1

2

3

3Introduction

4Areas for staying 6 Something happens when something happens 7Visual Preferences

9Conclusion

12

References and Diagrams

4

2

3

5

INTRODUCTION

Th is essay is aimed at improving the allotment area at the east end of the site defi ned in Studio 1 mod-ule. Th e 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 socia-ble, inviting, stimulating and active area for both the ‘farmers’ and the ‘observers’. A very appropriate analogy put forward by Jan Gehl in an interview sim-plifi es my main aim of this research and analysis >.

Th e structure of this essay will start with an intro-duction into the theoretical themes I will look at and why they are relevant and helpful. Next I will criti-cally 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. Th e theo-ries looked at have been split up into these titles; ar-eas for staying, something happens when something happens and visual preferences. Whilst analysing these theories I will proff er options for the allotment site as a response to the information I have acquired. Th ese options will then be more closely synthesized and illustrations will make the results of the analysis and synthesis more tangible.

...something happens because some-thing 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)

“ “4

6

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 fi ft y years of research has provided a reality as to what is still really im-portant 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 ‘Th e 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.

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 jour-ney 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. Th ey go on to say in their report that;

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)

““

THEORETICAL THEMES

AREAS FOR STAYING

5

7Although 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 exam-ple 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 fi ght 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 en-able 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 com-munity needs to be developed, the design group have provisioned the site with a marketplace and cafe to enable this to happen. Hopefully the signifi cance 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 ex-ample of how this can works exists already in De Kas in Amsterdam.

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 sup-ply 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

8

SOMETHING HAPPENS WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS

Th is is the basic premise of Gehl’s stance on creating

something from nothing; 1+1 = 3

. 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 sup-port 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 hu-man 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. Th is 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 hu-man beings is vital if I want to achieve the goals set at the start of this essay. Th e 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 be-ing 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.

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);

““

Something happens because something happens because something happens. Once a children’s game gets going, it can quickly attract more participants. Cor-responding processes are at work with adult activities. People come where people are.(Gehl, Cities for People, 2010, p. 64)

“ “

8

9

VISUAL PREFERENCES

Gehl goes into little detail about the specifi cs of aesthetic quality as he concentrates on more funda-mental 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. Th e following be drawn from Public Places Urban Spaces (Carmona, Heath, Oc, & Tiesdell, 2003). Th ey make it clear that aesthetic appreciation is a Kinaesthetic experience; meaning awareness and movement from all parts of the body. Th ey make it clear that an individual experiences their surroundings by every-thing 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 Aes-thetics, 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 al-though not entirely aesthetical in its existence should be briefl y addressed as it has an impact on the overall aesthetic appearance on place. Anti-patterns that de-stroy 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 scientifi c support. Salingaros goes further to state that ‘...they give a result that is standard and easily identifi able.’. Th e 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. Th ere is a high level

Segregation of functions

Sheer continuous walls at street level

Building

setbacks

Emphasis on the large scale

S e p a r a t e d b u i l d i n g s

VERTICAL STACKING

Geometry of

straight lin

es

Non-interac ting units

Unnatural Materials

Suppression of geometr ical patterns

Elimination of the human scale

10

9

11of intrigue that already exists in the site, the other allotment owners are always asking their neighbours how they grow their vegetables, and this can possi-bly 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 gener-ally 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 effi ciently 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 super-fl uous.

10

11

12

12

13

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. (1965). Th e City Is Not A Tree. London: Th ames 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: Th e Danish Architectural Press.Gjerde, M. (2011). Visual Evaluation of urban streetscapes: How do public preferences reconcile with those held by experts? Urban Design International , 153-161.Hoeben, R. (2011, 11 9). Th e Green Kitchen of Chris Nay-lor. Retrieved 11 14, 2011, from Weblogs: http://weblogs.nrc.nl/hoebenhamersma/2011/11/09/de-groene-keuken-van-chris-naylor/Lennard, S., & Lennard, H. (1995). Liveable Cities Ob-served: A source book of images and ideas. Carmel: Gondolier Press.Salingaros, N. (2005). Principles of Urban Structure. Am-sterdam: Techne Press.Shaft oe, H. (2008). Convivial Urban Spaces. London: Earthscan.Smith, P. (1980). Urban Aesthetics. London: Studio Vista.Th ousand Islands Institute. (n.d.). Play. Retrieved 11 14, 2011, from Useable Makeover: http://usablemakeover.com/play6.htmlWarpole, K., & Knox, K. (2007). Th e Social Value of Pub-lic Spaces. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

CONCLUSION

Th e 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 design-ing 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 fun-damental 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.

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.jpg2. Runymeade District Council. 2001. Allotments. Retrieved 13.11.11 from http://www.runnymede.gov.uk/portal/site/runnymede/menuitem.ea9a054683bd-2648d73873acaf8ca028/3. Greenfi eld, T. 2011. Diagram 1 showing existing plan4. Hoff man, R. 2006. Chickens. Retrieved 14.11.11 from http://www.robinhoff man.com/news.html5. Learners Dictionary. 2010. Bench. Retrieved 12.11.11 from http://www.learnersdictionary.com/art/ld/bench.gif6. Wiggemanson, S. 02.03.11. De Kas. Retrieved 15.11.11 from http://sheilawiggemansen.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/assignment-hidden-amsterdam-de-kas-research/7. Google Inc. Map of Amsterdam. Retrieved 15.11.11 from www.google.com/maps8. Greenfi eld, T. 2011. Diagram 2 showing spatial rela-tionship to be achieved.9. Greenfi eld,T. 2011. Diagram 3 showing a potential plan for the allotments 1:200 scale.10. Greenfi eld, T. 2011. Diagram 4 showing condensed attributes of sociall active area put forward by authors.11. Greenfi eld, T. 2011. Section showing typical scene through new site proposal12. Greenfi eld, T. Diagram 5 showing second potential plan in response to research.

15