Dissertation - Rebecca McCarthy by IA_UNSW

DESIGNING FOR CONNECTION: An exploration of the ways interior architecture can support social sustainability, by helping to build community in contemporary urban populations. Rebecca McCarthy

Bachelor of Interior Architecture (Hons) Final year dissertation, 05 May 2019

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

ABSTRACT

SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION: Social sustainability and Interior Architecture Designing for connection: An exploration of the ways interior architecture can support social sustainability, by helping to build community in contemporary urban populations

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the role of interior architecture in helping contemporary urban communities connect. Looking at sustainability through an anthropocentric lens, it explores the ways the built environment can contribute to socially sustainable community outcomes, by providing the physical structures that support and nurture good civic relations and help build an active, vibrant and diverse cultural life. It recommends a three-part framework of essential characteristics that form the foundations of socially sustainable space: the capacity to create a sense of belonging to place; the capacity to support a sense of connection to the community; and the capacity to create an authentic sense of personal and community identity. Using this framework, the spatial organization and interiors of three contemporary urban community centers are examined. Those developments are: the Utopia Library and Academy for Performing Arts in Aalst, Brussels (2018); the Maryland Heights Community Recreation Center in St Louis, Missouri (2017); and the Markham Library and Community Center in Toronto, Canada (2018). The case study analysis highlights the key design principals applied, ties them back to sociological theory and the established framework, and demonstrates that interior architecture has the capacity to directly affect the quality and nature of our community interactions, helping us build strong, connected and socially sustainable urban communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the teaching staff and faculty of UNSW’s Built Environment department for their commitment to creating a stimulating and inspiring Interior Architecture undergraduate programme. I would like to thank this year’s dissertation course convenor, Dr Sing D’Arcy, for providing guidance on topic choice, writing conventions and for sharing his wit and wisdom with us in class. Particular thanks must go to my supervisor Dr Alanya Drummond, who has with great intelligence, gentle patience and good humour helped me chart a course through this process. She has been a fabulous mentor and academic role model. Lastly, I need to acknowledge my wonderful family. Special thanks to my children for being patient with me when my mind was elsewhere. But most of all, thanks my husband, who has been the biggest supporter of my mid-life career change. I couldn’t have written this dissertation without his love, support and awesome Sunday roasts.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 3.01 Delfino Sisto Legnani e Marco Cappelletti, 2018, Exterior of new building as seen on approach through courtyard, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, Arch Daily.com, accessed 08 May 2019 < https://www.archdaily.com/897216/utopia-a-library-and-academy-forperforming-arts-kaan-architecten/5b341cd0f197cc3d4000002d-utopia-a-library-and-academy-forperforming-arts-kaan-architecten-photo> Figure 3.02 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2017, Aerial shot of building under construction showing position of new wing in relation to existing building, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 < https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.00/c33.0.200.200a/p200x200/19748903_657088527833975_2050109497066601848_n.jpg?_nc_cat=10 1&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd7-1.fna&oh=8b29a5f914470827c1f235a26727770c&oe=5D2D6064> Figure 3.03 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2018, Long communal tables to read and work, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36042808_815210305355129_ 6685281849385680896_o.jpg? nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd71.fna&oh=2856d479fbca0713f0d4c1a8de0e2810&oe=5D2FB708> Figure 3.04 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2018, Intimate peripheral spaces for performing arts, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0- 9/46456180_923526734523485 _5204533376635109376_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd71.fna&oh=e7574120d51702869d8c0e42e9a9014a&oe=5D60BE73> Figure 3.05 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2018, Low display furniture encourages children to interact with library collection, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.09/36188680_817201408489352_2696151770010222592_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd71.fna&oh=1e026d62b21506430e9fb518e672f1ef&oe=5D71BF95> Figure 3.06 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2018, People gathered in restaurant area for talk, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.09/51735341_970292366513588_3731508934414958592_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd71.fna&oh=9e278b7970f4df4e2dbb4424507cacf0&oe=5D2B918F> Figure 3.07 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2018, Families enjoying the public square during the day, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 < https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.09/36199791_817202455155914_9143762777913950208_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd71.fna&oh=374ecb9bc635f012c53bbed6988f0424&oe=5D2B63FA> Figure 3.08 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2019, Exhibition visitors mingling in the square at night, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.09/51121285_970297003179791_1087876234953621504_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd71.fna&oh=188b86d3b49c5f229982e6eff2dd44ab&oe=5D66262B> Figure 3.09 Utopia Aalst facebook, 2018, Central stairs link levels, with balconies providing opportunities to pause and observe other visitors, Utopia Community Center, Aalst by KAAN Architecten, digital image, facebook.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://scontent.fsyd7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.09/35922550_815764505299709_1855961003322245120_o.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd71.fna&oh=dbf8f5736b957c07f480748eb1f5205c&oe=5D68D0B3>

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued) Figure 3.10 Gayle Babcock, 2017, Exterior view of Maryland Heights Community Center and adjacent freeway, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, digital image, Archello.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://archello.com/story/50382/attachments/photos-videos/3> Figure 3.11 Gayle Babcock, 2017, Polycarbonate exterior walls glow from within at night, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, digital image, metalarchitecture.com, accessed 08 May 2019 < https://www.metalarchitecture.com/media/MA-Images/_mediumImage/Maryland-HeightsCommunity-Center.jpg> Figure 3.12 Gayle Babcock, 2017, Exercise equipment positioned to overlook adjoining spaces, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, digital image, Archello.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://archello.com/story/50382/attachments/photos-videos/10> Figure 3.13 Gayle Babcock, 2017, Visitor on running track that circles the interior, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, digital image, Archello.com, accessed 08 May 2019 < https://archello.com/story/50382/attachments/photos-videos/8> Figure 3.14 Gayle Babcock, 2017, Central multi-purpose sports courts flooded with natural light by large polycarbonate windows, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, digital image, Archello.com, accessed 08 May 2019 < https://archello.com/story/50382/attachments/photosvideos/9> Figure 3.15 Gayle Babcock, 2017, Visitors of all ages enjoy the indoor recreational pool all year round, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, digital image, Archello.com, accessed 08 May 2019 < https://archello.com/project/maryland-heights-community-recreationcenter>https://archello.com/story/50382/attachments/photos-videos/6> Figure 3.16 Perkins+Will, 2018, Exterior view of the building at night, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, digital image, ContractDesign.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://www.contractdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/unspecified-10-2.jpg> Figure 3.17 Perkins+Will, 2018, Interior â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;public squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; seen from above, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, digital image, DailyHive.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://images.dailyhive.com/20181025131328/Markham-Aaniin-Community-Centre-3.jpg> Figure 3.18 Perkins+Will, 2018, Vibrant red running track around gym, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, digital image, Contract.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://www.contractdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/18052_180721_610.jpg> Figure 3.19 Perkins+Will, 2018, Curvaceous red shelving warms the library, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, digital image, ContractDesign.com, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://www.contractdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/unspecified-14-1.jpg> Figure 3.20 City of Markham, 2018, Multisensory room, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, digital image, Markham.ca, accessed 08 May 2019 <https://www.markham.ca/wps/wcm/connect/markham/ac11d6ab-f1aa-41f1-a7e8b3408724fa21/1/29618176358_3de767b03a_o.jpg?MOD=AJPERES> Figure 3.21 City of Markham, 2018, Dedicated maker space, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, digital image, Markham.ca, accessed 08 May 2019 https://www.markham.ca/wps/wcm/connect/markham/38f5fdfb-1f27-447f-80b58ffd4ea579bc/1/28602600347_a5d72cd9b3_o.jpg?MOD=AJPERES Figure 3.22 Anil Mungal, 2018, Teen play space, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, digital image, Markham.ca, accessed 08 May 2019 https://www.markham.ca/wps/wcm/connect/markham/8cf34b19-f89d-4416-8978eba1379f9351/1/43489342411_45ac852af0_o.jpg?MOD=AJPERES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

08-09

Chapter 1: Understanding social sustainability

10-11

Establishing a framework

Terminological expansion of framework

Social application of the framework

12-13

Chapter 2: How can the built environment support social sustainability?

a. Creating attachment and belonging to place

15-16

b. Creating connections to and within the community

c. Creating a sense of identity (shared and individual)

18-19

Chapter 3: Case studies of contemporary spaces that support social sustainability

Case study A: Utopia Community Center in Aalst, Belgium

21-23

Case study B: Maryland Heights Community Center in Missouri, USA

24-26

Case study C: The Aaniin Community Center in Markham, Toronto

27-29

Conclusion

Bibliography

31-32

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation argues that interior architecture can be used to help connect contemporary urban communities. It draws together evidence of the ways that the built environment can contribute to socially sustainable community outcomes, by providing the physical structures that support and nurture good civic relations and help build an active, vibrant and diverse cultural life. The first chapter of the dissertation introduces some key definitions and highlights existing sociological thinking around community building and social sustainability. The second chapter outlines why building community is important and establishes how this ambition translates to the design practice of the built environment. The third chapter examines three contemporary examples of community developments, to identify key design principals that can be utilised to help establish and maintain socially sustainable communities. The term ‘sustainability’ came into popular use in the 1980s and is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as ‘the quality of being able to continue over a period of time’. A large body of academic research exists which examines the broad notion of sustainability. Whilst academia’s original focus was on the ecological dimensions of sustainability, it is now commonly understood to also encompass economic and social dimensions as inherently inter-related factors. British management consultant John Elkington was the first to describe this three-part framework as sustainability’s ‘triple bottom line’ (Elkington 1999). It is not within the scope of this dissertation to analyse all three facets of sustainability, as they relate to the built environment. Rather, this dissertation will seek to deliver a nuanced understanding of the element of social sustainability and investigate how interior architecture contributes to create strong, resilient and sustainable urban communities. The study of social sustainability came to prominence after the (failed) 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. At this time, it became obvious to people working in the field of geo-political ecology that if global leaders could not agree to even basic carbon emissions targets, their more pessimistic predictions about climate change were likely to come to pass. Which, a mere decade later, it seems they are. We are now witnessing a global pandemic of climate related population displacement, with the highest ever number of people seeking refuge due to ecological disaster and subsequent conflict and persecution (UNrefugees.org). Much research has been undertaken looking at social sustainability in relation to the provision of basic needs (like food, sanitation, education and shelter) for these displaced populations. Whilst this is undoubtedly a critical area of research, this dissertation will be more specifically focused on social sustainability in relation to existing communities, in the Western urban built environment. The scope of investigation will also be limited to contemporary case studies from the last 3 years. 8

Specifically, this dissertation argues that the relationship between people and the urban environments they inhabit is a reciprocal one: not only do people shape the places that they occupy, but they in turn are shaped by them. Interior architecture has the capacity to directly affect the quality and nature of our community interactions. Through it, we can build the framework that supports socially sustainable communities: creating a sense of belonging to place; creating a sense of connection to and within communities; and creating a defined sense of personal and community identity. In his 2013 address to the Queensland Parliament introducing the notion of the Design Dividend, Shane Thompson of the Australian Institute of Architects argues that investing in good design is not only economically prudent, but a moral imperative, as it demonstrably improves community outcomes: Good design is not only about the aesthetic quality of our environment, it is also as much about improved quality of life, equality of opportunity and economic growth. If we want to be a successful and ultimately a sustainable society, we have to overcome our ignorance about the importance of design (Thompson 2013). Recognising as we do the value of good design, interior architects have a responsibility to ensure that the material and spatial qualities of our civic spaces are employed to strengthen the fabric of society. We should use our deep-rooted understanding of people and how they occupy space to support the creation of strong, resilient and sustainable communities.

CHAPTER 1: UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

The first chapter of this dissertation establishes key definitions around social sustainability and argues that through strengthening community, we can improve outcomes for its constituent members. It discusses various notions of what constitutes ‘community’, choosing to focus on a definition of community that is specific to geographic place. It introduces the idea of the human needs that must be met in order to boost wellbeing, highlighting key social and emotional human needs as most closely implicated in a study of social sustainability. Drawing on the work of Maslow (1947) and Jackson et al (2004) it establishes the 3 pre-conditions and markers of a socially sustainable community: being belonging to place, connection to community and a sense of identity. Finally, it argues the importance of community building as a way of restoring the networks and trust that form the backbone of a coordinated response to issues of social inequity. In their 2011 paper ‘The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability’ Nicola Dempsey and her co-authors from the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development define sustainable communities as those in which a setting for human activity and interaction is established to meet the needs of the present community as well as future generations (Dempsey et al, 2011). At the time of writing, the authors asserted that whilst much had been written about sustainable development ‘surprisingly little attention has been given to the definition of social sustainability in built environment disciplines (Dempsey 2011: p289). This research contributes to that discussion by analysing existing socio-cultural thinking about sustainable communities, then overlaying functional critiques (case studies) of civic centers, in order to demonstrate the ways in which the built environment holds the power to contribute to community building. In order to examine what constitutes a socially sustainable community, it is first necessary to outline what is meant by the term ‘community’. The architectural theorist Dianne Smith explains that contemporary definitions of community vary significantly (Smith et al, 2014). Definitions range from: descriptions of groups of people living in the same physical location (geographic communities); to groups sharing common interests, occupations or values (communities of interest); to larger communities bound by common economic, historical or political ties (regional and nation communities). For the purposes of this dissertation, the term ‘community’ will be used to describe a group of people who are connected by geographic place. This paper will examine the issue of social sustainability at the level of the local community neighbourhood, given that it is at this local scale (rather than city wide or larger) that the built environment is most intensely experienced. Therefore, the effects of it on people are directly understood at this scale.

Dempsey et al argue that at a qualitative level, a socially sustainable community is constituted of a network of common experience and interactions that are inclusive, equitable and sustainable (Dempsey 2011: p290) and which effectively functions to fulfil the needs of the community. In their book on Needs Theory, Beyond Insatiability: Needs Theory, Consumption and Sustainability, cultural researchers & sociologists Tim Jackson, Wander Jager & Sigrid Stagl have theorised that there are some universal motivational forces (needs) that all humans experience. Building on Maslowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seminal work on the Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1947), in The Designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Atlas of Sustainability Ann Thorpe proposes the following broad categorisations of universal needs: Subsistence (sustenance, general health, physical capability); Protection (shelter, safety, security); Leisure (rest, play, relaxation, idleness, fantasy); Affection (self-respect, loving relationships, respect, tolerance); Understanding (curiosity, knowing, exploration, conscience, rationality, intuition); Participation (solidarity, sense of belonging, responsibility, sharing, connectedness); Creation (invention, design, composition, interpretation, expression); and Identity (competence, self-esteem, memory, selfknowledge, authenticity, autonomy, tolerance, rights, choice, self-direction). (Thorpe 2007: p115)

ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK Much has been written in the field of public health and safety about the role of interior architecture in meeting the functional physical needs categories, like subsistence, protection & leisure. This body of research contributes to the existing discussion by examining the emotional and social dimensions of human needs, and their contribution to building resilience, wellbeing and a robust community life. Building on the hypotheses of Smith et al in their 2014 book Perspectives on Social Sustainability and Interior Architecture: Life from the Inside, this dissertation argues that the built environment can help create three conditions essential to foster socially sustainable communities.

The frameworkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s essential characteristics 1. An individualised sense of belonging to place, based on specific and personal experience of it 2. A sense of being bonded to and by connection to the community 3. A sense of authentic personal and community identity Having been established, this framework will be used in subsequent chapters of this dissertation to critique the evolving typology of community spaces, in their endeavours to support social sustainability.

TERMINOLOGICAL EXPANSION OF FRAMEWORK We must also acknowledge that the needs and aspirations of a community is particular to that community, and that whilst there may be significant overlap, their needs may differ from those of similar looking communities elsewhere. In their excellent 2014 book ‘Perspectives of Social Sustainability and Interior Architecture’ built environment academics Dianne Smith, Marina Lommerse & Priya Metcalf contend that what is considered sustainable varies from community to community and can be identified by examining their concerns and cultural practices (Smith 2014: p16). Likewise, they implore us to recognise that identified values and goals may shift over time, even within a specific community. So truly sustainable long-term design responses must be flexible enough to meet not only the current needs of community members, but also accommodate the future needs of subsequent generations of that same community. They must be expansive and open to evolution. This notion of longevity, of being in place over a period of time is a key attribute and goal of a socially sustainable community (Dempsey 2011). Indeed, the presence of well established, long-term residents speaks to the perceived quality and maintenance of the neighbourhood. Inter-generational participation in community-based projects and offers of mutual support are crucial to creating bonds across the community. Without this quality of interaction, the same group of people would simply be individuals residing in close proximity, living their separate lives ‘with no sense of pride or place attachment’ (Dempsey2011: p294). Regular participation in collective group activities, like team sports, attending local institutions, or participating in interest groups has the capacity to create cohesion, shared experience and sense of social support and safety (Dempsey 2011: p295).

SOCIAL APPLICATION OF FRAMEWORK Whilst the term ‘social capital’ has been in intermittent use since the 1880s, sociologists including Jane Jacobs (1916-2006) and Pierre Bourdieu (1930 – 2002) popularised the term throughout the 1960s1980s. Bourdieu’s work painted the term social capital in a largely negative light, arguing that access to privilege or power through social connections is available to only the few (not the many) and can be used to produce inequality (Bourdieu 1980: p.2). Fellow sociologist Robert Putnam has more recently used the term in a more positive sense. He positioned it variously as a resource and a measure of civic engagement, describing ‘connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.’ (Putnam 2000: p.19). He saw social capital as both a key building block of democracy and an indicator of communal social health. Putnam introduced his theory of social capital in his 1993 essay ‘The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life’ and went on to develop his early thinking throughout the 1990s. In 2000 he published his seminal book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. In it, 12

Putnam described the gradual decline of physical social networks, community participation and civic engagement in America since the 1950s. He argued that ‘individualising’ technological trends (like the internet) mean people are now spending more and more leisure time alone, becoming increasingly removed from their traditional social networks. The knock-on effect at a community level, he surmised, is a lack of social cohesion and civic engagement, resulting in a decline in social capital. Putman argued that when we look at community through the lens of social science, we see that regardless of cultural and social differences, communities around the world are increasingly facing similar sorts of challenges – such as access to quality public education, food security, and threats to livelihood and dispossession due to climate change. He called our failure to come together to co-operate for mutual benefit a ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Putnam 1993: p1). Rather than seeking to tackle social issues by upskilling individuals, he contended that we should instead look to restore the fabric of community – in order to facilitate a co-operative response to increase security and prosperity across the board. We must restore the “features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1993: p.1) Academic and museum consultant Elaine Gurian argued that participation in the arts and other cultural activities allows us to transcend our usual professional, social and political affiliations to connect with people in the community unlike ourselves. These spontaneous civic conversations help bridge difference & build social capital (Gurian 2001, p.112). It is important to note that the stage for all such interactions, networking and collaboration is the built environment. As such, it should be actively managed to support those functions. Having established in this chapter that community rebuilding is an integral component of social sustainability, and a precondition of affecting positive and long-lasting social change, the second chapter of this dissertation will argue that the built environment can play a role to support social organisation. By viewing community developments through the lens of the proposed framework, we can begin to understand how to shape the interior built environment to help restore a sense of community and trust in contemporary urban populations.

CHAPTER 2: HOW CAN THE INTERIOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY?

This chapter explores the ways in which the built environment - interior architecture, specifically - can contribute to the creation of socially sustainable communities. Firstly, it defines what is meant by ‘interiors’, not merely as a physical space but rather as the representation of social values, identity and culture. It then argues that the relationship between interiors and their users is a reciprocal one, each shaping the other. Then it examines how interior architecture can specifically: help foster a sense of attachment and belonging to place, based on community members’ personal experience of it; help create a sense of connection to and within the community; and help facilitate in the creation of positive expressions of personal and shared cultural identity. Winston Churchill’s famous quote ‘We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us (Churchill 1943) highlights a notion familiar to interior architects: that the relationship between people and the places they inhabit is a reciprocal one. Not only do we deliberately shape the places in which we live, work and play, but they in turn shape our experiences and relationships, and ultimately our sense of personal identity. Recognising this reciprocity, our practice should be focussed not only on the material and spatial arrangements of daily life, but also on the relationships and interactions that those spaces engender. Our civic spaces, in particular, act as catalysts to the creation of cohesive community. In the introduction to the Handbook of Interior Architecture and Design, Lois Weinthal (2013) summarises the process of imagining the interior in expansive terms, equating ‘interiors’ to a space that is ‘central to all human existence’: The interior can be understood as the result of a complex weave of values, issues, and spatial formations; these can be both physical and mental structures. The interior can be perceived as an entity that is shaped by its use, its politics, its gender, and its history, and by many other real or unreal constructs. (Weinthal & Brooker 2013: p.3) Interiors are the stage on which our selves and our relationships with each other are writ large. When this broader understanding of the construct of the ‘interior’ is overlayed with interior architecture’s focussed understanding of people and how they functionally occupy space, we can begin to see how these spaces can enhance social sustainability. The following section expands on the framework proposed in Chapter 1, developing our understanding of the characteristics of sense of place, community connections and identity as they relate to the built environment.

a. CREATING ATTACHMENT AND BELONGING TO PLACE The first dimension of social sustainability this dissertation will explore is how the built environment can help foster a sense of attachment and belonging to place, based on community members’ personal experience of it. Contemporary Danish architect and theorist Jan Gehl has been writing about the quality and design of public spaces and urban regeneration since the 1970s, when he published his ground-breaking book Life Between Buildings (Gehl 1971). In his more recent work Cities for People (2010) Gehl argued that activities, their physical settings and the meanings ascribed to them are inextricably interrelated. According to Gehl, achieving a positive sense of connection to place is both a fundamental social human need and a measure of that place’s social sustainability. Central to this view is an understanding of ‘place’ not only as a physical space, but as a socio-cultural space. Through this lens, we see a neighbourhood and community not only as a collection of buildings and people but also as a collection of shared norms and values. As such, a person’s attachment to a ‘place’ and its attendant sense of community is a combination of attachment to the physical space, its inhabitants and their shared civic values. In their article ‘The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development’ Dempsey et al share a similar standpoint to Gehl, arguing that a sense of pride of place is closely related to the perceived quality of that place, and that there is a direct correlation between aspects of the physical environment and how safe and happy inhabitants feel in it. Physical improvements to the built environment have knock-on social benefits, directly affecting how safe inhabitants feel, how willing they are to interact with each other and (ultimately) the extent to which they feel they ‘belong’ to that place and community. It follows then that sustainable communities are connected communities, where inhabitants feel pride of place, a sense of civic involvement, mutuality, and trust in one another’s capacity and willingness to do the right thing by the whole community. In determining which elements of the built environment need to be transformed, there is no one size fits all approach. Many contemporary interior architecture practices use community consultation and methods like co-creation (Smith 2014: p.35) to reach a shared vision of what that specific community needs. Relatedly, community engagement is proven to be an effective vehicle to engage and empower a diverse range of citizen designers. ‘Community engagement, we envisage, is simultaneously a philosophy, a way of working, an attitude and action, whereby it is possible for people to be involved in shaping and managing their environment’ (Smith 2014: p.15). Giving community members a voice in the strategic and design development process allows them to prioritise issues and co-design solutions. By playing an active role in transforming their community, they build attachment to it.

Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg’s 1991 book The Great Good Place gives us a valuable explanation of how social spaces host and support community interaction. In it and subsequent writings, he postulates that 3 kinds of spaces exist in contemporary society: intimate, private spaces like our homes (the first place); vocational, productive places like the work place (the second place); and informal public spaces where people interact and share a collective experience (the third place). Architectural planner Nichole Campbell, in her examination of third space characteristic in retirement community spaces points out that: Throughout history, people have actively gathered in social spaces. Some societies are even known for the success of certain types of social spaces, such as cafés and pubs in Europe. These vital social hubs offer a place where people can come alone or in groups to gather for conversation. (Campbell 2015: p.57) Oldenberg argued that the third place of the neighborhood bar, coffee shop, barber shop, corner store or community hall has the potential to host the rich social interactions between community members that are essential to community vitality and public life, helping to make members feel part of something bigger than themselves. Atmospherically, the third place takes shape as a kind of relaxed and informal ‘home away from home’ – a socially levelling, neutral space, wholesome and warm in feel and intimate in scale, supportive of lighthearted conversation (Oldenburg 1999: p125). Oldenburg described the character of the third place as such: The character of the third place is marked by a playful mood, which contrasts with people’s more serious involvement in other spheres. Though a radically different kind of setting for a home, the third place is remarkably similar to a good home in the psychological comfort and support that it extends….They are the heart of a community’s social vitality, the grassroots of democracy, but sadly they constitute a diminishing aspect of the American social landscape (Project for Public Spaces.com 2008) The ‘regulars’ who mostly use the third place help set the tone and welcome new neighbours to the space. Together, they engender a communal sense of belonging & connection, experiencing social and spiritual regeneration from time spent there.

b. CREATING CONNECTIONS TO AND WITHIN THE COMMUNITY The second dimension of social sustainability this dissertation will explore is how the built environment can help create a sense of an individual’s connection to their community, as well as create connections between community members. It is prudent here to mention the work of the influential activist, journalist & ‘militant dame’ Jane Jacobs, who in the 1960s challenged the paternalistic, academic understanding of what made for good cities. Notably, she protested the ‘urban regeneration’ of American cities like New York, which would have seen areas like Greenwich Village, Little Italy and SoHo razed to make ways for new buildings and freeways. Jacobs argued that high-rise development of the kind favoured by the urban planning establishment would mark the end of the bustling street life and sense of community that made urban villages so appealing to residents. Her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs 1961) argued for the maintenance and creation of vibrant, socially diverse, dense, mixed-use neighborhoods (like her own beloved Greenwich Village) and introduced some key urban planning concepts like ‘mixed primary uses’ and ‘eyes on the street’ that were subsequently widely adopted by the urban planning profession. Jacob’s construct of ‘the street’ is a useful framework for investigating how urban communities and their civic buildings might function. The internal spaces and pedestrian networks of public places share many of the same characteristics as ‘the street’ as Jacobs understood it. Foremost in her reckoning is a need for immediacy and diversity of inter-related community functions, believing this to be the backbone of vibrant urban communities: This ubiquitous principle is the need of cities for a most intricate and close-grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially. The components of this diversity can differ enormously, but they must supplement each other in certain concrete ways. (Jacobs 1961: p.14) Jacobs argued that this overlapping and overlaying of different functions in close proximity affords opportunities for casual social interaction and support, helping to build community. Importantly, Jacobs identified several attributes of ‘the street’ that contribute to a vibrant, eminently livable urban neighborhood. Many of these are useful for analysis of the wider built environment, when looking at tactics that could be applied to help create a sense of community and civic identity. In her 2001 essay ‘Function Follows Form’, consultant Elaine Gurian summarises these attributes as: the mingling of buildings; priority for pedestrians; wide and pleasant sidewalks; short streets and frequent opportunities to turn corners; a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space; sufficiently dense concentrations of people, including those who are there because of residence; a disparate mix of useful services; a mix of services that together is used over as many hours as 17

possible, especially at night; opportunities for loitering and the encouragement of people watching; windows overlooking the street to encourage unofficial surveillance (Gurian 2001: pp.100-101). Arguably, civic buildings’ internal (and external) spaces can be re-imagined as streetscapes - can be planned and fashioned in such a way as to encourage a better quality of interaction and experience for users. Spatial tactics can be used to create a feeling of connection between occupants – like creating entertaining, meandering internal ‘walkways’ with opportunities to loiter and mingle, or using translucent materials or intersecting pathways to encourage visual surveillance. Programmatic tactics can be used to make the building feel more dynamic, more alive, and increase the likelihood of people both using and enjoying it - like ensuring an optimum density of use, diversifying the types of functions fulfilled and increasing the number of hours each day that it is utilized. These tactics all serve the underlying goal of increasing the likelihood of casual social interactions – which ultimately contributes to community building.

c. CREATING A SENSE OF IDENTITY (SHARED & INDIVIDUAL) The third and final dimension of social sustainability this dissertation will explore is how the built environment can help create an authentic and considered sense of personal and community identity. In the fields of architectural history, anthropology and psychology more generally, it is an accepted notion that personal and cultural identity forms in relation to (and is specific to) place. Our reading of ‘place’ fundamentally affects our experience of the world, our behaviours, our attitudes and the way we identify. Architectural historian Francesca Lanz contends that the architectural places we inhabit ultimately help shape identity: Places traditionally embody people’s identity and are the solid background of people’s actions and life, the prerequisite of the creation of cultures, skills, and economies. Place-identity refers to the construction of identity for and by the people(s) while referring to a place. It also constructs the identity of a place, based on its materiality: morphology, architectural forms, spaces, objects, artefacts, namely the material heritage that constitutes a territory. (Bassanelli & Postiglione 2013, quoted in Lanz 2018: p.6) As Lanz’s reading suggests, place must be understood on a number of levels simultaneously. It is not only the morphology or materiality of a place that we connect with – we respond also to its metaphysical character and attendant meaning. After the second world war, scholars engaged with architectural phenomenology expanded on the ancient Roman concept of genius loci, theorizing that a place has not only form and function but a distinctive character (genius loci) or spirit. After introducing the notion of existential place in the built 18

environment in his 1969 article ‘The Concept of Place’, Norwegian architect and semiotician Christian Norberg-Schulz (1926-2000) expanded on the concept in his 1980 book Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. In it, he contended that architecture can at the same time both ‘be something’ and ‘mean something’ to someone. That is, aside from a buildings’ physical morphology or typology, architecture can convey specific phenomenological meaning to the user or inhabitant, above and beyond what it is in a physical sense. Interior places, too, are a resource for self-expression, enabling the creation of self-identity. They are the places where we consciously (and subconsciously) represent who we are, as individuals and as a society. As discussed at the outset of this chapter, this relationship to our interior environments is reciprocal - not only do we affect our environments through use, but they too shape who we are and how we identify. People and their ‘places’ share an interdependent relationship: People are also interdependent with their settings and belongings, within and among which they construct themselves and each other through their ongoing interactions (Smith 2008). People surroundings acquire meaning for them through their attachments and memories (Rapoport, 1990). Designers who understand these relationships can apply these principles to various environmental settings to facilitate a sense of self-esteem and community identity. (Weinthal & Brooker 2013: p.4) Our social identity, then, can be envisaged as a fictional and somewhat accidental assemblage, loosely fashioned by and articulated through a collection of cultural components like language, dress, affectations, possessions and pastimes. Just as our places are both physical and metaphysical constructs, so too are our selves. The places we choose to inhabit and shape, in turn, shape our notion of self. Our sense of belonging to a specific place (and community) comes about when we see synergy between what that place says about us, and the identity we want to project to the world. Put simply, we feel at home when our communal and personal identities align. Having in this chapter expanded on the framework of the three dimensions of social sustainability (being place, connection & identity) and explored them in relation to the built environment generally, Chapter 3 of this dissertation will examine by way of case study how these are applied to the interior environments of recently built community centers. These case studies will show how interior architecture can be used to help build strong, connected and sustainable urban communities.

CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDIES OF CONTEMPORARY SPACES THAT SUPPORT SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

This chapter will examine 3 case studies of existing contemporary community spaces. The critiqued spaces are: the Utopia Library and Academy for Performing Arts in Aalst, a suburb of Brussels, Belgium, by KAAN Architecten, opened June 2018; the Maryland Heights Community Recreation Center in St Louis, Missouri, by CannonDesign, opened July 2017; and the Markham Library and Community Center in Toronto, Canada, by Perkins+Will, opened July 2018. The design of each community space will be critiqued in relation to the essential characteristics of a socially sustainable space, as outlined in Chapter 1. They will be assessed by their capacity to help create a sense of belonging to place; help create a sense of connection to the community; or help create an authentic and considered sense of personal and community identity. Each of the case studies chosen for this dissertation have won international design awards, and thus represent best-in-class community centred design, to enable accurate parity. All three are contemporary developments, having been opened in the last 2 years. All were designed by multidisciplinary international architecture firms specialising in large scale civic developments. Each community center is of a similar scale, being between 8,300 SQM and 11,300 SQM in size, and each building hosts a variety of functions. All three sites are located in satellite suburbs of major metropolitan cities in either North America or Europe, and the buildings are designed to service those local populations. Whilst the population make-up of the project locations differs, a common thread through each of the design development processes was a willingness to consult with local residents to determine their needs. As such, each project represents a design solution and set of functions that are specific and uniquely suited to the creation of socially sustainable community.

CASE STUDY A: UTOPIA COMMUNITY CENTER IN AALST, BELGIUM Architects: KAAN Architecten Location: Aalst, Belgium Function: Library and Academy for Performing Arts Building area: 8310m2 Opened: June 2018

Figure 3.01: Exterior of new building as seen on approach through courtyard, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Delfino Sisto Legnani e Marco Cappelletti. (Source: ArchDaily.com)

Following an international design competition, KAAN Architecten were commissioned to convert and extend the historic 1880’s ‘Pupillenschool’ building into a new cultural landmark – designed to house a library and center for performing arts. Situated in the heart of the bustling urban town of Aalst, about 19 miles NW of Brussels, the new development was designed to integrate with the quirky, characterful and dense urban fabric of Aalst’s historic city center. As shown in Figure 3.01, whilst obviously reading as the ‘new’ section, the new building’s red brick façade beautifully complements the materiality of the surrounding existing forms and has clearly been designed with the surrounding urban context (sense of place) in mind. As seen in Figure 3.02, the new freestanding volume is connected to the existing building, hugging its internal elbow and nestling into the surrounding urban landscape. It features a large community library with vertical circulation via a central void, whilst the smaller rehearsal and activity rooms are housed around the perimeter in the connected older building. Housing these Figure 3.02: Aerial shot of building under construction, showing position of new wing in relation to existing building, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

functions in separate parts of the development provides a clear demarcation between ‘public’ space such as the library & restaurant in the new section and ‘private’ space like the bookable 21

rehearsal rooms in the old section (Jacobs 1961). It also allows disparate acoustic environments and foot-flow to be properly managed. Key to Utopia’s vision is that it should accommodate a wide social mix of people from across the city, to help to increase the likelihood of chance encounters amongst different user types and interest groups. The development’s complex program of public functions supports this aim (connection to community), accommodating everyone from book lovers to aspiring musicians, ballet students, retirees playing scrabble, teenagers doing homework, scout groups, digital nomads and city workers lunching in the public cafe.

Figure 3.03: Long communal tables to read and work, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

Figure 3.04: Intimate peripheral spaces for performing arts, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

Figure 3.05: Low display furniture encourages children to interact with library collection, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

Figure 3.06: People gathered in restaurant area for talk, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

This density of built form and the intermingling of functions (as seen in Figures 3.03-3.06) conforms to Jane Jacobs’ vision of how to create a vibrant, enjoyable public space that is well utilized by a wide variety of community members. The new wing bridges two existing buildings to create an intimate triangular shaped outdoor public space at its entrance, complete with street furniture and lighting designed to encourage people to ‘loiter’, ‘people watch’ (Jacobs, 1961) and socialize at all hours of the day (Figure 3.07) and night (Figure 3.08). Large windows and doors open onto the square,

physically and visually connecting the building’s interior life with Aalst’s exterior street life (cf. Jacobs’ ‘unofficial surveillance’) and allowing natural light to flood the interiors.

Figure 3.07: Families enjoying the public square during the day, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

Figure 3.08: Exhibition visitors mingling in the square at night, Utopia Community Center, Aalst. KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

The glass walled restaurant and auditorium near the ground floor entrance entice the public to enter from the street (connection). They are suitably sized to host large-scale public talks and performances, affording Aalst’s citizens the opportunity to enjoy shared communal experience (sense of community identity) and serendipitous encounters with people from across the city. Once inside, the three-storey sculptural stair (seen in Figure 3.09) draws visitors up and into the book lined cantilevered upper reaches of the building, creating ample opportunities for overlooking. Figure 3.09: Central stairs link levels, with balconies providing opportunities to pause and observe other visitors, Utopia Community Center, Aalst, KAAN Architecten, 2018. Photo: Utopia Aalst. (Source: facebook.com)

Overall, the development can be considered a well-used and well-loved success. It has quickly become the beating heart of Aalst’s social scene. Not only does it serve a multiplicity of required functions, but it has created the social platform necessary for successful community building. Vincent Panhuysen, partner at Kaan Architecten explains, it has become ‘a place where people meet from different generations...It's like the living room of the city, that's also how they use it right now.’ (Dezeen 2018).

CASE STUDY B: MARYLAND HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTER IN MISSOURI, USA Architects: CannonDesign Location: Maryland Heights, Missouri Function: Community Recreation Center Building area: 8550m2 Opened: April 2017

Figure 3.10: Exterior view of Maryland Heights Community Center and adjacent freeway, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, 2017. Photo: Gayle Babcock. (Source: Archello.com)

The Maryland Heights Community Recreational Center is a hub for community sports, recreation, wellness and engagement, situated about 20miles from downtown St Louis in Missouri. It was designed by CannonDesign in response to an interactive feasibility study which determined the current and future needs of the community’s 27,000 residents. Following an extensive period of consultation with local residents and civic leaders, the agreed masterplan included a multi-use indoor sports courts, a public pool, weights and cardio spaces, an indoor cycling studio and running track as well as meeting rooms and a preschool. As seen in Figure 3.10, the architectural design response is a striking curved space-age like structure which seems to erupt from the site. Partly, this response was driven by the limitations of the building’s siting (sense of place) - directly adjacent to a busy freeway, where traffic noise levels approached that of an aircraft runway. A key aspect of the project brief was to maintain the site’s existing outdoor spaces, so relocating the building onsite was not an option. Instead, the architects employed a curved form for the exterior wall facing the freeway and raised the ground level around it, so that the building nestles into the landscape and the resulting ‘acoustic shadow’ mitigates freeway noise. All the communal outdoor spaces are oriented to the back side of the site, away from the freeway. The exterior façade (seen in Figure 3.11) is made of translucent triple-walled polycarbonate, which simultaneously allows access to natural light, emphasizes views into and out of the building, and yet controls freeway noise. When lit from inside, it Figure 3.11: Polycarbonate exterior walls glow from within at night, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, 2017. Photo: Gayle Babcock. (Source: metalarchitecture.com)

makes the building appear to softly glow at night.

This concept of visual connection and transparency is carried through the interior (connection). The project’s principal architect, Reed Voorhees explains: ‘When you walk in the door there’s a lot of transparency, and it creates excitement throughout the building’ (Zappia 2019: p51). Figures 3.12 & 3.13 show how the arrangement of the exercise studios as mezzanines around double height atrium spaces affords clear sightlines from the upper levels down to the neighboring spaces. Internal partitions are mostly glass, to maintain sightlines yet prevent noise and potentially heat from bleeding from one activity area to others.

Figure 3.12: Exercise equipment positioned to overlook adjoining spaces, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, 2017. Photo: Gayle Babcock (Source: Archello.com)

Figure 3.13: Visitor on running track that circles the interior, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, 2017. Photo: Gayle Babcock (Source: Archello.com)

Importantly, the center was designed not just for serious athletes, but as is seen in Figure 3.14, accommodates community members of all ages, athletic interests and abilities. This eclectic and inclusive mix of programming means that the building has visitors from early morning until they close at night, with in excess of 16,000 visits a month (connection to community). It was programmed as a meeting place for multi-generations: ‘The preschool is next to the senior center, and weddings and performances are held here….How we arranged each space within the building was important for the community.” (Zappia 2019: P51)

Figure 3.14: Central multi-purpose sports courts flooded with natural light by large poly-carbonate windows, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, 2017. Photo: Gayle Babcock (Source: Archello.com)

Aside from the building’s functional architectural merit, a key measure of the development’s success from the point of view of social sustainability is the community’s engagement in the development 25

process itself. The project not only provided a fantastic public facility to suit the community’s specific needs, but the process itself was an invaluable community building exercise. Through it, the people of Maryland Heights came together (connection) to imagine and co-create a future-facing piece of architecture that speaks to who they are as a community now and articulates a shared vision of their future - in effect, creating a lasting community identity. CannonDesign’s executive director of design, David Polzin, describes the project in terms of trying to create an environment that at once meets the specific needs of individuals whilst also helping to create a shared experience that helps community members understand each other. Polzin sees shared identity as being latent in a place, and he views the ability to draw out that latency and to access the identity that is already there as a critical part of the design process….The manner in which a building is used or how it fits onto a site can evoke an emotional response, and Polzin firmly believes that a built environment’s success lies in the collective connection that people have with it. (Australian design review 2018) The Maryland Heights Community Center is an elegant and sophisticated response to a complex social brief. This, arguably, is as much due to the architect’s skill at drawing out that ‘latent’ identity from the community as it is to the community’s generosity in dedicating themselves to the process. Through it, they have built themselves a socially sustainable place that truly reflects their community’s forwardthinking agenda and identity, to share and enjoy for generations to come.

Figure 3.15: Visitors of all ages enjoy the indoor recreational pool all year round, Maryland Heights Community Center, Missouri by CannonDesign, 2017. Photo: Gayle Babcock (Source: Archello.com)

CASE STUDY C: THE AANIIN COMMUNITY CENTER AND LIBRARY IN MARKHAM, TORONTO Architects: Perkins+Will Location: Markham, Toronto, Canada Function: Library & Community Center Building area: 11,300m2 Opened: July 2018

Figure 3.16: Exterior view of the building at night, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, 2018. Photo: Perkins+Will (Source: ContractDesign.com)

The Aaniin Community Centre and Library by Perkins+Will is located in Markham, 19 miles from downtown Toronto. The name ‘Aaniin’ is the indigenous Ojibwe word for ‘welcome’, which is fitting given that Markham is the most diverse city in Ontario, with over 58% of its 355,000 strong population identifying as immigrants and over 72% as minorities (Zappia 2019). The center’s welcoming, expansive, spruce lined roof (Figure 3.16) shelters functions as diverse as sport, recreation, learning, refugee and social services. The design development process included extensive community engagement and consultation, with input from the community gathered through mediated focus groups and town hall meetings. Duff Balmer, Perkins+Will’s principal and lead designer on the project asserts that this consultative process took the design in some unexpected and exciting directions. The firm publicly acknowledges that ‘Through this process we discovered the community’s desire to gather and express their culture at a much grander scale, which informed the idea of a ‘public square’ in the heart of the building. By embracing these new ideas, we were ultimately able to reinvent what a community centre and library could be.’ (Perkins+Will 2018)

Figure 3.17: Interior ‘public square’ seen from above, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, 2018. Photo: Perkins+Will (Source: l )

The resulting open plan design with mezzanines connected to a central common area (seen in Figure 3.17) can hold gatherings of up to 500 people for community events like movie nights, concerts and performances (connection). Drop down screens in the common area broadcast sports events or news. The center’s various supporting functions surround the atrium core, including an aquatic center, multi27

purpose gym, fitness studios and the library. Design strategies to blur the boundaries between areas and imbue the functions with a sense of ‘connectedness’ include establishing clear sightlines between different areas, and staggering functions on overlooking levels. Markham civic leaders identified early on that a primary beneficiary of the center would be the city’s swelling refugee population. Therefore, in addition to recreational and sporting facilities, the building houses crucial front-line refugee social services covering areas including health, family services and employment assistance (Zappia 2019: p72). Having all this under one roof has undoubtedly helped eased refugees’ transition to their new home and helped them forge social connections in their new community. It is clear evidence of the city’s intentions to create a socially sustainable center.

Figure 3.18: Vibrant red running track around gym, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, 2018. Photo: Perkins+Will (Source: contract.com)

Figure 3.19: Curvaceous red shelving warms the library, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, 2018. Photo: Perkins+Will (Source:

In an effort to welcome and include visitors from diverse backgrounds, the architects have considered the community users’ cultural backgrounds and design preferences. Chief architect at Perkins+Will, Duff Balmer explains that “By using culturally inspired colours and patterns, we hoped to make the architecture more relatable to the local residents, many of whom are completely new to Canada” (Zappia 2019: p72). For example, auspicious red accents are deliberately used throughout the design – on the building’s exterior glazing and columns, in the library shelving (Figure 3.19), on the running track (Figure 3.18) and elsewhere. In this way, they were able to write the community’s identity into the fabric of the building. Key to the building’s success is the consideration given to the specific needs of particular sections of the community and the desire to include everyone, which is an aspect of both ‘belonging to place’ and ‘personal and community identity’. Frequently marginalised members are happily accommodated in the new space. Special areas with comfortable seating host health and lifestyle programs dedicated to elderly. Carefully designed sensory calming rooms for children or visitors on the autism spectrum (seen in Figure 3.20) are housed away from high traffic areas (Zappia 2019; p72). As seen in Figure 3.21, special interest groups are also catered for with separate smaller areas demarcated as craft and maker 28

spaces, digital training labs and teaching kitchens. Indoor play spaces are provided for young children and teens, as seen in Figure 3.22. A co-working space affords low-cost office space and networking opportunities for start-ups and small business people.

Figure 3.20: Multisensory room, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, 2018. Photo: City of Markham (Source: markham.ca)

Figure 3.21: Dedicated maker space, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, 2018. Photo: City of Markham (Source: markham.ca)

Figure 3.22: Teen play space, Aaniin Community Center & Library, Markham by Perkins+Will, 2018. Photo: Anil Mungal (Source: markham.ca)

By including such a variety and depth of offering of functions at Aaniin, and through careful consideration of the physical and social needs of visitors, the designers have provided a wealth of social spaces that make people feel welcome (sense of place) and could potentially host and support community interaction (connection). Similar to Oldenburgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Third Place, the welcoming, homely, informal spaces of the teaching kitchen or craft corner are the perfect place to initiate conversations, connections and new friendships. Aaniin is an exciting example of new approaches to community centred design, clearly showing how the built environment can enhance social interaction and contribute to socially sustainable public life. If visitor numbers are anything to go by, the centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 45,000 visitors a month would indicate that it the burgeoning new community of Markham agrees.

CONCLUSION

This dissertation has proven that interior architecture can be directly employed to improve the quality of social interactions and personal connections within our urban communities. In Chapter 1, the concept of social sustainability was explained, in relation to the built environment, and it was argued that interior architecture is the physical scaffolding upon which socially sustainable communities can be built. The framework proposed in Chapter 2 outlined the three essentials characteristics to be designed into new civic spaces. This framework provides interior architecture practitioners with a simple set of guiding principles for socially sustainable community space design: to help create a sense of belonging to place; to help create a sense of connection to and within communities; and to use interior architecture to create a defined sense of personal and community identity. Building on this framework, the case studies of Chapter 3 demonstrate how those principals manifest themselves in real-world practice. They highlight key design approaches than can be used to unlock the power of the physical tools and assets at the disposal of interior architects. Social sustainability is a developing area of study in interior architecture. Whilst it wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t within the scope of this dissertation, a further area of potential research would be to investigate how design professionals can monitor and quantify the impacts of interior architecture on social sustainability, post occupancy. This dissertation maintains that designers have a moral obligation to help build robust, vibrant and sustainable communities. By furthering our understanding of how to do that, both in principal and in practice, this dissertation brings us closer to the day when socially sustainable design becomes our industryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s default position, rather than a luxury.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Australian Design Review 2018, Shared identity: CannonDesign’s David Polzin on the importance of communal context, accessed 8 May 2018, https://www.australiandesignreview.com/architecture/shared-identitycannondesigns-david-polzin-importance-communal-context/. Bourdieu, P 1980, ‘Le capital social’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, vol. 31, pp. 2-3 CannonDesign 2018, Maryland Heights Community Center Receives Contract Healthcare Environment Award, accessed 8 May 2019, <https://www.cannondesign.com/news-insights/news-item/clad-global-celebrates-marylandheights-community-center-icon-city/>. Campbell, NM 2015, ‘Third Place Characteristics in Planned Retirement Community Social Spaces’, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 55–67 Dempsey, N Bramley, G Power, S Brown, C 2011, ‘The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability’, Sustainable Development, vol .19, no. 5, pp.289-300, DOI:10.1002/sd.417. Dezeen 2018, KAAN Architecten's Utopia combines music school and library, accessed 8 May 2019, <https://www.dezeen.com/2018/07/09/kaan-architectens-utopia-building-library-architecture/> Elkington, J 1999, Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business, Oxford, Capstone. Gehl, J 2010, Cities for People, London, Island Press. Gurian, EH 2001, ‘Function Follows Form: How Mixed-Used Spaces in Museums Build Community’, Curator, vol. 44, no. 1, pp.87-113 Harteveld, M & Brown, DS 2007. On Public Interior Space, AA Files, No. 56, pp. 64-73. Lanz, F 2018, ‘Re-Inhabiting. Thoughts on the Contribution of Interior Architecture to Adaptive Intervention: People, Places and Identities’, Journal of Interior Design, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.3-10 Jackson, T Jager, W & Stagl, S 2004, ‘Beyond insatiability - needs theory, consumption and sustainability’, Consumption - Perspectives from Ecological Economics, pp. 79-110, DOI:10.4337/9781845423568.00013. Jacobs, J 1961, The death and life of great American cities. New York, Random House. KAAN News 2018, UTOPIA in Aalst now open for public, accessed 8 May 2019, <http://kaanarchitecten.com/utopiain-aalst-now-open-for-public/>. Lee, YS 2014, ‘Sustainable design re-examined: Integrated approach to knowledge creation for sustainable interior design’, International Journal of Art and Design Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 157–174, DOI:org/10.1111/j.14768070.2014.01772. McGaw, J & Pieris, A 2012, ‘Assembling the Centre: Interior architecture as an agent for wellbeing’, Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2-9, <https://search-informit-comau.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=110497649976857;res=IELHSS> ISSN: 1322-9974.> Norberg-Schulz, C 1980, Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture. New York, Rizzoli. Smith, D Lommerse, M & Metcalfe, P (eds) 2014, ‘Community Engagement and Interior Architecture’, Perspectives on Social Sustainability and Interior Architecture: Life from the Inside, ProQuest ebook Central, accessed 28 March 2019, <https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unsw/detail.action?docID=1731603>. Peet, R Robbins, P Watts, M 2011, Global Political Ecology, London and New York, Routledge.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued) Perkins+Will 2018, Aaniin Community Centre and Library Wins Interior Design's Best of Year Award: A welcoming and inclusive centre for community engagement, accessed 8 May 2019, <https://perkinswill.com/news/aaniincommunity-centre-and-library-wins-interior-designs-best-year-award> Putnam, R 1993. ‘The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life’, The American Prospect, accessed 8 May 2019, < https://prospect.org/article/prosperous-community-social-capital-and-public-life> Thompson, S 2013, The Design Dividend/The Value of Good Design, accessed 9 May 2019, <http://www.architecture.com.au/docs/default-source/act-notable-buildings/s.pdf?sfvrsn=0> Thorpe, A 2007, The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability: Charting the Conceptual Landscape through Economy, Ecology & Culture, Washington DC, Island Press. UN Refugee Agency 2019, Refugee Statistics, accessed 8 May 2019, < https://www.unrefugees.org/refugeefacts/statistics/> KAAN News 2018, UTOPIA in Aalst now open for public, accessed 8 May 2019, <http://kaanarchitecten.com/utopiain-aalst-now-open-for-public/>. Weinthal, L & Brooker, G (eds) 2013, The Handbook of interior architecture and design, Bloomsbury Publishing, London. e-booked accessed 03 April 2019. Availability: ProQuest Ebook Central. Zappia A, Aaniin Community Center and Library. Contract. 2019; 60 (1), pp66-69. Accessed 08 May 2019. Availability:<http://search.ebscohost.com.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&bd=vth&AN=1344 17098&site=ehost-live&scope=site.>. Zappia A, Maryland Heights Community Center: CannonDesign creates a multifunctional space for the community that embraces the outdoors. Contract. 2018, Vol 59 (9), pp48-53. Accessed 08 May 2019. Availability:<http://search.ebscohost.com.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=vth&AN=1330 05140&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.