Jody Liu | Selected Works

J SO D Y L I U ELECTED WORKS

This portfolio guides through projects ranging from the practical to the radical, with each questioning how current urban conditions can be improved upon to create more inclusive cities. The processes address various aspects of urbanism, from developing implementation strategies to researching existing policies, creating small-scale interventions to engaging with the community.

How can the urban practitioner participate in making the city more democratic? How can they make citizens less dependent on top-down processes, allowing for wider accessibility to users? Through these project, I explored the potential to establish self-managed urbanism – in which communities are included in the development process, and instilled with the agency to transform their environment.

The sections bulid on one another, revealing the process that have led from pragmatic undestanding of urban conditions to more rebellious thinking in inciting urban change.

IMPLEMENTATION The implementation projects look at two sites in Great London: Stratford and Leyton.

Both are up-and-coming locations at different stages of regeneration. The proposals develop interventions that explore the potentials of the contemporary city, seeking to form new sets of urban relations. Systetmic change has to be enacted through new sets of associations, based on reciprocity and involvement of all interested stakeholders – individuals, organisations, institutions.

The projects sparked my interest in working with the inherent possibilities of a site, looking for ways to harness existing infrastructural and social patterns to create more fluid interactions between the public and the private. I’m driven by optimism but rooted in inspired pragmatism – understanding that transforming the built environment is dependent on historical, political, economic, and social context (and restrictions), while looking for inventive ways to responsibly challenge flawed or outdated status quo. stratford waterfront improvement Urban Design: Place Making Dr. Matthew Carmona The Bartlett School of Planning 2016-7

01

lea bridge east 06 Case Studies in Preparing Regeneration Projects Drs. Fulong Wang and Claudio de Magalhães The Bartlett School of Planning 2016-7

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM SPATIAL COMMONS These projects explored informal settlements located in Lima, Peru and Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

The research traced the history of how these settlements came to be, looking for broader lessons that could be learned from each case.

The settlements grew from very distinct contexts.

In Lima, the ‘planned’ informal housing was a government-funded project that attracted worldfamous architects in its design. In Phnom Penh, the settlment incrementally expanded after decades of political unrest and governmental disinvestment pushed residents to harness abysmal conditions to the best of their abilities.

The problems posed in each environment formed the basis of my interest in how alternative urban production can create more equitable and inclusive cities.

borei keila: from the ground up 10 Critical Urbanism Studio II: Investigative Design Strategies for Contested Spaces Prof. Giorgio Talocci The Bartlett, Development Planning Unit 2016-7 (en)gendering space 15 Critical Urbanism Studio I: Learning from Informality Dr. Giovanna Astolfo The Bartlett, Development Planning Unit 2016-7

The major thesis analysed the changing queer geography of London, employing intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989) to understand the impacts of converging social identities on opportunities in and access to the city. It addressed the lacuna within current debates by focusing on the under-researched experiences of ethnic LGBTQ+ minorities in London. Specifically, it explores the current struggles that LGBTQ+ persons of colour face in their everyday access to space and the spatial tactics they engage in to reframe their rights to the city.

The tactics observed introduced me to space as commons, a concept with an emancipatory potential to produce post-capitalist relations within an increasingly neoliberalised world.

I question how the growth of these new socialities can be encouraged through planning, created by reconceptualisations of public and private spaces.

(re)queering london: exploring transgressive 20 production of urban space by lgbtq+ persons of colour Major Research Dissertation Dr. Yasminah Beebeejaun The Bartlett School of Planning 2016-7

stratford waterfront improvement To confront urban issues related to rapid development preceding and following the 2012 London Olympic Games legacy, this project focused on waterfront improvement along the River Lea. Using small scale interventions to create social change, the project approached design through a historical lens. Layering historical tissue maps to visualise and analyse morphological changes, key intervention areas were identified. My contributions included the ‘Playpod’, research into community land trust models, and drafting a masterplan.

The proposals fed into broader interventions to enhance current green spaces, integrate old and new neighbourhoods, and improve connectivity of the River Lea network.

Another intervention centred on an 8.6 hectares greyfield site, immediately connected to Stratford High Street. The site provides opportunities for intensification, as it primarily serves as a parking lot (which sat 80% empty during our various field visits). Taking advantage of its proximity to the Greenway and main commercial corridor, the development looked for ways to provide housing and community infrastructure, increase biodiversity, and reduce waste. I looked for ways to bring communal urbanism concepts onto the site, including a community land trust model to combat lack of affordable housing and a co-housing model to encourage community building.

The project builds on my interests in enhancing existing conditions, discovering what a site has to offer rather than starting tabula rasa. Taking into consideration the ample – though under-maintained – green spaces of Stratford, I sought ways to provide amenities that would transform space into place. The project built on the intersection of waterways and surrounding greens to create much needed space for play and socialising amidst new towers, encouraging residents to form a connection to where they live. This translated into small transformations along the 7-km Greenway, finding ways for users to engage with the natural environment. The Story Pod provides space for socialisation and rest, making strolls along the Greenway more accessible for the mobility impaired.

Along with the CLT, the project experimented with cohousing models. Residents share chores and responsibilities, come together for meals and activities in common areas, and make decisions during association meetings. Shared spaces include group kitchens, play spaces, courtyards, and coworking spaces. These homes are a mix of rental and sales units, incomes, and ages – encouraging networks of childcare support, elderly companionship, shared meals to form.

To address London-wide issue with chronic homelessness, the on-site temporary housing provides shelter to those who are sleeping rough. To help residents get on their feet, job training is offered at some of the facilities: community gardening, café/ restaurant, the CLT board, and recycling centre. The variety of jobs offered not only provides rent for their subsidised housing, but also teaches them transferrable skills to help pull them out of poverty. These programmes are designed to help residents find more permanent housing within a year.

the following works were produced individually as part of a group project IMPLEMENTATION

01 //

STORY POD STRATFORD, LONDON The Story Pod was designed as part of a larger project to improve the underused Greenway south of London’s Olympic Park. The interventions along the Greenway complements the 2010 Biodiversity Action Plan by creating new public greens and improving the current trail.

The Story Pod serves multiple purposes. Acting as a small library where passersby can settle down with a book, the pod also functions as a resting point and a wayfinding marker. At night, the podis closed but provides lighting to increase safety and accessibility.

The pod can be reconfigured to encompass a range of other uses, such as bike repair stop or a cafe. These pods are stationed along the seven kilometre-long path along with other interventions (for example, provision of water fountains and play areas) to attract more residents to use the nature trail, bringing life to the newly-regenerated neighbourhood.

The following maps illustrates the proposed changes and connections for the existing trail.

IMPLEMENTATION

02 //

current green network

IMPLEMENTATION

proposed additions/linkages

improved green network

03 //

COMMUNITY LAND TRUST MODEL Using various sources of public, private, and philanthropic funding...

How do community land trusts work?

...acquires land in a specific area

...the community land trust board...

LONDON CLT _community foundations _private donors _government owned land _government funding

A resident buys or leases the home...

LONDON COMMUNITY LAND TRUST STRATFORD, LONDON

CLTs deviate from normal process of buying / renting homes

To implement the community land trust (CLT), I proposed a partnership with the London CLT – an independent organisation governed by Londoners, with a board elected by CLT members. Any London resident can become a member through buying a £1 share, with open membership encouraging any residents interested in tackling affordable housing shortage issues to get involved. The board is comprised of 1/3 resident, 1/3 local community, and 1/3 stakeholder representatives who are familiar with facilitating a community organisation.

The graphic explains how ownership of land and housing is distributed to allow housing to stay affordable. The establishment of a CLT stabilises the neighbourhood by balancing individual needs - maintaining security of tenure - with larger community needs - affordability, economic diversity, and access to civic services.

Resident pays an annual fee or volunteers time to the CLT...

LONDON CLT ...for the maintenance of shared spaces and...

...while the CLT retains permanent ownership of land

...to ensure homes in the area stay affordable

Current resident moves out from the home. If they were a buyer, the resident sells the house back at a price set by the CLT, earning a portion in the increased home value ...while the CLT retains permanent ownership of land

New resident buys or leases the home at a price that has been kept affordable

the CLT’s geographic focus allows it to provide affordable homes and play a role in stabilising the neigbhourhood

CLT Governance Model 33% CLT residents 33% expert stakeholders 33% community representatives

IMPLEMENTATION

}

LONDON CLT

04 //

Medium-density housing typologies that experiment with the classic duplex, condo, and studio layouts, with some providing shared residential spaces (common rooms, gardents, rooftops). These row houses provide much needed residential space while remaining human-scaled.

GREYFIELD RECLAIMED

The chemical-free pond – which is purified through a natural, closed-loop process using wetland and submerged water plants – provides a naturally filtered swimming area. The area is surrounded by public greens providing playscapes, basketball courts, and picnic areas.

STRATFORD, LONDON

The urban farms rethink the potential of free time as an economic resource, inviting the unemployed, the retired to participate in the neighbourhood. Along with training programmes, the farm aims to support a productive way of living in the city.

Farmer’s market with open-air courtyard sells produce from the urban farm and other local vendors. Food stalls invite chefs from local restaurants to showcase their menu. The market encourages relationships between the producer and buyer, and farm-to-table cooking for healthier living.

An on-site reuse and recycling centre encourages eco-living – taking donations, upcycling old products, and disposing recyclables – while providing jobs in the green economy.

IMPLEMENTATION

The co-housing buildings provide alternative socialisations, connecting diverse individuals and families into larger networks.

This model challenges the typical home designed for nuclear families, creating a new civic commons that extends from the private home. The open-air building links units across an elevated communal corridor for play and gathering.

05 //

lea bridge east With Greater London rapidly losing precious innercity industrial land, this project questioned how lowdensity site in a highly-valued area could be intensified without displacement of industrial businesses and jobs that are vital to supporting city life.

To create a comprehensive redevelopment plan, our team undertook fieldwork to identify the site’s strengths and weaknesses. Walking around the Lea Bridge site – located in Leyton, London – revealed a strong community of businesses who are facing threats from residential development. However, our observations also revealed underused greyfields, poorly-maintained green spaces, fragmented pedestrian network, and lack of community infrastructure.

Researching into the London Plan’s policies regarding Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) revealed loss has been occurring at double the rate of Greater London Authority’s landmark for managed release. The greatest loss has been conversion to residential usage, which is considered to have higher value land use.

However, beyond the financial aspect, what defines higher value? Who benefits from the higher value? We set out to produce a proposal that would not only be financially viable for the developer, but also enhance sociocultural value for existing and future residents, business owners, and the local council.

The project was made possible through interviews with residents and business owners, whose hopes for the neighbourhood formed the basis for my masterplan. By studying existing economic patterns, industrial heritage, and social capital, the masterplan projected for future community needs while working with political and financial constraints.

Working with team members who are well-versed in budgeting, housing trends and policies, and cultural funding schemes has taught me the myriad aspects of research and planning needed for a comprehensive proposal. Through this project, I learned to integrate policy research into practical implementation strategies, as well as policy and financial limitations on development. However, I also learned how to propose updates to existing policy in order to create new possibilities – such as the development of a Priority Employment Zone and industrial / residential design codes – to guard against loss of industrial land in inner London while providing housing and enriched civil infrastructure.

the following works were produced individually as part of a group project IMPLEMENTATION

06 //

RIGG APPROACH CHARACTER STUDY LEYTON, LONDON A careful study of existing infrastructure revealed several buildings of strong heritage and visual value. Other housing typologies were identified, with scales ranging from modest Victorian-style homes to taller modern builds. The area presenting the greatest opportunity for densification was Argall Business Park, which employed a mixture of cinematic art deco and post-war modernist styles into build. Open storage areas were scattered throughout the premises, presenting opportunities for development for much needed housing and increased green spaces. Considerations were given to the industrial character in the design of new buildings and the public realm.

IMPLEMENTATION

07 //

LEA BRIDGE EAST HOUSING LEYTON, LONDON Researching into the London Plan’s policies regarding Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) revealed loss has been occurring at double the rate of Greater London Authority’s landmark for managed release. The greatest loss has been conversion to residential usage, which is considered to have higher value land use. However, beyond the financial aspect, what defines higher value? Who benefits from the higher value? We set out to produce a proposal that would not only be financially viable for the developer, but also enhance sociocultural value for existing and future residents, business owners, and the local council.

The 70,000 sqm floorspace of on-site industry will be maintained while adding 1,732 mixed tenancy homes and 12,000 sqm of new or improved public realm and social infrastructure. Industrial uses and residential uses will innovatively be brought under one roof through: higher floors, flexibly-designed spaces, controlling resident’s view away from industry, providing high quality public realm, and minimising environmental disruption through dual air ventilation, mediation spaces, insulation and triple glazing.

The project aims to reuseindustrial estates and districts through enhancing the quality of their design and maintenance, allowing residents to form better understand of their local economy and develop a sense of ownership.

IMPLEMENTATION

08 //

Arts Charity

Lea Valley Regional Park Authority

Housing Association Local Residents

Argall Business Improvement District

Workspace Providor

ACTORS Officers

Pilot Developer

Private Housing Developer

Councillors

Care Home Developer

London Borough of Waltham Forest Special Purpose Vehicle

LEA BRIDGE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

END GOAL

Pilot Project

Development Hub

LEYTON, LONDON A group member and I developed a policy tool and proposed a stakeholder partnership to complement a special purpose vehicle, presenting a three-pronged delivery model for regeneration. The policy tool takes cue from neighbouring Hackney Borough, creating a new ‘priority employment zone’ on site. The designated zone seeks to protect existing industries and encourage new development that supports employment, whilst avoiding introduction of residential development that would undermine these aims.

CPO

BID/council: CPO process aggravates BID

Care Home

Waltham Forest CCG (NHS)

GP Surgery

BID/developer: leaseholders oppose development plans, resisting the release of land to developer

Residents/council: opposition to employment and industrial use rather than housing

Council/developer: rent costs too high for light industrial use Charity/Providor: conflict over tennant selection Developer/council: developer does not deliver correct specification

The partnership supports the policy tool by proposing a BID-managed workspace, having the BID to be involved in the development process and later, in its management. Their involvement not only allows for better representation of the BID’s interests, it also mitigates potential conflicts between the businesses and the developer. Acting as a conduit for its members, the BID will work with the developer to formulate a plan in decanting from the premises and inhabiting the new workspace.

Housing

NHS/developer: specification and timing of GP clinic

Council/developer: lack of affordable housing rejected

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

Workspace

Developer/insurers: flood risk becomes obstacle

Residents/developer: opposition to increased traffic in the area caused by population increase

analysis of potential stakeholder conflicts, which informed the implementation strategy

Working on different stages and aspects of a planning proposal informed my understanding of how uncoordinated developments can hurt the socioeconomic wellbeing of a site. I learned how to create an intervention which preserved industrial space while providing much-needed housing and social benefit to a diverse and growing community. Again, this project fed into my interest in working with the community to build on what’s there to support growth and provide necessary infrastructure: robust economic networks and active community groups.

Furthermore, the proposal proved instruction in learning the practicalities of regeneration: how to access environmental and stakeholder risks, how to implement developmental governance, and how to strategise for future growth. These skills have taught me to be aware of real-world contexts while generating design and planning proposals, and informed my analysis-based approach.

the Business Improvement District provides opportunities to create a partnership for BID-managed workspace

ta

rg

et

Lea Valley Regional Park Authority poses threat of opposition to development

i

ng

d ev e l

IMPLEMENTATION

opm

pr ent

ess

u re

o

ou nc

ncil

to m

t ee

ho

us

railway presents hard boundary and difficult site accessibility

09 //

borei keila: building capitals Borei Keila has taken many built forms since 1966, and from 1991 returnees from the urban exodus under the Khmer Rouge regime began to occupy the site. In the intervening years the site and its residents have been developed and ignored in equal measure and has come to reflect or the changing nature of housing in Phnom Penh, where competing interests over the site have undermined the physical and social needs of residents. This contestation is the departure point for this critical research and design project.

Aggressive commercialisation of land markets in the 1980s produced limited housing opportunities for the urban poor, leading to several similar contestations throughout Phnom Penh. The government often addressed this issue by relocating residents to the city’s periphery, and in the process disrupting the relocatee’s socioeconomic networks – making it even harder for them to climb out of poverty.

image provided by Prof. Giorgio Talucci

In the most recent chapter of Borei Keila’s chequered history, settlers living in temporary shelters were promised land titles on a new development on the site – converting their possession and use of the site into legal ownership. However this land sharing arrangement between the property developer Phan Imex and the residents has been fracturous.

There are 25 different documents that have been required in order to receive a property on-site. This has created various degrees of rights to remain at Borei Keila and has fostered difficult inter-resident dynamics, where self-interest has prevailed over community. Pervasive corruption among community leaders has only deepened these divisions.

These contested interests have marginalised the residents threatened with eviction.

Situated within this complex socio-political situation, where organised campaigning for housing rights have been met with brutal police shutdowns and temporary homes have been destroyed by armed forces, our team sought to find ways in uniting a divided community and provide a strategy for self-sufficiency. The comprehensive framework includes larger site design, self-build housing development, and economic strategies.

The site design and implementation delivery was based on social capital analysis, which identified social and economic networks to intensify through design. Furthermore, the analysis looked for ‘negatives’ which could be reappropriated as a positive. This resulted in establishment of a waste economy. Whereas garbage often piled up in busy junctions, the new site incorporate waste and recycling centres where residents could learn about sanitation practices. The garbage offers opportunities for training and jobs in the green economy.

the following works were produced individually as part of a group project ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

10 //

SOCIAL CAPITAL MAPPING PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA

There is a community space on the site but access is limited by community leaders.

However, informal space shared by residents is an important capital on the site.

Semi-public space around homes used for commerce and economic activity which also allows neighbours to interact.

Land beneath old complexes is of high value, and present opportunities for building homes for residents living in make-shift housing.

The ground floor of the Phan Imex buildings show how public space can become vibrant and economically important.

images provided by Prof. Giorgio Talucci

The informal social networks between residents are essential. Residents across the site depend on them for childcare, labour and customer base.

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

The ground floor of the Phan Imex buildings show how public space can become vibrant and economically important.

11 //

SOCIAL CAPITAL MAPPING PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA While many of the residents live in sub-ideal conditions – tiny windowless rooms, uninsulated tin shacks, tarpaulin tents – they have appropriated in-between spaces to create social connections and an informal economic network. Through photographs, interviews, and personal fieldwork provided by the professor, I was able to infer some of the valuable social capital that Borei Keila residents have produced.

Semi-public space around the homes (such as hallways) were used for commerce, with some residents setting up informal storefronts to trade small goods. The spaces were also used neighbourly interactions, such as shared cooking.

Ground floor unit residents made use of the street, also creating small storefronts and public space. In one instance, a dead-end had been constructed into a small sitting area – providing a shaded area for socialising. Another corner had been repurposed as a shrine.

These informal community spaces existed in contrast to a formal space constructed in one of the Phan Imex development buildings.

However, the formal space had limited access that was controlled by community leaders. This created a situation where residents had to construct their own infrastructure to support their social networks.

These networks provided essential functions, as residents across the site depended on them for childcare, labour, and customer base.

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

12 //

Building off the existing street grid to maintain legibility but breaking up the length and straightness to create more vibrant streets, walkability and reduce monotonous long streets.

This is design reflects the street moxrphology of the informal settlements that once existed on the site and still do to an extent.

SITE DESIGN PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA Extend the commercial function east into the site and connect it with the Borei Keila markets located to the south and the commercial activity on Czech Republic Boulevard (west). The design also proposes to emphasize the linear commercial link through the Borei Keila Buildings.

The site design rationale was based on observations made regarding social capital, predicating on a desire to enhance the positives while improving the negatives. Both the self-built housing and masterplan emphasised on: _improving economic connections to surrounding areas (taking advantage of the site’s central location, proximity to a private university, department of touristry, and another large open-air market) _enhancing and adding community spaces (including shaded areas) _providing opportunities for informal social networks to form (public hallways integrated into apartment blocks, more intimate passages formed through off-set pathways) _on-site garbage disposal to combat issues with sanitations, as well as provide employment and education of sanitary practices

Connecting with the existing development to the proposed development through community spaces.

Currently, the school and community space are located on the fringes of the public life, with commercial activities taking priority. The proposed development aims to place these spaces at the centre of the development as well as use these spaces to stitch the site together.

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

13 //

rendering of new housing prototypes, which have the flexibility to accomodate for self-build and economic uses. the open walkways simulate sidewalks, which have been adapted for various purposes: storefronts, socialisation space, food vending

informal play

neighbourhood socialisation

sale of goods public space semi-public space images provided by Prof. Giorgio Talucci ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

14 //

(en)gendering space This individual assignment derived from a group project, where other team members and I studied the history of Proyecto Experimental de Vivienda (PREVI), a hybrid (in)formal settlement in Lima, Peru. PREVI was born of very distinct conditions in 1960s Peru, where architect-President Fernando BelaĂşnde intiated the project as a formal response to the rise of barriadas (informal settlements) on the fringes of Lima.

We were tasked to identify the successes and failures of the project, and asked to individually expand upon a fault to find ways in overcoming it through design and policy.

image by Peter Land

PREVI was radical in terms of architectural design and proactive urban planning: it was a rebuttal against the modernist typologies found in other Latin American cities, and employed the concept of self-build housing predicated on the increasing urban population. PREVI straddles the line between the formal and informal. As a governmental intervention on the barriadas, PREVI was a formally planned response to the slew of socioeconomic issues caused by the 1940s rural-urban migration. However, the project brief called for designs that would accommodate for new additions and renovations as families adapted the houses to suit changing needs and conditions.

In studying the tension between informal self-build on formal restrictions on typological design, I focused on how formal planning inadvertently led to the gendering of spaces.

Furthermore, it questions how the informal process of incremental construction can become an autonomous act for female residents. Because formal development tends to be filtered through a patriarchal lens, the informal becomes the outlet through which females can regain autonomy through aesthetic and functional adaptations to the home.

The guidelines and design suggestions are not intended as a subversion of architectural knowledge, but rather, invite participation and representation by residents in the design process. Furthermore, these principles intend to empower females through the informal. The informal, as it relates to construction processes, but also the economies and community networks established that extend beyond the home, thus bridging the separation of outside / inside coded as male / female. Taken together, recommendations foster a safer environment, encourage formation of community networks, and allow women to gain gender autonomy through self-initiated design interventions and participation in traditionally male activities.

Peter Land created the masterplan, selecting 13 designs to be realised. To identify the informal that developed from formal plans, I undertook archival and interview research. Documents and photos revealed a myriad of adopted uses, including converted shopfronts, nurseries, and added street furniture.

The masterplan analysis informed the recommendations made in (en)gendering spaces.

the following works were produced for an individual project

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

15 //

A

MASTERPLAN: LAND USE ANALYSIS LIMA, PERU The figure ground map was created from the masterplan by Peter Land. The different colours illustrate how residents have adapted planned designs to create sources for informal economic and social networks. The land use analysis provided a better understanding of how residents capitalised on their location within their development.

B

C

E

The map also provides context for the policies and designs recommended in (en)gendering space. The alphabetic labels correspond with the interventions found in the following pages.

D

figure ground map based on masterplan by Peter Land, land use identified via interviews and archival research

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

16 //

A

MASTERPLAN: SOCIAL CONNECTIONS ANALYSIS LIMA, PERU

B

Dissecting several masterplans — drafted by architects such as James Stirling and Kisho Kurokawa — and cross-referencing with research into inclusive design practices, the project presented new design policies to encourage community cohesion. The implementation of shared spaces that range across the intimacy gradient facilitates a multiplicity of interactions among residents, inviting participation to public life at the neighbourhood scale.

By analysing informal social networks, in which residents in each architecture cluster — for example, the Stirling Hypercasa or Aldo van Eyck’s ‘Little Holland’ — appropriated the housing designs for socioeconomic activity, I discovered how families used public spaces of different scales. From courtyards to alamedas (promenades) to little alleys, the new design policy calls for intimate, shared spaces around which communities can form. The extension of the nuclear family into local neighbourhood networks fosters new modes of multi-generational living, providing support child and elderly care.

C

the maps shown in green highlight public spaces which range in size, creating opportunities for socialisations across the intimacy gradient. the map shown in pink highlight large corridors for vehicular access and tight pedestrian paths, which restrict access to public life

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

17 //

PUBLIC MIRADOR LIMA, PERU As Doreen Massey argued, the ‘gendering of space and place both reflects and has effects back on the ways in which gender is constructed and understood in the societies in which we live’ (Massey, 2000). Architects and planners, who have the power to determine how space is used, influence this process of gendering a place.

It becomes pertinent that they avoid the trappings of nostalgia and the reiteration of traditional gender differentiations of space.

The most obvious case was exemplified by the architects from the Center for Environmental Structure. Miradors, which emulated the enclosed balconies of colonial Lima, were provided for girls to engage in passive street-watching; these spaces existed in contrast to active street football sites provided for boys. In trying to reflect on local culture, CES perpetuated the gendered dichotomy of outside / inside space. While local culture is important in conscientious design, fetishisation of historical traditions often results in a disconnect with present-day attitudes.

The public mirador rethinks the design of previously gendered space, deconstructing the gender-specific social responses associated with certain spaces. The new design – featuring a shaded area, soft grassy spaces with reclining chairs, and a large balcony modelled after the traditional mirador design – manipulated previously gendered facilities. By integrating the outside and inside, the public mirador encourages more public and open forms of social relations.

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

D

18 //

NICHE WALL LIMA, PERU Undertaking further research into gender expectations in Peru revealed a patriarchal society. While the government has been actively challenging gender equality by instituting policies against discrimination, unequal gender relations remain visible on the vernacular level — women are expected to fulfil domestic responsibilities. The most disturbing reality of inequality manifests in the high rate of reported domestic abuse, resulting in a rise of women-led households. With a large number of abandoned mothers expected to provide financially and care for the family, spatial agency allows women to reclaim the home as their own and erase traumas that may have occurred within its walls.

With female-headed households on the rise — due to a range of factors, such as spousal abuse or abandonment — reclaiming the home becomes an act of autonomy. By providing education to women on the construction and renovation process, they can actively participate in deconstructing the traditional perception of building as a male activity; for women who may associate their home with traumatic events, the freedom of aesthetics and the freedom to dwell become an emancipation from their past. Thus, these homes should be designed to be adaptable — with mobile divisions of space — and constructed from easily-manipulated materials (Hays, 2011; Gyger, 2013).

The rendering shows exampls of how niches can be carved in the walls, providing areas to display personal effects, store books, and create built-in seating.

ALTERNATIVE URBANISM

E

19 //

(re)queering london The (en)gendering spaces project was influential to my interests in equitable design and poliicy as they relate to gender. The understanding of how different genders use space leads into my last project, a major thesis questioning how LGBTQ+ persons of colours experience London. The cosmopolitan and multicultural image of London belies the limited access and opportunities which many queer POC face in the city. The dissertation recommended urban practitioners to consider the implications of only supporting growth in existing LGBTQ+ clusters. I call for an intersectional framework which recognise how non-conforming individuals within the queer population are hurt by these practices, which serve to uphold a commercialised and commodified image of the LGBTQ+ experience.

image by BBz London

This dissertation implored urban practitioners to be aware of the intersectional experiences of LGBTQ+ persons of colour in London. The research has three objectives which develop insight into how LGBTQ+ POC navigate spaces traditionally perceived as LGBTQ-friendly, identify other spaces of significance, and discover how they raise visibility of spatial discrimination. I hypothesize that queer POC (QPOC) individuals are challenging the inclusivity of spaces within ‘gay neighbourhoods’ by creating alternatives, establishing a new paradigm of ‘queer space’ outside of gaybourhoods to highlight the ways in which minorities have been excluded.

While there has been wider social acceptance of LGBTQ+ communities, this acceptance has also been appropriated by urban municipalities as cultural capital. This has manifested increased urban queer spaces in creative cities through market-led regeneration. Although the existence of a gay village may signify tolerance within planning, formal equality rights are challenged by implicit social codes of who is accepted and tolerated.

The findings showed that queer POC have been eschewing traditional LGBTQ+ neighbourhoods and venues to reclaim public and private space elsewhere, thus bringing into question how planning can help foster this development. Many found traditional ‘gaybourhoods’ like Soho to be very hard-line about LGBTQ+ identity, thus associating the neighbourhood with an exclusionary atmosphere. The unfriendly and sanitised socialisations create a border around Soho, with LGBTQ+ POC producing their own territories elsewhere in London.

Conversations revealed mental maps of safe spaces, created

by LGBTQ+ POC for themselves in order to navigate an urban terrain that is neither fully accessible nor safe for them. However, they also intentionally ‘cross over’ into many non-LGBTQ+ spaces. By visibly expressing their queer and ethnic identities, these individuals are staking a claim to their place within dominant culture. However, the emergence of these queer commons tends to be ephemeral. They exist in contrast to the longer-term existence of Soho, highlighting the stratification of power of who can who can afford, or are given rights to, a more permanent form of LGBTQ+ space.

Ultimately, the emergence of these new queer spaces has to be situated within questions of planning inclusivity, neoliberalised urban regeneration, and commodified identities as cultural capital. The objectives sought to identify the problematic assumptions regarding queer diversity that have translated into further marginalisation by planning practices.

This dissertation concludes by discussing the importance of queer spaces in providing safety for queer expression, and the need to expand planning’s conceptualisation of the LGBTQ+ community to accommodate for the diversity present within the population. Finally, recommendations are provided to complement and rethink existing policies, asking for a re-conceptualised, intersectional framework to secure fuller rights to everyday urban life for marginalised citizens.

The following pages provide excerpts from Chapters 2, 3, and 5 of my dissertation, which are the literature review, methodology, and analysis sections, respectively.

SPATIAL COMMONS

20 //

2.1

QUEER SPACE, WHITE SPACE?

Frisch describes queer space as challenging the public realm by “making private use of public space” (2002, pg.258); he argues that planning processes destroy these queer spaces through planning regulations and redevelopment projects, which render spaces safe for heterosexuals.

Rather than theorising space as a priori heteronormative, the heteronormativity of space directly results from actions undertaken by people who inhabit or produce – e.g. through planning and regulation of – the space (Hubbard, 2008). Queer space, then, is understood as more than a static, pre-defined, and pre-existing space; rather, queer space has the potential to exist everywhere within the public realm, as “it is the individual’s appropriation of the public realm through personal, ever-changing points of view” (McGrath, Hsueh and Shan, 2016, pg.6).

Furthermore, interrogation of space brings forth other questions regarding the notions of inclusion. To borrow from Browne, using queer critique on space should “entail radical (re) thinkings, (re)drawings, (re)conceptualiations, (re)mappings that could (re)make bodies, spaces and geographies” (2006, pg.888). This conceptualisation elucidates the mutual co-production of sexuality with other processes of significations (Oswin, 2008); in other words, an understanding of ‘queer’ as more than gender identities or sexual orientations. However, most attempts to complicate understandings of queer spaces have been limited, often stopping short of considering them as racialised sites. Thus, most of the queer spaces that are characterised in planning or geography literature are implicitly white spaces (Oswin, 2008).

This phenomenon relates to larger issues within planning, where conversations around ‘right to the city’ have resulted in considerations given to separate social identities – such as race, class, or gender. However, planning remains singularly-minded, failing to recognise that the interplay between these social identities poses different realities as individuals move within space. This understanding requires acknowledgment of the “multiplicities of constructions within space” (Walker, 2011, pg.36), with the socially-produced city derived from varying urban, social networks. Thus, the connections across different identities should be understood as co-producing a unique individual, who is subjected to multidimensional forms of privilege and oppression, tolerance and injustice within space – evoking the theory of intersectionality.

2.2

INTERSECTIONALITY: multi-dimensional realities

Intersectionality studies advances that various social identities – such as ethnicity, gender, age, (dis)ability – are not mutually exclusive entities; rather, each trait is inextricably linked with the other elements that form one’s identity (Crenshaw, 1989). This dissertation uses an intersectional framework in analysing how societal oppressions interrelate to create a system, reflecting the intersections that generate distinctive experiences of opportunity and discrimination, privilege and marginalisation. Specifically, it situates modern queer politics within conceptualisations of space to stipulate the need for recognising other facets of identity within urban planning.

As Cathy Cohen critiques, modern day queer politics shows lack of recognition in other forms of oppression faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, resulting in many members of the community not being supported or acknowledged (1997). In other words, there is a stratification within the

queer community, in which those with privilege are given a voice (i.e. white, upper-class, cismen). She further argues that current queer politics operates within a historical and ideological vacuum, thus issues like sexual oppression and racism – which operate outside of the ‘queer sphere’ – are ignored.

Rather than understanding identities as separate and parallel, analysing QPOC experiences as an interplay of ethno-racial and gender identity dynamics reveals more nuanced realities.

Intersectionality suggests that LGBTQ+ POC face different conditions than those of their white counterparts in the spaces they move through, but these differences cannot be quantified separately. The intersection between non-conforming sexual orientation / gender identification and other minoritised identity markers compose a complex matrix of privilege / subjugation, domination / subordination across different structural systems (policy, health, religion) – inherently complicating the conditions of discrimination (Carbado et al., 2013; García- López, 2008; Valentine, 2007).

Drawing from queer and intersectionality studies can help planners to better understand and respond to the planning needs of LGBTQ+ POC through critically analysing how social structures ensconce rhetoric of power / marginalisation, drawing attention to how existing paradigms often serve to normalise these dynamics within knowledge and policy production (Carbado et al., 2013). Crenshaw suggests that “intersectionality offers a way of mediating the tension between assertions of multiple identities and the ongoing necessity of group politics” (1989, pg.7). It can be utilised to explain unexpected alliances or interrogate why “some rhetoric of solidarity are not realised”(Irazábal and Huerta, 2015). In this case, intersectionality theory reveals the unevenness in advancement of rights within the LGBTQ+ community, with the needs of gay, white, males assumed to be universal across the community (Riggs, 2010). Thus, intersectionality can be utilised as a heuristic and analytical tool within planning practice. Collaborations with grassroots groups in London can empower QPOC to express their multiple identities, and encourage them to actively participate in transforming the urban fabric and social make-up of the city.

Planning and ordinances – whether explicitly or implicitly – become heterosexist due to the insidious conventions regarding gender identity and sexual desire. When considered with the stratification found within queer politics, the ways in which heterosexism and racism are concretised in spaces become apparent – LGBTQ+ POC tend to move within different social and physical spheres than those of their white counterparts (Gieseking, 2014). By moving within specific neighbourhoods, LGBTQ+ POC inscribe their own borders within the city, rarely stepping across these bounds into areas they do not feel an affinity with, or comfortable in.

2.3

‘CROSSING OVER’: lgbtq+ poc bodies in defying borders

Public ‘spaces – despite their presumed openness – are regulated by social norms and institutional powers. Regulations transform public space into territories, with varying degrees of accessibility and safety for people of different backgrounds (Armillas-Tiseyra, 2015). The powers exerted by social institutions demarcate the territories and borders of everyday life, with the borders spatializing the limits of self-expression. David Newman defines borders

SPATIAL COMMONS

21 //

borders as entries or exits, which act as the “constant reterritorialization of human difference, at a variety of spatial scales” (2005, pg.776). The significance and location of the borders change for different social groups, producing specific experiences of exclusion / inclusions and segregation/integration. QPOC individuals, in embodying their identities, are transgressing these borders as they move within the public realm in their everyday lives.

The potential of everyday life draws on the theories of de Certeau, who conceptualises everyday activities as sites of “ordinary political action, embodied activity, and emotion” (Beebeejaun, 2017, pg.326), contrasting with the top-down approaches of modern planning. De Certeau proposes that through everyday practices, individuals reclaim meaning and belonging in the world by destabilising unified planning visions that presume and ascribe appropriate behaviour within public spaces (Coleman and Sim, 2000). For example, through the act of walking, the city dweller is able to dynamically engage and inhabit the space. The individual transform space into place, one that is endowed with personal meaning (Tuan, 2002); through repetitive transformation of space into place, an embodied sense of belonging develops (Beebeejaun, 2017). Thus, walking and other everyday tactics become ways to (re)claim the city, by resisting the planned, fixed vision of urban space.

Under the guise of providing order, systems of borders are enacted to legitimize a group’s domination of space. The process spatializes power relations, as one group is able to determine, superimpose, and perpetuate lines of separation (Ganster and Lorey, 2005; Newman, 2006). These borders can be physical or immaterial, manifesting as tangible walls or ideological borders (i.e. immigration laws which exclude certain groups). They lead to binary distinctions of us / them, inside / outside between groups across different scales, from the national to the personal. Individual territories and personal spaces determine daily practices, with individuals often imposing on their own movements to avoid unwelcoming places (Doan, 2011).

Thus, the idea of ‘crossing over’ (Anzaldúa, 1987) through the ordinary actions of moving within the city becomes salient. Crossing over can be realized through any behaviours that refuse the normative and prescribed ways of ‘being’, including activities like cross-dressing, holding hands, and other public displays of affection. Johnston and Longhurst (2010) contends that these public rituals are less acceptable when enacted by persons of dissident sexualities/ genders, with these acts prohibited by implicit codes within urban planning and municipal regulations – resulting in what they call “a type of moral cleansing of city streets” (pg.85).

Thus, crossing over becomes a defiant act that tests the borders and territories of sexual citizenship. Richardson (2015) further expands on rights to sexual practices – beyond the issues of consent, autonomy, and pleasure – to include the rights of expressing sexual identity, to have sexual and gender identity legitimized and acknowledged within the public sphere.

Everyday activities for heterosexual couples – such as kissing or holding hands – when queered, becomes a disruption to heteronormativity. Moving non-heteronormative desire from the private sphere, making it visible in heteronormatively- coded public spaces, normalises the presence of this ‘outrageous’ desire.

Crossing over becomes a performative act for QPOC, as they move across neighbourhoods and resist borders to produce informal and personal territories. They are ‘queering’ space – understood as a process and action that non-gender-normative, non-heterosexual identifying individuals undertake through their inhabitation of everyday space. They are ‘racialising’ space – staking claims within socio-spatial constructs which prioritises and caters towards white individuals. Their everyday actions take on political significance as they reclaim a sense of belonging through their urban movements.

This dissertation couples queer and intersectionality studies as its theoretical framework to analyse the differential experiences of QPOC. The queer-intersectionalist approach radicalizes the understanding of the ‘gay neighbourhood’ by identifying a new queer geography that recognise other spaces produced by oppressed groups (Gieseking, 2014). Because LGBTQ+ minorities are understood to have less political and economic power, they produce fleeting material spaces that contrast with the socioeconomic territorialisation of gaybourhoods.

Building on this, queer space is posed against gay space, with queer understood “as an appellation…that contest not just heteronormativity, but also homonormativity” (Browne et al., 2007, pg.12). That is, this dissertation interrogates how ‘queering’ planning can disrupt not only the spatialisation of heterosexual norms, but also the mainstream articulation of LGBTQ+ practices. By addressing the lacuna of intersectional discussion within planning theory, this dissertation challenges existing planning practices to pose ideas on how planning can expand discourses on ‘right to the city’ and respond to the dynamism found within the LGBTQ+ POC communities.

3.0 METHODOLOGY Phenomenological research describes the lived experience from an individual’s position, understanding their description to be subjective. Using this approach, this study is concerned with interpreting and understanding experiences from the perspective of QPOC individuals.

Their varied presentations of self in everyday spaces follow de Certeau’s assertion that individuals regain belonging in the world through their ordinary acts. The objective is to uncover their experiences in accessing Soho and in creating ‘safe spaces’ within London. As Lester argues, phenomenological methods are particularly effective in emphasising individual experiences and perceptions from their own viewpoints, and therefore “at challenging structural or normative assumptions” (1999, pg.1; Moustakas 1994).

Phenomenological research is coupled with queer and intersectionality theories, which calls for a fundamental ideological shift in the understanding of gender / sex as fluid rather than as a binary, and the understanding of how various forms of minoritised identities affect access to social institutions. Adding an interpretive dimension, which includes looking for commonalities that emerge across experiences, further enables the research to inform and challenge existing planning policies.

SPATIAL COMMONS

22 //

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN The Soho neighbourhood was selected as a case study for its recognition and significance in LGBTQ+ history. As a district marketed and perceived to be LGBTQ-friendly (City of Westminster, 2007), Soho offers a backdrop to reflect on whether this notion of safety and friendliness is felt equally across the diversity of the queer community. Interviews were conducted with individuals from the LGBTQ+ POC community, organisations working for LGBTQ+ causes, and with the Mayor’s Cultural Infrastructure Policy Team. Different sets of questions were asked of individuals / organisations and policy officers to answer the objectives. General topics are outlined below, with detailed questions included in the appendix.

To gain perspective on the life of LGBTQ+ POC in London, particularly Soho, conversations with individuals and organisations prompted reflection on how the neighbourhood has influenced in the production of their identities. Furthermore, their inclusion (or exclusion) from the ‘right to the city’ narrative was explored through questions regarding their impressions on access to “reshape the processes of urbanisation”(Harvey, 2008, pg.23). Planners were asked about practices they have engaged in to increase public participation in planning, and how they have attempted to identify and incorporate LGBTQ+ POC needs into their plans; these responses are used to provide planning context in chapter 4.

3.3 RESEARCH METHODS Interviews were conducted in person or via Skype. Each interview lasted between 30 minutes to an hour, consisting of two parts – a cognitive mapping exercise and semi-structured questions discussing the map and individual experiences in detail. The discussion followed scripted questions, but were open-ended to allow for in-depth discussion and flexibility to pursue new lines of inquiry as introduced by the interviewee’s responses. Further modifications were made after the first (pilot) interview to improve conversational flow and re-word leading questions. Questions also began with more general concepts of identity before diving into more specific conceptualisation of self, to ensure participants felt more comfortable in discussing sensitive topics.

This links phenomenological method to research as it allowed the interviewee to guide the conversation, prompting details regarding their lived experiences within Soho and greater London. Mapping and conversation make visible subjective experiences that have been erased by top-down, modernist representation of space and excluded by hegemonic assumptions regarding identities in planning practice.

The cognitive mapping exercise revealed how subjective experiences demarcate the areas frequented by LGBTQ+ POC. The maps draw on multiple narratives to account for the plurality of citizen experiences in urban space (Lynch, 1960; Milgram, 1982). The individual perspectives on Soho are related to memberships within various social networks, thus allowing for interpretation of how social structure influences place identity and understanding of place.

Furthermore, consensus identified from the maps symbolises sense of community identified with a place, while dissensus symbolises difference between individuals and groups.

analytical framework of 'queer' space

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS Survey responses were entered into NVivo and grouped into key themes, then analysed using the framework above.

The structure and users determines how interviewees perceive the place significance and meaning. Place identity is further composed of socialisations and norms, which influences how interviewees construct sense of self through empowerment, solidarity and belonging. Together, how QPOC view and use queer spaces is determined by the affinity and sense of community, which allow them to collectively wield their ‘right to the city’ by challenging spatial norms.

5.4 QUEER VS. GAY SPACE The objectives showed the emergence of queer spaces occurring in parallel to ‘gay spaces’ – bringing up an important discussion of how Soho is perceived by different populations. While official documents – such as the Soho Action Plan – had identified the neighbourhood as an ‘LGBT cluster’, it is more casually understood as a ‘gay space’ – especially by queer ethnic minorities.

What constitutes queer versus gay space can be defined by the perceptions of who uses the space. In my conversation with ML, she identified gay spaces to exist in more gentrified areas, such as Soho and Vauxhall. She also comments that gay spaces spreads alongside gentrification. When asked about the key differences, she said: Soho is a lot more commercial, whereas queer spaces are more underground.

It’s more white, cis-gendered, exclusive. Just shows who has political power within the queer world and gay relations, you know?

The difference between the gay and queer spaces reflect the disparities between the gay and queer communities. Gay culture seeks to assimilate in the mainstream by blending in, whereas queer culture seeks to extend the definition of ‘acceptable behaviour’ through visible expression of their gender and sexuality (Holmes, 2016).

Oswin has theorised on differences between gay and queer space, delineating wo tiers within LGBTQ+ society – a mainstream gay population adapted into the wider population through

SPATIAL COMMONS

23 //

heteronormative behaviour, and an opposing body choosing not to integrate. She characterises the first tier as “homomasculinity”, which follows as part of the homonorm – a privilege held within the queer sphere by white privilege, sexism, transmisogyny, and cis-sexism. Prominent queer persons of colour – such as Iraqi drag performer Amrou Al-Kadhi and trans, gendernonconformist black performance artist Travis Alabanza – have written about their anxiety of being in gay spaces, where they question how their bodies fit in: at best, they are selfconscious and at worst, harassed (Al-Kadhi, 2017). Queer space diverges from gay space, in that ‘queered’ spaces challenge hetero- / homonormative culture, eschewing privilege to encourage greater sexual and gender freedom for people from all backgrounds. The goal of ‘queering’ is to cultivate a safe(r) space in which transgressors of dominant LGBTQ+ culture – such as gender or ethnic minorities – can overcome vulnerability and marginalisation found in both LGBTQ+ and public space (Doan, 2011).

The normative, social codes within the gaybourhood derives from Frisch’s argument of planning as a heterosexist project. The commodification follows the objectives of the neoliberal and heteronormative agenda, termed the ‘new homonormativity’ by Duggan (2002). Rather than contesting dominant heteronormative assumptions and social institutions, homonormativity upholds them while promoting a “privatised, depoliticised gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption” (Duggan, 2002, pg.179), reproducing the binaries that Frisch had conceptualised . Furthermore, gay-friendliness within Soho has been deployed in the wider rhetoric of cosmopolitanism and used as cultural capital to attract global venture investments (Bell and Binnie, 2004).

characteristics which are marginalised by the mainstream. Thus, safety – whether formal or informal – comes from “some sense of belonging or social control” (Myslik, 1996, pg.168).

While the somewhat exclusionary nature of these queer / safe(r) spaces is paradoxical to the inclusivity they hope to provide, the cultivation of these spaces are based on a continual negotiation of difference. Thus, queer spaces are constructed through the on-going process of queering, in which social differences serve to remind these spaces as sites of resistance.

Ultimately, the emergence of queer spaces can be situated within questions of inclusivity in planning. The promotion of gaybourhoods is framed within the larger discussion of neoliberalised urban regeneration, in which mainstream LGBTQ+ identities are commodified as cultural capital for cities. These practices – whether conscious or unconscious – privilege those with power and money within the queer sphere, and demonstrate that people with political and financial power continue to have the most influence in shaping the built environment.

Combining interview responses with the map revealed spatialized power structures within urban space that is “inconceivable to the purely rationalist approaches to planning and design” (Walker, 2011, pg.38). The intersectional framework identified problematic assumptions and generalisation regarding queer diversity, drawing attention to how minorities within the already marginalised LGBTQ+ community are further oppressed by planning practices. Thus, the idea of ‘queering’ planning seeks to expand what planners and policy makers understand as a LGBTQ+ space, bringing to attention to how queer minorities use spaces differently.

The queer geography of London has grown in a fractured manner, resulting from gentrification, private development, and pricing out of gay spaces in Soho. As part of the global city or cosmopolitan city archetype, the growing popularity of mainstream gay consumer culture have manifested as street cafes, trendy bars, sex shops, and gay villages (Bell and Binnie, 2004).

This has driven less-assimilated LGBTQ+ persons to ‘queer’ outside of these consumer-focused territories. From the mental maps, the fracturing of queer geography of London can be seen in four areas: centrally scattered around Soho, spreading south to Vauxhall, southeast into Peckham, and eastward into Hackney, Dalston, and Haggerston. However, the emergence of these queer counter publics are often ephemeral. In contrast to the long-term existence of Soho, the difference reiterates the stratification of social power of who can afford, or are given rights to, a more permanent form of LGBTQ+ space.

The development of queer space signifies a need to foster non-explicit LGBTQ+ spaces as they may support the needs of minorities within the LGBTQ+ population. Queer spaces recreate people’s relationship to space by challenging the oppressions which operate within dominant hetero-/homonormative culture. Through everyday actions of gathering and self-expression, walking and dancing, QPOC are disrupting the material and immaterial production of privilege that are concretised in the built environment by social institutions (Doan, 2011; de Certeau, 1980).

Although queer/safe spaces have been criticised for their separatist nature, it can be argued that these spaces are highly controlled in order to provide safety. In a sense, these queer spaces are about creating a place of refuge and autonomy from not only the heterosexist, but also the homonormative world (Kenney, 2011; The Roestone Collective, 2014). The participants and organisers are actively creating space that allow them to foreground and affirm social

mental maps drawn by participant, showing spaces they are familiar with or frequent. maps were analysed along with interviews to discover emerging queer geographies in london

SPATIAL COMMONS

24 //