Public space that excludes. A case study from Warsaw

Adam Piotr Zając

University of Warsaw

RC21 Conference, Berlin 31/08/2013

Plan of presentation

1. Accessibility of public space

2. Theoretical framework

3. Warsaw’s historical background

4. Findings from project Warsaw Map of Barriers

5. Universal design – constraints

6. Conclusions and recomendations

1. Accessibility of public space

Defining the problemUsers have similiar needs regarding topublic space:• Safety• Accesibility• Attractivity etc.Answer to these needs must meet thespecificity of different users.

Users of space need to come intovarious interactions, like observing oneanother, in order to avoid a collision (Conley2012: 220). The interest of the group theyrepresent becomes one of identitydeterminants,. Common needs of spaceusers are today recognized to a very smallextent.

Groups of users of public space

• Pedestrians• Passengers (also with luggage)• Turists• Parents with trolleys• Bikers• People with physical

disablities• People with sensory

disablities (blindness, deafness)

• People with mental disablities

Social movements

Trolleys’ Critical Mass,source: http://www.chustomania.pl

Crazy wheelchairer,Source: http://warszawa.gazeta.pl

Warsaw Critical Mass,source: masa.waw.pl

2. Theoretical framework

Ali Madanipour - spatial exclusion

• 3 dimensions of social exclusion:– economical– political– cultural

• Access as major aspect of defining socialexclusion

• Oposition: triple excluded vs. completelyintegrated

• Space is an arena of exlusion and fighting for access. Designing public space requireproviding access and possiblity of existencefor groups exposed to marginalization.

• Marginalization brings the danger of alienantion of system from life of the people

Source: www.mimdap.org

Right to the city concept

• David Harvey (2012): Not only have citizens right to access allresources and supplies in the city, but they can also changethem and use in a new way. Citizens should have collectivepower on urbanisation processes and influence others actors’ actions.

• If everybody has right to the city, how can we providedenough voice for exluded (weaker) groups?

• Different groups of urban activists legitimazing their actionswith Harvey’s concept.

Ewa Kuryłowicz (2005): 3 ways of designing space and objects

Isolation in private space

Specificsolutions justfor disabled

people

Universal design

• 3 different historic approaches to problem of designing space for disabled people:

• Shift from complete exclusion to complete inclusion

• From different to universal design for all users

• From pure vision of designer to consultations and standards

Universal design approach

The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.

1. Equitable use

2. Flexibility in use

3. Simple and intuitive

4. Perceptible information

5. Tolerance for error

6. Low physical effort

7. Size and space for approach and useNC State University, The Center for Universal Design, Version 2.0 - 4/1/9

3. Warsaw’s historicalbackground

WWII and Warsaw uprising

Source: www.naszawarszawa.com

Source: www.kultura.wp.pl/

Towards modernistic vision of city• After WWII: ambition to

build modern city

• New vision: Car oriented city(Autogerechte Stadt)

• Multilevel intersections

• Multilane, wide streets

• Underground passages in city centre

• Functional division of city, industrial and residential zones.

• High block of flats, free greenspace – longer distances

Reclaiming the streets for people• Traffic calming in

residential areas

• Pedestrians zones,

• nobody critize univeralaccesibility idea

• Still many inaccessibleplaces (oldinfrastructure)

• Hearable voice of citizens (but not everybody and alwaysaccepted by designers)

4. Findings from projectWarsaw Map of Barriers1000 obstacles in Warsaw

Some statistics…

• 6 categories of barriers

• 6% of fixed places

• Each groups of pointshas it’s owncharacteristics…

35%

28%

12%

7%

7%

6%5%

SHARE OF CATEGORIES IN TOTAL NUMBER OF COLLECTED BARRIERS,

N=935

pedestrian crossings bus and tram stopsstairs underpassesothers fixed placesoverpasses

1. Pedestrian crossings

291

2. Stairs without ramps

113

3. Flyovers/viaducts for pedestrians

46

4. Underground passages

69

6. Bus and tram stops

238

5. Other obstacles

61

Accessibility of railway stations in Warsaw

• 49 stations

• 29% accessible for physicdisabled passengers. Othergroups have worse results.

• Main problems: entrieswith stairs, unworkingelevetors, too steep ramps

• No reliable information for passengers.

• Source: SISKOM (2013)

Reasons of inaccessibility

ArchitecturalBarriers

Infrastructure whichhas never been

accessible

Infrastructure whichwas meant to be

accessible

Infrastructure in bad condition

Infrastructuredesigned in wrong

way

Infrastructure bulitin wrong way

5. Universal design –constraints

Universal design: why not?

• Not important problem or to big problem to solve

• Additional economical costs

• Need of consultation with users

• There is no possibility to solve all of the problems

• Expert knowledge vs. knowledge of users

• Against strategic documents or common interest

6. Conclusions and recomendations

Questions to consider

• Who occupies public space? Who has right for equal access?

• Who has power to fight for equal access?

• What assumptions lay behind design of public space? For whom we design public space?

• Is spatial exclusion in architecture an universalexperience for contemporary cities?

• Is bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly city the ultimatevision of the city?

References

• Conley Jim. 2012. A Sociology Of Traffic: Driving, Cycling, Walking. IN: Vannini Philip (ed.) Technologies of Mobility in the Americas. Oxford & Bern: Peter Lang.

• Harvey David (2012) Bunt Miast. Prawo do miasta i miejska rewolucja, Warszawa: Fundacja Bęc Zmiana.

• Kuryłowicz Ewa. 2005. Projektowanie uniwersalne. Uwarunkowania architektoniczne kształtowania otoczenia wybudowanego przyjaznego dla osób niepełnosprawnych.Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie Przyjaciół Integracji.

• Madanipour Ali: Social Exclusion and Space. In: The City Reader. 5th edition, Routledge New York 2011

• The Centre of Universal Design .1997, The principles of universal design, Version 2.0 - 4/1/97. North Carolina State University. [WWW document]. URL: http://www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/about_ud/udprinciples.htm (accessed 12/06/2013)

Thank you for your attention

adampiotrzajac@gmail.com

twitter.com/adampiotrzajac

mapabarier.siskom.waw.pl

facebook.com/adampiotrzajac

www.slideshare.net/mapabarier

Adam Piotr ZającCentre for European and RegionalStudies (EUROREG),University of WarsawMember of the board in SISKOM