INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTS EXPLORING SOCIAL EQUITYIN PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN THESIS BY: LAKSHMI SRINIVASAN, M.A. IN ARCHITECTURE DESIGN, REG NO : 160129933 THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
2
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The relationship between privilege and space has long been an inter- est of mine which I first probed in my essay assignment for the subject Critical Spatial Theory in SSoA, Univeristy of Sheffield. Since then, all academmic projects and assignments have had the undertone of this line of thought. Therefore it was only appropriate that I base my thesis on this inclusion to further my exploration. For two years after I completed my undergraduate course in Architec- ture, commuting home from work consisted of looking at this peculiar highway which was brimming with heavy traffic flanked by huge train stations on one side and taller IT parks on the other. I had seen the high- way plenty of times as a child and have seen it change. What had not changed, however, were the humongous stations which at first sight, look almost abandoned. Occasionally, a brave group of people would set up a group of huts below the trainline next to the station, only to be evicted the next week. There was something about these stations that pushed seemed to sanitize its surroundings (and itself, as a result) of human activity. Exclusion seemed to be its primary characteristic. Natu- rally, this was the first place I thought of exploring. What egged me on further, was that nobody I knew who was familiar with these stations, believed that there was any possibility of them changing or becoming temporarily enjoyable spaces. Thus began my exploration into exclu- sion, inclusion and the MRTS stations of Chennai. There are not a lot of professors out there who would let you base your thesis on a hunch. But fewer still, are those professors who believe in your hunches (much more than you do) and push & guide you to pursue a dwindling, elusive string of thought. I was fortunate enough to meet Dr. Nishat Awan and have her be my guide & mentor for this thesis. Over the past one year, I’ve suffered from clinical depression. Thank- fully, I’ve had some wonderful people - my mother, my counsellor Leah and my friends Niveditha, Nidal and Anirudh who have helped me over- come the pain with strength. This section would be incomplete if I didn’t thank Prof. Krzysztof Naw- ratek for his extraordinary ability to see the strengths of his students, his encouragement, unreluctant support, for having brought out the best in me and most importantly, for really igniting the ideas explored in this thesis (through his classes and discussions). My sincere thanks to Aya Musmar, for her unconditional support and relentless faith in my abil- ities, to Tom Parsons for his extremely timely book recommendations for the thesis (Ground Control and The Death & Life of Great American Cities) and his useful feedback. 3
W H AT I S I N C L U S I V I T Y ? AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? A discussion on inclusivity first requires one to define it. The dictionary defines Social Inclusion as “act of making all groups of people within a society feel valued and important.”1 Therefore, by extrapolation we could say that a space has inclusivity if it has the quality to make all members of the society feel values and important. As neat as that defi- nition sounds, once we begin to understand this concept as people’s needs, desires and spatial elements, it quickly begins to get murky. Cities host a plethora of people from different “categories” - from different economic & social classes, genders, physical abilities, social mindsets and (to an extent) nationalities. The city does not, in a true sense, host a common “public” as each member or at least each so- cial group varies vastly from the other. Needs of the public then be- come, not a standard, but diverse and non-intersecting to a significant extent. For example, what a young middle-class woman working in an IT park wants from a local train station in a city is quite different from what a middle-aged daily wage laborer wants from it. For example, the woman may primarily want personal safety whereas the man may want an affordable price for the ticket and decent public toilets. Also, what this particular woman desires from the place might be air-conditioning whereas what the man desires might be comfortable seating. So, this raises an important question - Whose needs must be fulfilled and to what extent do desires need to be fulfilled? Apart from bringing a diverse set of needs, diversity brings in social ten- sion. If human history and all its wars are considered to be any indicator of human behavior, one thing is almost certain - peaceful co-existence among different people, is a myth. While people do not always go to war with one another in cities, there is a limited tolerance (in varying degrees) towards people belonging to other categories. This doesn’t always indicate social intolerance or discriminatory mindsets, the limit- ed tolerance or undesirability to socialize might be fueled by previous experiences that have threatened the user’s safety, recent news about horrific instances or even a hostile environment. How do we, as de- signers, understand this behavior and cater to it? How does a designer ensure that everyone feels safe and included in a space? Space is the stage where human behavior occurs. It can therefore, to a large extent, catalyze or inhibit different kinds of human behavior and movement. This makes the design of a “public” space pivotal in the society. Also, order to design a “public” space, the designer of the space needs to define (often based on the public or city administra- tion’s opinion) what human behavior and movement is “desirable” and “undesirable” in it. “Public” spaces, thus, can never truly be politically “objective” or “neutral” spaces - they represent the society’s (or its ad- ministration’s) vision of an “ideal society”. When improperly designed (or not designed) these spaces still allow and inhibit behavior and move- ment and end up shaping social behavior in & around them. Thus, fail- ure or negligence in design might actually create “non-ambient” spaces or “undesirable” behavior. 1“Social Inclusion Definition And Meaning | Collins English Dictionary”, Collins- dictionary.Com, 2017 <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ social-inclusion> [accessed 21 August 2017].4
Due to social tensions and diversity, it becomes near impossible for thearchitect/urban designer to cater to every “desire” of the people. Thismakes complete radical inclusivity a myth. However, when basic needsof different user groups get ignored, the users begin being excluded orrepelled from the designed (or un-designed) spaces.A discussion on Inclusivity is primarily a discussion on the right of indi-viduals to inhabit and occupy space. Therefore, architects and urbandesigners become crucial in this discussion as designers of the space inwhich the inclusion and exclusion occurs. As Leslie Weisman says in herbook “Discrimination By Design”: “our collective failure to notice and acknowledge how buildings are designed and used to support the social purposes they are meant to serve - including the maintenance of social inequality - guarantees that we will never do anything to change discriminatory design.”1In design, radical inclusivity becomes the utopian ideal or goal, thehorizon, the designer drives towards, hoping to get close. Rather thanchasing a unicorn, perhaps, designers can adopt a reverse approach -one of identifying the oppression that currently lies in the society, tounderstand who is excluded from space and why. To create an “ideal”society, understanding the one that exists now becomes crucial - in-clusion cannot be created without understanding exclusion. Perhaps, amore down-to-earth approach to creating an “inclusive” public space isto understand what the society is being denied and must have, in orderto be the one it aspires to be.Thus, the onus lies with the designer to begin to break-down aspira-tions, desires and needs of the “public” to create spaces that might notbe, in the true sense, radically inclusive, but ones that aspire to breakdown social oppression, discrimination and act as beacons of hope, forthe society to be.1 Leslie Weisman, Discrimination By Design (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,1994).Note : Parts of this essay has been reproduced on the student’s website intend-ed for the same thesis project.Website URL : https://www.inclusiveenvironments.co.uk 5
THE SITE UNDERSTANDING SPATIAL CONTEXT Location of Site : Chennai, India Space of Study : Intra-City Train Stations (MRTS stations) Purpose : To formulate design strategies for inclusive transport infrastructure The MRTS or the Mass Rapid Transport System in Chennai was started as an ambitious project about 40 years ago. While the train lines are still up and running from day to day (with only 25% of the projected num- ber of people using them), the condition of the MRTS stations are very close to pathetic. Due to large initial investment of capital, lack of good design and no maintenance efforts, they have turned into vast vacant spaces that exclude a large portion of the society due to their lack of facilities for the disabled, unhygienic public toilet facilities and lack of safety for women after dark. 3 MRTS stations (Kasturi Bai Nagar, Indiranagar, Tiruvanmiyur MRTS) ad- jacent to the road housing Chennai’s most significant IT corridor (TIDEL Park), are faced with a unique problem of a settlement of slums around them. Due a canal flowing just behind these stations, these slums were adversely affected during the 2015 floods that hit the city in Decem- ber. The land stretch from one of these stations to another, located in a very busy area of the city, acts as a separate entity by itself, affected by a multitude of factors and is almost, as close as an area can get, to encompassing most of the social, economic and spatial dynamics of the city of Chennai.6
Kasturba Nagar MRTS Station Indranagar MRTS StationBuckinghamCanalMRTS LineRajiv GandhiIT Expressway Tiruvanmiyur MRTS Station 7
WOMEN AND THE CITY Living as a woman in an Indian city is a very different experience from living as a man in India. As a woman, I have experienced a constant fear of sexual violence or harassment in isolated/dark places (or at night) and sometimes, even in open populated public spaces. The very idea that accessing a space of solitude is not just safer for another sex but possibly life-threatening for mine, hits me in the gut with the feeling of frustration - the frustration of not having the privilege of accessing a space I desperately want to experience. All my movements in the city including routine, mundane everyday walks to work in my city have been underscored by an alertness to watch out for sexual assault. I have spent almost all of my very occasional, unavoid- able solo walks in the night, constantly being aware of places to avoid or being wary of areas without sufficient lights and areas that did not have public visibility. With reports of women being sexually assaulted in dif- ferent parts of my city, the fear of being assaulted contributed majorly to everything I did. I am not alone in this experience and neither are Indian women. Women everywhere lead very different lives from men due to this fear occupying a major portion of their mental space. As Leslie Weisman writes in her book Discrimination by Design, “If the fear of sexual harassment on the street causes women stress, the fear of rape keeps women off streets at night, away from public parks and dangerous parts of town, and uncon- sciously afraid of half the human race.” 1 As an architect, what has always been astonishing to me is that, in a country (and a world) where there is a widespread oppression of women and where there is an urgent need for safe spaces, there are so many spaces that have the affordability to accommodate incidents of sexual oppression. 1Leslie Weisman, Discrimination By Design (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994). 1 (Quote on Previous Page) Jane Jacobs, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities (New York: Modern Library, 2011)8
DISABLED OR THE UN-ENABLED? In 2013, the Berkeley Prize Essay competition was held under the theme of “The Architect and The Accessible City” which invited essays that spoke about how disabled people experienced space and transforming that experience … The winner of the prize-winning essay, Sophia Ban- nert wrote (about the city of Lincoln): “Jarred into an utterly complex version of what I formerly knew as re- ality, my eyes begin scrutinizing and dissecting the cobbled street sur- face ahead into zones which I can and cannot access…. Whilst battling physical obstructions, I myself have become one. If the pavements were widened, perhaps disabled citizens wouldn’t be seen as causing an ob- struction.”1 My aunt has limited mobility in her city as she suffers from arthritis. Ev- eryday functions like climbing a set of stairs that feel like second nature to me, are a herculean task for her. Due to lack of facilities for disabled access in public transport infrastructure in her city, she is forced to com- mute within the city only by car and is entirely dependent on a member of the family to drive her around. The only impression she has, of the local train stations is their unimpressive facades, as she cannot use the monumental staircases inside of them (that are only means of access to trains in these stations).1Sophia Bannert, “A Day In The Life Of A Wheelchair User: Navigating Lincoln”,Berkeleyprize. Org, 2017 <http://berkeleyprize.org/competition/essay/2013/winning-essays/ bannert-essay> [accessed 16 June 2017]. 9
OBSERVING BY WALKING The Cambridge English Dictionary defines walking as the act of “mov- ing along by putting one foot in front of the other”. But what sets walk- ing apart from other forms of “moving” is that it is the most non-mecha- nized and most primitive form of “moving” known to woman. Therefore, it is a fundamental human experience. Also, being the slowest form of “moving”, it allows for a more gradual change in experiencing the en- vironment around. Because of this, it has often been used by architects and designers as a way of understanding space through movement. The excerpt in the previous page by Ms. Sophia Bannert was written based on her experience in a wheelchair.1 The competition had invited essays on the topic “The Architect and The Accessible City”. So Ms. Bannert rented a wheelchair and began exploring the city in it. As is evident in her essay, when she “walked” as a disabled citizen around the city, her experience of the city was completely different. As individ- uals influenced by physical, social, culture and gender differences, we all experience spaces differently and we walk through them differently. Walking as someone gives us a glimpse into her personal narrative of the space and opens our eyes to the differences that color human ex- perience in space. For my thesis, I walked as different people (or shad- owed them) to understand how they experience space differently and by extrapolation, understand the underlying causes of these differences in experience. (this understanding has directly translated into the “Nar- ratives” chapter of this book) 1Sophia Bannert, “A Day In The Life Of A Wheelchair User: Navigating Lincoln”, Berkeleyprize. Org, 2017 <http://berkeleyprize.org/competition/essay/2013/ winning-essays/ bannert-essay> [accessed 16 June 2017].10
JOURNEY THROUGH THES TAT I O N 2 The Entrance 1 One enters into a tall, mostly 3 empty space and has to move out of the way to get tickets. 2 The signange in front indicates an escalator but not ticket counters Signange shows no 4 indication of disabled 3 accessThe same corridor overlooking the parking space (as the Huge corridor overlooking the parkingpicture on the right) feels more scary and worrying at night space.due to lack of lighting and people. 4The station level 5 4 6 5 11
P U B L I C PA RT I C I PAT I O N A website was created for “Inclusive Environments” to get feed- back from public and to keep them informed of the progress of the project. An online questionnaire and survey was linked to the website. The responses were used to analyze the level of exclusion different people faced in the stations and their reasons for using/ not using them. The questionnaire was also used to gauge what people expect of public spaces in their city https://www.inclusiveenvironments.co.uk/ Instagram : @inclusiveenvironments12
ENABLINGPUBLIC PARTICIPATIONThe online survey also linked towebsite served as a means ofpublic interaction and feedback. BLOGGINGThe online blog served as a wayto put forth ideas about inclusivityand design to the public. It alsoserved as a platfrom for gettinguseful feedback and generatinginterest in the project. SOCIAL MEDIA INTERACTIONInstagram and facebook postswere linked to the website andused to send observations on siteand analysis of feedback from theinterviews to the public. 13
SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS The online surveys consisted of questionnaires that addressed questions on the following topics: - Safety - Comfort - Expectations from Public Places - Reasons for not using the MRTS - User Data (age, gender, physical ability etc.) However, what needed to be kept in mind was that most of the users belonged to a higher income class (they had a computer/ smart phone and an internet connection). Therefore, while these results threw light on what excluded people from space, expecta- tions from the space and desires didn’t seem necessarily in line with what people from other parts of society expected. Therefore, the survey results had to be used along with information obtained through interviews. What facilities would you like the MRTS stations to have? 43 responses 30 27 23 Clean Lifts in Better Coffee More Ramps Public good Lighting Shops security for the Toilets working on the personnel disabled condition inside14
On a scale of 1 (Very How safe do you feel? Safe (6-10)Unsafe) to 10 (Very Safe)how safe do you feel in Unsafe (1 to 5) 44%the MRTS stations? 56% 30% 70% 60% 40% Women reported feeling the most unsafe (based on 43 responses to online survey) What makes you feel unsafe?”No proper lighting, no one to ask ”Abandoned spacesfor help in case of any emergency. underneath, lack of proper lighting.”- Female, 18-30 yrs - Female, 18-30 yrs”Safe cause I can see from end ”There are enough people around butto end of the station. Unsafecause there isn’t anyone else ” not crowded. It’s impossible to be inconspicuous..” - Male, 18-30 yrs- Male, 18-30 yrs 15
SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS Image Above : Experiences listed by users of the MRTS in personal and online interviews.16
TYPES OF EXCLUSION COMBINING THEORY & ANALYSIS In his paper for METU1, Akkar talks about a framework for measuring ‘inclusivity’ of public spaces - four kinds of access to spaces namely : 1. Physical Access 2. Social Access: “Cues in the form of people, design and management elements sug- gesting who is welcome and not welcome in a space” 2 3. Access to activities & discussions “Access to development of the space”3 4. Access to information “Information about development and its use processes are available to the society”4 Upon the analysis of the responses from the MRTS users, the following factors appear to predominantly contribute to exclusion in the MRTS stations. : 1. Physical disability 2. Fear of sexual assault 3. Fear of theft 4. Fear of eviction 5. (Possibly in the future) Poverty On grouping these attributes into the framework provided by Akkar, it can be seen that most of these attributes stick out from the framework. (Image on the right) Observations & On-Site Research Fears of threat to personal & material safety (like fear of sexual assault and fear of theft) are extremely important in the case of the MRTS sta- tions. Especially so to designers and architects because these fears are further fed by bad design which causes dark, isolated zones. This in turn prevents more people from using the space leading to low natural surveillance. This further feeds the fear. As Jane Jacobs says, in a similar observation about city streets and people) “as they (people) fear them, they use them less, which makes the streets still more unsafe”.5 Street vendors do not use the space for vending due to fear of eviction. Ironi- cally, the MRTS train has a compartment reserved for vendors. Poverty becomes an important factor to consider in this project because in case of a high investment in the building, the ticket prices could rise up, caus- ing exclusion due to unaffordability. Theoretical Framework Access to activities and information (as described in the framework) are important to achieve truly public spaces. However, to current users of the space , the lack of this type of access seemed unapparent. The above understanding indicates that in order to determine factors that cause exclusion or inclusion, apart from a theoretical framework, an analysis & understanding of the context is essential. While the analysis reveals factors (like fear of sexual assault, fear of theft etc.) that do not fall under specific categories of the framework, the framework enlight- ens the reader about factors causing exclusion that are not always ap- parent to the users of the space.1,2,3,4 Z. Mugge Akkar, “Questioning ‘Inclusivity’ Of Public Spaces In Post-IndustrialCities: The Case Of Haymarket Bus Station, Newcastle Upon Tyne”, METU JournalOf The Faculty Of Architecture, 22.1 (2017), 1-24 <http://jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/>[accessed 7 August 2017].5 Jane Jacobs, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities (New York: ModernLibrary, 2011), p. 38. 17
DIFFERENT METHODS USED TO UNDERSTAND EXCLUSION- Limited time avail- Limitationable due to passen-gers waiting for trains - Limited time avail-- Took longer able due to passen- gers waiting for trains S U RV E Y ONE-TO-ONE O B S E RVAT I O N S Limitation - Took longer I N T E RV I E W SEliminated people Limitation-Who couln’t read/write in english Public Reasons-Didn’t have an inter- Expecta- Fornet connection-Limited reach tions Exclusion Results ObtainedTHEORY AND OBSERVATIONS Factors That Make People What needs to changed to Feel Excluded Most From alleviate a particular type ofThe Types of Access, the lack The MRTS exclusionof which can lead to exclusionaccording to framework Physical Disability Disabled Access Physical Access Fear of Sexual Assault Effect of Space Fear of Theft on Psyche Social Access Poverty Access To Activities Fear of Eviction Admin. PolicyAccess To Information Image on Top : Inferences obtained from and limitations of different methods of observing exclusion Image Below : Comparing theoretical framework provided by Akkar and observa- tions from interviews and surveys18
F I N A L U N D E R S TA N D I N G TABULATING THE ANALYSISIn the case of the 3 MRTS stations studied, the factors observed canbe considered variable for every person using the space as these varybased on factors like gender, physical ability, age, economic/social sta-tus or profession. This means that some factors cause greater exclusionof some specific groups of people.Since the access to information and activities are unavailable to allmembers of the public, there is no variation in that exclusion amongindividuals.An Example Graph Template For Understanding Exclusion :Level of Exclusion Low Medium HighExclusion Due ToFear of Sexual AssaultFear of TheftPhysical DisabilitySocial StatusPovertyFear of Eviction 19
C O N S T RU C T I N G N A R R AT I V E S THE NEED FOR MULTIPLE POINTS OF VIEW IN ARCHITECTURE As established before, due to physical, social and economic differences, everyone experiences space differently. Also, as Edward Soja points out in his book “Thirdspace”, due to the varying kinds of oppression and power struggles that happen within a society, privilege and oppression are in no way, binary. There exist varying levels of power (and resultant privilege) in a society.2 A useful way to explore ideas of intersectionality of privilege and gra- dation of oppression through space and time is to construct narratives - narratives of imaginary individuals (based on real people) who traverse the space and to understand their resultant experience. As a result, not one but many subjective positions and kinds of experience are gener- ated and understood. As journeys in space have be understood with and within timeframes, the element of temporality gets added to the analysis. Another aspect achieved through the construction of narratives is to preserve individuals’ rights from getting lost in the process of demo- cratic design that favors the collective majority. For example, to create a scenario for an INDIVIDUAL who is a woman eliminates the debate of popularity. Irrespective of how many ever women traverse through that space, the right of an individual woman to access that space safely and comfortably becomes a social right. Therefore, these individuals who are parts of the scenario become representatives of the different right individuals posses in the society in a public space. 1 (Quote on Previous Page) Jane Jacobs, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities (New York: Modern Library, 2011), p. 38 2Edward W Soja, Thirdspace, 1st edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), pp. 86-105.20
N A R R AT I V E S Young Woman 1 College Student, Female, 18-22 years old “4 years ago, I was harassed by a drunk guy on the train at night...” “Once when I was travelling in the morning, a group of unsavoury characters tried to taunt me into confronting them in the empty spaces below while climbing the stairs. I quickly ran up and tried to find some women on the station to keep me company.” When asked about their experience in the MRTS most women said that they were moderately afraid to visit the MRTS stations when there were very few people around and that having a security guard around, make them feel safer. When interviewed, some were very particular about their name and identity not being disclosed to others.2 Young Man IT Professional, Male, 22-30 years old “I dont feel unsafe because I’m a tall male.” “I don’t use public toilets in general. They’re not clean. Not a big deal though” “I have been followed multiple times (at the station) but that is about it.” There were a variety of responses from younger men on the MRTS stations. Most com- ments acknowledged the lack of facilities and also at some level, the understanding of being in a socially more privileged position than others (women, vendors, umem- ployed, older people etc.). They were also the easiest to approach for answers on the station as they were very open to answering & seemed to have no fear or perceived threat. Street Vendor 3 Lemon Juice Vendor, Male, 38-45 years old “The Government doesn’t allow me inside the station. Please ask the other vendor questions. I want to maintain a low profile.” When asked about her experience in the MRTS she said that she was moder- ately afraid to travel by train everyday and that having a security guard around, mae her feel safer. Ironically, the MRTS has a separate compartment for vendors. 21
4 Older Man Retired, Male, 55+ years old “Only a few people travel. Most thefts take place & unsocial elements board.” “Too dirty, smells bad, there is a lack of public facilities. They need to be cleaner and more disabled-friendly.” Older people reported feeling difficulty in accessing the space to lack of disabled-friend- ly facilities. Women reported safety from sexual assault as their first priority in a public space and men reported good lighting & safety from theft when asked to mark the characteristics that are most important to them in a public place in the city. Daily Wage Worker 5 Male, 45-50 years old During the evening hours everyday, one can see plenty of daily wage workers at con- struction sites commute through the MRTS perhaps to other parts of the city or to Park station where the MRTS connects with the trainline to the suburbs and smaller regions nearby. 6 Cleaning Lady Female, 45-50 years old “We come at 1pm everyday and work till 7pm. We find it safe & welcoming.” The cleaning ladies employed ar the station by the Government, seems reluctant to answer some of the questions and reported to feeling happy all the time at work while nervously looking around deflecting the questions to other ladies from themselves.22
U S E R A S P I R AT I O N SWHAT THE MRTS STATION NEEDS TO GIVE ITS USERS Space For Vending Security, Safety Disabled friendly access Public facilities Change in admin. policy 23
24
1. INTERVENTIONS How can the MRTS be made more inclusive? “Our problem today isn’t just that people are losing trust, it’s that our environment acts against the evolution of trust. In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it’s us players who define the game. So, do what you can do, to create the conditions necessary to evolve trust. Build relationships.”4 -Nicky Case, “The Evolution of Trust” 25
U N D E R S TA N D I N G R E L E VA N T L I T E R AT U R E UNDERSTANDING EXCLUSION BY FEAR : “GROUND CONTROL BY ANNA MINTON” 1 Fear of personal safety can hinder day to day activities and an individu- al’s ability to live peacefully in society. Therefore, by our very definition and understanding of it, fear plays an important role in creating the feeling exclusion. Therefore, this begs the question, “what causes fear among the public?” As seen in the previous sections, fear of personal safety is shaped by an individual’s emotional state and their social & cultural background. Therefore, at first glance it seems almost obvious that fear of crime is directly linked to actual crime. In her book, “Ground Control”, Anna Minton disagrees. She provides evidence of how crime in the UK has steadily declined from 19 million a year in 1995 to 10.1 million a year in 2007-8 suggest- ing that actual occurrence of crime does not have a direct causal link to fear of crime.2 She goes on to cite how the media uproar highlight- ing crimes around the world has caused an increase in unrest and fear among the people. However, she argues that there is a bigger reason for the soar in fear of crime in Britain that are rooted in its physical en- vironment. According to Minton’s book, there is research evidence that “an unintended consequence of extra security including intruder alarms and other security measures, was to raise concerns over safety and se- curity.” CCTVs, the role of police in Urban Design, security guards and walls that segregate an area to “secure” it from another inspires fear of “strangers”. These strangers are mostly likely to be people who harbour the same fear of other strangers. Therefore, the widespread feeling of fear is partly caused by unfamiliarity with other members of the public. And closed segregated spaces, increase this sense of fear. Minton also offers a solution based on Richard Sennett’s “Fall of The Public Man” and the classic “The Death & life Of Great American Cit- ies” by Jane Jacobs - to convert the public places and streets in the city into opportunities for strangers to meet and created “shared space”. 3 She further elaborates that shared space creates natural surveillance which can take the place of CCTV cameras and security guards. Shared space and opportunities for natural surveillance eliminate the unfamil- iarity between strangers that breeds fear. The space becomes a catalyst for social interaction rather than a secured container for people. Minton also emphasises on the need for open spaces that can be customized and adapted for use by young people. 1,2,3 Anna Minton, Ground Control (London: Penguin, 2012). 4 Case Nicky, “The Evolution Of Trust”, Ncase.Me, 2017 <http://ncase.me/ trust/> [accessed 20 August 2017].
SHARED SPACE AS A SAFE(TY) ALTERNATIVE :“THE DEATH & LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES BY JANE JACOBS” 1 In this seminal text, Jacobs talks about the importance of a sidewalk in creating safety in a street.She states that it is a given that a well- used street is considered safe and an unused street, considered unsafe. Through this statement she makes a case for natural surveillance. To populate a public space and create opportunity for natural surveillance, she states that there must always be eyes on the street belonging to the “natural proprietors” of it and that over time, there must continuous presence and movement of people in the space. The same logic can be applied to other public spaces. In cases such as the MRTS, it then becomes necessary to create activities that can then generate more “natural proprietors” of the space - people who do not necessarily own parts of the space but use or inhabit it on a regular basis (cleaning ladies, people manning the ticket counter etc.). If the adminis- trative policy prohibiting vendors from entering the space, social events occurring in the space or more public seating put in, is changed, the space can begin to create allowances for more “natural proprietors”. Once a diverse set of activities is established on the site, it begins at- tracting more users which then brings the place to the attention of the public and puts pressure on the government to improve facilities like drinking water and public toilets in these stations. Jacobs also explains that “eyes” play a more important role in creating safer environments than lighting. While lighting does offer a greater range of vision, they must be used as aids to bring in more eyes on the space rather than be an end solution by themselves. As is seen in spaces inside the MRTS stations, despite being well lit, the spaces seem threat- ening at night. Jacobs says “ horrifying public crimes can, and do, occur in well-lighted subway stations when no effective eyes are present. They virtually never occur in darkened theaters where many people and eyes are present.”2 Apart from being generators of pedestrian traffic and natural surveil- lance, encouraging a diversity of activities in a space can enrich the ex- perience of the space. According to Jan Gehl (Life Between Buildings), this diversity and richness of experience is what makes a public space more interesting.3 Project for Public Space in an article titled “Equity and Inclusion: Getting Down to the Heart of Placemaking” states that to improve the “quality of life” for all of the public is an essential aspect on inclusion and place-making.4 The article also talks about the need for ground-up initiatives that can create faster, more effective solutions with ensured public participation. 1Jane Jacobs, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities (New York: Modern Library, 2011), 2p. 38. 3Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011), p. 103. 4“Equity And Inclusion: Getting Down To The Heart Of Placemaking”, Project For Public Spaces, 2017 <https://www.pps.org/blog/equity-and-inclusion-getting- down-to-the-heart-of-placemaking/> [accessed 12 August 2017].
CASE STUDIESMG ROAD METRO Train Line Busy RoadB O U L E VA R DPre-existing Array ofTall Trees Image 5 Location : Bamgalore, India The boulevard uses the site con- ditions very effectively capitalizing on the presence of trees behind the trainline. The surface treat- ments of the public walkway and art installations on it, are what make this space unique. Due to heavy foot traffic, the station adjacent to feels extremely safe and lively. On the upper floor, the boulevard also hosts small restaurants and coffee shops.Boulevard Gallery Public Space walkwayImage 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4SHARE IT SQUARE & Image 6 Location : Portland, USACITY REPAIR PROJECT Approach to participation & The Process: Self-Mobilization : Communities participated Image 7 by taking initiative independent of external institutions to change a systems. Neighbours28 initiated program to bring people (living in isolated-gridded neighbourhood) together by converting a road junction to a community pla- za . The community members rebelled against the city-council to bring a change. Participation techniques/tools: Self-build : Residents themselves painted the art work on the road junction and built some public amenities. Share-It Square was the first community-initi- ated and community-built project in Portland. Evolution: Residents led by Mark Lakeman (an Architect), went on to start City Repair - a local non-prof- it that helps citizens design and build social gathering spaces in their neighborhoods.
L I T E R AT U R E CASE STUDIESGROUND T H E D E AT H PPS MG ROAD INTERSECTIONCONTROL & LIFE OF GUIDELINES METRO R E PA I R AMERICAN CITIES B O U L E VA R D PROJECT Safety Through Natural Re-Claiming Activating Public Space Surfaces Surveilance SurveilanceAbove : Image showing how ideas for design strategies evolved from the literature and case studies 29Image Credits for images on the left leaf:1&2 “Rangoli - Metro Art Center”, Rangoli.Bmrc.Co.In, 2017 <http://rangoli.bmrc.co.in/> [accessed 14 August2017].3& 4 Roberto Narain | Sorry For The Scribbles”, Sorryforthescribbles.Wordpress.Com, 2014 <https://sorryforthe-scribbles.wordpress.com/tag/roberto-narain/> [accessed 9 August 2017].5 Priya Ram, “What’s In Store At MG Road”, Events High Blog, 2017 <https://blog.eventshigh.com/2015/07/22/whats-in-store-at-mg-road/> [accessed 12 August 2017].Images 6, 7 “Share-It Square’S 15Th Year!”, Welcome To The Planet Repair Institute!, 2017 <https://planetrepair.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/share-it-squares-15th-year/> [accessed 12 August 2017].
DESIGN INTERVENTIONS30
Providing Facilities on the PlatformImproving Natural Surveilance on the First FloorThe First Floor needs to be activated and put to use so that itdoesn’t simply serve as a landing space for staircases. Also, theissue of it being dark and abandoned at night must be addressed.Reclaiming the Ground FloorThe Ground Floor needs to be reclaimed for public use and for dayto day public activities. Following David Nelson’s advice, this inter-vention aims to “look to the existing edges and figure out how tobring the ground floor uses out to blossom into the public realm.”11 David Nelson, “Thinking Beyond The Station - Project For Public Spac-es”, Project For Public Spaces, 2017 <https://www.pps.org/reference/thinking-beyond-the-station/> [accessed 27 August 2017] 31
Image Above : A scenario where activities occurring in the street begin to occur on the ground floor of the MRTS station.32
RECLAIMING THE GROUND FLOOR The ground floor of the MRTS stations needs to allow activities from the outside to spill over into itself. For this the urban area around the MRTS station needs to be regenerated. But before that, it must first be reclaimed by members of the local public. 33
THE PROCESS OF RECLAIMING The permissions for changing parts of the policy, the building and required funds need to be allocated by the government. This requires negotiation between members of the communi- ty and the local government. Mediating between community & the GovernmentSTART 1 2Community Mobilisation The locals need to involve experts (designers/architects) from the local community who can guide the initiative to claim the place and one or tewo leaders to give direction to the team34
34 Involving various interest groupsVendors Groups that Local Architects host eventsVarious interest groups that are interested in occupying the spaceneed to be decided on so that their members become “naturalproprieters of the space”. 35
1Claiming SpacePainting and Building Painting the Platform Improves Pedestrian TrafficCommunity Lead Activity at Off- Peak Hours 123436
2 Natural LightWidening PerforationsWidening Perforations onwallsAllows for more naturallight 1234 37
3 Natural Surveilance Better visibility at night Improved natural surveilance at night time 123438
4 Re-claiming Space Public Place CreationPerformance Space Ramp for wheel- Street Vending chair & prams A more inclusive (and more of a) place is created. 1234 39
140
R E V I TA L I Z I N G THE FIRST FLOOR The first floor offers opportunity for providing the building with views, space for various activities. It also needs to provide enough incentive for the authorities to light it at night. Another important factor to consider is that this floor is entirely unavailable to the disabled as the lift moves only from the ground floor to the plat- form area. 41
2 A ramp connectting Ground floor with the mezanine is built in or- der to access the galleries and include those needing use a ramp in the activities of the first floor. A ramp connecting the mezanine to the staircase landing is then built. The windows are converted to wall openings leading to the sunshade area. This becomes a viewpoint START at Groud Floor Viewpoint SECTION A-A’ Wall opened out to lead to viewpoint Ramp ends at Mezanine Ramp to viewpoint42
BEFORE 3INTERVENTION New Additions New Additions SECTION A-A’ 43
Despite the fact that the ramp does not reach the platform, it prevents the disabled from being excluded in the mezanine floor. It forces the ramps into the view of everyone using the station and thus establishes a territory for those who use the wheelchair and for new parents/ guardians who must use prams to take their little ones out. While currently, the space does not have a lot of users who belong to either category, this spatial statement makes them feel included and establishes that they have an equal right to the place as others.44
ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION The intervention must be constructed in the following order so that stoppage of construction at any point will still result in fruitful spaces and will ensure that at no point are the disabled excluded.START2a RAMP FROM GROUND FLOOR TO FIRST FLOOR1 GALLERIES AT MEZANINE2b RAMP FROM MEZANINE TO STAIR LANDING3 VIEWPOINT ACCESS 45
C H A N G E I N T H E N AT U R E O F S PAC E Natural Surveilance Placemaking Changing Admin. Policy Access for the disabled46
1. GUIDELINES What can be done in the future?“Who we are cannot be separated from where we’refrom.”3- Malcolm Gladwell, “Outliers” 47
U N D E R S TA N D I N G R E L E VA N T L I T E R AT U R E “THINKING BEYOND THE STATION” BY PROJECT FOR PUBLIC SPACES (PPS.ORG) 1 Project for Public Spaces, an international organization dedicated to placemaking has brought out a document “Developing Public Participa- tion Tools in Transit Dependant Communities”2 with an accompanying article titled “Thinking Beyond The Station”. This text talks about the importance of community vision and a place based approach to creat- ing public transit stations. A lot of these guidelines offer direct cues into what the MRTS stations are doing wrong, design-wise. Among the more obvious things proposed by the article that are lacking in the MRTS are places to sit and lean on, accessibility for all, bike parking on the surface and placemaking elements that generate interest (like interactive art, swings etc.). Among the less obvious guidelines are the need for the ground floor to blossom into the public realm and make a seamless transition between the outside and the inside. The MRTS station does the exact opposite due to its opaque structure and hard edges that are further hardened by the administrative policies. “Triangulation” is also emphasized - the concept of an external catalyst that makes strangers interact with other strangers and also, connecting the uses of various sub-spaces within a space to achieve better flow and efficient use of the space. Why Do We Need a New Set of Additional Guidelines? While texts like “Thinking Beyond The Station” and the accompanying guidebook offer excellent insights into understanding planning & de- sign of transit stops, they are considered “universal”. This leaves out understanding opportunities and possible obstacles to desired devel- opment posed by the location and locale of the infrastructure. In India, especially in cities like Chennai, there is often political conflict which ob- structs or abruptly stops the development of public infrastructure. The spatial “cavities” seen in the MRTS stations which were once planned as water-points, stairwells, or even large station areas stand testimony to this. Also, due to large crime-rates of sexual violence against women in India, safety becomes one of the most-important factors to be consid- ered in the design equation. 1 David Nelson, “Thinking Beyond The Station - Project For Public Spaces”, Proj- ect For Public Spaces, 2017 <https://www.pps.org/reference/thinking-beyond-the-sta- tion/> [accessed 02 August 2017]. 2 Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, James Rojas and Project For Public Spaces, De- veloping Public Participation Tools In Transit Dependant Communities, (Proj- ect For Public Spaces, 2012) <https://www.pps.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ Tools-for-Transit-Dependent-Communities.pdf> [accessed 18 July 2017]. 3 Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers (New York: Back Bay Books, 2013).48
GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE PROJECTS IN INDIAPublic Needs Access For All Public FacilitiesPolitical Climate Suitable Admin. Accounting for Planning DesignSafety Policy Political Change & Construction Ensuring Safety Temporally Natural surveilance/ VisibilityNeighbourhood Understanding Understanding Local Activities the Neighbourhood 49
Ambitious projects that begin with a huge investment but fizzle out due to state or lo- cal politics can leave residues of infrastruc- ture that serve no true purpose and (like the image on the right) can become barriers to movement or new development. Avoiding this requires planning and designing for construction in stages. PLANNI50
Search
