Public open space Thesis

UNDERSTANDING PUBLICNESS OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

(Astudy ofAhmedabad’s waterfront parks as public open space)

AResearch Thesis submitted to the Gujarat Technological University

By Harsh Jani

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor ofArchitecture (B.Arch.)

May,2021

L. J. SCHOOL OFARCHITECTURE

L. J. CAMPUS, SARKHEJ ROAD,AHMEDABAD

UNDERSTANDING PUBLICNESS OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

(Astudy ofAhmedabad’s waterfront parks as public open space)

AResearch Thesis submitted to the Gujarat Technological University

By Harsh Jani

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor ofArchitecture (B.Arch.) May,2021

L. J. SCHOOL OFARCHITECTURE

L. J. CAMPUS, SARKHEJ ROAD,AHMEDABAD

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the research thesis entitled “Understanding publicness of Public Open Spaces”, has been submitted by Mr. Harsh Jani, En.no-163541050006 under our guidance during the year 2020-2021. this thesis is submitted towards partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Architecture and satisfies the requirements laid down by Gujarat Technological University,Ahmedabad.

It is to be understood that by this approval, the undersigned does not necessarily endorse or approve any statement made, opinions expressed or conclusion drawn therein, but approves the study only for the purpose for which it has been submitted.

Prof. Himanshu Thakker Director

L. J. School ofArchitecture

Prof.Yogesh Gandevikar Thesis Guide

Thesis committee

Himanshu Thakker,Yogesh Gandevikar, Sharad Bala,Ajit Pandey, Prakash Patel, Hiren Gandhi, Rohit Nimje (Thesis Coordinator)

L. J. SCHOOL OFARCHITECTURE

L. J. CAMPUS, SARKHEJ ROAD,AHMEDABAD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my guide Prof. Yogesh Gandevikar for the continuous support and guidance of my research thesis, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my study.

Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Prof. Himanshu Thakker, Prof. Yogesh Gandevikar, Prof. Sharad Bala, Prof. Ajit Pandey, Prof. Prakash Patel, Prof. Hiren Gandhi, Prof. Spandan Das, Prof. Rohit Nimje, for their encouragement, insightful comments, and thoughtful questions.

My sincere thanks also goes to Nidhi Chaudhari, for offering me her help in capturing actual photographs of my case studies and working on diverse exciting projects.

I thank my fellow group mates in the same group: Nidhi Chaudhari and Shrey Patel, for the stimulating discussions, for the sleepless nights we were working together before deadlines, and for all the fun we have had in the last five years. Also, I thank my friends, classmates and seniors from L. J. school of architecture. In particular, I am grateful to Prof. Spandan Das for enlightening me the first glance of research.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my parents Paresh jani, Hina Jani at the first place and my sister Keya Jani for supporting me thoughtfully and spiritually throughout my life.

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Certificate…………………………………………………………………..

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………

Table of contents…………………………………………………………...

List of abbreviations……………………………………………………….

Glossary……………………………………………………………………

List of figures……………………………………………….......………….

List oftables…………………………………………………….………….

List of charts……………………………………………………………….

Chapter 1: Curiosity and aspirations...………………………………….

1. Abstract………………………………………………………………

2. Introduction…………………………………………………………..

3. Research question……………………………………………………

4. Need for the study………………………………………....................

5. Aim………………………………………………………..................

6.

Chapter2: Literature review……………………………….……………

1.

List ofAbbreviations

KEY WORD FULL FORM

AMC Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

AUDA Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

CBD Central Business District

CBD Central Business District

DP Development Plan

GPOS Green Public Open Space

LAP Land Accusation Plan

POS Public Open Space

Sq. M. Square Meters

SRFDCL Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Limited

TP Town Planning

UN United Nations

URDPFI Urban and Regional Development Plan Formulation and Implementation

WHO World Health Organisation

WORD

MEANING / EXPLANATION

Publicness Explains whether any place is publicly accessible or not

Decay the state or process of rotting or decomposition (of city) *

Transformation a process by which one figure, expression, or function is converted into another one of similar value.

Immense extremely large or great, especially in scale or degree

Livability suitable for living in or sum of the factors that add up to a community's quality of life hierarchical development of, relating to, or arranged in a hierarchy or sequential upgradation

Neoclassical period

A Western cultural movement in the decorative and visual arts that drew inspiration from the art and culture of classical antiquity.

*: Aparticular meaning relating to the context of this thesis

List of Charts

A talk about the universal approach of people and the current scenarios around the city life. When the things come to public open space you should really think about, how do you look at spaces around you? How do you look at the city around you? How do you look at your habitat? What is it we really want to understand? What is it that space which we are looking for into a green space?

PREFACE

When things come to public open space; as architects, we always have been taught to build, but it is unbuilt in the city which defines it; and this is how the idea of the understanding role of public open spaces came into the picture. To understand our spaces and our cities better we need to understand our public open space. What is the expected reality and what is the accepted reality of open places in and around any city? Is where the first theme that emerged was that most of the spaces in the public domain of our cities are basically could be termed in various states of chaos, negligence, and decay. The other theme which comes out is that it’s a public space so it’s there for everyone to use but no one to own, so is there a possibility of lack of accountability both from the user side as public? And what about the government side as people who manage it? What is the current scenario of that?

1.1 ABSTRACT

If we talk about the open space concepts, we can say that we as designers of spaces often tend to prioritize the mathematics of built vs unbuilt and the qualitative aspects are ignored like is it getting properly delivered from the quality perspective in the city or not?

Now as Indians and as a globalized world people travel also as architects and citizens, people travel to places like Singapore, London, New York across the globe and when we come back and when we see spaces around our own city, we do a direct comparison and when we do so our whole dialog becomes generally biased which takes the whole entity of such spaces takes a huge beating across the spectrum of society from everyone weather its architects or normal citizens.

Now people started looking around and wish to understand these spaces better in order to see if there is a problem or not. There are a lot of public spaces in every country that works to certain extents, some well and some not so well. If one observes the cities across India, one may find that they have their own pros and cons, one can realize that all cities have space at least where the city comes out. It begins to define that city; it begins to form the core and essence of that city.

Source: https://www.archdaily.com/914616/what-makes-a-great-public-place | 25062021

• Spaces which were there for functional reasons, cultural reasons, economic reasons.

• All the citizens were equal stakeholders in that part of the city and they were responsible for making it work so, we need to ask ourselves that if physically on the face they seem so bad why are they still happening?

• And that is where our journey begins, the journey of identifying such spaces which plays the important role in any city began.

Fig 1.1: Great public spaces

1.2 INTRODUCTION

A city is built by its people and surrounding open spaces which shape any city in many ways. Due to the rapid urbanization of Ahmedabad city, it is now important to understand the role of open spaces to ensure and maintain the living quality for future needs. As the verticality is taking shape of new future cities, we really need to understand the essence of space making. Hereby taking a case of Ahmedabad city to understand the scale of various public open spaces within the diverse context. Also, to understand views of people who are really part of it and to understand how it helps them in their daily life. There is always space within a space when we talk about, so to understand the diversity of space making in public open spaces and transformation of different public activities. Also, to understand better taking the comparative case study of various parts of Ahmedabad city and a way further to rethink the possible new ways for future open spaces.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION

• What is it that holds people to use any public open space in the city?

• What are the factors that define any Indian urban public open space distinctly different from other open spaces in these cities?

• To what extent any public open space is serving its people and how it impacts the city level?

• What is it that makes them come alive after 6 o’clock in the morning and 6 o’clock in the evening?

• What is it that makes these spaces happen and work?

Fig 1.2: Public open space

1.4 NEED FOR STUDY

This study attempts to understand the city and wanted to watch and observe them. Also wanted to put the spotlight on the “Urban Indian public open space.” That’s what understanding the role of public open space is all about. Where it talks to study the immense functional, social and cultural value that these spaces bring towards improving the qualitative and livability index of any city. What is it that still holding them together? So essentially public spaces that have become incidental largely ignored and unacknowledged, here it attempts to put the spotlight and bring back the Indian urban public open space into focus…

1.5 AIM

To study the publicness of the public open space of Ahmedabad’s selected riverfront park through various observations and comparative analysis.

1.6 OBJECTIVE

• To understand the origin and evolution of public open space and how it impacts the people and their surroundings?

• To understand the fundamental classification public open space.

• To understand the formation and importance of public open spaces in the present context.

• To understand how public open space has been catered on the edge of the Sabarmati River

• To analyses selected cases through various parameters whether they are public or not.

1.7 SCOPE

To study & analyse Subhash Bridge Park and Usmanpura Riverfront Park as selected cases of riverfront public open spaces in Ahmedabad city.

1.8 LIMITATIONS

• Any further elaboration regarding land use, technology, use of material, and details of surrounding built spaces are not included in this thesis.

• Study of spaces other than selected cases are not in the scope of the thesis.

1.9 METHODOLOGY

• Study of literature and standards for public open spaces of Indian cities and other cities around the world.

• Understanding the importance of public open spaces from ancient times up to date.

• Selection of designated public open spaces for the case study.

• Data collection and analysis of case studies.

• For the further course of study, the methodology used for research is a mixture of quantitative, qualitative, and observations

• User’s feedback.

• Evaluation of their responses.

• Conclusion.

1.10 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

After identifying the public spaces, conducting a primary survey in those identified public spaces with help of qualitative, quantitative, and observational tools.

Findings and solutions

Fig 1.3: Method of analysis

Source: Human Social Behavior in Public Urban Spaces Spaces And Flows: An International Journal Of Urban And Extra urban Studies, 2013 | 25062021

1.11 PRIMARYRESEARCH

Begins with a review of existing literature which covers aspects like to right to the city, the right to the public spaces, public spaces in today’s era, and the meaning of public.

1.12 SEQUENCE OF STUDY

• Field observation

• Photographic analysis

• Inferences related to Publicness of public open spaces through selected cases of waterfront parks.

• Various parameters and attributes are looked into for understanding the ‘publicness and accessibility of a space’

• Quantitative and qualitative survey

• One to one opinion survey

• Formation of the questionnaire for such surveys

1.13 EXPECTED OUTCOME

• Are they open and accessible?

• What type of activities take place?

• Source of encouragement?

• Quality of physical, social, and psychological environment.

• Problems and ratios of current situation.

• Further enhancement.

• The final chapter summarizes the research with findings & conclusion. Followed by references used for the research.

A talk about the sequential development of public open spaces. Starting from the early days of humanities along with the gradual formation of the concept of living and development of civilization with respect to public open spaces. Evolution of social and political structure leading the town planning development and other hierarchical development of public open spaces and different facilities

2.1 AN ANCIENT PERSPECTIVE

The concept of public is robust in meaning and used in a varied spectrum. Public, as an adjective, intends of or concerning the people as a whole, open to all, accessible to or shared by all members of the community, performed or made openly and well known. Moreover, public means a group of people who share a particular interest or who have something in common, such as the audience at a play or film. who describe? The concepts of public and private on substratum of three criteria of access, agency and interest, composed this empirical tool to define public space and its publicness.

2.2.1 PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

• Millions of years ago, when humans started to live in caves or on trees as families and fed themselves by hunting animals and other available resources like food and plants.

• As the family started expanding and size of the group increased, they started living on plain land and near water resources.

• They started to live in settlements that provide them protection and mutual help for their land and crop.

Fig 2.1: Ancient perspective of open space Source: https://www.fodors.com/news/photos/amazingancient-cave-art-from-around-the-world | 25062021

Fig 2.2: Ancient Indian city Source:https://www.nationalgeographic.com/trav el/article/sacred-caves | 25062021

2.1.2 ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACES:

Formation of Civilization Public Open Space Hierarchy of Politicaldomain Central Open space

Indus Valley Civilization Harrapan Society Public Bath City Level POS

Greek Civilization Agora meeting Public s Civic announcements Religious assemblies

Roman Civilization Political centres entertainmen

Indian and Western Cities Streets and plazas Designed POS

Source of t Gladiator flights

Difference inphysical characteristics

2.1.3 Indian And Western Cities:

The Indian and western public spaced are different throughout the years due to difference between climate, socio-cultural, economics and political factors. The well-known example of western public space was a public square called “Agora” in Greek Civilization. It is in the city center and mainly used for political meetings, games, theatre performances and commercial activities. The Romans have mixed the features of “Agora” and “Acropolis” of Greek period in their public space called “Roman Forum” The character of Middle Ages changed to a large extent. It was focused on religious buildings. The public spaces became formal in nature in the Neoclassical period and they added extra features such as fountains, monuments, etc. The design was based on principles such as symmetry, hierarchy, balance, axial order, etc.

Human

The Industrial Revolution has changed the whole scenario of urban design. The focus was shifted to vehicular access in cities from the pedestrian. The public spaces have functions such as shopping arcades, bazaars, etc. in the 20th century. Many squares turned into cross-roads due to vehicular centric planning. In the Indian context, the public spaces with typical activities related to religion, political, commercial, leisure were planned in the cities. The importance to public space is given in the city planning of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. Due to aristocracy, different classes of people have access to different types of public spaces. The public spaces are not accessible to all as they were before. The Royal Patronage and Brahmins can access the spaces which are designed within the palace boundary. The common masses were confined to the public spaces of the temple courtyard. The temple courtyard consists of various components such as public gardens, bathing ghats, step-wells. The other type of public spaces are marketplaces called “bazaar”

2.1.4 OVERVIEW OF INDIAN CITY

The similar design of public spaces continued in the Medieval period. The public spaces were designed based on axis, rectangular pavilion, statue, etc. The un-built spaces were well designed compared to the previous era. Geometry played an important role as per the principles of Islamic Architecture. British era was different in the concept of public space due to socio-cultural aspects in their own country. This era resulted in the loss of the essence of Indian public spaces. The scale of the public spaces was very large and features from colonial architecture were added.

Fig 2.3: Public bath of Indus valley Civilization Source:https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/s acred-caves| 25062021

Fig 2.4: Context of western Source:https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/a rticle/sacred-caves| 25062021

Vedic Concepts

Central open space

2.1.2 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT

Brahmasthan

An open space to balance built Surrounding formation

Concept of old city spaces City center Main node Market place Surrounding residential Indo

Islamic Influence

Mughal Empower ment

History of Ahmedaba d

Large scale structures

Monumental open space

Open spaces in mosque

Important Frontage

Hierarchical development along the open space

Living spaces formed along

Qutub complex Mughal Garden

Formation of city on the banks of Sabarmati Concentric Development over time Development of Pol House

Waled city formation City centre : Bhadra Fort Development along the axis

Central Market space Manek chowk

Source:https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/a rticle/sacred-caves |25062021

Source:https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/a rticle/sacred-caves | 25062021

This figure illustrates the early age development of public space along the river-Ganga. Formation of religious activities along the ghats of Banaras which includes performing human rituals, aartis, gatherings and river crossing through boats

This figure illustrates a view of Ranki vav from Gujarat. Which used to collect ground water for locals and also used as various different activities like public gathering, evening performances, etc. These carvings describing various historical and ancient stories which influenced a lot of people.

Fig 2.5: Ghats of Banaras

Fig 2.6: Ranki vav, Indian heritage

2.2 PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

As per UNESCO “A public space refers to an area or place that is open and accessible to all people, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socioeconomic level. These are public gathering spaces such as plazas, squares, and parks. Connecting spaces, such as sidewalks and streets, are also public spaces. However, in the information age and new economy of the 21st century, the rise in semi-public spaces have been much of a concern for cities. Somehow today, public spaces need to be understood with a new approach in the public domain, which is accessible to the public. Like any other part of cities, such as houses, neighborhoods, political, economic, and cultural institutions, publicspaces are a part of ever-present vocabulary of urbanism. There are ‘n’ number of different public open spaces exist in any city. As an attempt to differentiate them putting them into a particular category according to various classification criteria.

Table 2.1: the definitions of ‘public space’ regarding the criteria of access, actor and interest by Benn and Gaus (1983) | 25062021

2.2.1 DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

1. Chowk

2. Square/Plaza

3. Junctions/Major crossings

4. Frontage of any monument

5. Pedestrian Bridges

6. Residential open spaces

7. City scale urban open space

8. Public parks

9. Socio-cultural open space

10. Commercial open spaces

11. Administrative open space

12. Educational open spaces

13. Economical open space/Markets

14. Lake fronts / River front

15. Under bridge spaces

16. Art/Exhibition spaces

2.2.2 ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

The activities such as interactions, playing, exercise, are the reason why people come to public open spaces. These activities can be grouped as formal and informal activities. People and human activity are the greatest objects of attention and interest. The formal public spaces are directly linked to the adjoining building use and functions. They are formed around symbolic iconic structures such as religious, government buildings, etc. The informal public spaces have activities for which it has evolved. It is independent and selfcentered. Such activities mostly include a commercial activity and a marketplace. These spaces are flexible in design. According to Jahn Gehl, activities in a public space, can be divided into three categories:

1. Necessary activities

2. Optional activities and

3. Social activities

1. Necessary activities include those that are compulsory - shopping, going to work. These activities are less dependent on the exterior environment. Minimal contacts and interactions occur.

2. Optional activities depend on the wish of the user. This includes taking a walk to get fresh air or sitting and observing. These activities are dependent on the exterior environment. The space allows a user to slow down and enjoy the surrounding.

3. Social activities include greetings, conversation, communal activities. These activities could be termed as “resultant activities”. They evolved from activities linked to other categories. These activities occur in finely interwoven patterns.

Fig 2.7: Public space activities Source: http://buysellgraphic.com | 25062021

Sketch:

Sketch: Author | 25062021

Sketch: Author | 25062021

Sketch: Author | 25062021

2.2.3 MAJOR TYPOLOGIES

When it comes to open spaces identification of their characteristics is required. It is important to note whether specific planning efforts and formal design contributed to creating a sustained and enhanced character of the public space, or if space formed historically, or even in an organic manner, and grew in its importance as the city grew around it. These public spaces are found to be of 4 different kinds when it comes to build form.

1. Designed spaces: They are designed by someone, planned, and prepared in a better manner by taking some design initiatives. Creating a master plan or making drawings.

2. Geographically formed spaces: These are the spaces which got formed due to their geographical landform, which gradually led them to be used by many people. They were generally built along the river in the foam of Ghat or etc.

3. Historical importance: These are the spaces which have rich history relating back to the times when it served an important role and so on. Now there are being used by a number of people on a daily basis and they are the part of people and city.

4. Accidental location spaces: These are the spaces which got formed accidentally due to their location or movement of public. Like there are few places in the city which got developed due to the daily public movement and happened to have emerged so well that they are serving the purpose very well on the regular basis.

Fig 2.8: Designed open spaces

Author | 25062021

Fig 2.9: Geographically formed

Fig 2.10: Historical importance

Fig 2.11: Accidentallocation

2.2.4 USERS AND THE URBAN IMAGE OF PUBLIC SPACES

People's perception of their environment influences their social interaction within that environment. Users themselves are the intrinsic links to the space they will be living in. In other words, if they cannot have this link, they will simply either move on or destroy the place until it reflects if not their comfort at least their discomfort – and in both cases their state of being. People inherently discern their relationship with others in terms of distances, or spaces, between them. It defines four distinct distances at which interpersonal transactions normally take place. These are categorized as intimate, personal, social, and public.

1. Intimate space is the private area immediately surrounding the individual’s body. involves both physical and emotional interactions. (45 cm)

2. Personal space is that area within which a person allows only select friends, or people with whom personal conversation is mandatory. (1.2 m)

3. Social space is that area within which a person expects to make social contacts on temporary basis. (3.6 m)

4. Public space is that area within which a person does not expect to have direct contact with others. (7.2 m)

Fig 2.12: User’s Levels of Space: Intimate, Personal, Social, and Public Source: the authorbased on (Hall 1966) | 25062021

2.2.5 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

1. Public buildings and monuments:

2. City squares and cultural spaces:

3. City level urban parks:

4. Bazaar street and market space:

5. Water front spaces:

6. Religious spaces:

Source: Kevin Lynch: Image of theCity

1. Public buildings and monuments:

The presence of the main public square or plaza always defines the urban precinct. This place reflects the architecture and cultural reality of that place and the particular period. They share a direct physical connection with the square and built fabric of the city. The culture, history, and essence which led to the formation of this space overlaid by many transformations now defines the current ‘vibes’of these public spaces.

Source: Google, 2019

Most colonial cities were planned around city squares. Generally, a city was planned surrounding these spaces and grows outwards from these. In historic Indian towns. these spaces were formed at the junction of the royal fort. These spaces tell us many stories.

2. City squares and cultural spaces:

City squares act as the heart and soul of a city. Long before, these were the commercial centers. These spaces are open and surrounded by buildings and other structures. These are the spaces that reflect the identity of a city. Public

[ Teen-Darwaja is center of attraction for the people of Ahmedabad, it is a major junction of traffic and a lot of other activities with historical importance]

Fig 2.13:Teen Darwaja, Ahmedabad

squares provide a space to enjoy, to read, to eat, to meet, etc. in the urbanized city. These activities are never confined to limited activities. These spaces can be also used for political meetings, ceremonies, musical events, etc.

[ Bhadra square is one of the largest and oldest street squares. It is located just at the front of Bhadra Palace which was built by Ahmed Shah, the founder of the city, in 1411 AD. Name of this square was taken from the Bhadrakali Temple that standsnearby ]

Captured: Author, 2021

The nature of these public spaces depends on the function of this space, architecture, and geographical location. Cultural Haats, such as Dilli Haat, are more inclined towards the economic and cultural aspects of the city.

3. City level urban parks:

City-level urban parks provide considerable environmental benefits. It also provides strong visual relief to humans who are surrounded by concrete jungles. These spaces are breathing spaces morphologically. This time of public spaces are owned by public authority. These spaces are used differently at different times of the day. People come to exercise in the morning. It is full of families and children playing around in the evening.

[ Law garden is one of the Ahmedabad’s Garden which isopen for thepublic and a lot of different type of activitieshappens here during the day i.e., public gathering, laughing club, relaxation activity, etc.]

Captured: Author | 25062021

Even vegetable vendors change according to the time. Generally, this kind of space is thoughtfully designed. There are places to sit and relax. Contemporary planning has neglected the protection, maintenance of these public spaces within cities. Instead, these land parcels are sold to private establishments. Consider the long-term value and benefits of per capita green cover, which deliver maximum value to the livability index. Gandhinagar, Delhi, Chandigarh are the most notable example of contemporary green cities.

Fig 2.14: Bhadra Square, Ahmedabad

Fig 2.15: Law Garden, Ahmedabad

4. Bazaar street and market space:

A market is a public space that is primarily for the selling and trading of goods. It is only for selling, but also a place for social and community interactions. The markets of the older cities, over the years, have transformed into the main street market. Most of the spaces are designed in a nonmotorable era.

Captured: Author | 25032021

5. Water front spaces:

The towns and settlements have almost been found around water bodies. A waterfront is defined as the stretch of land which runs along the waterbody. Canals, lakes, rivers, seas share a common part with the city which acts as waterfront public space either naturally or by design. The formation of these spaces is mostly because of its natural geographical setting.

[ Sabarmati riverfront is one of the greatest public open space in Ahmedabad. It is the largest urban open space where a lot of different activities associated with people of different areas happen. There are various recreational space which have been developed on the banks of river through 2 level development of riverfront promenade]

Source: Google, 2019

6. Religious spaces:

Religion is deeply embedded in our psyche. The religious spaces in the city satisfy the needs in terms of emotional security and community interaction. The power triangle of politics, religion, and the administrative center formed the core of the city. There various kinds of religious spaces as a result of the typology and functionality of space.

[ Bhadra market, surrounded by ‘n’ number of venders and diverse product range. The place is one of the largest markets of Ahmedabad. I believe this is a great public open space with a great potential]

Fig 2.16: Bhadra Market Place

Fig 2.17:Riverfront Park, Ahmedabad

2.2.6 TYPE OF PUBLIC ACTIVITY

Typical activities observed in public spaces include recreational and cultural activities. commonly used for refreshment, exercise and recreation. While all the cultural activities include mela, parade and public speeches.

Fig 2.18: Types of public activities

Sketch: Author | 25062021

2.2.7 IMPACTS OF POS

Environmental/Ecosystem: Gas regulation, microclimate regulation, disturbance regulation, water regulation, storage and supply, erosion control, soil formation, nutrient cycling, waste treatment, pollination, biological control, habitat nature conservation, air and water purification, wind and noise filtering

Economic: Reduction in costs of pollution control and prevention measures (through air purification services), increase in attractiveness of the city (leads to increased tourism revenue and employment), increased real estate values

Social/Cultural: Promotion of social encounters, equality and social integration, reduction of aggression, supports urban renewal and provision of space for active sport, play, recreation, leisure. Place to celebrate cultural diversity and assists in assimilation of values and moral attitudes (in terms of the relationship between people and nature), combines green space and civic space and represents a democratic forum for citizens and society, shaping of the cultural identity of an area. Neighborhood social ties (NSTs) substantially depends on informal social contact which occurs these spaces

Educational: For study and exploration by students and researchers at all education levels provides a sense of aesthetic and historical continuity, crucial to children's social and cognitive development

Psychological/Restorative: Provides a sense of refuge and freedom; relaxation and reduction of stress; enhance contemplativeness; provide a sense of peacefulness and tranquility-restorative function, supports place building, urban renewal

Health: Decreased blood pressure, less use of painkillers, lower stress levels, increased overall fitness levels

Scenic/Landscape: Provides a sense of aesthetic and historical continuity, increased attractiveness of city, urban renewal

Scientific: Place for research to take place; location of genetic resources including unique biological materials and products (i.e., medicinal plants, genetic materials)

SERVICES

ECOSYSTEM

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL/ CULTURAL

EDUCATIONAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL/ RESTORATIVE

HEALTH

SCENIC/ LANDSCAPE

SCIENTIFIC

IMPACTS

• Microclimate regulation

• Erosion control

• Wastemanagement

• Habitat nature conservation

• Air and water purification

• Wind and noise filtering

• Reduction of cost in pollution control

• Increase in attractiveness of the city (Leads to increase in tourism revenue and employment)

• Increase real estate value

• Promotion of social equality and social interaction

• Reduction in aggressiveness

• Supports urban renewal and provision of spaces for active sport, play and leisure

• Place to celebrate cultural diversity

• Combines green space and civic space

• Shaping cultural identity of any area

• At all education level it provides a sense of aesthetic and historical continuity

• Crucial to children’s social and cognitive development

• Provides a sense of freedom

• Relaxation and reduction of stress

• Enhance contemplativeness

• Provides sense of peacefulness and tranquility

• Restorative function, supports place building and urban renewal

• Decreased blood pressure

• Less use of painkillers

• Lowest stress level

• Increased

• Sense of aesthetic

• Historical continuity

• Attractiveness of city

• Research to take place

• Location of genetic resources

Here by various services are summarised into various different short ideas.

2.2:

Source: Urban Open Space, Thesis-Colleen Marianne Sutton, Queens University Kingston, Ontario, Canada(August, 2008) | 25062021

Table

Impacts of Public Open Space

2.2.8 GREEN SPACE PER CAPITA

After understanding impacts of POS by different services, it is also important to understand that why in the first place Green Space is required in any town or city? Urban cities which are growing currently are taking consideration of infrastructure, road network, transport facility, etc. but developing Green Spacesfor various purposes is also important nowadays. And for those various organisations have come up with minimum requirements for Green Public Open Space (GPOS). As a pre-determined notion now, green spaces are already provided before the development of any city, so that as city grows all these spaces can grow simultaneously and they can be part of their surroundings. Development plans (DP), Town planning Scheme (TP), Lan accusation plan (LAP), are various mediums under which this consideration is taken to make cities greener and more open for public. Various different kinds of services related to POS are a part of city life, explained in Table 2.2.

When there is a city there is need to evaluate how much present of any city is open for public. There is a notion taken under survey in NYC regarding public open space per capita. Under that total area of any open space is divided by its users. This is how we can identify how green space per capita can be governed.

Different organisations like WHO (World Health Organisation) and URDPFI (Urban and Regional Development Plan Formulation and Implementation) have some basic guidelines regarding how much green space is ideal per person. Also, there are various cities which have different amount of green space per capita according to their population and availability of open space.

Fig 2.19: Green space per capita by WHO

Sketch: World Health Organisation | 25062021

Fig 2.20: Green space per capita by URDPFI guidelines

Sketch: URDPFI | 25062021

2.2.8 GREEN SPACE PER CAPITA

Table 2.3: Green Spaceper Capita

Source: Urban Open Space, Thesis-Colleen Marianne Sutton, Queens University Kingston, Ontario, Canada(August, 2008) | 25062021

Understanding the scenario of Public Open Space as a whole through various parameters and identifying the publicness of parks and gardens of Ahmedabad city as a current scenario analysis. Differentiating the categories and analysis of selective cases.

3.1 INTRODUCTION OF AHMEDABAD CITY

Fig 3.1: Location of Ahmedabad Gujarat

Source: Author | 25062021

3.1.1 ABOUT AHMEDABAD

On basis of the aim of the study: Ahmedabad is the 7th largest city in India. It spreads on both banks of Sabarmati River, and its urban areas extended into the city of Gandhinagar. As located along the west banks of Sabarmati to its north.

1. Area: 8 million

2. Population: 1,866 sq. km.

3. Latitude: 23º4’N

4. Longitude: 72034’ E

5. Climate: Hot & Dry

6. Soil Type: Brown Sandy & Clayey

7. Vegetation: DryDeciduousType

8. Geology: Covered by Recent & Sub-recent Formations

9. Temperature: Average Summer - 41c;Average Winter – 18.8c

10. Humidity: Monsoon Months R.H. 80%; Non-Monsoon Months Rh. 30%

11. Rainfall: 800mm PerAnnum

Location: The city is surrounded by an extensive agricultural area. Kheda district to the south-east of the city is one of the prime agricultural regions of the country. Ahmedabad is a vital center connecting various parts of the state: Kutch, Saurashtra, North Gujarat, East, and South Gujarat.

Commutation: Mumbai-Delhi national highway 8 passes through Ahmedabad. Most of the state's industrial estates are located along this highway. The city has excellent rail and air connectivity to important cities in the country. Local connections within the region are surveyed by the meter gauge railways and good-quality road corridors. The city act as a hub connecting important ports in Kachchh and Saurashtra

3.1.2 HISTORY OF AHMEDABAD

The History of Ahmedabad begins in the eleventh century with King Karandev, the Solanki Ruler. He waged a war against the Bhil King Ashapall or Ashaval, and after his victory established a city called Karnavati on the banks of the Sabarmati. The Solanki rule lasted until the thirteenth century, when Gujarat came under the control of the Vaghela dynasty of Dwarka. Gujarat was conquered by the Sultanate of Delhi at the end of the thirteenth century. The present city was founded on 26 February 1411 and announced as the capital on 4 March 1411 by Ahmed Shah I of Gujarat Sultanate as a new capital. Under the rule of sultanate (1411–1511) the city prospered followed by decline (1511–1572) when the capital was transferred to Champaner. For next 135 years (1572–1707), the city renewed greatness under the early rulers of Mughal Empire. The city suffered due to political instability (1707–1817) under late Mughal rulers followed by joint rule between Maratha and Mughal. The city further suffered following joint Maratha rule. The city again progressed when politically stabilized when British East India Company established the rule in the city (1818–1857). The city further renewed growth when it gains political freedom by establishment of municipality and opening of railway under British crown rule (1857–1947).

Fig 3.2: History and Evolution of Ahmedabad

Source: Wikipedia,AMC, AUDA | 24062021

3.1.3. DEVELOPMENT OF AHMEDABAD

1411A.D. Formation ofAhmedabad on the eastern bank of Sabarmati

River1857 A.D. Formation of Walled city Ahmedabad, traditional pol

houses 1899A.D. Growth of walled city

1932A.D. Further extension of city in eastern side

1949 A.D. After the independence city started to extend on the western side

1975A.D. Growth on the western side of Sabarmati River

1989A.D. Growth continues on both eastern and western side of Sabarmati

1996A.D. Small villages started to be part of city

2004A.D. Extension of city in very large area

2012A.D.All towns are small villages are now part ofAhmedabad city

2021A.D. Further development plan ofAhmedabad city

Fig 3.3.: Development plan Ahmedabad,2021

Source: AUDA | 24062021

3.1.4 LOCATION OF EXISTING PARKS AND GARDENS

After understanding provision of green spaces in development plan here this map shows location of all existing parks and gardens with major water bodies. There are various kinds of sizes and scale can be observed as different types of parks with different purpose. Here we can also see the distribution of parks all over the city in both eastern and western side of city. There are some parks which are formed along the bank of Sabarmati River as a part of riverfront development.

Source: AUDA | 24062021

3.1.5 OVERLAPPING LAYERS

Here it is observable that three different layers are overlapping.

1. Pedestrian streets with parks and open space

2. Major road networks with traffic density

3. Overall building typology of city

Source: AUDA | 25062021

Fig 3.4: Location of existing parks and gardens

Fig 3.5: Overlapping layers of Ahmedabadcity

3.2 POS SCENARIO IN PRESENT CONTEXT

Ahmedabad is the 7th largest metropolis in India and largest in the state of Gujarat, with 5.8 million population in municipal area and 6.3 million in urban agglomeration. The municipal area is under the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), which has a jurisdiction of 466 sq. km. Ahmedabad, like many other cities in India, is going through rapid urbanization. This unprecedented growth is putting enormous pressure on public spaces. As rapid urbanization is creating a concrete jungle that is taking over the open spaces of the city. Over the period of time, Ahmedabad has been inflicted with many wounds to its public spaces thus playgrounds, parks, gardens, open spaces are becoming stories of the past. The open spaces in Ahmedabad are of five different varieties: Open, Garden, Playground, Green Belts, and Recreational Area, which is a total of 129 ha for the entire city. (Ahmedabad CDP). Thus, when translated to per person open space it is almost 0.37 sq.m. As against the standard of 8 – 10 sq.m. Per person. (WHO & UDRPFI Guidelines). This rapid growth rate is likely to perpetuate further damage to the city’s public spaces and its public life.

3.2.1 ZONAL DISTRIBUTION OF OPEN SPACES

• West Zone comprises over 40 percent of the open spaces.

• There is no evidence of any recreational areas and green belts in the South and Central Zones.

• The open spaces are dominated in form of a Garden.

• In all the five zones the per capita open space works out to be less than 0.7 sq.m. There seems to be a major shortfall in terms of open green areas.

Source: AhmedabadCDP (2006)| 12032021

*Updated dataof 2021 is presented further, refer Table 3.3

• There are about 100 parks in the city ofAhmedabad.

• Private agencies like Mother Dairy, Amul, Dairy Den, and others work on a leasehold basis with AMC for the development and maintenance of these parks (Ahmedabad CDP)

Table 3.1: Zone wise detailsof Open Spaces.

3.2.2 DIFFERENTIATION OF POS:

As per AUDA DP 2021, Parks and open spaces are linked to form a “green network” that will provide a wide range of social and environmental benefits to society. The wide range of parks and open spaces give valuable input for improving the quality of life for citizens with regards to work, live and visit. AUDA DP 2021 identifies four different components as parts of green network i.e.

1) Parks andGardens

2) Open Spaces

3) Green Streets and

4) Urban Groves

3.2.3 DIVERSE SCALES OF PARKS AND GARDENS:

• Areas that act as lungs of the city. Parks provide pollution-free and pedestrian-friendly areas for a varied range of social activities.

• “Parks can accommodate different recreational and leisure depending o their size and location. Distributed such that their catchment areas cover most residential households within a comfortable walking distance.”

• AUDAhas identified and categorized four different scales of parks and gardens for Ahmedabad on basis of size; location; and use.

1. Neighborhood Park - This category includes parks that are small but more evenly distributed throughout the residential areas. These parks usually serve the adjoining residential neighborhoods which are within comfortable walking distance. Area: 0.0-0.4 Ha

2. Community Park - This category includes parks that can support more active recreational activities, landscape features, and other supporting public toilets, etc. Area: 0.4-0.2 Ha

3. City Park - This category includes parks that are important at the city level. City parks are large landscaped areas that offer a wider range of recreational facilities and features. These parks are usually easily accessible by public transport. Area: 2.0-8.0 Ha

4) Regional Park - There is another category of parks which functions at the regional level. Regional parks are large areas, corridors, or networks of open space which are publicly accessible and provide a range of facilities and features offering recreational, ecological, landscape, cultural, or green infrastructure benefits. Area: More than 8.0 Ha

3.2.3 DIVERSE SCALES OF PARKS AND GARDENS:

Source:

Source: AUDA DP 2021 | 12032021

Source: AUDA DP 2021 | 12032021

Table 3.3 Provision of parks and open spaces in AMC & AUDA

Table 3.2 Categories of parks with standards

Figure 3.6: Satellite imagery showing example of parksfrom each category.

AUDA DP 2021 | 25062021

The following two tables 3.2 and 3.3 show the size, pedestrian access, and catchment area by category of the park.And the distribution of parks inAMC andAUDAregion.

• Currently, 7.43 Sq.km. area is under parks, gardens, and open spaces.

• Out of a total area of 466 Sq.km. ofAMC area.

• This shows that just 1.54% area is covered with parks, gardens, and open spaces.

• The lack of open spaces had put immense pressure on upgrading the infrastructure related to public spaces.

• The major issue that the public spaces of Ahmedabad are facing is the insufficient city level and community parks.

• As well as poor distribution of neighbourhood level parks.

• But the most important of them is how and what is happening in the already existing park?

• Are those parks and gardens publicly accessible for all?

• Even though Ahmedabad lacks in parks, the most fundamental question that arises is here is to understand what is the scenario of existing parks?

• Are those parks democratic in nature?

• Are those parks people’s parks?

• Especially in the case ofAhmedabad the parks and gardens play the most prominent role in order to understand how public these public spaces are.

3.2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN AMC ZONE

The chart here expresses the percentage of parks and open spaces in various partsof Ahmedabad. Talking about the east, the west, the north, the south, the central, and the new west Ahmedabad.

3.2.5 PEDESTRAIN ACCESS OF PARKS & GARDENS:

After understanding the distribution of park through Ahmedabad now here the map below showing the pedestrian accessibility to all these parks and gardens. There are multiple mode of transports available to reach to all these parks here, the yellow hatch shoes pedestrian reachability inAMC region

Chart 1: % of parksand open spacewithin AMC Source: SRFD | 24062021

Figure 3.7 : Pedestrian accessof parksoverlaid with residential land use. Source: AUDA DP 2021 | 24062021

3.3 SABARMATI RIVERFRONT

Sabarmati River flows north-south direction and is a monsoon-fed river. Nonetheless, the river will always be important for the city. It has provided space for cultural and recreational activities. It even became the informal economic hub and it established Ravivari Bazaar – Sunday flea market which is almost a 600-year-old market. Over the period of time, many poor and migrants started to live along the bank of the river as informal settlements. The river edge became characterized by unplanned and uninventive development. Sewage waste and industrial waste were dumped in the river creating an unhealthy and harmful environment for all living beings. Because of all these conditions, the river became inaccessible for all the citizens.

• Efforts to improve and develop the river leads way back in the 1960s, Bernard Kohn a French Architect, who was the first to propose a part development of Sabarmati Riverfront from Gandhi Bridge to Sardar Bridge.

• The proposal includes a mix of commercial, recreational, and residential development along both banks.

• There have been multiple occasions where a number of people and groups came together and proposed development along the banks.

3.3.1 Events Chronology (Source: SRFDCL)

• 1964: Bernard Kohn, French architect residing in Ahmedabad creates a proposal for Integrated Planning & Development of Sabarmati Riverfront, calling for reclamation of 30 hectares of land.

• 1966: Kohn’s proposal is claimed technically feasible by Government of Gujarat after technical studies are completed.

Figure 3.8: Land use of Sabarmati Riverfront.

Source: SRFDCL | 24062021

• 1976: Riverfront Development Group proposes an incremental approach to reduce the need for initial capital investment.

• 1992: National River Conservation Plan proposes construction of sewers and pumping stations at the periphery of the city as well as upgrading of existing sewage treatment plants.

• 1997: Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) sets up a Special Purpose Vehicle - Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Limited (SRFDCL) to manage the construction and development of the final riverfront

• 2002: Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation appointed HCP to develop the Riverfront in the heart of Ahmedabad. This proposal included an innovative self-financing method to generate revenue for execution of the project. The project creates social public open space for 11kms on either side of the river and provides the city protection from flooding.

3.3.2 Land Use Component: Public/Recreational Spaces:

• The main aim of the project was to improve environmental aspects, social upliftment, and urban rejuvenation for the whole ofAhmedabad.

• The core vision or the ideology behind the development was to reclaim the river edge as a public asset, improve its spatial structure and habitat conditions and restore the city’s relationship with the river. (SRFDCL)

• The project devotes around seventy hectares, more than a quarter (26%), of the reclaimed land towards creating public spaces.

• These open spaces range from public parks and gardens to shaded plazas and urban forests.

• The parks shall enhance livability in the neighbourhoods and provide the city with much needed green spaces and respite from the densely built environment.

• The plazas on the other hand will offer public places for social gatherings, and informal activities to take place.

• More than 85% of the land made available by the riverfront development is allocated for free and open public use.

• This includes more than 20 km of pedestrian promenades on each bank and a 29 km long road network that has made the riverfront easily accessible and well connected to the surrounding areas and the city as a whole.

• People of the city now enjoy water-related recreational activities and get access to lush green parks and gardens which constitute about 50% of the reclaimed land.

• SiteArea: 203 Hectares

• Total no. of parks/ gardens/ grounds: 9

• Status: Ongoing-Stage 3

From Sardar bridge to Vasna bridge Stage-3 development is still ongoing construction as a last portion of development. Large part is going to be developed as urban forest area which is situated at a bit outside of the city area and it is going to be the edge of Sabarmati riverfront development Ahmedabad.

Stage: 3 development

Figure 3.9: Recreational Spaces.

Source: SRFDCL | 24062021

Images shows the reclaimed land on the either bank of Sabarmati River for the sake of development. Also, multiple access has been provided to have better connectivity with river and both of its promenades.

Here we can see the public promenades, gardens and play fields on the banks of Sabarmati River and as a part of riverfront development. Green ones are the parks areas and orange ones are the pedestrian promenades.

Source: https://www.hcp.co.in/project/sabarmati-riverfront-development | 24062021

Image 3.10

Image 3.11

Image 3.12

Image 3.13

3.4 SELECTION OF CASE STUDY

1) Subhash Bridge Riverfront Park

2) Usmanpura RiverfrontPark

WHY?

1) They are at the city center and the characteristics of both these sites are different. Formation of both the parks are on the either side of Sabarmati River. Also, they are newly created public spaces for the city of Ahmedabad, they have never been studied before.

2) Both these parks are made at different scales and have different importance at city level. Thus, the impact of both the park on the city of Ahmedabad will widely vary and this will produce a captivating outcome for the research

SELECTION CRITERIA

On the basis of the aim of study and selection of cases to analysis.

3.5 SITE STUDY: Finding Publicness &Accessibility

3.5.1 LOCATION OF SITES:

Both the sites are on the either side of Sabarmati River. Subhash Bridge Park is on the eastern side of river where Usmanpura Park is on the western side of river. Each site has been chosen purposefully to analyse the response of people on both the sides of the riverfront.

Source: Research Thesis 2016

3.5.2 LOCATION OF SITE BUFFERS:

Both sites are almost 2km apart, here you can see rings of 500m interval each.

Source: Research

2016

Figure 3.14: Map showing both the sites on the banksof Sabarmati River

Figure 3.15: Map showing buffers of 500m,1000m,1500mand 2000m respectively

thesis

1. SHUBHASH BRIDGE RIVERFRONT PARK

• The Park is envisaged as an extension of Gandhiji’s Sabarmati Ashram, across the river, providing a serene and contemplative backdrop to the Ashram and maximizing this vista.

• Simultaneously, it will serve as a much-needed park for ShahibaugDudheshwar neighbourhoods.

• The Park has been designed to meet the needs of a diverse range of people.

• It has been recently completed and is open to the public since October 2013. (SRFDCL)

• Area - 6.19 Ha

Source: HCP | 15032021

Sabarmati River

Figure 3.16: Subhash Bridge Park plan.

Figure 3.17: Subhash Bridge Park plan.

2. USMANPURARIVERFRONT PARK

• The Park is one of the many public gardens created along the riverfront in this project. It will serve as a neighbourhood park and strengthen the green space network in the western part of the city.

• The Park has been open to the public since October 2013. (SRFDCL)

• Area - 1.8 Ha

Source: HCP | 15032021

Figure 3.18: Usmanpura Riverfront Park plan. Source: Google earth | 24062021

Figure 3.19:Usmanpurariverfront park plan.

Sabarmati River

3.5.3 CONTRIBUTION OF BOTH PARKS:

Cities change. Ahmedabad’s public spaces attune the dynamic of the city. They consume themselves and are reborn. From Manek Chowk to Municipal Market all of them are remade, repurposed, and are reborn. Fabric of public space is created out of the material provided by the past and is now part of thefuture. This includes its cultural, social, and economic fabric. Public spaces are formed, inhabited, acquire value, are appropriated, decline, and are recreated. Ahmedabad’s public space has the ability to change in this way. Usmanpura Riverfront Park and Subhash Bridge Park are newly built, in the hope to have the ability to be dynamic in nature. Usmanpura Park is around 1.8 Ha and is located on the western bank of the river. Whereas Subhash Bridge Park which is about 6.19 Ha is located on the eastern bank of the river. The Subhash Bridge Park gave an enormous push for the public spaces for citizens of easternAhmedabad. As the east zone of Ahmedabad has just around 17 ha of open spaces which includes all types of spaces.

3.5.4 DATA COLLECTION:

1) To investigate the accessibility of all, the publicness of space, and are these spaces are made for all. Various attributes and parameters were identified within the questionnaire and those parameters and attributes were included in the primary survey. Acomparative understanding was established with UN Habitats' idea of public space for all in order to achieve the research aim.

2) Secondary data/resources from varied sources such as a library, Archives, Internet, Books, and Journals, etc. are utilized in order to achieve the aim of the research.

Questionnaire (Primary Survey)

Figure 3.20: Process of making of questionnairefor the research Sketch: Author | 03052021

Source: Jan Gehl And Birgitte Svarre, “How To Study PublicLife”, E-book

A questionnaire was prepared to interview stakeholders (students/ classmates/ seniors/ faculties/ friends/ family). A total of 13 responses were received, then due to pandemic it was not possible to conduct face to face interview so online interviews were conducted through google from (Annexure I, II, III). Total 57 responses were received. Doing analysis of various categories, and taking basic inputs of data from 2 various cases is included in this chapter. Generated data is being kept in a proper manner to discuss observations like male-female ratio, diversity in religion, mode of travel, frequency of visit, area of belonging, distribution of age, types of activities, alternative space to visit, notion regarding fee, different kind of activities, etc.

Figure 4.1:Map of SubhashBridge Riverfront Park and surroundings

4.1 ABOUT SUBHASH BRIDGE PARK

Length: 1500m

Width: Ranging from 30-60m

Area: 6.19 Ha

Opening: October 2013

Park Hours: 6:00am to 10:00pm (where 6:00 to 8:00am free access, 8-9am closed for cleaning purpose)

Access: Paid 10/- ticket access

Construction cost: 6 crores

The Park attracted many users from Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi to President of China Xi Jinping.

Where each person above 12 years of age has to pay rupees ten, children and senior citizens pay rupees five. Students who can bring a letter from their school, institution, colleges, and university can have access by paying rupees one. Physically challenged and children below five years of age have free entry. The rules and regulations in Subhash Bridge Park are similar to that of Usmanpura Park.

4.1.1 Entry rules and regulation

•

•

•

Table 4.1.1 Entry fee distribution with category

4.1.2 Male-Female Ratio

The radial chart below enumerates that in gender roles, graph of Subhash bridge park is tilting towards Male as they are dominating with 56.6% and female at 43.3%

4.1.3 Diversity of Religion

Diversity in the case of Subhash Bridge Park is really skewed. The most dominant religious group coming to the park is Islam. Islam consists of 63% of the total population in the context of this park. Followed by Hinduism at 30%. Jainism (3%) and Christianity (4%) are similar to Usmanpura Park. The main purpose behind the development of Subhash Bridge Park was to give a serene and contemplative backdrop to the Gandhi ashram. As previously mentioned, Ahmedabad population in generic is split into two halves where Islamic population is living on the eastern edge and even both these park shows the same division where almost 60% of the population is dominated Hindu followers are predominantly living on the western edge of the city. by Hinduism followers in Usmanpura Park which is on the western bank of the river and on the other side, Subhash Bridge Park occupies 63% of Islam followers. This shows the disparity of religion among both parks.

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Chart 2: Male-Female ratio Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.1.4 Mode of Travel

When we look into the mode of travel, for Subhash Bridge Park we see 45% of the trip takes place through 2-wheeler, followed by 4-wheeler at 27%, and walk and bus combined form a total of 28%. Two-wheelers have been the core to access the public in both cases. Especially the city of Ahmedabad has a special love for two-wheelers. On an average 200-300 2 wheelers per day and 80-100 4 wheelers per day can be seen as a mode of arrive to the park. (Source: Park’s ticket window)

4.1.5 Frequency of Visit

To understand people’s views, we really need to understand their intensity in the park-like how often they visit? Only 1.9% of people were regular comers. 9.4% are those who visit once a week. When it comes to one a month the graph shows 47.2%.At last, 41.5%, people are visiting only once a year

Chart 3: Mode of travel

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Chart 4: Frequency of visit

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.1.6 Area of Visitors

Even though when the park is accessible by all means, it is important to see from which areas people prefer to come to Subhash Bridge Park.

Source: google earth | 25062021

Dudheshwar area, which is a future proposed CBD by AMC has the highest number of footfalls that are coming to Subhash Bridge Park. What we see is that most of the people who are coming to Subhash Bridge Park are coming from the eastern side of Ahmedabad. The Eastern side of Ahmedabad lacks public spaces thus the influx of population is high from the eastern Ahmedabad.

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Sabarmati

Vastral

Fig 4.1.1: Spatial location of places in Ahmedabad

Chart 5: Area of belonging

4.1.7 Distribution of Age

Subhash Bridge Park is rich in people diversity. Major visitors are between age group of 15-25 with 27%. Followed by 26-36 and 37-47 with 23% and 22% respectively. Overall, more than 48 was a total of 29%

4.1.8 Types of activities

The purpose of coming to a place is well established. During a survey in Subhash Bridge Park, we asked visitors why they come here. People have a predetermined purpose to visit. Subhash Bridge Park, they have already set up a mindset to visit this place. Ranging from walking to finding peace people, create reasons to come to this place. Rarely there are visitors who are wandering around the park without any purpose. The important thing for a public space is to accept a single wanderer to a bunch of people. All must be able to cater to the place, with having their own personal privacy maintained at the same time. Subhash Bridge Park is designed beautifully at a national level influential scale.

Chart

Types of activities

These

In Subhash Bridge Park as 63% of visitors are Muslim, the space usage within the park changes. As observed many Muslim people come with their family together to eat and spend time with others on a daily basis or on weekends. It was provoking that the family size between religions was varied and changing. On average the family size of Muslim families was around 6-7 people together. Whereas Hindu and other religions had a family size of 4 – 5 people.

Fig 4.1.2: Aerial view of park | Source: SRFD | 25062021

Fig 4.1.3: Entry view of park | Source: SRFD | 25062021

Fig 4.1.4: View pf riverfront lower promenade and park | Source: SRFD | 25062021

4.1.9 Any alternative to this?

People tend to use varied spaces throughout the day for different purposes. During the survey, I asked a question to the visitors whether they go to alternate public spaces. Riverfront is on the top of the list when it comes to alternative space with almost 45% vote!! Gandhi ashram and C.G. Road are the following 2nd most in the list with 13.2% each. Kankariya and Vastrapur have an equal amount of choice with 7.5% both. Everything else is with less than 10% including Law Garden, Parimal Garden, and Don’t go.

7: Alternative

4.1.10 Notion Regarding Entry fee

To further understand the publicness and accessibility of a public space, questions regarding what visitors think about entry fee where asked. Three main themes emerged out from this question

1) Agreed Themes (People who think Yes, they are willing to pay for theentry fee and why)

2) Disagreed Themes (People who think No they are not willing to pay for the entry fee and why)

3) Undecided Themes (People who still have no idea or they haven’t responded to the question)

Chart

public space

About Entry fee

Agreed Themes

Yes

Cleaned

Quite peaceful

Disagreed Themes

No

No proper facilities

A public space means free access

Improved services available Categorised fee structure

Beautifully maintained place Taxation

Reducing nuisance and antisocial element

Undecided Themes

No Idea

Nothing really to say

[As n no. of things can be liked or disliked in a park, so a blank slot was given in questionnaire and these are the responses which have been collected here and stated with adequate percentage]

4.1.11 What do you like about this park?

o Aview facing Gandhi Ashram-7%

o Great openness-26%

o Connectivity to nature/Green space-11%

o Quite environment-8%

o River edge development-4%

o Configuration of pathways-6%

o Cozy sitting areas-2%

o Healthy and fresh atmosphere-12%

o Cycling area-9%

o Diversity of landscapes-10%

o Comfortable and soothing-5%

4.1.12 What do you dislike about this park?

o Incomplete development-12%

o Not proper visual access to the river due to plinth modulation-29%

o Physical activities not approachable-13%

o Polluted water merging into the river-9%

o Lots of garbage-14%

o Formation of the public crowd-23%

Table 4.1.2 Public notion about entry fees

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.1.13 What kind of people preferred?

It is important for the research to understand the kind of people, people like and dislike to see here. And the kind of activities they like and dislike to see in Subhash Bridge Park. The survey formed themes that help in comprehending the further research. The themes that emerged during the question ask for what kind of people visitors like or dislike to see here are as follows.

Liked Themes

Disliked Themes

Children Beggars

Youngsters

Elders

Senior citizens

Group of family

Anti-social elements

Couples

Noisy people

None

Table 4.1.3 What kind of people do you preferred Source: Generated from google form | 12052021 People and activity go hand in hand. The social character of a person determines what kind of activity he or she wants to pursue in a public space. There is a negative vibe for people who display affection publicly in both the parks. Social biasness and prejudice have taken over the public sphere and changed the dynamics of public space to a great extent, where one has to become judgmental about one another in the public domain. And determining what is right and what is wrong to do in a public space. Public space evolves into a people’s place when all and each individual can exercise their own freedom.

What kind of people do you see?

4.1.14 Activities:

• Activities that take place determines what kind of freedom people expectin a public space.

• For a public space to increase its publicness needs to identify the types of activities that space wants to cater to.

• The survey was conducted to understand the kind of activities people are expecting in Subhash Bridge Park.

Activities ( Likes )

Spending time with family and friends

Children playing

Morning exercise. Yoga

Jogging and walking

Elderly people gossiping

Cultural events

Leisure activities

Sports i.e., cricket, badminton, boating

Fun and entertainment activities

Table 4.1.4 Types of activities in the park

Activities ( Dislike )

Anti-social element

Activities that intrude privacy

Noisy activities

People throwing waste

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.1.15 Public for all?

People are the one who determines whether space will be considered as a total public space or not. Public space has been a long subject of debate and study since the time of the Greek agora. Definitions of the public have been changing from their very core but one thing that always has stayed in common is the commonality and togetherness of people found in a public space. In the case of Subhash Bridge, 83% of people agreed it is a public space for all.

Yes: 83%

No: 10%

May be: 7%

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.1.16 People’s view:

“If public space arises out of a dialectic between the representation of space and representational spaces, between the ordered and the appropriated, then they are also, and very important spaces for representation.” (Mitchell, 2014)

Public spaces have become the center stage for drama in the city. Each city has been blessed with beautiful public spaces. Ahmedabad’s riverfront public space i.e., Usmanpura Park & Subhash Bridge Park is facing the challenge of becoming better. Both these parks have shown a tremendous potential of being a public space but the parks haven’t reached the ultimate potential because there are multiple issues that are being identified in these spaces. In order to understand the performance and potential of the riverfront parks. Methodology from Project of Public Space, New York has been adopted to evaluate riverfront parks. Evaluation of public space take place with four parameters (i.e., 1) Comfort & Image 2) Access & Linkages 3) Uses & Activities and 4) Sociability) and these four parameters have four attributes for evaluation.

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12032021

Chart 8: Public space for all?

Table 4.1.5 Identifying opportunities of various factors

4.1.16.1 Comfort and Image

There are some elements which has been analyzed to understand different spaces of park.

It can be observed that Overall attractiveness of the park was quite impressive as the chart shows there is no poor response with 15% average responses. Good responses were 45% followed by very good with 25% and excellent by 15%.

It can be observed that Feeling of safety in the park was quite impressive as the chart represents there is no poor responses with 25% average responses. Good responses were 45% followed by very good and excellent both with 15%.

Table

It can be observed that Cleanliness of the park was a bit fluctuating with few matters of poor response, the chart depicts 5% poor response with 15% average responses. Good responses were 45% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 15%.

It can be observed that Feeling of relaxation of the park was very impressive with excellent responses, the chart enumerates no poor response with 25% average responses. Good responses were 35% followed by very good with 10% and excellent by 30%.

Table 4.1.6.3:Chart 11: Cleanliness

Table

Chart 12: Feeling of relaxation

4.1.16.2 Access and Linkages

These radial charts present various elements taken under study.

It can be observed that Identification of the park was a bit fluctuating with few matters of poor responses yet more of goods, the chart illustrates 5% poor response with 25% average responses. Good responses were 45% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 5%.

It can be observed that Walkability to the park was more of an equally distributed with various response, the chart presents 10% poor response with 20% average responses. Good responses were 35% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 15%.

Table

It can be observed that Transit access of the park stands into moderate terms with average and good responses, the chart gives 5% poor response with 35% average responses. Good responses were 50% followed by very good with 5% and excellent by 5%.

It can be observed that Signages/clear information in the park were a bit impressive with average-good yet with some poor responses, the chart provides 5% poor response with 30% average responses. Good responses were 45% followed by very good with 15% and excellent by 5%.

Table 4.1.6.7:Chart 15: Transit access

Table 4.1.6.8:Chart 16: Clear informationof signages Source:

4.1.16.3 Users and Activities

It can be observed that Comfortability of the park was quite impressive with good and excellent responses, the chart delineates no poor response with 25% average responses. Good responses were 40% followed by very good with 15% and excellent by 20%.

It can be observed that Frequency of community events in the park was quite impressive with average responses, the chart outlines 5% poor response with 35% average responses. Good responses were 35% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 5%.

It can be observed that Traffic business of the park was a bit fluctuating with matter of poor response, the chart describes 15% poor response with 35% average responses. Good responses were 20% followed by very good with 15% and excellent by 15%.

It can be observed that Variety of things to do in the park was quite moderate with good responses, the chart expresses no poor response with 25% average responses. Good responses were 45% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 10%.

Table 4.1.6.11: Chart 19: Business of Traffic

Table

Chart 20: Variety of things to do

4.1.16.4 Sociability

These radial charts present various elements taken under study.

It can be observed that Behaviour of people in the park was more or less average-good with few excellent responses, the chart denotes no poor response with 30% average responses. Good responses were 65% followed by very good with 0% and excellent by 5%.

It can be observed that Evidence of Vandalism in the park was moderate with few poor responses, the chart compares 10% poor response with 30% average responses. Good responses were 55% followed by very good with 0% and excellent by 5%.

Table 4.1.6.13: Chart 21: Behaviourof people

Table 4.1.6.14: Chart 22: Evidence of Vandalism

Source: All graphsand tables generated from google form survey | 24062021

It can be observed that Sense of ownership of the park stands with 50% good terms and a few very good responses, the chart indicates no poor response with 20% average responses. Good responses were 50% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 10%.

It can be observed that Presence of children and senior citizens in the park was quite appreciable, the chart demonstrates no poor response with 15% average responses. Good responses were 55% followed by very good with 15% and excellent by 15%.

Table 4.1.6.15: Chart 23: Sense of ownership

Table 4.1.6.16: Chart 24: Presence of children and senior citizens Source: All graphsand tables generated from google

Figure 4.2: Map of UsmanpuraRiverfront Park and surroundings

4.2 ABOUT USMANPURARIVERFRONT PARK

Length: 600m

Width: Ranging from 10-60m

Area: 1.85 Ha

Opening: October 2013

Park Hours: 6:00am to 12:00pm and 2:00pm to 10:00pm (Evacuation after 10pm, even both sides of riverfront close at 10)

Access: Paid 10/- ticket access

Construction cost: Unknown

Park is Guarded by 5 guards 24 hrs. Using any kind of alcohol, drugs, and intoxicating products in the park is prohibited. Prohibition of throwing garbage/rubbish in the park, pluck flowers or plants and damage any property within the premises. Bringing a personal pet into the park is strictly prohibited. Vendors are not allowed on the premises.

4.2.1 Entry rules and regulation

•

•

•

•

Table 4.2.1 Entry fee distribution with category

Source:

4.2.2 Male-Female Ratio

The radial chart below enumerates that in gender roles, graph of Subhash bridge park is tilting towards Male as they are dominating with 56.6% and female at 43.3%

4.2.3 Diversity of Religion

Diversity of people is something which is important in all sense whether it has to do with urban planning or policymaking. All requirements must keep in mind what kind of people are coming to a particular location as it is really important to understand the functionality of that spaces. And also, it helps to understand how public those public spaces are. In Usmanpura Park, the dominant religion which is identified is Hinduism more than 60% of the population coming to Usmanpura Park is Hindu. 20% of the population coming to the park represent Islam. The rest others are Jainism which is at 12% and Christianity & Sikhism is at 3% each. In terms of the religious distribution of people inAhmedabad.

ikhism

Jainism

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Chart

4.2.4 Mode of Travel

To reach Usmanpura park 62.3% of people prefer 2-wheeler which is the major mode of transportation for the public. Followed by 24.5% for 4-wheelers. People with Auto, Bus, and cycle have the same ratio of 3.8% only. Walking was preferred by 1.2% of people only. But when analyzed people who commute through walking are living in proximity of 1000m

4.2.5 Frequency of Visit

To understand people’s views, we really need to understand their intensity in the park-like how often they visit? Only 3.8% of people were regular comers 11.3% are those who visit once a week. When it comes to one a month the graph shows 41.5%.At last, 43.45%, people are visiting only once a year

Chart

Chart

4.2.6 Area of Visitors

Even though when the park is accessible by all means, it is important to see from which areas people prefer to come to Usmanpura Park.

Source: Google earth | 25062021 In order to understand from which location people are coming from we asked people their origins of travel. It spread across the whole of Ahmedabad from Chandkheda in the north to Maninagar in the south, Thaltej in the west to Nikol in the east, people travel to Usmanpura Park from many different locations across the whole ofAhmedabad.

Chart 28: Area of belonging

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Chandkheda

Sabarmati

Ghatlodia Ranip

Naroda

Nava vadaj

Theltej

Usmanpura Stadium Shahibag

Vastrapur Ashram road Nava naroda

Navrangpura Lal darvaja

Kalupur Bapunagar Nikol Ambawadi Sarangpur

Paldi

Vasna

Vastral

Maninagar Amravati

Fig 4.2.1: Spatial location of places in Ahmedabad

4.2.7 Distribution of Age

Usmanpura Park is rich in people diversity. When quantified on average there are about 500 – 700 visitors who visit Usmanpura Park daily. Major visitors are between the age group of 15-25 with 38%. Followed by 26-36 and 37-47 with 23% and 18% respectively. Overall, more than 48 was a total of 20%

4.2.8 Types of activities

Most of the visitors who visit the park, visit it for purpose of walking& jogging. While others loved to spend their time with children, family members, friends, and loved ones. The important thing here is to understand what kind of themes evolved for visiting a space. There are elements such as peace, relaxation, enjoyment, time pass, fun, etc. Which are directly related to the physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing of a human being. Such kinds of themes are directly affecting the quality of life of a person in space.

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Types of activities

These cubicles illustrate number of different activities through comparison of different colors and sizes Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Many who come with their children to spend time in the park find enjoyment and relaxation from their daily life. There are many overlaps in themes on why people come to this place? Such as spending time with loved ones seems to be a relaxation for many, when people come with their family to this space, they seemto have fun and at the same time, they find peace. Overlaps of different themes are bound to happen in a public space because public space is collectively formed by individual people and their notions. The very idea of public space anddemocracy is to have the flexibility to express freedom and Space is a representation of characteristics of human thoughts and the value of human aspirations. Themes such as peace, enjoyment, fun, relaxation, spending time, resting and others are the aspirations that a person wants to find in space.

Source: Author | 24042021

Fig 4.2.2: Usmanpura Park Pathway

Fig 4.2.3: Park’s lower promenade entry

Fig 4.2.4: Usmanpura Park Garden

Fig 4.2.5: Usmanpura Park Pathway

4.2.9 Any alternative to this?

People tend to use varied spaces throughout the day for different purposes. During the survey, I asked a question to the visitors whether they go to alternate public spaces. Riverfront is on the top of the list when it comes to alternative space with almost 21% vote!! Gandhi ashram and Vastrapur are the following most in the list with 17% and 13.2%. Law Garden and C.G. Road have equal amounts of choice with 11.3% both. Everything else is with less than 10%. Most of the public spaces are in the western part of Ahmedabad which shows the unequal distribution of open spaces inAhmedabad city.

4.2.10 Notion Regarding Entry fee

To further understand the publicness and accessibility of a public space, questions regarding what visitors think about entry fees were asked. Three main themes emerged out from this question

1) Agreed Themes (People who think Yes, they are willing to pay for theentry fee and why)

2) Disagreed Themes (People who think No they are not willing to pay for the entry fee and why)

3) Undecided Themes (People who still have no idea or they haven’t responded to the question)

Chart

Alternative public space

About Entry fee

Agreed Themes

Disagreed Themes

Yes No

Good Atmosphere No proper facilities

Peaceful and calm A public space means free access

Improved services Categorised fee structure

Beautifully maintained place Just no willingness

Reducing nuisance and antisocial element

Undecided Themes

No Idea

Nothing really to say

Does not matter

Other gardens are free

Free access to increase visitors

Unaffordability

[As n no. of things can be liked or disliked in a park, so a blank slot was given in questionnaire and these are the responses which have been collected here and stated with adequate percentage]

4.2.11

What do you like about this park?

o Connection to riverfront

o Good ambiance and plantation

o Cool breeze from riverside

o Great view with skyline

o An empty vastness

o Garden area to sit and talk

o Picturesque spaces

o Healthy and positive environment

o Overall landscape

o Good children play area

4.2.12

What do you dislike about this park?

o Harsh sunlight

o Fewer trees

o Anti-social activities

o Noisy people

Table 4.2.2 Public notion about entry fees Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

o Approach of local authorities

o Lack of shaded area

o More concrete and less plantation

o People spitting and throwing waste

o Poor public toilets and drinking facility

4.2.13 What kind of people preferred?

The research needs to understand the kind of people, people like and dislike to see here. And the kind of activities they like and dislike to see in Subhash Bridge Park. The survey formed themes that help in comprehending the further research. The themes that emerged during the question ask for what kind of people visitors like or dislike to see here are as follows.

Liked Themes

Children

Youngsters

Elders

Senior citizens

Group of family

Disliked Themes

Beggars

Anti-social elements

Couples

Noisy people

None

Table 4.2.3 What kind of people do you preferred

Source: Generated from google form | 12052021

People have a various liking and disliking according to their mentality. Some people like to see children playing in the garden as that fascinates them to watch them playing. Few like the enthusiasm of senior citizens in the morning time. There are also a group of people who like to see a group of friends or family happily spending their time over here. All these chaos are good for them and they really like this kind of atmosphere. Where on the other hand there are some elements which people strictly disliked i.e., people preferred not to sit around noisy ones, as they are more likely to make you irritated with screams and all the noise. Additionally, people do not want beggars around them. They make them uncomfortable while spending good outdoor time.

What kind of people do you see?

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.2.14 Activities:

• Activities that take place determines what kind of freedom people expectin a public space.

• For a public space to increase its publicness needs to identify the types of activities that space wants to cater to.

• The following themes emerged out from the surveys.

Actives (Likes)

Children playing in park

Cultural events

Exercising, jogging, walking, yoga

Fun and entertainment activities

Leisure activities

Talking and gossiping

Sports i.e., cricket, badminton

Activities (Dislike)

Anti-social element

Activities that intrude privacy

Noisy activities

People throwing waste

Table 4.2.4 Types of activities in the park

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.2.15 Public for all?

• Most of them agreed as it connects everyone.

• Vendors, Hawkers, and street vendors are excluded from the park.

• Few of them were not in the state to express their particular opinion as well.

• Yes: 82%

• No: 10%

• May be: 8%

Chart 31: Public space for all?

Source: Graph generated from google form survey | 12052021

4.2.16.1 Comfort and Image

It can be observed that Overall attractiveness of the park was quite impressive as the chart shows there is 5% poor response with 25% average responses. Good responses were 25% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 25%.

It can be observed that Feeling of safety in the park was quite impressive as the chart represents there is no poor responses with 20% average responses. Good responses were 40% followed by very good with 25% and excellent with 15%.

It can be observed that Cleanliness of the park was a bit fluctuating with few matters of poor response, the chart depicts 20% poor response with 5% average responses. Good responses were 40% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 15%.

It can be observed that Feeling of relaxation of the park was very impressive with excellent responses, the chart enumerates no poor response with 35% average responses. Good responses were 15% followed by very good with 20% and excellent by 30%.

Table 4.1.5.3:Chart 34: Cleanliness

Table

Chart 35: Feeling of relaxation

4.2.16.2 Access and Linkages

These radial charts present various elements taken under study.

It can be observed that Identification of the park was a bit fluctuating with few matters of poor responses yet more of goods, the chart illustrates 5% poor response with 15% average responses. Good responses were 50% followed by very good with 25% and excellent by 5%.

It can be observed that Walkability to the park was more of an equally distributed with various response, the chart presents no poor response with 10% average responses. Good responses were 30% followed by very good with 25% and excellent by 15%.

Table

It can be observed that Transit access of the park stands into moderate terms with average and good responses, the chart gives 5% poor response with 40% average responses. Good responses were 20% followed by very good with 30% and excellent by 5%.

It can be observed that Signage/clear information in the park were a bit impressive with average-good yet with some poor responses, the chart provides no poor response with 15% average responses. Good responses were 60% followed by very good with 15% and excellent by 10%.

4.2.16.3 Users and Activities

It can be observed that Comfortability of the park was quite impressive with good and excellent responses, the chart delineates 5% poor response with 25% average responses. Good responses were 15% followed by very good with 40% and excellent by 15%.

It can be observed that Frequency of community events in the park was quite impressive with average responses, the chart outlines 5% poor response with 35% average responses. Good responses were 25% followed by very good with 30% and excellent by 5%.

Table

Table 4.2.5.10: Chart 41: Frequency of communityevents

Source: All graphsand tables generated from google form survey | 24062021

It can be observed that Traffic business of the park was a bit fluctuating with matter of poor response, the chart describes no poor response with 25% average responses. Good responses were 25% followed by very good with 25% and excellent by 15%.

It can be observed that Variety of things to do in the park was quite moderate with good responses, the chart expresses no poor response with 15% average responses. Good responses were 25% followed by very good with 25% and excellent by 15%.

Table 4.2.5.11: Chart 42: Business of Traffic

Table

Variety of things to

4.2.16.4 Sociability

These radial charts present various elements taken under study.

It can be observed that Behaviour of people in the park was more or less average-good with few excellent responses, the chart denotes 5% poor response with 20% average responses. Good responses were 55% followed by very good with 10% and excellent by 10%.

It can be observed that Evidence of Vandalism in the park was moderate with few poor responses, the chart compares 20% poor response with 35% average responses. Good responses were 35% followed by very good with 5% and excellent by 5%.

Table

Source:

It can be observed that Sense of ownership of the park stands with 50% good terms and a few very good responses, the chart indicates no poor response with 30% average responses. Good responses were 30% followed by very good with 30% and excellent by 10%.

It can be observed that Presence of children and senior citizens in the park was quite appreciable, the chart demonstrates no poor response with 10% average responses. Good responses were 35% followed by very good with 40% and excellent by 15%.

Table 4.2.5.15: Chart 46: Sense of ownership

Table

Chart 47: Presence of children and senior citizens

Source: Jan Gehl And Birgitte Svarre, “How To Study PublicLife”, E-book

5.1 Findings

After the survey conducted by questionnaire, responses were collected, analyzed and they are leading to various findings. That means of any space is connected to the particular components and changes within the physical area outlined by the order and variety of the designed atmosphere. There were various observations which have been taken into consideration to understand both of this park in much better manner.

Public open space provides linkages to each private as well as public spheres, and it represents the quality, the character, and the most significant the urban life of the city. Chapter 3-4 details out how public spaces are dynamic alongside the ever-changing nature of the city development, in different words, they're going through a transition from a communicative/expressive to a subservient character.

• Public spaces may physically change terribly slowly, however socially they are like water, embodied with new beliefs and behaviors.

• It can be observed that as both the parks are different in sizes, they play very diverse role in terms of activities also the location of parks is also responsible for the religion of visitors and other stakeholders of different activities in park.

• In terms of mode of transport, 2-wheeres are dominating as most of the visitors prefer to come by 2-wheelers followed by 4-wheelers.

• Public open spaces like such are dominated by youth these days. Like people from 15-25 is been seen most, followed by people in 30s, 40s and so on.

• The activity which is dominating in both parks is spending time with family/ friends followed by refreshment, enjoyment and mind relaxation.

• It is also a delegation of the self-awareness that comes from public management and ownership, as opposed to and problematic as these may be public space is a place of direct interaction. it's a sensible vision of the public space that determines its very publicness and accessibility.

• When we asked the opinion of people where they opted go as an alternative space, both these parks both have different choices.

• Almost half of the respondents opted to visit riverfront as an option to Subhash bridge park followed by Gandhi Ashram which is just on the opposite side of park. C. G. Road, Vastrapur and Kankariya lake are the other most opted places in the same category.

• This sequence is more or less same for the Usmanpura park but few ratios have been fluctuating in terms of opinions.

• The other argument that promoters of public space rush along is that there is a scarcity of education regarding a way to use and the way to behave properly in public and an absence of respect for others. Sure, things arise wherever the visitor starts to vandalize and destroy the property of the park.

• The misuse of children park’s equipment is very common in each of the parks, as adults are happily in the notion of becoming a child and thereby mistreatment the children’s area for his or her own enjoyment.

• Although there are only a few complaints relating to criminality happening in each of the parks, that could be a sensible sign for guests similarly as for the general public space to be safer for all.

• In this case-control of the utilization of public space is critical for the betterment of all Authorities have started numerous signs instructing individuals regarding a way to behave within the park, thereby inviting them to take care of plants, trees, and equipment of the park.

• If public space is equally accessible to everybody, no matter physical irrespective of, age, gender, religion, income level, and social status it can be considered as a public space.

Freedom should be negotiated, and guests and managers should realize a common ground to observe, each freedom of use and also respect for other people’s rights.

• This suggests accountable management and accountable use of public space. However, each of the management and also the guests got to keep their personal motives aside over public motives.

• This can permit higher publicness, permanence, and livability for a public space.

• The environment is significantly taken care of by the parks, although Subhash Bridge Park has a lot of potential for improving environmental conditions compared to Usmanpura Park.

• As whole several parts elements still missing in each of the parks however it can't be aforementioned it's created for all.

Correct strategy and usage will create this park a lot of comprehensive in nature the parks have gotten the flexibility to become a public area for all. All it desires could be a correct policy and strategy to enhance.

5.2 Comparative analysis of both parks

Entities Subhash Bridge Park Usmanpura Riverfront Park

Length 1500m 600m

Width 30-60m 10-60m

Area 6.19 Ha 1.85 Ha

Opening October, 2013 October, 2013

Construction cost 6 crores Unknown

Gender ratio

M: 56.6%

F: 43.4%

Religion Hindu: 30%

Islam: 63%

Jainism: 3%

Christianity: 4%

Sikhism: 0%

Transport

2W: 60.4%

4W: 26.4%

Bus: 5.7%

Cycle: 5.7%

Auto/Taxi: 1.8%

Walking: 0%

Frequency to visit

Area of belonging

O/Month: 47.2%

O/Year: 41.5%

O/Week: 9.7%

Every day: 1.9%

M: 56.6%

F: 43.4%

Hindu: 62%

Islam: 20%

Jainism: 12%

Christianity: 4%

Sikhism: 3%

2W: 62.3%

4W: 24.5%

Bus: 3.8%

Cycle: 3.8%

Auto/Taxi: 3.8%

Walking: 1.2%

O/Month: 41.5%

O/Year: 43.3%

O/Week: 11.3%

Every day: 3.8%

Source: Author | 18062021

Table 5.1: Comparison of both parks

Entities Subhash Bridge Park Usmanpura Riverfront Park

Age distribution

15-25: 27%

26-36: 23%

37-47: 22%

48-58: 17%

59-69: 10%

70-80: 02%

Types of activity

Alternative place to visit

Alone time: 5.95%

Eating: 1.33%

Enjoyment: 15.34%

Fun: 6.63%

Jogging: 4.63%

Mind Relaxation: 11.93%

Peace: 9.26%

Refreshment: 13.23%

Resting: 0.67%

Spending time with family and friends: 15.3%

Studying: 2.63%

Time pass: 5.95%

Walking: 7.30%

Yoga: 1.33%

Riverfront: 45.3%

Vastrapur: 7.5%

C.G. Road: 13.2%

Gandhi ashram: 13.2%

Kankariya lake: 7.5%

Law Garden: 5.7%

Parimal garden: 5.7%

Don’t go: 1.9%

Public for all Yes: 83%

No: 10% May be: 7%

15-25: 38%

26-36: 23%

37-47: 18%

48-58: 08%

59-69: 07%

70-80: 05%

Alone time: 5.32%

Eating: 2.30%

Enjoyment: 16.71%

Fun: 12.63%

Jogging: 6.04%

Mind Relaxation: 12.63%

Peace: 6.85%

Refreshment: 17.48%

Resting: 0.0%

Spending time with family and friends: 16.7%

Studying: 0.77%

Time pass: 9.10%

Walking: 5.32%

Yoga: 1.53%

Riverfront: 29.9%

Vastrapur: 13.2%

C.G. Road: 11.3%

Gandhi ashram: 17%

Kankariya lake: 9.4%

Law Garden: 11.3%

Parimal garden: 5.7%

Don’t go: 7.5%

Yes: 82%

No: 10% May be: 8%

Table 5.2: Comparison of both parks

Source: Author | 18062021

5.3 Conclusion

By investigating each of the cases from Usmanpura Park and Subhash Bridge Park, through theoretical as well as sensible framework of place and method, publicness of public open spaces can be perceived. Across both cases, thus this thesis is able to establish revenant themes concerning the use of the space, the activities, the publicness, the accessibility, and other direct and indirect components related to public space.

To understand publicness this thesis focus on curiosity and aspirations of public open space by understanding universal approach of people towards it and its impacts. Additionally, to get to know about the current scenario of public open space, it justifies overall idea of public open space and stream connecting Indian public open space with various different typologies and variations.

Hence, the factors like early free access, pleasant environment, calm and peaceful atmosphere, healthy air quality and cold feel are the responsible due to which public use this open space even during the time of early morning. These are the factors which motivate them to get up early and make these spaces live. Indian urban context is also responsible which act as an individual identity of any particular space. Various different activities like yoga, exercise, walkingjogging, mind relaxation, refreshment and spending time with family/friends which encourage and hold people in such public open spaces. All these are the activities which make it work.

Author understands the origin and evolution of open space, starting from cave dwelling to current modern public open spaces. There has been a smooth transition and evolutionary growth in terms of openness. Diversity of open spaces have been categorized based on 3 category like activities, land form and function. Author talks about various impacts of POS on factors like, ecosystem, economy, culture, education, psychology, health, landscape.

Here it can be seen that Ahmedabad as a case has been taken as a part of this research. Sabarmati river played major role for the development of such city level spaces. Hence, the development of both gardens was a part of an initiative to develop edge of Sabarmati River to provide better infrastructure to city. Land reclamation process provided man opportunities to create such public open spaces which have greater impact on city and its citizens.

• Thus, it can be seen that both the cases performed well in terms of evaluation through different criteria and findings have been made with the analysis of current scenarios, considering various components from survey questionnaire. (Shown in annexure-I-II-III)

• It can be stated that both the spaces are public and accessible by all means.

• As it consists of mentioned activities it is responsible for catering all the public at the same time is can be said that they are the source of all this engagement.

• Quality of physical, social and psychological environment has been well studied and represented via charts in section “People’s view” which talks about the current scenario like, comfort and image, access and linkages, users and activities and sociability.

• About the concern of publicness amongst both parks, as Subhash Bridge Park is large in terms of area compared to Usmanpura Park so this thesis comes to an agreement that Subhash Bridge Park is more public. Its publicness can be understood from various numbers of activities which it holds. Also, the diversity of people who comes there to be the part of this publicness and enjoys all the diverse activities. Variety of infrastructure, a greater number of flora and fauna, creative sitting spaces, children play area and space like amphitheater can be taken into consideration as well for such publicness.

“Public spaces should be designed and developed, as places that embody the principles of equality, by being accessible places, created through inclusive and democratic processes. Democratic and inclusive processes that make public space a common smart appear to be the simplest method of ensuring better physical surroundings with social and psychological significance for the citizens. wherever every day needs for public spaces are met through participative processes, the result is each physical improvement and social development, laying the foundations for additional improvement of democratic practices.”

The true form of becoming a public open space is achieved when a public space acts as a clay, where every individual could be a potter in itself, who are endlessly re-modifying the structure of public space as and when they find it irresistible.

ANNEXURE I: Questionnaire for the Survey-Offline

To collect and utilize the information in particular way.

Fig 5.1: Primary survey questionnaire-offline Source: Author | 21032021

ANNEXURE III: Questionnaire for the Survey-Online

Fig 5.2: Google Form Questionnaire Source: Author | 12032021

ANEXURE III: Questionnaire for the Survey-Online

Fig 5.3: Google Form Questionnaire Source: Author | 12032021

References

Amin A., (2006) Collective culture and urban public space. Available from: http://www.publicspace.org/en/text-library/eng/b003-collective-culture-and-urbanpublic-space [Accessed 20 December 2015].

Benn, S.I. and Gaus, G.F., (1983) The Public and Private: Concepts and action’, in S.I. Benn and Gaus (eds) Public and Private in Social Life, London: Croom Helm; Newyork: St Martin’s Press. Available From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274859892_Public_and_Private_in_Social_Li fe [Accessed 14 January 2016]

Borja J., (1998) Citizenship and Public Space. Available from: http://www.publicspace.org/en/text-library/eng/11-ciudadania-y-espacio-publico [Accessed 20 December 2015].

Boyer, M.C., (1993) The city of illusion: New York’s public places in P. Knox (ed.) The restless Urban Landscape, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Carmona M., Heath T., Oc T., and Tiesdell S. (2003) Public Places – Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Crowther, J., (1995) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford University Press.Fraser N., (1989) Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theroy, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

Fecht S., (2012) Urban Legend: Can City Planning Shed Its Pseudoscientific Stigma?

Available from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/urban-legend-can-cityplanning-sheditspseudoscientificstigma/?wt.mc=SA_Facebook-Share [Accessed 22 December 2015].

Gehl J., and Svarre B., (2013) How to Study Public Life. 1st ed. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.

Harvey D., (2012) Rebel Cities: From The Right to the City to Urban Revolution. London and New York: Verso

Available from:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=IKJE02gfP0cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rights+t o+the+city&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_gMrEr6zKAhXHc44KHRIhDMsQ6AEIM TAE#v=onepage&q=rights%20to%20the%20city&f=false [Accessed 12 January 2016]

Gove P.B., (1976) Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica

Keleg M., Latif A M., Salheen., (2015) LIVABLE PUBLIC SPACES AS A MEANS FOR LIVABLE CITIES. Available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284284266_LIVABLE_PUBLIC_SPACES_ AS_A_MEANS_FOR_LIVABLE_CITIES [Accessed 22 December 2015].

Lin J., and Mele C., The Urban Sociology Reader 2nd Ed. London and New York: Routledge Available form:

https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JXfm_pQ4aXQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA42 9&dq=Rights+to+city&ots=UNTRKZa86&sig=mqX23OOJ5xaQ5oMHUG8LEk4ool

A#v=onepage&q=Rights%20to%20city&f=false

[Accessed 10 January 2016]

Makins M., (1998) CollinsConcise Dictionary, Glasgow: HarperCollins.

Madanipour A., (2010) Whose Public Space? International case studies of in urban design and development.

1st ed. 2nd Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

Madanipour, A. (1995) Dimensions of urban public spaces: the case of the metro Centre, Gateshed’, Urban Design Studies 1: 45-46

Mehrabian A., (1976) Public Places and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work, Play, and Living Environments.

1st ed. New York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers.

Morange M., Spire A., (2015) A Right to the City in the Global South? Available from: http://www.metropolitiques.

eu/A-Right-to-the-City-in-the-Global.html[Accessed 20 December 2015].

Neal Z., (2009) Seeking Common Ground: Three perspectives on Public Space. Available from: https://www. msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-seekingcommon.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2015].

Nolan L., (1995) Standards in Public Life: First Report on the standards in Public Life. London: HMSO.

Saalam H., (1968) Medieval Cities, London: Studio Vista.

Shaftoe H., (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places 1st ed. UK and USA: Earthscan

Silver, A., (1997) Two different sorts of commerce: friendship and strangership in civil society. In J. Weintraub and K. Kumar ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smithsimon G., (2015) The Right to Public Space. Available from: http://www.metropolitiques.eu/The-Right-to-Public-Space.html [Accessed 20 December 2015].

Surayamarayanan A., (2015) The Right to Public Spaces. Available from: http://www.newindianexpress.com/education/edex/The-Right-to-PublicSpaces/2015/04/27/article2779416.ece [Accessed 20 December 2015].

Tadum., (2013) The Right to Public Space. Available from: http://www.tadamun.info/2013/07/01/the-right-to-public-space/?lang=en#.VpiIcxV97IX [Accessed 10 January 2016]

Tadum., (2014) The Right to Public Space in Egyptian Constitution. Available from: http://www.tadamun.info/2014/02/16/the-right-to-public-space-in-the-egyptianconstitution/?lang=en#.VpiIeBV97IX [Accessed 10 January 2016]

Thompson et al. (2011) Space Place Life: Learning from Place 1. London and New York: Routledge.Tonnelat S., (2010) The sociology of urban public spaces. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/313641/The_Sociology_of_Urban_Public_Spaces [Accessed 22 December 2015].

UNESCO (2015) Inclusion through Access to Public Spaces. Available from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/urbandevelopment/migrants-inclusion-in-cities/good-practices/inclusion-through-access-topublic-space [Accessed 22 December 2015].

UNESCO., (2004) World Charter for The Right to the City. Available from: http://www.urbanreinventors.net/3/wsf.pdf [Accessed20 December 2015].

Wacks R., (1993) Privacy, Aldershort, UK: Ashgate.

Books

Jan Gehl, “Life Between Buildings - using public space”, E-book, Island press, Washington DC, 2011, Pages: 211

Jan Gehl And Birgitte Svarre, “How to Study Public Life”, E-book, Islandpress, Washington DC, 2013, Pages: 193

Kevin Lynch, “The Image of the City”, E-book, The M.I.T. press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1959, Pages: 103

William H. White, “The social life of small urban spaces”, E-book, Project for public space, New York, 1980, Pages: 128

Madanipour, “Whose Public space”, E-book, Routledge Taylor and Francis group, London and New York, 2010, Pages: 28

Dissertations

Karan Solanki, “Rethinking Maleksaban lake as a multivalent public open space”, Bachelor thesis, Indubhai Parekh School ofArchitecture, Rajkot, Gujarat, 2018.

Shaurya Patel, “Public Spaces for All: How ‘Public’ Are Public Spaces?” Bachelor of planning thesis, Cept university, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 2016.

AamirAnsari. “Rethinking Urban Voids: Innovative ways to use lost spaces”, Bachelor of planning thesis, Cept university, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 2016.