,000 p/ha

25,000 p/ha

20,000 p/ha

15,000 p/ha

10,000 p/ha

Residential

5,000 p/ha Plaza Fundacional Suba 88

5,000 p/ha

Jobs Plaza de la Hoja

Parque de los Martires

Parque de Parque Monumento los Hippies Tercer Milenio a los CaĂdos

Parque de las Sillas

Plaza del Rosario

Plaza 97

Plaza de Lourdes

Parque de los Periodistas

Plaza San Victorino

Parque Santander

Plaza 85

Chorro de Quevedo

Parque Virrey

16 SPACES IN BOGOTÁ - SIGI COMPARISONS T

A L

Parque Santander

Plaza 97

Parque Tercer Milenio

A L

Plaza de la Hoja

Plaza del Rosario

Parque de las Sillas T

Plaza Fundacional Suba

A L

Monumento a los Caídos

Plaza San Victorino

Parque de los Periodistas

A L

Plaza de Lourdes

Parque Virrey

A L

Chorro de Quevedo

A L

Plaza 85

A L

Parque de los Martires

Parque de los Hippies 89

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - TWO SPACES

90 Photograph by author.

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - TWO SPACES

As a way to test the In Depth Analysis methodology proposed, two spaces were chosen from those analyzed with the SIGI, the second best space which is also the second smallest, the Plazoleta Chorro de Quevedo, and the second to last, which is one the third biggest one, Plaza de la Hoja. These were chosen for two reasons: the first is to emphasize on the argument that quantity is not enough to provide Spaces of Interaction in the city, since the bigger one has a score which is less than half the small one; and second, because they are both at the extremes of the SIGI scale, allowing for the In Depth Analysis to have clear conclusions and insights that can be turned into interventions at different scales. To retrieve the data that informs this analysis, a full weekday and a full weekend day was spent in each of the spaces, observing, annotating, taking pictures, drawing, and interviewing people. For this analysis to be even more informative, this fieldwork should be done for longer periods of time, to be able to understand the dynamics according to different moments of the year and in different weathers. Limited as the fieldwork was, the data collected is enough to start coming up with relevant aspects that affect the way people interact with each other in the space and with the space itself. To complement the data collected during the fieldwork, other data was compiled from city institutions, some of which are a bit out of date. The following section shows the different products of the analysis grouped to show what types of conclusions this way of looking at public space can be made evident. By analyzing both spaces at the same time it is possible to understand some of the conclusions from the SIGI comparisons in more detail, to understand the reasons behind low and high scores and how the context, the design, and the perception of the spaces, affect them.

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - PLAZA DE LA HOJA

Photographs by author.

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - CHORRO DE QUEVEDO

Photographs by author.

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY D

Looking at density at the city scale and the position of the space in relation to residential and working population, shows how active the area is in the bigger context. Different centralities in the city also bring more activity and uses, which is why it is relevant to look at these together. The density is higher in the Plazoleta Chorro de Quevedo in both work and residential, also exemplified in the charts of people who live, work, or study near the

U P/S C H

6.4% 3.9% 2.0%

17.6%

13.7%

3.9% Study Close Live Close

87.7% 94

Plaza de la Hoja

None Work Close

Chorro de Quevedo

64.7%

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - WORKING POPULATION DENSITY D

U P/S C H

spaces. These characteristics of the context at both city and district scale, influence the amount of activities possible in the space. On the other hand, Plaza de la Hoja is not in a dense area, nor many people live, work, or study near it, which clearly influences its low number of social interactions. The probability of people going to Plaza de la Hoja is much lower because there is few population around it at any point during the day.

Jobs 0-5000 5000-10000 10000-15000 15000-20000 20000-25000 25000-30000 30000-35000 35000-40000 40000-45000

Plaza de la Hoja

Residential 0-5000 5000-10000 10000-15000 15000-20000 20000-25000 25000-30000 30000-35000 35000-40000 40000-45000

Chorro de Quevedo 95

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - USES

.9%

1.5% 4.6%

U P/S C H

23.4%

40.7%

19.8% 15.7%

37.0%

Industrial Office Institutional Residential Commercial

Plaza de la Hoja 96

40.7%

Chorro de Quevedo

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURE D

The uses, which affect directly the amount of jobs and of housing in the city, also define zones with more specific uses. The Plaza de la Hoja for example is placed on the border of one of the industrial areas of the city, decreasing the area of housing, offices, institutional, and commercial, which are all uses that bring people to spaces. Most of the commercial is concentrated in an enclosed shopping center and the Market Plaza, which brings people to the area but that rarely cross the avenue to the west. In addition to uses, the relation of the spaces to ecological bodies (ie. the mountains, rivers, or parks) allows for them to have a more symbolic feeling for citizens. Chorro de Quevedo is on the skirts of the mountains and has a water fountain within, which brings nature to the space. Plaza de la Hoja has only a visual relation to the environment behind the avenue and shopping mall.

U P/S C H

60.3%

9.8% 39.7% Know or Been

Plaza de la Hoja

Never Been

Chorro de Quevedo

90.2% 97

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - SURROUNDING USES Fence Empty Lot Sidewalk Institutional Residential Commercial

Besides the uses in the context, the uses directly related to the space are crucial to define how and if people interact in the space. Uses that are more active on the ground floor can bring more people to the space for different reasons. Chorro de Quevedo is surrounded by retail, a church,

35.7% 47.6% Plaza de la Hoja 98

16.7%

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - SURROUNDING USES D

and residential properties, which brings to the space a diverse group of people with different intentions. The Plaza de la Hoja on the other hand has fences and an abandoned lot in 52.4% of its perimeter, creating no relation between the buildings and the space, almost enclosing it from activity.

U P/S C H

37.6%

10.7% 17.4%

34.3%

Chorro de Quevedo 99

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - VENDORS There is one element of public space that is, today, a matter of discussion in the city but that brings to spaces a dynamic that is essential for public spaces to be active: street vendors. Their â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;informalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; status is a matter of policy, but their effect on Spaces of Interaction cannot be denied. They are not only evidence of how active a space is, since they need clientele, but they also attract many users to public space. Plaza de la Hoja

0 vendors per m2 Plaza de la Hoja 100

Morning Afternoon Whole Day

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - VENDORS U P/S C H

has no vendors, while on the other side of the avenue the sidewalk is filled with them. The uses and density around the space do not make it viable for people to sell anything. On the other hand, in the Chorro de Quevedo, there are vendors from as early as 9 am and late into the evening, some of which actually have permits to sell. The vendors are now part of the space and are the reason why many visit the space.

0.015 vendors per m2 Chorro de Quevedo 101

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - USE OF SPACE BY BUILDINGS To complement vendors in and around the space, another important situation that increases the probability of interactions, is the way in which buildings around the space make use, or not, of it. Uses around the space do not only activate the public realm by attracting people, they can also increase the amount of seating areas, and people who stay in the space, also increasing the chances for social interactions with other citizens.

0 buildings on space Plaza de la Hoja 102

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - USE OF SPACE BY BUILDINGS U P/S C H

Several of the restaurants around Chorro de Quevedo take chairs and tables out into the space from late morning to evening, creating an additional activity in the space. According to regulation this is not allowed, which is something that the city should reconsider and regulate in a way that fosters social interactions without â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;privatizingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; public space; understanding that this can have a positive effect on spaces.

12 buildings on space Chorro de Quevedo 103

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ENTRANCES + NOLLI Besides the use of the space as complementing activities inside private property, buildings around the spaces can also become part of the space, increasing its area and the variety of spaces within the space. Institutional and retail uses are the most apt to open part or the entire ground floor for public use, allowing the public realm to come into the private. From the nolli maps of both spaces it becomes clear that the Chorro de Quevedo

0 entrances per m Plaza de la Hoja 104

Square Accessible

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ENTRANCES + NOLLI U P/S C H

spills into many of the surrounding buildings, while in the Plaza de la Hoja all the limits of the space are defined by either the buildings, the empty lot, or the street. The borders of the space have no relation to the space itself, unlike the Chorro de Quevedo where some of the limits are actually transitions into other spaces. People from within the private realm interact directly with those in the public.

0.1 entrances per m Chorro de Quevedo 105

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ENTRANCES + MODES OF TRANSPORTATION The amount of people that visit a space, which has a direct impact in the amount of interactions in a space, is influenced by all aspects that affect how they get to it and enter it. As Gehl mentioned in Life Between Buildings, surprise is essential to urban life; entrances to a space should be defined enough to encourage exploration of what is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;insideâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; yet not so much that it limits the access to the space. Plaza de la Hoja has both extremes, an entrance through a ramp that is very narrow and uninviting, and an

Plaza de la Hoja 106

Pedestrian Bus Station Bus BRT Station BRT Entrance

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ENTRANCES + MODES OF TRANSPORTATION U P/S C H

undefined one which covers completely one of the side, leaving the space undefined. Chorro de Quevedo has three ‘entrances’, all defined by buildings and narrow enough to generate curiosity. How one gets to those entrances is also crucial, be it public transportation, walking, biking, or private car. Although Plaza de la Hoja is on one of the BRT’s arteries, none of the stations are directly related to the space and thus do not activate the space through circulation.

Chorro de Quevedo 107

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ENTRANCES U P/S C H

Plaza de la Hoja 108

Chorro de Quevedo

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - TRANSPORTATION AND OPEN SPACES C

U P/S C H

As mentioned before, another way of attracting diverse people to public space is by connecting it to the networks of the different transportation modes of the city. If a space is far but easy to get to, and has the other right conditions to attract people, citizens from other areas will make the effort to get to it. Chorro de Quevedo is walking distance from a BRT station and bus stops, which together with the uses in the context, is enough to attract citizens. On the other hand, the Plaza de la Hoja is between two BRT stations and walking distance to bus stops, but the uses in the context do not attract people, so much so that almost everyone who exits the stations walk on the other side of the avenue.

Bus Routes BRT Open Spaces

Plaza de la Hoja

Chorro de Quevedo 109

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ACCESSIBILITY In important aspect in terms of how people get to a space and use it, is how the space itself is accessible and to who. The connection between the sidewalk and the space is important for people who have trouble walking, and making the whole space accessible to everyone is essential for there to be diversity in the people that interact in a space. This is relevant both in terms of physical impairments and in household income levels and connectivity to different transportation nodes.

39.7% 35.3% 25% Plaza de la Hoja 110

Have been Know It Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know It Stratum 0 Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Stratum 4 Stratum 5 Stratum 6

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ACCESSIBILITY U P/S C H

If the context has a diversity of income or is located inside networks of transportation, the people who access a space will also be diverse. Spaces of Interaction are most successful when they bring together different types of people, for it is then that social cohesion is strengthened and a shared sense of belonging sprouts. Both spaces are mostly accessible to all, although the slopes in Plaza de la Hoja are steep; yet the population that live around the spaces is much more diverse in the Chorro de Quevedo.

9.8% 12.7%

77.5% Chorro de Quevedo 111

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - FLOWS C U P/S C H

Morning

Noon

Aternoon

Plaza de la Hoja 112

Chorro de Quevedo

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - PEOPLE STAYING D

Morning

U P/S C H

Noon

Aternoon 0-5 mins 5-10 mins 10-15 mins 15 + Mins 0-5 mins 5-10 mins 10-15 mins 15 + Mins

Plaza de la Hoja

Chorro de Quevedo 113

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - FLOWS AND PEOPLE STAYING Morning

Noon

Aternoon

114

The entrances to a space, the organization of the elements within them, and the uses of the space and of the context, influence how people move through the space and where they stay. If the space and the context provide the right conditions, more citizens tend to stay for longer periods of time. Depending on its location and the type of density that pervades in the context (residential or working) and the uses, the space is used differently and with different intensity through the day. Chorro de Quevedo is clearly very active both in terms of circulation through the space and people staying alone or in groups. The afternoon and evening are the moments which have more people at the same time in the square, which means at this point it is more a Space of Interaction. On the other hand, Plaza de la Hoja is avoided by most of the flows, and there are very few people that stay in the space at any point in the day (only for few minutes in the weekends). That there are not even people walking through the space makes it almost impossible that people will interact with strangers.

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - FLOWS AND PEOPLE STAYING U P/S C H

Morning

Noon

Aternoon

115

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - SPACES WITHIN SPACE Through observing flows and places where people stay, it is possible to discern spaces within the space, which create different environments and thus attract different types of people. These are defined by the elements within the space and how they either protect citizens from adverse weather conditions, or how they provide spaces that allow for people to stay in larger groups, or even how some of these spaces are more private than others. Another factor that defines these inside spaces, by the way surrounding buildings use the space.

Plaza de la Hoja 116

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - SPACES WITHIN SPACE U P/S C H

Chorro de Quevedo, small as it is, has many subdivisions that create several different environments that allow and support different activities. Plaza de la Hoja only has two, which are defined by level changes, making them less accessible rather than creating welcoming sub-spaces. Creating different conditions within a spaces responds to the needs and desires of diverse people and encourages people to stay in the space, increasing the chances for interaction.

Chorro de Quevedo 117

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ELEMENTS C U P/S C H

Lighting

Seating

Vegetation

Plaza de la Hoja 118

Chorro de Quevedo

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - SEATING ELEMENTS D

U P/S C H

The elements in the space not only define the inner spaces, they also provide different ways of making use of the space. The way in which the different elements are designed and arranged also encourages, or not, interactions between strangers as well as acquaintances. Vegetation in Bogota was really important to all those interviewed, as a way to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;escapeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and relax, and also to protect from sunny days. Sitting is one of the most important activities in public space, for it is normally always related to a type of interaction and activity. Yet not only specific furniture for sitting is necessary, understanding that elements can have several uses is crucial. And elements have a direct impact on how people perceive the space, lighting for security, trees for joy, etc.. Chorro de Quevedo has, within its small area, a great number and diversity of elements that are used differently by people during the day. In Plaza de la Hoja, there are very few elements and they are all the same, arrayed in ways which do not encourage interactions and without any protection from weather or the sound of the big avenues.

Plaza de la Hoja

Chorro de Quevedo 119

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ELEMENTS

31.9% 13.9%

Very Bad Bad Good Very Good

5.6% 48.6%

0.0005 lights per m2

724.8 m

0.042 linear m per m2 Plaza de la Hoja 120

0.00047 trees per m2

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - ELEMENTS D

U P/S C H

3.1%

19.9%

16.1% 60.9%

0.008 lights per m2

0.01 linear m per m2

281.99 m

0.28 linear m per m2 Chorro de Quevedo 121

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - BUILDING HEIGHTS + BUILT DENSITY The built density around the space and in the context, has two main effects on what happens in it: 1) the amount of built area has a direct impact in the population density, both residential and working, that also increases the probability of interactions happening in a space; and 2) the scale of the buildings to the shape and size of the space, also defines how the space is perceived. Although the buildings surrounding the Plaza de la Hoja are much taller than those in Chorro de Quevedo, the FAR is much less. The size of Plaza de la Hoja could give it a

0.68 FAR

Plaza de la Hoja 122

11 + Floors 9-10 Floors 7-8 Floors 5-6 Floors 3-4 Floors 1-2 Floors Residential Commercial

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - BUILDING HEIGHTS + BUILT DENSITY U P/S C H

metropolitan scale, yet the context does not allow it to achieve this potential. The relation to the height and proximity of the buildings is important to create spaces that feel comfortable, even if their area is big. In the case of Chorro de Quevedo the buildings are either on the limits of the space, or across a narrow road, making the space have a human scale. The Plaza de la Hoja is very different for in both directions, the space between the buildings in the surroundings is at least twice as that of the space itself.

1.13

FAR

Chorro de Quevedo 123

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - BUILDING HEIGHTS + SPACE Open Space Square

1:1.12

square to open space

1:1.55

square to open space Plaza de la Hoja 124

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS - BUILDING HEIGHTS + SPACE D

U P/S C H

1:0.13

square to open space

1:0

square to open space Chorro de Quevedo 125

HOW ARE THESE METHODOLOGIES USEFUL?

126 Photograph by author.

METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS

By applying these methodologies, the city, and those that design it, from the policy to the piece of urban furniture, that understands that public spaces should really be Spaces of Interaction, the insights and evidences of some of the problems become clear. It is important to analyze and propose interventions in terms of public space at all scales and with the different components in mind. Both the SIGI and the In Depth Analysis are ways to look at public space through a lens that goes beyond â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;quality of public spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as truly just quantity. As shown through the examples, the city scale can have as much influence in how a space works, as the elements that are in it. Some interventions to improve public space can be applied in general to spaces in the city, and others are more specific, for the level of encouragement of social interactions depends both in the city and the specific context. Although the SIGI was tested with a small and very specific sample, there are conclusions that could result in changes in policy and city-wide interventions. The In Depth Analysis, by comparing a well scored space, Chorro de Quevedo, versus one with a low score, Plaza de la Hoja, brings to light what are the aspects of the spaces that influence on how many people interact in the space and how diverse these people are. Although their sizes and contexts are very different, the analysis allows to learn from the better example to find ways of improving the space that is lacking. As a conclusion from the analysis, this chapter proposes several ways in which this new way of looking at public space can result in changes in public space. The first level of changes that can be based on the analysis made with these methodologies is that of the policies since these end up affecting all the others scales relevant to make public spaces Spaces of Interaction. The second set of proposed changes is that of city wide interventions that will affect the location of new public spaces and also changes that can improve the contexts of already existing public spaces, or areas that lack them. And finally, using the case of Plaza de la Hoja, what types of interventions in the space could help to turn this space with a lot of potential into one that encourages and shelters social interactions. All of these proposals are a first take on what could be done, but in order to come up with more impactful interventions, a more profound and extensive analysis applying the methodology, needs to be done. The idea is to finish this document with proposals more as questions than suggestions, questions of how far this new way of looking at public space can go.

127

METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS - POLICY

An important step in changing the way the city analyses and produces public space is to change the policies that shape them. Both the indicator reports and the plans for public space in the city should consider public space as Spaces of Interaction in order to contemplate all the scales and variables that affect their quality. Although what each space needs is particular to its context, there are city wide regulations that can help improve public spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potential to become a Space of Interaction. Some of the considerations that result from the analysis in this document are: Spaces of Interaction happen when: - There are mixed uses in the context - The buildings are able to use public space as an expansion of their activities with certain regulations - Street vendors are allowed in public spaces respecting the public realm and abiding by certain rules - There is density both of residential and working population - The space attracts citizens that do not necessarily have a direct relation with the space - The space is connected to the networks of different modes of transportation - The space is accessible to all citizens - The space provides different environments within it - There are several ways of staying in the space - There are several options for sitting - The space is perceived as safe - The space incites curiosity - The space has a human scale, both through the buildings in the context as well as for the elements in it - Uses around the space encourage activity in the area during different times of the day - Spaces adjacent to the space must be active and as much accessible to the public as possible - There is a use of vegetation and connection to the ecological structure of the city These are some of the conditions that result from the analysis, all of which have implications on the policies around public space. The first step to change how the city produces public space is to understand the current situation beyond area per inhabitant, by applying the proposed methodologies. As more is known about it, other policies can change or be proposed to enable the production of Spaces of Interaction. Instead of having Handbooks that specify which elements should be used and how they should be arranged, the city should have handbooks that bring to attention the different components that encourage interactions in public space.

128

2020?

Espacios de InteracciĂłn

METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS - CITY

Proposals at the level of the city are important, because as shown through the analysis, the context of a public space has as much impact in the amount of interactions as does the design of the space. These considerations are important for the built city as well as for the plans of expansion. The city should make an effort to provide the essential conditions around every public space that exists and that is going to be produced. At present there are areas of the city that have these and where public space, if it achieves this at other scales, could be consider a Space of Interaction. Other parts of the city, a considerable amount, do not achieve these conditions and thus any public space in them has a hard time achieving its potential to encourage social interactions between strangers. The city, as it is always changing, should propose more mixing of uses at different scales and avoid creating mono-functional areas which results in the area being active only at specific times of the day and with a less diverse population. This must be accompanied by areas with densities responding to the areas of open spaces, for a bigger amount of open space needs much more density to become activated. Another important aspect of the more physical components of the city is that open public spaces in the city should have a relation to the ecological structure of the city and someway become part of it. Although they must conform a system, where ideally its parts are interconnected, they must also provide different experiences for the citizens. At the scale of the city one of the most important aspects that influence the amount of interactions in spaces is how accessible it is. Public spaces should be connected or close to the networks of the different modes of transportation, most importantly public transportation. Depending on the scale they should also be walking distance to a BRT station and always from a bus station. Bikeways and pedestrian corridors are also important, for they can connect between spaces more easily, and are accessible to the entire population. Other citywide proposals will come up when more spaces are analyzed, especially when the analysis is done for certain types of spaces. For instance, an analysis where the sample are metropolitan parks, the insights will be different and thus other interventions will have to be planned. What his new methodologies provide, is a new way of understanding public space that can lead to the design of citywide policies as well as plans that will take advantage of the potential of public space to be Spaces of Interaction.

129

METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS - SITE

The In Depth Analysis of each space informs all scales of consideration, more relevantly so for the scale of the site itself. As Plaza de la Hoja scores very low in the Social Interactions General Index, it is a good example to show what types of interventions could help it achieve its potential to generate diverse social interactions. The first scale of interventions is of the context, for they are as essential as the more site based interventions. All of the interventions arise from the analysis of the space but also of what could be learned from Chorro de Quevedo which scores much higher in the index. The density of the context is increased by creating a mixed-use project on the empty lot to the north east, which also activates that side of the square by having retail on the first floor. Other buildings in the context are made denser and some change use to produce a more diverse context, which in turn will activate the area at different times of the day. By also adding an institutional building to the space, be it a library, a museum, or a cultural center, more citizens will be attracted to the site, even those that do not have a direct relation to the space itself and thus increasing the probability of diverse interactions happening. In terms of the space itself, which right now has no human scale and very few elements within with which people can interact. The use of vegetation and lighting elements, as well as sitting elements, to conform new spaces within the space, creates a space that is more comfortable and cozy, and thus encourages citizens to come and stay in the space. The size of elements, lighting for example, can help shape those inner spaces as well as give the space a better scale, also by the way in which they are arranged. Other elements that can influence the peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of the space, are green areas and water, which is a way of bringing the ecological structure of the city into the space.

130

By supplying more options for sitting, and a diverse set of them, the probability that people stay in the space also increases, and if these are designed to encourage interactions (by facing each other, or arranged in groups), then there will probably be more people in the space at the same time and thus more interactions. What is important in spaces of this size, besides having inner spaces, is to provide a variety of spaces that can adapt and support different activities. Providing a big planar space gives the space a flexibility that is required of big metropolitan Spaces of Interaction, for they can support different types of events and activities of different scales. The elements proposed an initial set of interventions that would begin to develop the spaces potential to become a Space of Interaction and a key space in the city. After having analyzed it through the new methodologies, the city can have a clearer understanding of what it is missing and how to take advantage of existing conditions. This proposal by itself is not enough, for it must be accompanied by interventions at all scales. These set of proposals at different scales which respond to both analysis, exemplify how viewing public space differently can lead to very different interventions than those proposed at present. The city, while continuing the effort to produce more open public spaces, should understand how it needs to be projected and how the existing one can be improved. These analyses and proposals, which are still partly superficial and lacking more intensive use of the methodologies, already pose questions and clues on how to begin to bring back the social role of public space in the city of BogotĂĄ. The goal of the city should go beyond provision, it should really understand how Spaces of Interaction have a positive impact in the quality of the urban life and the social component of cities.

METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS - SITE + Density + Uses + Lighting + Human Scale + Seating + Vegetation + Spaces Within + Connection

131

BIBLIOGRAPHY

132

Alba Castro, José Miguel. 2013. “El plano Bogotá Futuro. Primer intento de modernización urbana.” ACHSC (Universidad Nacional de Colombia) 40 (2): 179-208. Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. 2017. El Espacio Público de Bogotá entre 1900 y 1960: Una mirada socio-espacial a su conformación como resultado de la evolución morfológica y trazado urbano. Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota. 2018. Observatorio del Espacio Publica de Bogota. Accessed May 2, 2018. http://observatorio.dadep.gov.co/acerca-del-observatorio. Banerjee, Tridib. 2001. “The Future of Public Space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places.” Journal of the American Planning Association (67 (1)): 9-24. Barcaly, Eliza. 2017. “Bogota Closes its Roads Every Sunday. Now Everyone Wants to Do It.” Vox. July 30. Accessed May 2, 2018. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13017282/bogota-ciclovia-open-streets. Bell, Kenton. 2017. Open Education Sociology Dictionary. Accessed May 26, 2018. https://sociologydictionary.org/microsociology/. 2017. Sociedad de Mejoras y Ornato de Bogota. Directed by Sociedad de Mejoras y Ornato de Bogota. Borja, Jordi. 2003. “Ciudad y planeación: La urbanística para las ciudades de América Latina.” In La Ciudad Inclusiva, edited by Marcelo Balbo, Ricardo Jordán and Daniela Simioni, 81-104. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas. Cortés Solano, Rodrigo. 2007. “Del Urbanismo a la Planeación en Bogotá (1900-1990) Esquema Inicial y Materiales para Pensar la Trama de un Relato.” Revista Bitácora Urbano Territorial (REDALYC) 1 (011): 160-213. Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2017. Reporte técnico de indicadores de espacio público. Technical Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2013. Sentido Urbano I: una mirada al espacio público de Bogotá. Bimonthly Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. Departamento Administrativo de la Defensoría del Espacio Público. 2013. Setnido Urbano II: una mirada al espacio público de Bogotá. Bimonthly Report, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. 2005. Visión Colombia II Centenario: 2019. Bogotá: Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating power in built form. London: Routledge. Duarte Martinez, Diana Carolina. 2016. “Lo que Usted no Conocia de la Plaza de Bolivar de Bogota.” Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota. September 3. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://bogota.gov.co/article/temas-de-ciudad/cultura-y-recreacion/lo-queusted-no-conocia-de-la-plaza-de-bolivar-de-bogota. Gehl Institute. 2016. The Public Life Diverstiy Toolkit. Gehl Institute. Gehl, Jan. 1971. Life Between Buildings. New York: Island Press. Irazábal, Clara. 2008. “Citizenship, Democracy, and Public Space in Latin America.” In Ordinary Places Extraordinary Events, edited by Clara Irazábal,

11-34. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Irazábal, Clara. 2008. “Prologue: Ordinary Places, Extraordinary Events in Latin America.” In Ordinary Places Extraordinary Events, edited by Clara Irazábal, 7-10. New York: Rutledge Taylor & Francis Group. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. Writings on Cities. Translated by Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Marmorstein, D A, T F Nielsen, and F A Juul. 2011. Public Space: The familiar into the strange. Copenhagen. Maslow, Abraham H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Mehta, Vikas. 2014. “Evaluating Public Space.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (1): 53-88. Mitchell, Don. 1995. “The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers (85): 108-133. Mockus, Antanas. 2001. Cultura Ciudadana, Programa Contra la Violencia en Santa Fe de Bogota, Colombia 1995 - 1997. Technical Study, Washington D.C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrllo. Mockus, Antanas. 2005. “Politicas de Redefinicion del Espacio Publico: Construccion del Sentido de lo Publico e Innovacion Urbana.” In Redefinicion del Espacio Publico - Eslabonamiento Conceptual y Seguimiento de las Politicas Publicas en Colombia, edited by Gabriel Murillo and Victoria Gomez, 39-62. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes. 2009. Cities on Speed: Bogota Change. Directed by Andreas Dalsgaard. Produced by NHK. Performed by NHK. Observatorio del Espacio Publico de Bogota. 2016. Las Zonas Verdes y Zonas Comunales en Bogota. Bimonthly Bulletin, Bogota: Defensoria del Espacio Publico. Páramo, Pablo, and Andrea Milena Burbano Arroyo. 2013. “Valoración de las condiciones que hacen habitable el espacio público en Colombia.” Territorios 28: 187-206. Paramo, Pablo, and Monica Cuervo. 2006. Histoia Social Situada en el Espacio Publico de Bogota desde su Fundacion Hasta el Siglo XIX. Bogota: Universidad Pedagogica Nacional. Peñalosa, Enrique. 2005. “Espacio Publico, Igualdad y Civilizacion.” In Redefinicion del Espacio Publico - Eslabonamiento Conceptual y Seguimiento de las Politicas Publicas en Colombia, edited by Gabriel Murillo and Victoria Gomez, 63-98. Bogota: Universidad de los Andes. Phelps, Brian. 2015. “The Future of Public Space Analytics.” The Agile Landscape Project. February 16. Accessed 02 10, 2018. https://theagilelandscape.com/2015/02/16/the-future-of-public-spaceanalytics/. Pombo Urdaneta, Carlos Roberto. 2017. “Los cien años de la Sociedad de Mejoras y Ornato de Bogotá.” El Tiempo, November 21.

http://www.eltiempo.com/bogota/los-cien-anos-de-la-sociedad-de-mejorasy-ornato-de-bogota-84698. Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Dedclining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 65-78. Regimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 2000. “Decreto 1003 de 2000.” Registro Distrital (Secretaria Juridica de la Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota D.C.) 2269. Regimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 1998. “Decreto 1504 de 1998 Nivel Nacional.” Diario Oficial (Secretaria Juridica Distrital de la Alcaldia Mayor de Bogota D.C.) NO. 43357. Regimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 1999. “Decreto 170 de 1999.” Registro Distrital No. 1863. Régimen Legal de Bogota D.C. 1989. “Ley 9 de 1989.” Diario Oficial (Secretaría Jurídica Distrital de la Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C.) No. 38.650. Saldarriaga Roa, Alberto. 2003. “The Plaza de Bolívar of Bogotá: Uniqueness of Place, Multiplicity of Events.” In Ordinary Places Extraordinary Events, edited by Clara Irazábal, 126-143. New York: Roudledge Taylor & Francis Group. Sander, Thomas H., and Kathleen Lowney. 2005. Social Capital Building Toolkit. Cambridge: John F. Kennedy School of Government. Seamon, David. 1980. “Body-Subjet, Time-Space Routines, and PlaceBallets.” In The Human Experience of Space and Place, edited by Anne Buttimer and David Seamon, 148-165. London: Croom Helm London. Secretaría Distrital de Planeación - Taller del Espacio Público. 2007. Cartilla de Mobiliario Urbano - Actualización 2007. Handbook, Bogotá: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá D.C. Sennett, Richard. 2006. “The Open City.” Urban Age. Berlin: London School of Economics. 1-5. Steele, Fred. 1973. Physical Settings and Organizational Development. Reading: Addison-Wesley. The Constitution Project. 1991 (rev 2005). Colombia’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2005. Translated by Peter B. Heller, Anna I. Vellve Torras, and Max Planck Institute Translated by Marcia W. Coward. Oxford University Press, Inc. Accessed February 15, 2018. Torres, Andrea, Olga Sarmineto, Enrique Jacoby, Michael Pratt, Thomas L. Schmid, and Gonzalo Stierling. 2010. “The Ciclovia-Recreativa: A MassRecreational Program with Public Health Potential.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health S163-S180. Van Melik, Rianne, Irina Van Aalst, and Jan Van Weesep. 2007. “Fear and Fantasy in the Public Domain: The development of secured and themed urban space.” Journal of Urban Design (12): 25-42. Varna, Georgiana. 2014. Measuring Public Space: The Star Model. Burlington: Ashgate. Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1979. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces.

ANNEXES

134

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY PUBLIC SPACE IN BOGOTĂ This survey is realized as part of my thesis in the Masters of Urban Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. The purpose of this research is to analyze urban spaces of interaction in BogotĂĄ to understand their dynamics and how the conditions and spatial elements affect the interactions between people. An important factor to understand these dynamics is to understand the perception of the actors in these spaces, and which are the aspects or elements that they perceive as important in the spaces. After collecting information on various spaces in the city, the research will conclude with a proposal of a set of tools and strategies that can be applied to the design or redesign of public spaces in general, in order to foster interactions and thus social cohesion. I ask you to respond a few questions about some specific spaces I am analyzing, which will only take around 5 to 10 minutes.

1) Have you visited some of the spaces that appear in the map bellow? o Yes

o No

135

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

If you have visited any of these spaces... 2) Which?

136

[ ] Plaza Calle 97 (Cra. 15 - Cll. 97)

[ ] Parque Virrey (Cra. 15 - Cll. 87)

[ ] Plaza Calle 85 (Cll. 85 - Cra. 15)

[ ] Plaza Centro Colombo Americano (Cll. 19 - Cra. 3)

[ ] Parque de los Periodistas (Av. Jimenez - Cra. 3)

[ ] Chorro de Quevedo (Cll. 12b - Cra. 2)

[ ] Parque Santander (Cra. 7 - Cll. 116)

[ ] Plazoleta del Rosario (Av. Jimenez - Cra. 6)

[ ] Parque Tercer Milenio (Cra. 10 - Cll. 6))

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

[ ] Plaza de los Martires (Av. Caracas - Cll. 10)

[ ] Plaza de San Victorino (Av. Jimenez - Cra. 10)

[ ] Plaza de la Hoja (Cll. 19 - Cra. 30)

[ ] Plaza Monumento a los Caidos (Cll. 26 - Cra. 57)

[ ] Parque de los Hippies (Cra. 7 - Cll. 60)

[ ] Plaza de Lourdes (Cra. 13 - Cll. 63)

[ ] Plaza Fundacional de Suba (Cra. 91 - Cll. 147)

137

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

3) How many times do you visit each space? Once

Plaza Calle 97 Parque Virrey Plaza Calle 85 Plaza Centro Colombo Americano Parque de los Periodistas Chorro de Quevedo Parque Santander Plazoleta del Rosario Parque Tercer Milenio Plaza de los Martires Plaza de San Victorino Plaza de la Hoja Plaza Monumento a los Caidos Parque de los Hippies Plaza de Lourdes Plaza Fundacional de Suba 138

Occasionally

Once a month

Once a week 2-3 times a week

Every day

Never been

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

4) Do you live, work, or study near the space? I live near

I work near

I study near

Neither

Plaza Calle 97

[]

Parque Virrey

[]

Plaza Calle 85

[]

Plaza Centro Colombo Americano

[]

Parque de los Periodistas

[]

Chorro de Quevedo

[]

Parque Santander

[]

Plazoleta del Rosario

[]

Parque Tercer Milenio

[]

Plaza de los Martires

[]

Plaza de San Victorino

[]

Plaza de la Hoja

[]

Plaza Monumento a los Caidos

[]

Parque de los Hippies

[]

Plaza de Lourdes

[]

Plaza Fundacional de Suba

[]

[] 139

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

5) Reasons why you go to the space Part of my Recreation route

140

Eat

Play Sports

Rest

Meet with Cultural acquaintances Event

Cultural Event

Plaza Calle 97

[]

Parque Virrey

[]

Plaza Calle 85

[]

Plaza Centro Colombo Americano

[]

Parque de los Periodistas

[]

Chorro de Quevedo

[]

Parque Santander

[]

Plazoleta del Rosario

[]

Parque Tercer Milenio

[]

Plaza de los Martires

[]

Plaza de San Victorino

[]

Plaza de la Hoja

[]

Plaza Monumento a los Caidos

[]

Parque de los Hippies

[]

Plaza de Lourdes

[]

Plaza Fundacional de Suba

[]

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

6) How much time do you spend in the space? Never been

0-5 minutes

5 - 10 minutes

30 minutes

1 hour

More than 1 hour

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

7) What is the quality of the space? Very good

Good

Bad

Very bad

Never been

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

If you haven’t visited any of these spaces... 8) Why haven’t you been? I have been Don’t know Don’t know it how to get there

Too far

Dangerous

No interest Prefer other spaces

Plaza Calle 97

[]

Parque Virrey

[]

Plaza Calle 85

[]

Plaza Centro Colombo Americano

[]

Parque de los Periodistas

[]

Chorro de Quevedo

[]

Parque Santander

[]

Plazoleta del Rosario

[]

Parque Tercer Milenio

[]

Plaza de los Martires

[]

Plaza de San Victorino

[]

Plaza de la Hoja

[]

Plaza Monumento a los Caidos

[]

Parque de los Hippies

[]

Plaza de Lourdes

[]

Plaza Fundacional de Suba

[]

[] 143

ANNEX 1: 16 SPACE SURVEY

9) Do you visit other public spaces in Bogotรก? o Yes

o No

10) Which other spaces do you visit? ________________________________________________

11) What do you look for in a public space? [ ]

Peace

[ ]

Nature

[ ]

Observe others

[ ]

Recreation

[ ]

Food

[ ]

Interact with others

[ ]

Rest

[ ]

Place to sit

[ ]

Other ____________

12) What activities do you do in public space? [ ]

Rest

[ ]

Meet with acquaintances

[ ]

Public events

[ ]

Sports

[ ]

Observe others

[ ]

Other ____________

[ ]

Eat

[ ]

Walk

13) What is your general perception of public space in Bogotรก?

144

Good

Bad

Indifferent

ANNEX 2: GHEL’S 12 QUALITY CRITERIA PUBLIC SPACE 12 QUALITY CRITERIA

PROTECTION 1. Feeling safe - protection against traffic accidents a. Protection for pedestrians b. Eliminating fear of traffic 2. Feeling secure - protection against crime and violence

5. Opportunities to stand/stay a. Edge effect/attractive zones for standing/staying b. Supports for standing 6. Opportunities to sit a. Zones for sitting

a. Lively public realm

b. Utilizing advantages: views, sun, people

b. Eyes on the street

c. Good places to sit

c. Overlapping functions day and night

d. Benches for resting

d. Good lighting 3. Protection against unpleasant sensory experiences a. Wind b. Rain/snow c. Cold/heat d. Pollution e. Dust, noise, glare

7. Opportunities to see a. Reasonable viewing distances b. Unhindered sightlines c. Interesting views d. Lighting (when dark) 8. Opportunities to talk and listen a. Low noise levels b. Street furniture that provides “talkscapes”

COMFORT 4. Opportunities to walk

9. Opportunities for playing and exercise

b. No obstacles

a. Invitations for creativity, physical activity, exercise, play b. By day and night

c. Good surfaces

c. In summer and winter

a. Room for walking

d. Accessibility for everyone e. Interesting facades 145

ANNEX 2: GHELâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S 12 QUALITY CRITERIA

DELIGHT 10. Scale a. Buildings and spaces designed to human scale 11. Opportunities to enjoy the positive aspects of climate a. Sun/shade b. Heat/coolness c. Breeze 12. Positive sensory experiences to enjoy the positive aspects of climate a. Good design and detailing b. Good materials c. Fine views d. Trees, plants, water

146

Camila GutiĂŠrrez Plata Thesis Advisor: Stephen Gray Master of Architecture in Urban Design Harvard Graduate School of Design