1
2
3
3
Introduction
4
Areas for staying 6
Something happens when something happens 7
Visual Preferences 9
Conclusion 12
References and Diagrams
4
2
3
5
INTRODUCTION This essay is aimed at improving the allotment area at the east end of the site defined in Studio 1 module. The target will be to design a space that not only serves the existing purpose of providing sustainable methods of food production and consumption, but to create a parallel use of making this area a sociable, inviting, stimulating and active area for both the ‘farmers’ and the ‘observers’. A very appropriate analogy put forward by Jan Gehl in an interview simplifies my main aim of this research and analysis >.
4
“
The structure of this essay will start with an introduction into the theoretical themes I will look at and why they are relevant and helpful. Next I will critically analyse and compare within the context of my own design rationale some of Jan Gehl’s theories and research into creating better public spaces (mainly from Cities for People (Gehl, 2010) and Life Between Buildings (Gehl, 2001)). In addition contrasting theories put forward by Morten Gjerde, Katherine Knox and Ken Warpole will be analysed. The theories looked at have been split up into these titles; areas for staying, something happens when something happens and visual preferences. Whilst analysing these theories I will proffer options for the allotment site as a response to the information I have acquired. These options will then be more closely synthesized and illustrations will make the results of the analysis and synthesis more tangible.
“
...something happens because something happens because something happens.’ (From 1991: 153) While one person is feeding the chickens, someone walks by and stops to chat. Still another sees these two talking and decides to join them. This phenomenon can occur outside in the garden, in the parking lot, in the common house, and along walkways. Opportunities are countless. Jan Gehl (Thousand Islands Institute)
6
THEORETICAL THEMES
“
Gatherings at the school gate, activities in community facilities, shopping malls, cafes and car boot sales are all arenas where people meet and create places of exchange... it is not the ownership of places or their appearance that makes them ‘public’, but their shared use for a diverse range of activities by a range of different people. If considered in this way, almost any place regardless of its ownership or appearance offers potential as public space. (The Social Value of Public Spaces, 2007)
From previous background research and reading, the following topics have been decided upon as they seem most prevalent within both old (pre-1990) and new texts. More have been chosen from Cities for People as this book was recently published and one could ascertain that Gehl’s fifty years of research has provided a reality as to what is still really important within the public realm today. Other topics have been chosen in line with Morten Gjerde’s essay titled ‘Visual Evaluation of urban streetscapes: How do public preferences reconcile with those held by experts?’ (Gjerde, 2011). Again this was chosen as it was very current, and lastly a report titled ‘The Social Value of Public Space’ by Katharine Knox and Ken Warpole (Warpole & Knox, 2007), this was chosen as it was a more local document written about English research projects and their functionality.
“
AREAS FOR STAYING
5
Jan Gehl in nearly all his books mentions the idea of places for staying and within that bracket are places for standing, places for sitting and places for walking. In order to enable people to carry out these actions, Gehl believes it depends upon what type of journey an individual is making; a necessary one (will spend less time in a non-active area and more time in a more active area) or an optional/recreational journey (same rule applies here as above). Whereas Gehl writes that the right environment has to be created in order for the public to stay in that place, Knox and Warpole contrast this idea slightly with a theory more focussed on the idea that people create the space rather than the space creating the people. They go on to say in their report that;
7
“
Restaurant De Kas, which I reported last week, was a forerunner in Amsterdam, but now things are more assured of their own, beyond the usual short supply line to wholesaling... Naylor concentrated on fresh vegetables from Holland a radius of ten kilometers around his restaurant and he devised a signature dish in its entirety from that built up vegetables. Ronald Hoeben 2011
6
7
“
Although I think both of these theories are correct, I think Gehl’s many years of research has enabled him to establish some staple ‘rules’ of public space, whereas I think the report from Knox and Warpole adds some more current theory into the academia of public space. I think their theory is even more relevant with the increasing power of the internet in enabling people to meet at a moment’s notice in a given place at a given time, I will use the example of the student riots in London last summer as an example of the internet has enabled this, it has, of course also enabled less powerful but more positive public events to occur such as the Edinburgh giant pillow fight on April 3rd 2010. In relation to my site, I believe that the architectural look and spatial arrangement of the allotments will be a large draw on its own, and will rely on mostly Gehl’s principles of creating a space that people feel comfortable to stay in but evolving out of that will create a platform for people to communicate and socialise or not at their own will. To make this area habitable even for a short period of time, street furniture is needed to allow people to stay for longer periods of time and shelter to enable year-round use. To enable Knox and Warpoles theory that people make the space rather than space making the people, a more underlying sense of community needs to be developed, the design group have provisioned the site with a marketplace and cafe to enable this to happen. Hopefully the significance of having a building on site will enable a host of events to take place such as vegetable competitions, home grown food festivals, or even wine festivals. An example of how this can works exists already in De Kas in Amsterdam.
8
SOMETHING HAPPENS WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS
“
“
Something happens because something happens because something happens. Once a children’s game gets going, it can quickly attract more participants. Corresponding processes are at work with adult activities. People come where people are. (Gehl, Cities for People, 2010, p. 64)
8
“
The urban encounter can falter if the realm of shared horizons is so limited there is not enough raw material to construct space for a mutually constitutive moments. The opportunity for encounter to create a momentary hybrid space is decreased if residents of the city never cross paths. Frers and Meier (Encountering Urban Places, 2007);
This is the basic premise of Gehl’s stance on creating
1+1 = 3 something from nothing; . Gehl believes it is not numbers, but more that the city space is inviting and attractive to people that creates a meaningful place. From most of the books I have read, most authors tend to more or less agree with Gehl’s thinking. Lennard and Lennard support this observation; “Human beings require and depend on contact with other human beings. It is self-evident that to be in the presence of other human beings is reassuring! Perceiving their presence – through looking, hearing, and touching – enables all to experience themselves as less alone” (Liveable Cities Observed: A source book of images and ideas, 1995) pg 84. This sentiment is shared by Frers and Meier (Encountering Urban Places, 2007); With relation to my site and design project; being able to create activity and interaction between human beings is vital if I want to achieve the goals set at the start of this essay. The fact that the use of the site is for growing food in an allotment arrangement should provide one of the best platforms for human interaction, particularly between allotment owners should make this goal somewhat easier to overcome; however if this space is to become multi-use (ie being able to be a public attraction and focal point as well as a traditional allotment) then I need to enable the public to be able to move in amongst the more static growing areas.
“
9
VISUAL PREFERENCES
Segregation
of
functions
Sheer continuous walls at street level
V E R T I C A L
Emphasis on the large
S T A C K I N G
Geometry of es lin t h aig str
Building
setbacks
scale S e p a r a t e d b u i l d i n g s
Non-interac ting units Unnatural Materials Suppression
ical patterns
Elimination of the human scale
of geometr
Gehl goes into little detail about the specifics of aesthetic quality as he concentrates on more fundamental points. Aesthetics in the urban environment is such a large topic that only the main points can be outlined these will be analysed with what exists and what can be made better in the allotment site. The following be drawn from Public Places Urban Spaces (Carmona, Heath, Oc, & Tiesdell, 2003). They make it clear that aesthetic appreciation is a Kinaesthetic experience; meaning awareness and movement from all parts of the body. They make it clear that an individual experiences their surroundings by everything they see and sense rather than just focussing on one aspect of a park, station, square or allotment for example. Peter Smith in his book (Urban Aesthetics, 1980) believes there are 4 main ways that aesthetics are appreciated; Rhyme and pattern, appreciation of rhythm, recognition and balance and sensitivity to harmonic relationships. Urban form although not entirely aesthetical in its existence should be briefly addressed as it has an impact on the overall aesthetic appearance on place. Anti-patterns that destroy urban interfaces have been cited in Principles of Urban Structure (Salingaros, 2005) originally from ‘A City Is Not A Tree’ (Alexander, 1965).>>>> Despite claims from Le Corbusier, this list has no scientific support. Salingaros goes further to state that ‘...they give a result that is standard and easily identifiable.’. The allotment site has huge potential to stimulate all the senses, there is an existing plan for a cafe and market to sell and prepare food that is being grown on the allotment, this is likely to have pleasant smells emanating from this location. There is a high level
10
9
11
of intrigue that already exists in the site, the other allotment owners are always asking their neighbours how they grow their vegetables, and this can possibly be increased with the introduction of the public. Where I think the current allotment is less successful is in the aesthetic department; it doesn’t seem to have any of Smiths four principles applied. It is generally messy, poorly maintained in spaces not used for growth, and has an almost shanty town feel about it. Barrsbrook Farm allotments in Runnymeade, by contrast, is a great example of how allotments can be managed more efficiently whilst keeping the quality of the aesthetic as high is possible. I do not wish to decrease the character of the allotment by getting rid of ‘mess’ but by managing mess into a more legible environment that is easier for both allotment users and allotment observers to comprehend. Some of the Alexandrian principles can be applied to the new scheme, however, I feel since 1965 the validity of some points has become questionable or even superfluous.
11
10
12
12
13
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
The allotment site was always going to be changed on our site; it was never going to remain the same. By analysing what is good about the site and what is bad, we were sure to keep the integrity of the area. Designing a new area for the public in a new site has created a much greater challenge than just designing for the public. It not only has to perform better than the previous allotment in terms of grown food output, but it also has to integrate with the public; a situation that the allotment owners won’t be used to. I have outlined areas in which I think the allotments can be improved substantially, and I consider the site to be a re-generation rather than a new-build. I have learnt from writing this essay, that a multitude of issues exist when designing a space for public use; it appears that although some issues seem more fundamental than others, a good space will come from a design that has addressed all of the issues mentioned by Gehl and many others, this in turn will create a popular and memorable site that the public will go to.
Alexander, C. (1965). The City Is Not A Tree. London: Thames and Hudson. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public Places, Urban Spaces. Oxford: Architectural Press. Frers, L., & Meier, L. (2007). Encountering Urban Places. Aldershot: Ashgate. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press. Gehl, J. (2001). Life Between Buildings. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press. Gjerde, M. (2011). Visual Evaluation of urban streetscapes: How do public preferences reconcile with those held by experts? Urban Design International , 153161. Hoeben, R. (2011, 11 9). The Green Kitchen of Chris Naylor. Retrieved 11 14, 2011, from Weblogs: http://weblogs. nrc.nl/hoebenhamersma/2011/11/09/de-groene-keukenvan-chris-naylor/ Lennard, S., & Lennard, H. (1995). Liveable Cities Observed: A source book of images and ideas. Carmel: Gondolier Press. Salingaros, N. (2005). Principles of Urban Structure. Amsterdam: Techne Press. Shaftoe, H. (2008). Convivial Urban Spaces. London: Earthscan. Smith, P. (1980). Urban Aesthetics. London: Studio Vista. Thousand Islands Institute. (n.d.). Play. Retrieved 11 14, 2011, from Useable Makeover: http://usablemakeover. com/play6.html Warpole, K., & Knox, K. (2007). The Social Value of Public Spaces. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
“
“
If urban design is about making public places for people, the challenge is to design urban spaces that people will want to use. (Carmona, Heath, Oc, & Tiesdell, 2003)
14
PICTURE AND DIAGRAM CREDITS 1. Humber Imports. 2006. Teak Bench. Retrieved 11.11.11 from http://www.humberimports.com/uploads/bench3. jpg 2. Runymeade District Council. 2001. Allotments. Retrieved 13.11.11 from http://www.runnymede.gov. uk/portal/site/runnymede/menuitem.ea9a054683bd2648d73873acaf8ca028/ 3. Greenfield, T. 2011. Diagram 1 showing existing plan 4. Hoffman, R. 2006. Chickens. Retrieved 14.11.11 from http://www.robinhoffman.com/news.html 5. Learners Dictionary. 2010. Bench. Retrieved 12.11.11 from http://www.learnersdictionary.com/art/ld/bench.gif 6. Wiggemanson, S. 02.03.11. De Kas. Retrieved 15.11.11 from http://sheilawiggemansen.wordpress. com/2011/03/02/assignment-hidden-amsterdam-de-kasresearch/ 7. Google Inc. Map of Amsterdam. Retrieved 15.11.11 from www.google.com/maps 8. Greenfield, T. 2011. Diagram 2 showing spatial relationship to be achieved. 9. Greenfield,T. 2011. Diagram 3 showing a potential plan for the allotments 1:200 scale. 10. Greenfield, T. 2011. Diagram 4 showing condensed attributes of sociall active area put forward by authors. 11. Greenfield, T. 2011. Section showing typical scene through new site proposal 12. Greenfield, T. Diagram 5 showing second potential plan in response to research.
15