A Comparative Analysis Essay 6TH AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY & PETALING STREET, KUALA LUMPUR Yong Thang Shaun |Theories of Architecture & Urbanism [ARC61303]| 28/11/2016 Student ID : 0320675 | Lecturer : Mr Nazmi
Introduction Streets play a very important role as being part of cities that connects people together as well as the spaces found in urban forms. The roles of streets can be categorized into many; as paths or corridors meant for movement of the public or service lines, or pocket of spaces meant for the public where people can interact with, work, play or rest. When we analyze streets, we do not see it without its people but rather it being an integral system for the people. It is not just a constructed beauty solely to be admired but to be interacted with and lived in by transport and community alike. Think of a city and what comes to mind? Its streets. If a city’s streets look interesting, the city looks interesting; if they look dull, the city looks dull. Jane Jacobs What else would make a city’s street look interesting if not for the social activities formed by the spaces from the various contact points of the public spaces? The importance of a street as a public open space is one of the most critical characteristic within the public realm in cities (Gehl, 1987). In this analysis essay, I will be comparing two streets; 6 th Avenue of New York City and Petaling Street of Kuala Lumpur. The comparison will be done on the social attributes as well as the contact points and intensity in a neutral view with gathered analysis from the site itself and internet researches. I will also be relating the findings with the community as its role in being part of the city.
Figure 1.0 6th Avenue Street and the grid like urban city fabric
PAGE 1
Figure 1.1 Petaling Street and the deformed grid like urban city fabric
While there are no direct relations between what makes a city good and its urban fabric form as there really is no perfect form of street fabric as different patterns work and fit in differently for different communities, there is however a relation to its user’s activities and the affect it plays on the community in determining the use of predetermined public spaces and new accidental spaces created by them. Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody (Jacobs, 1961). 6th Avenue Street is a business district where most of the activities and spaces are catered to working people with some spread of eatery stalls along the street and open spaces for interaction. Due to such, the urban layout of the street seems to be more honest and transparent. Petaling Street on the other hand, while also being a business district is more focused on wholesale as it used to be the residential area of its business people prior to gentrification. Now, the shop-houses still stand as well as the many markets and informal stores sprawled across the streets and in the pockets of spaces.
Social Attributes The social aspect of the city and the behavioral pattern of its users is affected by the city’s street pattern and building typology. The similarities of both streets can be seen in the commercial streets where interaction happens between users and informal stores. Urban design is essentially about place-making, where places are not just a specific space, but all the activities and events which made it possible (Buchanan, 1988). The activity in the interior spaces of the buildings usually influences the exterior activities which creates placemaking in the pockets of spaces provided by the streets intersections.
Figure 2.0 Informal stores and activities seen spilling out on the streets of 6th Avenue
Figure 2.1 Food stalls and flower stalls sprawled along the streets of Petaling
PAGE 2
According to Jan Gehl’s “Life Between Buildings�, social activities are all activities that depend on the presence of others in public spaces (Gehl, 1987). Both streets have activities that spills out to the walkway forming passive contacts from the smell, sight and hearing of by passers. Contrary to 6th Avenue however, a majority of Petaling Streets street is mainly used for social activities. Petaling Street is filled with places that encourages social interaction such as the wet market, dry market, informal stalls, street eatery and religious spaces. While 6th Avenue does have similar attributes such as informal stalls on streets, its main focus is on the circulation of the city where the streets were mainly used for access and movement.
Figure 2.2 Building functions of 6 th Avenue
Figure 2.3 Building functions of Petaling Street
A clear difference between the social activity spaces available to both cities is that the spaces are sprawled and mostly created informally by the users themselves between the buildings and streets in Petaling Street while social spaces in 6 th Avenue are more defined. Public parks, open squares and public benches can be seen along the streets of New York which then becomes the go-to place for most social activities. One follows the principles of placemaking where a designated space is specially designed for the purpose while the other is formed by necessity and community needs.
PAGE 3
Contact Points Contact points differ from city to city in that it relies on certain aspects of the city to be realized as a point of contact. Depending on the activity or usage of the points, this could affect the contact intensity of a city or street by either becoming a gathering spot to users or a means of wayfinding to others. Most of the time, contact points can also affect a spaces activity due to its significance that is either nurtured by time or instantly becomes a representation of the street when created. The important aspect is the recognition of the causes of activity patterns rather than the activities themselves, as the activity might relate to the physical setting (Canter, 1977). The main idea is that it is not always just the physical form or recognition of activities but also understanding the background of a space and how such activities came to occur (Canter, 1977). These points would often relate to the history of the city and as mentioned before could be nurtured to being one. Using nodes and landmarks, contact points can be determined by studying the user’s movement patterns and their relation with said points.
Figure 3.0 Contact Points identified in 6th Avenue Street
The contact points or in this case, nodes found in 6 th Avenue are more service related rather than historical. While some are instigators of new activity spaces, many are used for wayfinding purposes. It can be seen that the contact points are highly concentrated towards the main road along the entire street. This is due to the street mainly being used for access and movement; either to the central park ahead or the library on the other side. Hence, these contact points rather than being spaces of interaction for long periods of time becomes chance contact or passive contacts. Chance and passive contacts translates to an interaction by chance as well as seeing and hearing as a form of interaction (Gehl, 1987).
PAGE 4
The second aspect mentioned that could also affect contact points are landmarks. These are normally iconic points that are usually visually appealing or spaces known to many as a place of gathering or to carry out everyday activities.
Figure 3.1 Landmarks identified in 6 th Avenue Street
Landmarks usually act as a means of way-finding as well due to it being visually attractive from a distance whether by height or its distinguishable features. However, the landmarks in 6th Avenue serves a different purpose as oppose to only being directories. Each landmark can be found between office buildings and it provides spaces of interaction as well as resting spaces for the workers of the offices. As said by Canter, the spaces came to be because of these resting points. In comparison to the contact points in Petaling Street, the similarities can be seen in the types of nodes it has.
PAGE 5
Food Stalls Market Transport Place of Worship
Figure 3.2 Nodes identified in Petaling Street
The nodes in Petaling street is quite similar with that of 6 th Avenue in terms of food stalls and transport and other informal stalls being the main gathering spaces of users on the streets. The dissimilarities however far outstrips the similarities in the case of contact points. While most of the contact points in 6 th Avenue is passive due to the nature of the street mainly being used for access and movement, the contact points in Petaling Street is more out of reach and requires exploring around the urban city to look for spaces. The contact points usually consist of more acquaintances than chance and passive due to the fact that these points are not as obvious as it is in 6 th Avenue where it is all concentrated along the main road. The contact points in Petaling Street is also more related to the culture of the city and has its own history that makes them stand out to the locals and tourist alike. Spaces such as the market, place of worship and even the heritage food stalls encourages social interaction and it usually happen amongst the same group of people. This brings us to the type of users that resides in the two cities. 6 th Avenue is filled with economic activity, businesses and entertainment that the user tends to be either the workers that uses the office or other users of the park and library. Petaling Street on the hand has more students and elderly folks who were once part of the residential community of the street. Therefore, the clear difference in contact point types is solely due to the user group and community. The similarities on the other hand is that both contact points encourages pedestrian movements to them although done in its own way. 6 th Avenue arranges the contact point along the busiest road with the heaviest human traffic while Petaling Street uses culture and historical heritage to attract pedestrians to the points. To encourage pedestrian movement and support a vital and viable range of user’s connectivity among active places is essential. It is only through this encouragement that the contact points continue to exist as it identifies the density of use and forms the activity patterns (Carmona, 2010)
PAGE 6
Contact Intensity The various forms of contact from the lowest to the highest intensity is defined by Jan Gehl such that
Figure 4.0 Low to High Contact Intensity Chart
“Life between buildings is more than just the pedestrian traffic, recreational or social activities. Life between buildings comprises the entire spectrum of activities, which combine to make communal spaces in cities and residential areas meaningful and attractive� Jan Gehl Contact intensity follows up from contact point as it determines the relationship between users of the street in public spaces based on the urban form and spaces provided by the city hence the life between buildings. In the topic of contact points. I mentioned that the contact points in 6th Avenue are very passive being on the terms of seeing and hearing. In this sense, the intensity associated with the mass majority of 6 th Avenue would be low. The point of contact created are fleeting as it is often a meeting between customers and shop owners. However, like all things stimulated by time, this level of intensity cannot stay stagnant at passive contacts forever. Acquaintances can be made as frequent customers due to the strategic placements of the points which could blossom to friendships which is the point of Jan Gehl’s idea on contacts. Frequent meetings in connection with daily activities increase chances of developing contacts with neighbors (Gehl, 1987). The simplest contact can be made by just having spaces that allows people to listen, watch and experience information from the environment thus the beginning of a contacts growth from low intensity. In terms of similarities between the two cities, Petaling Street has low and high intensity spaces as well as 6th Avenue. The translation might not be direct but the idea is quite similar. For example, along the streets of 6th Avenue, benches can be seen on the sidewalks encouraging people to take a sit which was then lead to passive contacts with the surrounding community. While Petaling Street lacks the presence of benches on sidewalks, food stalls as well as activities from restaurants tend to spill out to the streets which then becomes a place to rest for pedestrians as well.
PAGE 7
Figure 4.1 Food stall activities spilling out in Petaling Street
Figure 4.4 Integrated benches on the sidewalk in 6 th Avenue Street
High intensity points such as the streets of 6 th Avenue can also be found in Petaling Street. The size of the sidewalks designed in 6th Avenue encourages movement therefore encouraging a mix of low and high intensity contacts on the streets itself. While people in Petaling Street rarely crowd the sidewalks due to its smaller size and the weather, the wet and dry markets are often crowded as well due to the activities in them that attracts locals and tourist alike. Hence the both cities have their own way of creating low and high intensities.
PAGE 8
Due to the difference in weather experienced by the two cities, the one difference both cities have is the walk way. Rain happens frequently in the streets of Petaling as well as glare from the hot sun. One of the differences is that Petaling Street has a 5 foot walk way in its buildings, a cultural difference in urban building design. This creates different contact intensity which is now based of the weather. Due to the sun and rain, users tend to walk in the given 5 foot walk way which would further encourage low intensity contacts as well as high due to the shops being directly next to the walkways. This level of intimacy between walkway, shop lots and the pedestrians, forms its own space that contributes to the social environment of the urban city
Figure 4.5 5 foot walkway of Petaling Street
PAGE 9
Conclusion The comparison done between the two cities shows two different sides of cities yet both stays true to Jan Gehls theories in their own way. While cultural differences would definitely affect how certain communities experience contact and its different level of intensities, it is without a doubt that such relationship is needed in a city. Overall, it can be concluded that 6th Avenue Street of New York City is more business and economic base which greatly affects the social activities, contact points and contact intensity as the city is catered to a different group of community. Petaling Street on the other hand, while becoming more of a tourist attraction is still filled with heritage and cultural urban forms in its building, spaces and community. While the culture might be different as well as the approach, it is the difference that give identity to the city. As said by Jan Gehl , “Experiencing other people represents a particularly colorful and attractive opportunity for stimulation. Living cities in which people can interact with one another, are always stimulating because they are rich in experiences�.
PAGE 10
References Carmona, M., Tiesdell,S., Heath,T., and Oc,T., (2010), “public places public spaces: The dimensions of urban design”, Archtectural press, UK. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: Using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. Jive´n, G., & Larkham, P. J. (2003). Sense of Place, Authenticity and Character: A Commentary. Journal of Urban Design, 8(1), 67-81. doi:10.1080/1357480032000064773 Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93-116. doi:10.1080/13574809808724418 Samadi, Z., Yunus, R. M., Omar, D., & Bakri, A. F. (2015). Experiencing Urban through Onstreet Activity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 653-658. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.067
PAGE 11