Intra Urban Barriers | Dissertation

Intra urban barriers dissertation 2014 final report

submitted on 12 november 2014

guide: archana khanna coordinator: leon a morenas

nishita mohta a/2319/2011 fourth year b.arch. section - a school of planning and architecture, new delhi

Abstract As cities become divided into individually owned territories, the barriers

include domains of very distinct functions and contexts to allow the

separating them become highly prominent elements of the urban

development of an understanding of the multitude of factors affecting

environment. However, it is to be questioned whether these barriers

the nature of a barrier.

really are an essential part of the urban environment and whether there are certain factors that must guide their design and implementation.

A lot of variation is observed in the design of barriers across domains

The research tries to answer the question ‘What must be the

is mostly found to lie in social factors, which determine one’s perception

determinants for the physical design of barriers sensitive to the

and between differing societal backdrops. This difference in approach of the territory, security and privacy. The nature of the domain with

urban environment?’ by adopting a qualitative research position.

respect to the environment determines the functional characteristics of

The objective of the study has been to study the various aspects

environmental modification and circulation control. Specific physical

affecting the design of a barrier by means of bringing forth examples

characteristics can be assigned to a barrier in response to the

in the form of case studies from across the world and thus contribute

combination of functional requirements.

the barrier based on its need for boundary definition, privacy, security,

to the reader’s sensitivity towards this urban design issue. The studies Keywords: barrier, domain, sensitive, physical characteristics, functional characteristics

i

Declaration The research work embodied in this dissertation titled Intra Urban Barriers has been carried out by the undersigned as part of the undergraduate Dissertation programme in the Department of Architecture, School of Planning and architecture, New Delhi, under the supervision of Ms. Archana Khanna.

The undersigned hereby declares that this is his/her original work and has not been plagiarised in part or full form from any source.

(Signature)

Name

Nishita Mohta

Roll No. A/2319/2011

Date

12 November 2014

iii

Acknowledgements Archana Khanna

As a resident of Delhi, I had often experienced the consequences of a poorly designed urban environment but was never quite aware of the reasons behind these issues. Thus, first of all, I would like to thank Ms. Moulshri Joshi for introducing me to the architectural aspects of these sociospatial issues and helping me grasp the basics in the initial stages of my dissertation. From there onwards, the rest of this work would be credited to Ms. Archana Khanna, my dissertation guide, who led me through my discovery of the topic. She has been there to steer me in the correct direction throughout these five months and always available to answer my every doubt, even at the oddest hours of the day. This dissertation would have probably been many times tougher had it not been for her. I would also like to thank my dissertation coordinators Dr. Leon A Morenas and Dr. Jaya Kumar, for being outstanding sources of information on both the research topic and on the technicalities and processes of research.

v

Table of Contents Abstract

i

Declaration iii Acknowledgements v Table of contents vi List of illustrations viii Chapter One Introduction 1

1.1

Need Identification

2

1.2 Aims and objectives 3

1.3

Scope

3

1.4

Limitations

4

1.5

Methodology

4

Chapter Two The need for barriers 5 2.1 Boundaries and territoriality 6 2.2 The nature of boundaries 7 2.3 Evolution of barriers 8

vi

Chapter Three The barrier as an architectural element 11

3.1

Physical characteristics of a barrier

12

3.2

Suitability to purpose

15

3.3 Functional characteristics of a barrier 15 Chapter Four

Secondary case studies

21

4.1

Grundgesetz 49, Jakob-Kaiser-Haus, Berlin, Germany

23

4.2

Danziger Studio, Los Angeles

25

4.3

Mulberry Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky

27

4.4

Stowe Landscape Gardens, Buckinghamshire, England

36

Chapter Five

Primary case studies

39

5.1

A-Road, Block-A, Maharani Bagh

41

5.2

Epicuria Mall, Nehru Place

43

5.3

Steinabad, Lodi Estate

47

5.4

Chittaranjan Park Police Station

51

Chapter Six

Analysis & Conclusions

53

6.1

54

Analysis of functional characteristics

6.2 Conclusions 56 Bibliography 57

vii

List of Illustrations LIST OF FIGURES Name Description Source Fig 2.1

The relative location of thresholds in two cultures

Rapoport, A 1969, House form and culture

Fig 3.1

Relation of height of barrier with the human scale

Ching, FDK 2007, Architecture: form, space & order

Fig 4.1

Location of Grundesetz 49

maps.google.com - illustrated by author

Fig 4.2

Location of Danziger Studio

maps.google.com

Fig 4.3

Mulberry Lane

maps.google.com

Fig 4.4

Plan of Stowe Landscape Gardens

Drawing by Charles Bridgeman, austenonly.com

Fig 4.5

Drawing of ha-ha fence

Drawing by Felix Kelly, austenonly.com

Fig 5.1

Section sketch showing level difference

Author

Fig 5.2

Two separate domains

maps.google.com, illustrated by author

LIST OF PICTURES Name Description Source Pic 2.1 (a)

viii

City of Ur

http://michaelbrewerphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000NqeQYf2caoA

Pic 2.1 (b)

Mohenjodaro

http://galleryhip.com/mohenjo-daro-reconstruction.html

Pic 2.1 (c)

Servian wall, Rome

http://www.livius.org/a/italy/rome/servianwall/servianwall.jpg

Pic 3.1 (a)

Mud and stone

Author

Pic 3.1 (b)

Wooden planks

Devesh Sharma, on request by author

Pic 3.1 (c)

Colourful wall

http://www.resene.co.nz/competition/home-and-garden/picts/nov_03_1.jpg

Pic 3.2 (a)

Hedges on a fence

http://besthomeinspirations.com/hedge-fence-decorate-front-yard/

Pic 3.2 (b)

Chain link fence

http://www.wirefencetrade.com/wire-mesh-fence/razor-wire-fence.html

Pic 3.2 (c)

Bollards

http://www.timelon.com/Automation/Automatic%20Bollard.html

Pic 4.1

Grundgesetz 49, Berlin

JĂśrg Schubert, Flickr

Pic 4.2

Danziger Studio, LA

Kathlene Persoff

Pic 4.3

Mulberry Lane

Devesh Sharma, on request by author

Pic 4.4

Iron fence, Mulberry Lane

Devesh Sharma, on request by author

Pic 4.5

Barriers at Mulberry Lane

Devesh Sharma, on request by author

Pic 4.6

Stowe Landscape Gardens, Buckingham

www.austenonly.com

Pic 4.7

The ha-ha fence at Stowe

www.austenonly.com

Pic 5.1

Block A, Maharani Bagh

Author

Pic 5.2

Wall at Maharani Bagh

Author

Pic 5.3

The public plaza

Author

Pic 5.4

Sunken court

Author

Pic 5.5

Stark contrast between adjacent spaces

Author

Pic 5.6

Original barrier design 1989

Archana Khanna, on request by author

Pic 5.7

Steinabad’s many barriers

Author

Pic 5.8

New and old

Author

Pic 5.9

Open gates

Author

Pic 5.10

CR Park Police station

Author

ix

Chapter One Introduction Introduction and need identification Aims and objectives Scope and Limitations Methodology

Boundary walls and other barriers seem to have become ubiquitous elements in the contemporary city-scape. The barrier, which would at one time circumscribe the entire city into one, has transformed into a number of barriers that physically demarcate the individual territories inside the city. What one thus sees today is a fragmented urban landscape with a multitude of barriers deterring people from interacting with the domains inside. This fragmentation is even more apparent when a solid wall is the barrier of choice, perhaps a notion of universalizability being associated with it. Instead of supporting a diversified urban life, the isolated cells of specialised activity are created by the often incoherent application of barriers.

However, physical barriers causing spatial discontinuity are not redundant in society. In fact, they are a necessity in many cases, especially in societies where people do not have faith in the authorities to maintain a safe environment. In such a scenario, where many groups of people and many entities are seen to be clawing for their share in the limited amount of space, barriers are being thought of as indispensable.

1.1 need identification Contemporary cities appear to have turned into aggregations of isolated spaces disconnected from each other because of the unrestrained use of barriers. An understanding of their impact on the urban environment is a crucial precursor to being able to apply them in the real world.

As the nature of the domains concerned varies, a variation is expected in the physical form of the barrier. It is this variation which, unfortunately, is seen to be missing in many urban-scapes today. There is, thus, a need for exploration of the multitude of possible forms of barriers. A thoughtfully designed urban environment can certainly add a lot of value to city life and make it more enjoyable.

2

What must be the determinants for the physical design of barriers sensitive to the urban environment?

1.2 aims and objectives 1. The foremost aim is to understand why barriers are such prominent elements of the urban scape in some societies vis-Ă -vis others.

2. The research aims to study the multitude of expressions that an urban barrier can posess.

3. Deciding factors associated with the function of a domain which lead to the evolution of the design of barriers will be studied.

4. The objective of this dissertation is to assist the reader in rethinking the concept of barriers and their appropriate application in different situations.

1.3 scope 1. This study analyses the barriers that have a visible physical presence and contribute to our experience of the urban scape.

2. It looks into the factors affecting design decisions that will determine the physical form of these barriers.

3. Examples of domains have been discussed according to the function of barrier which, in turn, is a response to the function of the space inside and outside.

3

1.4 limitations 1. The study would be focussed on the Delhi region for the purpose of primary case studies and field survey. Case studies done inside the city have been restricted to four in number to demonstrate important points.

2. Due to constraint in time and restriction on volume of work, the research looks briefly into the functioning and barrier requirements of various kinds of domains, but does not describe the same in detail for any one particular domain.

3. Only those barriers which have a visible role in demarcating territories have been studied, symbolic barriers have been excluded from research.

1.5 methodology

4

Chapter two the need for barriers Boundaries and territoriality The nature of boundaries Evolution of barriers

2.1 boundaries and territoriality A barrier is defined as “an obstacle that prevents movement or access” (Oxford Reference Dictionary 2001). The need for such prevention indicates towards a sense of territoriality which, according to Sack (1983), is a strategy the sole purpose of which is to permit differential access, the reasons for which could be many. Carmona et al. (2003) explain territoriality as the people’s means of definition – a defence of themselves, both physically and psychologically, by the creation of a bounded, often exclusive domain. The territory is established by delimiting space under one’s control by marking the outer boundary (Kelsen, cited in Somaini 2012). Control over a certain area may be exercised by individuals or by groups, over scales ranging from a room to the international sphere. Boundaries are thus a crucial element in the structuring of space at every geographical level. The concept of the territorial boundary is a very simple one and makes the communication of territoriality easy by being the only required marker. (Sack 1983) For the purpose of this study, the territory shall be a domain in the city consisting of one or many buildings under the same ownership or organisation.

Boundaries first became prominent once man settled at one place and the land gained value, which was not the case during nomadic times when only wildlife and edible plants were valued and the land lost value once these items were no longer available there. (Cruz and Hubert 2009) Till today, boundaries serve the essential purpose of marking land ownership. Krieger (1991) is of the opinion that without boundaries, nobody would feel responsible towards the unbounded space, whereas strong boundaries would result in a well-defined environment. Breitung (2011) calls boundaries the necessary discontinuities between two distinct activity spaces which act as barriers or filters, depending upon the desired permeability, of the flows and networks in the city.

6

2.2 the nature of boundaries Malone (2002) puts forward the idea that all boundaries are “socially constructed”. It is a reflection of social relations. Social inclusivity and tolerance influence the character of these boundaries.

A concern with power and exclusion results in very strongly bounded spaces, whereas spaces that have weakly defined or open boundaries are characterized by social mixing and diversity.

Breitung (2011) also supports Malone’s idea of boundaries being socially constructed and labels them a “social issue – both as socio-economic and socio-cultural division lines”. Boundaries that have come up due to differences in economic status, ethnicity, religion etc. are the resultant of social segregation in the urban geography and would thus have a social-spatial aspect relating to the context. (Breitung 2011) Social issues such as economic difference and disparity of lifestyle impact the strength of boundary definition. Rapoport (1969) considers crowding an important aspect of territoriality which also affects the nature of the boundary. This crowding is related to the stresses generated by penetration of an individual’s bubble. At an urban scale, this would translate into every domain attempting to maintain its own bubble of space and protect it from being encroached upon.

While each territory in the city has a defined boundary, the strictness of this boundary is judged by where the threshold separating the domains is located in different situations. This location of the threshold varies across cultures and social-conditions. Rapoport (1969) draws a comparison between buildings, particularly residences, in three cultures – India, England and the United States. As shown in Fig 2.1, the compound wall in Indian buildings put the threshold right at the

Fig 2.1 : The relative location of thresholds in three cultures

7

main street with all the space inside being considered private, whereas the fence in England allows for some merging of the private and public domain to create one that is semi-private.

The open lawn or plaza around the American building is entirely a semi-public domain, with the threshold being pushed in entirely till the doorstep of the building. In all these cases, not only does the device for defining the threshold vary, even the point in space where the threshold occurs is different.

2.3 evolution of barriers The use of barriers is not a new or “modern� phenomenon. From the beginning of civilisation, humans have established boundaries and used walls and moats as barriers to defend themselves against humans, animals as well as the environment. All communities, to defend themselves, set up fortifications for the purpose of safety (Coaffee 2003).

As described by Hilberseimer (1955), the first form of fortification was around groups of houses forming the circular village during the Neolithic period comprised of tight thorn hedges, palisades and ditches. The city of Ur, a successful trade city, was fortified by the Sumerians for their safety whereas the city-state of Babylon, an important commercial centre, had a broad deep moat as well as two walls as barriers to stop intruders. The Long Walls connecting Athens and Piraeus combined these two separate but interdependent cities into one defence unit. The city of Rome was also enclosed by the Servian Wall. Even during the Middle Ages, bastidas were founded as places of safe retreat in France, which had a rivalry with England. The modern cities of London and Paris had been small settlements enclosed by walls. Successive city Pic 2.1 : Historical defensive walls (from top) (a) City of Ur (b) Mohenjodaro (c) Servian wall, Rome

8

walls were erected to encapsulate new territorial expansions (Hilberseimer 1955). Historical architectural records talk of the presence of high citadel mounds in ancient Indian civilisations

as well. The urban centres of Harappa and Mohenjodaro were walled and had fortified towers and bastions to enclose all the city buildings. (Fletcher 1996) However, in modern times, this idea of the defensive barrier has changed completely. Cities have defence expressions entirely different from the historic examples. Coaffee (2003) states the reasons behind this phenomenon as rising crime and even higher perceived fear of the same, social conflict related to material inequality, intense racial and ethnic tensions and even terrorist attacks.

A very high density of population is also one of the factors leading to a heightened sense of territoriality. But this seems to primarily be an issue in the developing nations, vis-Ă -vis the developed ones. In the west, migrations into the urban areas are due to a change in the structure of the labour force, where the workers advance vertically from agricultural to the urbanisedindustrial sector. However, in developing countries, congestion in the city is because of workers not getting absorbed into any urban industries, but rather getting employed in marginal occupations, resulting in an almost parasitic urban centre. The ratio of population-to-land availability is stressed and instances of pavement dwelling, land encroachments and urban squalor become very high (Mukherji 2002). In such cases, law and order are not enough for the clear definition of boundaries as many take to the streets for survival purposes (Davis 1992). Walls and barriers are thus considered a necessity by many.

The continuing trend of architectural policing of social boundaries within a city has led to the urban fortifications of all kinds of built spaces – educational, residential, commercial, institutional and even public open spaces, into individual cells (Davis 1990). Though this may be justified by many as an essential measure to prevent against the rising levels of crime, it also points at

9

the involute nature of cities today (Mukherji 2002) – where feeling of territoriality and desire for privacy are very strong, and social interaction and community feeling, the important intangible elements of city-building have taken a back seat (Hilberseimer 1955). Distinct territorial enclaves have formed within the urban landscape. (Coaffee 2003) A socially deteriorative cycle is set into motion where social issues lead to the formation of these enclaves within the city, which successively lead to more disturbances in society. According to Silberman, Till & Ward (2012), walls and borders which are built to separate communities rarely solve the underlying problems, but actually result in increased criminal activity, social alienation and violence. They consider walls and fences as redundant elements that are difficult to build and maintain, and invite vandalism and intrusion instead of guaranteeing privacy or protection. (Silberman, Till & Ward, 2012) The imposing nature of the tall, solid walls also deters interaction between the inside and the outside, further aggravating the sense of social exclusion that already exists in many societies.

10

Chapter three The barrier as an architectural element Physical characteristics of a barrier Suitability to purpose Functional characteristics of barrier

The manner in which the boundary takes a tangible form – either as a physical structure such as a barrier or in the form of discontinuities of surface material, level, etc., is also indicative of the ‘public-ness’ of the space that is being bound and constitutes the physical aspect. (Breitung 2011) Barriers can thus be classified as real and symbolic. Real barriers are those which physically stop the movement of the intruder (like walls, gates, trees/hedges/greenery, speed bumps), whereas symbolic barriers are those which discourage entry by making an obvious distinction between the two domains (Arora 1998). Symbolic barriers could further be in different forms such as signs (‘private property’, ‘no trespassing’, ‘residents only’), design features (obscured entrances, change in colour/texture of road, doors with no handles), technological barriers (access via swipe card, intercom) and implicit signals (closed unmarked doors).

(Dupuis & Dixon 2010) Different kinds of barriers result from territorialisation of varying degrees (Sack 1983) and the strongest barriers are those which are not just visually prominent but also have a continuous form and do not allow cross-movement (Lynch 1960).

Physical barriers are of interest in an architectural investigation at the urban scale. Since they are in the vertical plane, they have a much greater presence in our visual field and thus are able to define a distinct volume. Along with acting as separators of space, they also function as the shared boundary between the inside and the outside (Ching 2007). These are also intrinsically associated with building aesthetics and the experience of the urban-scape.

3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A BARRIER The characteristics of a barrier as an element in space that can be varied to alter its design

12

expression include height, materiality, texture, colour, treatment and perforations. Choice of the physical characteristics will depend on the purpose of the barrier (Hilderbrandt, Mullaly & Bogaski 1998).

3.1.1 Height The height of the barrier with respect to the human body is described by Ching (2007) as a decisive factor in determining its ability to delineate space. Variation in height is an important tool for altering the nature of a barrier.

Fig 3.1 shows the relation between the height of the barrier and that of a human being. When the requirement is to only define space with no sense of enclosure, a two-foot high barrier (below the average human level of the human waist) would suffice. However, once the height reaches the waist-level, it begins to define an enclosure. The waist-high barrier cannot be easily crossed over or sat upon, thus indicating unacceptability of physical entry into or interaction with the domain, while maintaining visual continuity between the inside and the outside. Once the top of the barrier approaches our eye level, this visual continuity is also disturbed. Above the eye level, there is a complete spatial disconnect and a possible visual disconnect, depending upon the material used for the barrier.

3.1.2 Material The material used for the barrier is what determines the visual transparency of the barrier.

Physical barriers could be vegetative, masonry structures or see-through barriers in various materials. Solid walls in brick, stone or concrete prohibit cross movement and can create

Fig 3.1 : Relation of height of barrier with the human scale

13

privacy within the domain depending on their height. Fences and lattice screens can be made in wood, metal, or even brick (as brick jalis). They offer visibility, prevent entry and allow surveillance irrespective of barrier height. The chain link fence is an economic option for a strong seethrough barrier, whereas glass may be used in certain situations to disrupt any kind of physical discontinuity but maintain full visual continuity. (Arora 1998) Hedges, which are rows of closely planted shrubs or bushes (Oxford Reference Dictionary 2001), are vegetative barriers that have been used to mark boundaries of an area. Depending on their size and density, they can create semi-private areas.

The material being used also determines the surface appearance, including colour and texture, of the barrier. Every barrier in the vertical plane, the wall in particular, has a frontal quality. The colour and texture greatly affects how the barrier is perceived in terms of its visual weight, scale and proportion. (Ching 2007) Tactile texture can be created in architectural surfaces with the use of actual surface variation which can be felt by hand. They make the surface “visually active�. Usually, a given material lay has an inherent finish. At other times, plasters may be employed to generate the desired patterns. (Sullivan 2011)

3.1.3 Openings and perforations Openings are required to provide selective physical or visual continuity across barriers.

They give access into or out of the domain and influence subsequent movement through the Pic 3.1 : Textures & colours (from top) (a) mud and stone (b) wooden planks (c) colourful wall

14

domain. While providing continuity to adjacent spaces, they also weaken the sense of enclosure

of the space. (Ching 2007) This weakened sense of enclosure will result in a more welcoming appearance from outside.

3.2 SUItability to purpose Cassirer (cited in Rashid 1998) wrote in The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms that the boundary exists only in the context of the space that it binds. It is brought about by the act of division.

Thus, the barrier marking this division cannot be thought of detached from the context and can not be designed independent of it. According to Mahbub Rashid, in his paper ‘Reconstituting Traditional Urban Values: The Role of the Boundary in the Contemporary City’ (1998), Cassirer’s concept may be implemented to the built environment to settle the issue of boundaries and barriers. The boundary condition must be something that is deeply associated to what it defines and its nature must be determined by the domain it binds.

Depending on the nature of space on its either side, a barrier need not always be divisive in nature and could work as uniting elements as well by attracting people towards them. (Lynch 1960) The process of the determination of the characteristics of the boundary thus needs an understanding of the function of the domain as well as of the society in which the domain is located since this concept of boundaries, and thus barriers, is one that is socially generated.

3.3 functional characteristics of barrier Permutations of the height, material, surface treatment and perforations can produce barriers

15

of various physical appearances. The various purposes of barriers in general are boundary definition, privacy, safety and security, circulation control and environmental modification. The function of a domain would result in the need for a barrier serving one or a combination of these purposes. (Hilderbrandt, Mullaly & Bogaski 1998)

3.3.1 Boundary definition The most elementary function of barriers is to prevent or discourage trespass. This depends on the ownership of the space and the acceptance of general public inside the space (“publicness”). The degree of boundary definition creates the character of the bound space – whether it is one concerned with power and exclusion or a space of social mixing and diversity (Malone 2002).

In spaces meant as public amenities – like, shopping complexes, offices, a boundary definitely exists, but is very weakly defined with no sense of territoriality. Though insides of the malls may have become “privatized public places” designed to keep out the have-nots (Khurana 2013), the open space around these buildings is considered extremely public in nature. According to Gruen (1959), the space around shopping centres should be a space for integration of human activities and facilitate social life and recreation in protected pedestrian environment.

Public spaces like parks and museums are owned and maintained by an organisation but visited by general public on regular basis. Open space for recreation and leisure is a need of every urban community (Conway 2000). Several cases of parks in Delhi brought forth by Khurana (2013) demonstrate that parks, regardless of whether being part of the city centre or of gated community, must appear completely approachable to the users for whom they are

16

intended. Unnecessary erection of boundary walls in the name of security can lead to decreased attendance because of the restrictive quality of the boundary and entry points. On the other hand, as Conway (2000) points out, though there is aesthetic gain and increase in the welcoming quality of parks and playgrounds by the removal of barriers, there are negative consequences that need to be accounted for. People and stray animals alike may develop paths which could harm the plants and cases of wilful damage may also occur. Baxi (1980) describes the function of museum as that of show casing a collection to the public, in a space that is welcoming to all enthusiasts. The precinct of the museum must connect to all levels of users. However, security is an issue because of the precious nature of the collection that needs continuous surveillance and barriers to protect against potential criminal attacks.

Educational buildings like colleges and school are owned by an institution and visited by a certain group of people on a daily basis. The most strongly defined territory is in the case of private residences where access is granted only by the owner’s permission.

However, it is not uncommon to see solid walls been encroached upon by using the vertical surface to support street activities. This situation is one to be resolved through its incorporation into design. These streets activities often become the eyes of the street which has otherwise been abandoned by the erection of solid walls, increasing the safety of the street.

3.3.2 Privacy The issue of privacy is given high priority in cities today which are a “human zoo of strangers pressed together�. This overcrowding imposes a lot of stress on the citizens and privacy has become a much sought after quality to maintain the sanctity of our personal domains. (Arora

17

1998) The increasing demand for “spatial and social insulation” has been described in Fortress Los Angeles by Mike Davis (1992).

On the basis of the degree of privacy desired in the open space surrounding the built, spaces are generally classified as public – shopping complexes, offices & institutions, and private – mostly residential spaces such as housing colonies, plotted housing and farmhouses, with varying levels of privacy in the space surrounding the built dwelling unit. Coaffee (2003) talks about the actual nature of public spaces today. Privately produced, owned and administered spaces, such as shopping malls and corporate plazas, have replaced “traditional” public spaces where access depends upon someone’s apparent financial status.

An interesting viewpoint about the commonly held idea of public space, which suggests that most public space could actually be thought of to be semi-public in reality, is presented by Margaret Crawford in her paper ‘Contesting the Public Realm: Struggles over Public Space in Los Angeles’. Crawford (1995) suggests that even the most “public” spaces can be completely inclusive ‘spaces of democracy’. The public is not a singular entity, especially in large urban centres which are themselves characterised by specialised differentiation of work and thus social hierarchy (Kostof 1991). There are actually “multiple publics” consisting of different groups of people united by common lifestyles or interests. The spaces of the past idealised by architects and urban planners, like the agora, were also constituted by exclusion (in this case, of the women and workers who were not considered “citizens” at all).

3.3.3 Safety and security Security is the most cited reason behind the putting up of barriers. Across all regions of the world,

18

a sense of fear has permeated and come to be associated with the idea of urban living and society. This fear has very little to do with the ground reality and more to do with psychological belief of being vulnerable to danger and feeling of insecurity. Thus, regardless of the social situation, level of development in the country and crime statistics, a ubiquitous necessity is felt for barriers for safety (Dupuis & Dixon 2010).

Visual connection is necessary to increase passive surveillance of an area. Boundary walls are commonly built for the purpose of security, or rather the perception of it, but their opaque nature defeats the purpose by creating a visual discontinuity. (Silberman, Till & Ward, 2012) Talbot & Jakeman (2011) give the example of fences covered with hedges, barbed wire fencing, ballistic glass and security bollards as effective security barriers and emphasise that the nature and appearance of the barrier must be according the needs of the domain. They explain the idea of security as the control and management of access rather than completely restricting it. Unobstructed visibility of the perimeter and surroundings are important to detect potential intrusion or attack on the territory.

3.3.3 Environmental modification Excess noise is a common stress in the urban environment that spaces need to be insulated against. Barriers such as walls, fences and plantation belts create a screening effect that can help control the level of noise and dust reaching the building.

Different noise insulating materials are recommended by Koenigsberger et al. (2010) for different domains. The classification may be done on the basis of the sensitivity of space to be protected and the magnitude of the noise which is to be excluded, considering that the space

Pic 3.2 : Security barriers (from top) (a) hedges on a fence (b) Chain link fence (c) Bollards

19

on the inside is that which is to be protected. Heavier density materials provide better insulation as compared to those with lower density. To protect from very high levels of noise, a solid wall would normally be required, the possible options for construction material ranging from 120mm brick (density 250 kg/sq.m. of given thickness) to 300mm rendered concrete (density 730 kg/ sq.m. of given thickness). (Koenigsberger et al. 2010) The barrier should be placed as close to the source as possible, which means along the outermost possible periphery around the domain. The second best option is close to the building and the worst location is mid-way between the two. (Koenigsberger et al. 2010)

3.3.4 Circulation control Direction of movement can also be controlled by the use of barriers, especially in the case of pedestrian movement. Boundaries often turn into paths (Lynch 1960) for people, animals and vehicles.

Barriers are used as part of the transportation system to control the circulation of both motorised and non-motorised modes. They are often implemented to separate high speed vehicles from vulnerable road users – cyclists and pedestrians. Barriers are seen around unsafe road-crossing zones for the safety of those who are less capable of judging suitable crossing gaps. (Litman 2009) Low walls can channel pedestrian movement, but they must be designed so as to prevent unsafe shortcuts. Gates and portals at the intended entry should be designed in an inviting manner and the walls should guide circulation to lead up to these openings.

(Hilderbrandt, Mullaly & Bogaski 1998)

20

Chapter four secondary case studies Dani Karavan’s Grundesetz 49, Jakob-Kaiser-Haus, Berlin, Germany Frank Gehry’s Danziger Studio, Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles Mulberry Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky, USA Stowe Landscape Gardens, Buckinghamshire, England

Secondary case studies have been chosen from all across the globe, to show examples of the multitude of barrier conditions that are possible in case of different domains. The following case studies have been chosen: 1.

Grundgesetz 49, Berlin, Germany

2.

Danziger Studio, LA, USA (Architect: Frank Gehry)

3.

Mulberry Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky, USA

4.

Stowe Landscape Gardens, Buckinghamshire, England

Every case study has been done with respect to the physical and functional characteristics of the barrier being studied. Observation of each of these characteristics allows for further analysis and conclusions.

Physical Characteristics

Functional Characteristics

Height

Boundary definition

Material

Privacy

Surface treatment

Security

Openings

Environmental modification

Circulation control

22

4.1 Dani Karavan’s Grundgesetz 49, Jakob-Kaiser-Haus, Berlin, Germany Type of domain

Sculptural garden outside Jacob-Kaiser-Haus, a parliamentary office building

Location and context

Reichstag Building adjacent to Jacob-Kaiser-Haus is the meeting place of the German Parliament. This wall was erected as an installation, with a message opposite to that of the Berlin Wall

Position of threshold

Along the edge of the sculptural garden

Type of barrier

Glass wall made of nineteen panels engraved with the constitutional rights

Pic 4.1 : Grundgesetz 49, Berlin

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC Height Material Surface Treatment Permeability

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

3m high

Taller than average human

Strictly defined enclosure

Glass

Transparent material

Works as a seam to both connect and separate

Laser engraving

The constitutional rights of the citizens are engraved inside the glass

Wall becomes a tool for representation for invoking urban memory

None

The sculptural garden is only to view but not enter

Visual connection formed with inaccessible garden

23

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Clearly separates sculptural garden from the public street

Very strongly defined boundary

Privacy

No

Complete visual connectivity

Domain is visually accessible to public

Security

No

Security cameras police the perimeter of the government building

Protected boundary, but no role of the barrier in this

Environmental Modification

No

Continuity between the design of the sidewalk and the garden landscape

Sensory continuity with garden which is physically inaccessible

Circulation control

Yes

People can only walk along the wall and not penetrate the boundary

Strict control which denies entry to anyone

PURPOSE

summary It sets the threshold by restricting physical entry into the sculptural garden, thus essentially serving as a wall.

However, the visual access granted to the visitor because of the use of glass as the material allows to portray the wall as a window intro democracy, while still functioning as a protective border securing a government building.

This is achieved by monitoring it through security cameras (Jarosinski 2012).

Fig 4.1: Location of Grundgesetz 49 - shown by the red line

24

4.2 Frank Gehry’s Danziger Studio: 7001, Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles Type of domain

Luxury private residence

Location and context

Melrose Avenue is, according to Davis (1992) an “inferior neighbourhood” in which the challenge was to insert this high value property

Position of threshold

At the outermost boundary of site

Type of barrier

High walls on all sides to form a private courtyard

Pic 4.2 : Danziger Studio, Los Angeles`

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC Height Material Surface Treatment Permeability

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Varies 3m-6m

Barrier creates extreme visual and spatial discontinuity because of being much taller than human height

Creation of extremely private space inside

Unknown – masonry/RCC

A form material to form a surface for the stucco to be blown onto

Visually opaque

Rough blown-on stucco in grey colour

Zero maintenance as wall is same texture as encrustation of smog particulates and colour matches the resultant staining

Choice of surface treatment in response to urban pollution

One door, no windows

Flat walls presented to the street, windows on interior facade

Rejection of any connection to the street

25

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Solid walls mark boundary of the territory

Strongly defined boundary

Privacy

Yes

No windows on the façade

Introverted domain

Security

Yes

Walls are too high to be jumped over, restricted access into the building

Response to the social disparity with neighbourhood

Environmental Modification

Yes

Dust and grime from outside pollution as well as sound is blocked

Isolation of interior from exterior

Circulation control

Yes

Only one access point

Strict control

PURPOSE

summary Frank Gehry’s choice of surface treatment can be understood as a reflection of his client’s need to create an introverted space as the luxury residence is located in an area with a very different character. There is also a response to the urban pollution which affects all buildings in the area. Maintenance efforts have been reduced by providing a surface finish which would appear to be unaffected by the dirt and grime.

Fig 4.2: Location of Danziger Studio - surrounded by commercial activity

26

4.3 Mulberry Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky, USA

Pic 4.3 : Mulberry Lane, Pikeville

(a)

Type of domain

Residential neighbourhood in suburban America

Location and context

Cluster of 13 houses with a mix of residents with different family compositions and social background.

Position of threshold

Varies, but always some distance into the plot & never along property line

Type of barrier

Five different types of barriers can be observed in this environment: (a) Iron fencing, (b) wooden fence, (c) slope of terrain, (d) retaining wall, (e) change in floor-scape

iron fencing

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC Height Material Surface Treatment Permeability

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

1.5m

Almost as high as a human being, so prevents easy/accidental entry

Strictly defined enclosure

Iron members

Linear members allow for a visually porous barrier design

Material allows to retain visual connect

White paint

The colour makes the barrier visually light weight

Aesthetic appearance as fence matches internal fittings around the pool

Spacing between iron members

The spacing allows unrestricted view of the pool from outside

Lack of desire for privacy

27

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

No

Fence is not on the edge of the property line, only around pool

Absence of territorial feeling in society

Privacy

No

Does not block vision

Visually accessible to all

Security

Yes

No access points in this barrier & complete surveillance along barrier

Secured against accidental entry by children or dogs

Environmental Modification

No

Spaced out fencing

Environmental continuity between inside & outside

Circulation control

Yes

No entry points along barrier

Movement across barrier not possible

PURPOSE

(left) Fig 4.3: Mulberry lane - cluster of independent houses (top) Pic 4.4: Iron fence, Mulberry Lane

28

(b)

wooden fencing

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

2m

Taller than average human height

Strong sense of enclosure,

Wooden panels

Opaque, yet aesthetically pleasing material

Complete visual & spatial disconnect

Light brown paint

Light colour is visually inactive, thus does not overpower surroundings

Aesthetic concern

None

Entry to enclosure is only from inside the house

Enclosed area is an open extension to the house

Height Material Surface Treatment Permeability

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

No

Fence is not along property line

Absence of territorial feeling in society

Privacy

Yes

Opaque material used creates visual disconnect

Open space becomes an extension of the private space inside the house

Security

Yes

No access points along the barrier

Enclosed space is secured against entry by outsiders

Environmental Modification

No

No environmental factors to be protected against

Inside and outside environment are the same.

Circulation control

Yes

No entry points along barrier

Movement across barrier not possible

PURPOSE

29

Pic. 4.5 : Barriers at Mulberry Lane (top left) Pic 4.5 (a) : Wooden fence, Mulberry Lane (bottom left) Pic 4.5 (b) : Level difference as barrier, Mulberry Lane (top right) Pic 4.5 (c) : Retaining wall, Mulberry Lane (above) Pic 4.5 (d) : Change in floor-scape, Mulberry Lane

30

(c)

slope of terrain

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Height

1.5m

Almost as high as human height

Identifiable difference in ground level marks territory

Material

Earth

Landscape element as barrier

Demarcation of land without any architectural barrier

Surface Treatment

Grass

Continuation of physical character of ground on both sides

Barrier does not have a striking presence

Continuous

Slope connects both levels to one another

Barrier acts as a connector

Permeability

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Marks one of the four edges of the property and separates it from the next

Land contour used for demarcation of land

Privacy

No

Visually & physically accessible to all

Open space is not private

Security

No

Entry is permitted to all

Security at the level of the house, not in open space

Environmental Modification

No

No physical barrier in the vertical plane to create disconnect

Sensory continuity with the environment

Circulation control

No

Movement possible across the entire edge of the barrier

Porous barrier

PURPOSE

31

(d)

retaining wall

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Height

Varies

Contour of the land

Demarcation of land without an architectural barrier

Material

Stone

cut into a step

Functional material used

Exposed stone

Good construction material complements the natural landscape of the context

Choice of material to suit the context

None

A deep level drop not meant to be walked across

Visual but not physical permeability

Surface Treatment Permeability

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Marks two of the four edges of the property & separates it from the next

Land contour used for demarcation of land

Privacy

No

Visually accessible to all

Open space is not private

Security

No

Movement across barrier not generally expected but possible

Security at the level of the house, not in open space

Environmental Modification

No

No physical barrier in the vertical plane to create disconnect

Sensory continuity with the environment

Circulation control

Yes

A deep level drop not meant to be walked across

Movement controlled without architectural barrier

PURPOSE

32

(E)

Change in floor-scape

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Zero

No physical barrier

Symbolic barrier marks boundary

Grass & Pavement

Utilitarian landscape elements

Planned placement of driveway eliminates need for physical barrier

None

None

None

Complete

Free movement across barrier

Symbolic barrier used to demarcate

Height

Material Surface Treatment Permeability

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Driveways of adjacent plots designed so as to mark boundaries

Only symbolic barrier used to mark boundaries

Privacy

No

Visually & physically accessible to all

Open space is not private

Security

No

Entry is permitted to all

Security at the level of the house, not in open space

Environmental Modification

No

No physical barrier in the vertical plane to create disconnect

Sensory continuity with the environment

Circulation control

No

Movement possible across the entire edge of the barrier

Porous barrier

PURPOSE

33

summary The multitude of boundary conditions that can be observed in this one domain indicates to a certain amount of thought put into their design. Fencing is not considered a routine practice and taken up as an option only depending upon the particular requirements of the household. It is understandable that these exact same barriers are not viable in cities where pressures on land are much higher and barriers are needed not just for boundary definition but for privacy and security as well. However, it is the level of sensitivity shown towards deciding on the kind of barrier and boundary condition that is appreciable.

PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BARRIER

BOUDARY DEFINITION

PRIVACY

SECURITY

ENV. MOD.

CIRCULATION CONTROL

Height and openings

×

×

√

×

√

Height, material & openings

×

√

√

×

√

A

Safety (prevent accidental entry of children and dogs)

B

Enclose the dog

C

Define property line

Height

√

×

×

×

×

D

Define property line

Height

√

×

×

×

√

E

Define property line

Material

√

×

×

×

×

A - Iron fencing

34

KEY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

|

B - Wooden fence |

C - Slope of terrain

|

D - Retaining wall

|

E - Change in floor scape

interview Dr Devesh Sharma, a resident of Mulberry Lane, Pikeville On demarcation of land: The first question that arises in my mind is regarding the demarcation of land around the houses for the purpose of establishing ownership and thus responsibility for maintenance of that open space. How does one know the extent of their plot?

The lines of demarcation between the plots are guided by some landmarks. If there is any confusion, city can be contacted and they demarcate your property limits.

On the choice of barrier: There seems to be a lot of variation in the kind of boundary conditions.

Some people have fences, some have opaque partitions while many plots seem to be separated by the placement of the driveway only.

What is the guiding factor for deciding on these possibilities?

In a community like this people don’t place fence for the safety of the house. In more congested cities, people have the fences for the safety. The fence around the pool is for the child safety so that some kid or pet animal should not come and fall in the pool. Because that particular owner does not have a small kid, so the fence is covering the outside boundary of the property only. If small kids are present

in the house, a fence is recommended all around the pool. People are very careful with the pools because of child safety. Larger fences all around the backyard is mostly placed by the owners with dogs, especially big dogs. If something wrong happens, litigation is another issue.

On facilities in the unbound land: In your photographs, I can observe that children’s play sets have been placed on unbound land. Do these play areas belong to a particular household or are public community facilities?

Small area with the swings is owned by the particular household where the swings are. There are some community parks also but that particular picture is showing a privately owned swing set, which is not uncommon.

On the barrier free boundary of their own house: Is the contour of land one of the reasons behind your own house not needing any such larger enclosure?

No, contour of the land has nothing to do with the fence. Routine fencing is not common, although we considered placing a fence for the kids’ safety as there is a sharp slope at the end of the property line.

There were thoughts about placing a pool also in the backyard. None of the plans have materialized so far.

35

4.4 Stowe Landscape Gardens, Buckinghamshire, England

Pic 4.6 : Stowe Landscape Gardens, Buckinghamshire

Type of domain

Garden across 400 hectares in a residential estate in the 18th century

Location and context

Part of a larger estate which comprises of residences as well as open fields

Position of threshold

Encompassing the garden

Type of barrier

Sunken fence

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC Height Material Surface Treatment Permeability

36

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

1.5m deep

Deep enough to stop cattle

Depth acts as barrier to movement

Removed earth

Earth has been dug into to make the sunken fence

Barrier free visual plane is achieved

Stone facing

Retaining wall of stone used to hold back the earth from falling into the sunk area

Choice of material based on functional application

None

Continuous sunken fence around the domain.

Point of access not defined by configuration of barrier

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Entire perimeter has been sunken

Strictly defined territory

Privacy

No

Full visual access into the site from outside

Privacy was not a necessity in such a domain

Security

Yes

Area was secured against entry of livestock and cattle which would harm the gardens

Barrier fulfilled need for a different kind of security required.

Environmental Modification

No

Inside and outside were similar in nature and visually continuous

Visual integration of open landscape with the fields

Circulation control

Yes

Entry was possible only through the defined access points

Controlled entry points enabled surveillance

PURPOSE

summary The sunken fence prevents movement but allows visual continuity between the inside and the outside which are of similar nature and need not be separated. It acts as a barrier whose physical form is in the negative vertical plane, thus allowing the domain to visually merge with the outside. Such a barrier may have limited application in the contemporary city for purposes of security but can be implemented for other functions such as boundary definition and circulation control by altering the form of the barrier to adapt to our current needs.

Fig 4.4: Plan of Stowe Landscape Gardens - pentagon at top left shows 400 hectares of the garden proper which is surrounded by the sunken fence

37

(top left) Fig 4.5: Drawing of Ha-ha fence Pic 4.7 - The ha-ha fence at Stowe (left centre) Pic 4.7 (a): Ha-ha from the outside - retaining wall of sunken fence as seen from close to outside of the barrier (bottom left) Pic 4.7 (b): Stone texture of the ha-ha (above) Pic 4.7 (c): View along the fence - showing original form which dips suddenly into the sunken pit as well as the fence added at point where sunken part rises to meet the ground level.

38

Chapter five primary case studies A-Road, Block A, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi Epicuria Mall, Nehru Place, New Delhi Steinabad, Lodi Estate, New Delhi Police station Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi

All the primary case studies have been identified from within the city of Delhi. Delhi is a strong example of a place where the problem of over-utilisation of boundary walls can be witnessed in every nook and corner. There are two factors which have led to this situation. The first is the high pressure on land in terms of number of people living per unit area in the city, which gives rise to a strong need to define a domain’s boundaries. The other is the large number of independent plots which the city has been divided into.

The following cases have been selected for study, with an attempt to put forward a mix of domains with different functions and surrounding contexts.

1.

A-road, Block-A, Maharani Bagh

2.

Epicuria Mall, Nehru Place

3.

Steinabad, Lodi Estate

4.

Chittaranjan Park Police Station

Every case study has been done with respect to the physical and functional characteristics of the barrier being studied. Observation of each of these characteristics allows for further analysis and conclusions.

Physical Characteristics

Functional Characteristics

Height

Boundary definition

Material

Privacy

Surface treatment

Security

Openings

Environmental modification

Circulation control

40

5.1 a-road, block-a, maharani bagh

Pic 5.1 : Block A, Maharani Bagh

Type of domain

Residential colony comprising of 11 houses along A Block road.

Location and context

Posh locality in south Delhi, the internal road of which is running parallel to the Ring Road.

Position of threshold

Circumscribing the residential colony

Type of barrier

High masonry wall topped with an iron fence

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC Height Material

Surface Treatment Permeability

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

1.8m from outside, 3m from inside

Almost double the human height from inside

Lack of consideration of level difference

Brick masonry topped with iron fence

Visually opaque surface causes sensory disconnect from the road

Choice of material has created very hard edges in the residential space

Plaster with paint

Plaster is discoloured and peeling off at many places

Lack of any aesthetic design, in contrast to walls of individual homes

Metal gate

Controls entry of all sort into the complex

Connect with outside is kept at a bare minimum

41

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Defines the area which belongs to the residential enclave

Very strongly defined boundary

Privacy

No

Every individual house has its own boundary wall, this wall encloses a street to which no private function is associated

No need for the visual privacy granted by the opaque wall

Security

Yes & No

Unauthorised access had been made difficult because of the height and glass pieces on top. However, the place lacks surveillance and becomes dangerous for pedestrians on either side.

Barrier definitely provides a sense of security to residents but creates other safety issues as well.

Environmental Modification

Yes

Noise and dust pollution from the Ring Road gets blocked by this wall

Key function of the barrier in this location

Circulation control

Yes

Entry to the complex is only possible through the designated gates

Denotes high sense of territoriality

PURPOSE

Pic 5.2: (below left to right) (a) inside height (b) outside Fig 5.1: (left) section sketch showing the level difference

summary Each of the individual houses facing the road have their own boundary wall. Thus, from the point of view of privacy the boundary wall is completely redundant. The height of the wall feels unnecessarily high. Its poor maintenance counters the aesthetic appearance of the individual boundary walls of the houses and brings down the overall appearance of this high-value property zone. The wall’s most important function here seems to be that of environmental modification – to protect the internal space from the dust and noise of the Ring Road.

42

5.2 epicuria mall, nehru place

b

b

Type of domain

Commercial space and food court attached to a Metro Station

Location and context

Nehru place is a district business centre with a very high number of users commuting to this place daily via the metro.

Position of threshold

At the security check of metro and at the entry to the food court

Type of barrier

Two distinct spatial components, as shown in Fig 5.2, in the open space leading up to the Metro Station, each having different kinds of barriers: A) Retaining wall topped with hedges in front of open plaza B) Metal railing and dense planters around sunken court

A

Fig 5.2: Two separate domains

(a)

retaining wall topped with hedges

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Height

1m high retaining wall + 1m tall hedges

Higher than human height

Space inside is blocked from view from road

Material

RCC retaining wall and plants

Retaining wall is functional, while plants give partial view of inside

Use of plants creates soft edges, making entry into the space acceptable.

Surface Treatment

Stone facing on the retaining wall

Aesthetic appearance by use of stone which complements hedges above

Choice of material reflects image of the open space

Two 3m wide openings

Wide openings neutralise effect of the barrier

Response to public nature of the domain

Permeability

43

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Strong definition along barrier but vanishes at points of entry

Space for social mixing and diversity

Privacy

No

Possible to view space inside through the barrier

Barrier does not disturb public nature of the space

Security

No

Two wide openings in the barrier give free access to everyone

Natural surveillance suffices for such a space

Environmental Modification

Yes

Planters cut off some of the noise from and view of the road

Lawn acts as a semi private niche in a public space

Circulation control

Yes

People need to use designated openings as circulation and cannot jump over the high barrier

Designated entry and exit points, despite unmonitored access to inside

PURPOSE

Pic 5.3: The public plaza - (clockwise from left) (a) Wide entries sweep visitor into the plaza, (b) barrier height diminishes as the ground slopes up, and (c) Active plaza with a lot of movement

44

Pic 5.4: Sunken court - (left to right) (a) View of the exclusive lawn blocked from public circulation space using planters, (b) Possible to view inside the lawn if one intentionally moves close to barrier

(b)

metal railing and dense planters

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

1.5m high planter

Almost equal to human height, blocks view

Higher level of privacy than the previous one

Material

Planters

Does not give the impression of an opaque barrier but actually is

Achieving privacy without putting up a solid wall

Surface Treatment

Leaves

Plants create soft edges for plazas on either side

Aesthetics and nature of space have been considered

A small gate

Small half open gate is a psychological deterrent

Creation of exclusive space by using symbolic barriers

Height

Permeability

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

No

It segregates domain into two parts, does not encompass it

Division of a domain on basis of function and use

Privacy

Yes

Hedges prevent people in open plaza from viewing this part

Quiet ambience created for the restaurants, facilitating seating in open space as well

Security

No

Guards are employed to monitor the crowd entering the lawns

Unrestricted access to all wanting to come to restaurants

Environmental Modification

Yes

Acts to create an ambience for the restaurants, supplementing the role of the level difference

Use of two barriers (plants & level difference) to create the exclusive space

Circulation control

Yes

Entry is only through the small gate. Narrow path for walking is also clearly demarcated inside too

Forced and non-stop movement through defined access point.

PURPOSE

45

Pic 5.5: Stark contrast between adjacent spaces - Public plaza on left alive with various activities and many people whereas exclusive lawn on right has few people just passing through

summary Two domains of very different natures have been created in the same space through the play of levels and use of hedges. Public plaza in front of the Metro entry sees a variety of human activity and interactions whereas the sunken lawn associated with the food court is used only as a pathway to it and has more sculptural value than functional. Pathways in the landscaped area have circulation control barriers in the form of rope, to stop people from going onto the grass.

46

5.3 steinabad, lodi estate Type of domain

Group of institutional buildings designed by Joseph Allen Stein

Location and context

These buildings are located adjoining the Lodi Gardens in which many of the Lodi era monumental tombs are situated.

Position of threshold

At the edges of the plots

Type of barrier

The boundary walls were designed in similar manner for all the buildings in this area. However, some of the organisations have altered the design to suit their preferences. Thus, we today observe two types of walls: (A) Original design from 1989 (B) Altered design as seen 25 years later in 2014

Pic 5.6 : Original barrier design 1989

(a)

original design from 1989

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC Height Material Surface Treatment Permeability

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

1m high

Stops physical entry but no visual disconnect

A weakly defined enclosure

Stone + Iron

Stone relates to the context of the Lodi Garden monuments nearby

Response to context for choosing material

None

None

None

Intermediate

Fencing is permeable to vision whereas stone is not.

Alternating physical nature creates visual interest

47

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Barrier encloses entire domain

Sense of territoriality is present

Privacy

No

Visually permeable barrier

Public institutions do not require private open space

Security

No

Short heighted barrier can be crossed over

Design based on expectance of a safe city

Environmental Modification

No

Low height of barrier allows to maintain environmental connect

Attempt to intermingle with nature and the environment

Circulation control

Yes

Entry is through the designated gates only

Monitored entry points

PURPOSE

Pic 5.7: Steinabad’s many barriers - (from left to right) (a) original design which had alternating sretches of stone wall and metal fence, (b) Height of original barrier wrt. human scale, and (c) height of altered barrier wrt. human scale

48

(b)

altered design as seen in 2014

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

2m

Taller than average human height

Strong sense of enclosure

Material

Stone masonry

Opaque material creates disconnect

Creation of private space inside

Surface Treatment

Light grey paint

Light colour makes barrier stand out distinctively in the environment

More visually prominent compared to building

Gates

Visual and physical access only when gates are opened

Entry into the domain is secured

Height

Permeability

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Along full length of the boundary

Strong sense of territoriality

Privacy

Yes

Opaque material causes visual disconnect

Introverted domain created

Security

Yes

Height of wall and pointed grill at the top can stop illegal entry

Unauthorised entry is deterred but perimeter is unmonitored

Environmental Modification

No

Outside environment doesn’t have factors to be insulated against

High, insulating barrier is not required

Circulation control

Yes

Entry is only through the gates which are monitored by guards

Exclusive domain where only few are permitted to enter

PURPOSE

49

Pic 5.8: New and old - The altered (left) and original (right) form of the wall outside Ford Foundation. This move shows some level of sensitivity towards the design intent of the original barrier as the wall on the right continues upto the Lodi Gardens which has the same wall throughout

summary It can be seen that only a few organisations have decided to drastically alter the form of the boundary wall by doubling the height and creating a flat surface instead of the exposed stone wall designed by Stein. It raises questions about why some organisations decide to adopt such strict barriers in the same context and social condition as other organisations of a similar nature which have decided to retain the original form to quite an extent.

A point to be noted and appreciated is the response to the original design. The stretch of the Ford Foundation wall which joins that of the Lodi Gardens, the inspiration for the material of the wall, was retained in the same look and aesthetic, while the rest of it after the gate was renovated.

50

5.4 chittaranjan park police station

Pic 5.9: Open gates - School children filling water from the police station water cooler in the afternoon.

Type of domain

Neighbourhood police station – a public amenity

Location and context

The police is greatly involved with the community activities in CR Park including regular discussions with RWAs and Durga Puja organisation.

Position of threshold

At the entry to the building

Type of barrier

Masonry wall topped with iron fence.

physical characteristics CHARACTERISTIC

OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Height

1.8m high wall with 1.2 high fence

Approximately double the human height

Strong sense of enclosure

Material

Masonry and iron members

Barrier is opaque at eye level

Spatial and visual disconnect with the outside

Rough cast finish with geometric pattern

Same as the finish on the station building

Attention to overall aesthetic of the domain

One large gate

Scale of the opening is welcoming (as shown in Pic.5.10 (a)) Gate is always open to the public.

Domain used for thoroughfare because of good social relations of the police with the public

Surface Treatment

Permeability

51

functional characteristics ROLE OF BARRIER

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

Boundary definition

Yes

Clearly demarcates the land belonging to the police sta-tion

Sense of territoriality, even in a public domain

Privacy

Yes

Opaque nature of barrier prevent visual access to in-side

Unnecessary creation of private space

Security

Yes

Case property vehicles are parked inside the station

Barrier along entire complex is redundant, only needed around case property

Environmental Modification

No

Located on an internal road, so no excess noise and dust

Spatial disconnect being created is not required

Circulation control

Yes

Entry to complex only through the designated gates

Unrestricted access, but through specific points which can be monitored when needed

PURPOSE

summary Despite the walls that have been thoughtlessly put up by the PWD during construction, the space still functions as a very public one, due to interactions between the police and the residents. This encouraging example of integration of the police station into the neighbourhood fabric makes one question why the same is not reflected in the architectural Pic 5.10: (from left to right) (a) barrier and the opening wrt. human scale (b) Case property parked inside the police station needs to be secured till the time a decision is taken about it.

52

design here and why designs elsewhere do not attempt to encourage such socially harmonious conditions.

Chapter six analysis & conclusions Analysis of functional characteristics Conclusions

6.1 analysis of functional characteristics

Name of case study

Type of barrier

Boundary definition

Privacy

Security

Environmental modification

Circulation control

SECONDARY CASE STUDIES Grundgesetz 49, Berlin Danzinger Studio, LA

Mulberry Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky

Stowe Gardens, Buckinghamshire

54

Glass wall

Strictly defined enclosure

Complete visual porosity

Prevents physical access and allows surveillance

Visual and sensory connect

No entry point along the barrier

High masonry walls

Strictly defined enclosure

Visually opaque

Prevents physical access

Insulated space created inside

Entry only through designated points

Iron fence

Well defined boundary

Complete visual porosity

Prevents physical access and allows surveillance

Visual and sensory connect

Entry only through designated points

Wooden fence

Strictly defined enclosure

Visually opaque

Prevents physical access

Material does not insulate against environment

Entry only through designated points

Slope of terrain

Domains merge at the boundary

Complete visual porosity

Unrestricted movement across barrier

Visual and sensory connect

Movement possible along entire length of barrier

Retaining wall

Well defined boundary

Complete visual porosity

Deters physical access and allows surveillance

Visual and sensory connect

Movement possible, but not implied, along entire length of barrier

Change in floor-scape

Well defined boundary

Complete visual porosity

Unrestricted movement across barrier

Visual and sensory connect

Movement possible along entire length of barrier

Sunken fence

Well defined boundary

Complete visual porosity

Deters physical access and allows surveillance

Visual and sensory connect

Entry only through designated points

Name of case study

Type of barrier

Boundary definition

Privacy

Security

Environmental modification

Circulation control

PRIMARY CASE STUDIES Block A, Maharani Bagh

Epicuria Mall, Nehru Place

High masonry wall

Well defined enclosure

Visual disconnect

Entry is monitored but no surveillance on either side

Insulates against noise and dust

Entry only through designated points

Retaining wall with planters

Well defined boundary

Partial obstruction in vision

Access is granted to all, natural surveillance

Noise is reduced due to planters

Entry only through designated points

Level difference with metal railing and planters

Well defined boundary

Visual disconnect

Small gate deters casual entry by all, space monitored by guards

Noise is reduced due to planters and level difference

Entry only through designated points

Exposed random rubble short wall

Well defined boundary

Vision not obstructed

Deters physical access into site & allows surveillance

Visual and sensory connect

Entry only through designated points

High plastered stone wall

Well defined boundary

Visual disconnect

Prevents physical access

No factors to insulate against

Entry only through designated points

Masonry wall with grills on top

Well defined enclosure

Visual disconnect

Prevents physical access

No factors to insulate against

Entry only through designated points

Steinabad, Lodi Estate

Police station, CR Park

55

6.2 CONCLUSIONS It has been found that the there are multiple determinants for the

of threat can vary between two domains in the same area, as is

physical design of a barrier. These arise from and vary according to

seen in the Steinabad study where two institutions in the very

the urban conditions particular to a place in the city. Barrier design

same context perceived the threats differently and thus had adopted

must not be considered a universal process. The following factors

different kinds of barriers.

must be taken into account and analysed to arrive at the appropriate choice for a barrier.

Environmental Modification: Urban conditions of noise and dust in

Boundary Definition: The basic nature of a barrier is to physically

environment. This would require the barrier to create a sensory

mark the boundary which is always present around a domain. However,

disconnect between the two sides of the barrier. The material of the

the strength of boundary definition and the quality of enclosure being

barrier needs to according to this requirement.

created may vary depending upon the height and materiality of the barrier.

Circulation Control: Gates and discontinuities in the barrier are used

Privacy: The need for privacy is determined by the nature of the

necessary even in the absence of the need to maintain security.

domain and its level of ‘public-ness’. Level of social crowding affects the territory’s need to maintain privacy in the open space around the built. Visual disconnect leading to privacy can be achieved by varying

to guide movement across the barrier into the domain. This might be

Social factors: There are several factors such as population density, traditional ways of life and nature of distribution of resources which

the opacity of material or the number of openings in the barrier.

affect a society’s notions of security, privacy and territoriality. This

Security: The need for security is determined by the social conditions

of barriers depending on the societal backdrop they are located in.

and level of crime in particular areas. However, the perceived sense

56

the environment often bring about the need to create an insulated

means that two domains of similar function may require different kinds

Bibliography 1. Arora, R 1998, First line of defence: the residential boundary wall, dissertation, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi 2. Baxi, SJ 1980, ‘Role of museum exhibition’, in VP Dwivedi (ed.), Museums and museology: new horizons, Agam Kala Prakashan, New Delhi 3. Brietung, W 2011, ‘Borders and the city: intra-urban boundaries in Guangzhou (China)’, Quaestiones Geographicae, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 55-61, DOI 10.2478/v10117-011-0038-5, ISBN 978-83-62662- 88-3, ISSN 0137-477X 4. Carmona, M, Heath, T, Oc, T, Tiesdell, S 2003, Public places urban spaces, Architectural Press, Massachusetts 5. Ching, FDK 2007, Architecture: form, space and order, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey 6. Coaffee, J 2003, Terrorism, risk and the city: the making of a contemporary urban landscape, Ashgate Publishing Limited, England 7. Conway, H 2000, ‘Everyday landscapes: public parks from 1930 to 2000’, Garden History, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 117-134, The Garden History Society, viewed on 18 July 2014, JSTOR archive 8. Cruz, L, Hubert, P 2009, ‘Boundaries: real and imagined’, in B Kaplan, M Carlson, L Cruz (eds.), Boundaries and their meanings in the history of the Netherlands, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 9. Danziger Studio n.d., viewed July 14 2014, <https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/danziger-studio> 10. Davis, M 1990, ‘Fortress L.A.’, City of quartz: excavating the future in Los Angeles, Random House, Inc., New York 11. Dupuis, A, Dixon, J 2010, ‘Barriers and boundaries: an exploration of gatedness in New Zealand’, in S Bagaeen, O Uduku (eds.), Gated communities: social sustainability in contemporary and historical gate developments, Earthscan, London 12. Fletcher, SB 1996, ‘Early Asian cultures’, in D Cruickshank (ed.), A history of architecture, Architectural Press 13. Gruen, V 1959, ‘Retailing and the automobile’, in JS Hornbeck (ed.), Stores and shopping centres, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York

57

14. Hilberseimer, L 1955, The nature of cities, Paul Theobald & Co., Chicago 15. Hilderbrandt, D, Mullaly, P, Bogaski, K (1998), ‘Section 450: fences, screens, and walls’, in CW Harris, NT Dines (eds.), Timesaver Standards for Landscape Architecture, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company 16. Jarosinski, E 2012, ‘Threshold resistance’, in M Silberman, K Till & J Ward (eds.), Walls, borders, boundaries: spatial and cultural practices in Europe, Berghahn Books 17. Khurana, A 2013, Public space & boundary walls: the case of New Delhi, dissertation, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi 18. Koenigsberger, OH, Ingersoll, TG, Mayhew, A, Szokolay, SV 2010, Manual of tropical housing and building, University Press (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad 19. Kostof, S 1999, ‘What is a city?’, The city shaped: urban patterns and meanings through history, Thames & Hudson, Limited, Boston 20. Krieger, A 1991, lecture delivered at the US Conference of Mayors, The Mayors Institute on City Design (South) 21. Kroll, A 2011, AD Classics: Barcelona Pavilion / Mies van der Rohe, Arch Daily, viewed on 17 July 2014, <http://www.archdaily.com/109135/ ad-classics-barcelona-pavilion-mies-van-der-rohe/> 22. Litman, T 2009, ‘Barrier effect’, Transportation cost and benefit analysis: techniques, estimates and implications, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada, viewed on 17 July 2014, < www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0513.pdf> 23. Lynch, K 1960, The image of the city, The Technology Press and Harvard University Press, Cambridge 24. Mahnke, FH 2012, Color in Architecture – More Than Just Decoration, Archinect, viewed on 18 July 2014, <http://archinect.com/features/ article/53292622/color-in-architecture-more-than-just-decoration 25. Malone, K 2002, ‘Street life: youth, culture and competing uses of public space’, Environment and Urbanization, vol. 14, pp. 157-168, Sage Publications, viewed on 4 July 2014, Academia.edu, DOI: 10.1177/095624780201400213 26. Mukherji, S 2002, ‘Urbanism and migration in India: a different scene’, in HS Geyer (ed.), International handbook of urban systems, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Massachusetts, USA 27. Oxford Reference Dictionary 2001, Oxford University Press Inc., New York 28. Rapoport, A 1969, House form and culture, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 29. Rashid, M 1998, ‘Reconstituting traditional urban values: the role of the boundary in the contemporary city’, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 37-49, International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments (IASTE), viewed on 27 May

58

2014, JSTOR archive 30. Sack, RD 1983, ‘Human territoriality: a theory’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 55-74, viewed 10 July 2014, JSTOR archive 31. Silberman, M, Till, K & Ward, J 2012, ‘Introduction: walls, borders and boundaries’, in M Silberman, K Till & J Ward (eds.), Walls, borders, boundaries: spatial and cultural practices in Europe, Berghahn Books 32. Somaini, F 2012, ‘Territory, territorialisation, territoriality: problems of definition and historical interpretation’, Plurimondi, vol. 5, no. 10, pp.

19-47 33. Sullivan, CC 2011, Innovations in color and texture: expressive capabilities for architectural surfaces, Architectural Record Continuing Education Centre, viewed on 18 July 2014, < http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=269&C=830&P=4> 34. Talbot, J, Jakeman, M 2011, Security risk management body of knowledge, John Wiley & Sons 35. White, S 1993, Building in the garden, Oxford University Press, New Delhi

59