What makes my square?

Transcription

1 Workshop 7 - Physical Aspects of Design and Regeneration What makes my square? Matej Nikšič matej.niksic@uirs.si Paper presented at the ENHR conference "Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation" Ljubljana, Slovenia 2-5 July

2 Matej Nikšič Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana What makes my square? abstract The paper presents partial results of an ongoing research about users' perception of open space in urban environments. It questions weather they are mainly activities that take place there, physical structure, people's own past experinces with/in places, common memory, symbolic values, variety of sensoric stimuli or something else, that have a major influence on users' perception of open spaces. It also discusses which of these parameters influence the notion of connectedness and integration of individual spaces into a network on a city level. The research assumes that whenever we are on any spot within open urban space we consciously or uncounsciously perceive borders of that space. The perceived characteristics of and within so defined borders are crucial for formation of the mental image of network of open spaces. The main goal of the study is to uderstand why some open urban spaces are clearly present in users' mental imag and the others aren't. Study learns from the places which are already present in the citizen's mental image on the case study of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Introduction Kevin Lynch's research revealed which elements in the built structure of the city are important in the popular perception of the city (1960). According to his findings people create s.c. mental maps of places which are the representations of what the city contains, and its layout according to the individual. He focused on city's built environment and isolated five distinctive features which make it vibrant and attractive: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. The aim of the present research is to discuss this issues on a micro-level of concrete open spaces within the city, not concentrating just on the built environment. As the theoretical framework Montgomery's concept of sense of space is used (ses below). Knowing and understanding what in users' perception defines those open spaces which are present in the common image of the city (what makes them characteristic, distinctive and memorable) would give a hint how to improve all those open spaces which are barely or not at all present in the general mental image of open spaces and as such (not known and un-distictive) less likely to be visited and used. At the same time it would be useful at the stage of conceptualisation of any new open space within existing urban environments. The importance of open spaces for housing environments The high quality open space is one of the key factors that define good neighbourhoods (Stanovanjske krajine, 2006). It has a major influence on the common image of a neighbourhood and is one of the constitutional parts on which people base their (dis)liking attitudes towards neighbourhood in general. Understanding what makes a good open public space in the perception of users is therefore crucial for shaping good living environments. We chance a statement that there is no quality housing environment without a quality open space. As the perceived qualities are in the eyes of beholders, knowing the users' perceptions and expectations on open spaces is crucial for any ambitious (re)design of housing environments. Theoretical background According to MeSH (2006) space perception is awarnes of the spatial properties of objects. It consists of various processes: collection of information, their organisation and interpretation. 2

3 Historically psychologists have made a distinction between two processes that gather and interpret environmental stimuli (Bell et al., 2001): 1. sensation; activity of human sensory systems of vision, auditory system (hearing), somatosensory system (touch), gustatory system (taste), olfactory system (smell). An array of stimulation of receptor cells create a sensation, 2. perception; this consists of processing, integration and interpretation of stimuli, and happens afterwards in our brains. It has strong cultural background. Many researchers attempted to understand how individuals differed in sensing various phenomena of space. Some of them insisted that scientific investigation could only deal with observable (physical) phenomena and not with unobservable phenomena such as mental events. While phenomenologicaly oriented research was based on subjective reports of personal experiences (Merleau-Ponty, 1962), empiricists were preoccupaied with externally observable events as only legitimate source of data (Fowler, 1995). Nevertheless, from our own experiences of urban or natural environments, we could hardly not agree with Paul A. Bell (2001, p. 59), who is expressing his view by posing a question: ''Do you think the methods of science and empiricism can capture all of the perceptual experiences that make the place meaningful? Even if they could adequatly describe all of the physical characteristics, would they be able to understand the influence of this place on you?'' This is a topical issue for the nature of this study too. One of the most common approaches to understand users' spatial perception is based on the observation of behavioural patterns. Through people's behaviour we can, to some extend, understand the ways in which people perceive, interpret and understand the space (Miller, 2005, Goličnik, 2005). Some other approaches, like neuro-scientific for example, focuse at the brain organ itself it is believed that the human perception can be ''measured'' through the activation of certain parts of the brains (Eberhard, 2006). Somewhere inbetween is the neuro-linguistic approach (Grinder and Bandler, 1983), which explores how mind and neurology, language patterns, and the organization of human perception and cognition interact to create subjective reality and human behaviors. Research methodology In order to understand the users' perception of open urban spaces a combined technic has been applied in this research. In the start the case studies for detailed investigation were identified through the classical mental mapping technique (Lynch, 1981) which revealed which open spaces are present in the general mental image of the city of Ljubljana 1 (Nikšič, 2004). The participants were asked to draw a map of Ljubljana with characteristical elements of the city. Two open spaces which most often appeared on the mental maps were Prešernov trg and Kongresni trg and are now studied into details. The research is conducted as an interview with preset questions for two reasons: it gives a much more detailed insight into the researched topic as the interviewer can ask additional questions if answers are ambiguous. At the same time it gives the interviewer an opportunity to check the non-verbal expressions of the interviewee. It also gives the interviewees the better chances to focus on the case study itself rather than the question(naire). Although this approach makes the processing of the data more difficult, it gives a much better insight then classical questionnaires. Two groups of people are interviewed: - those who are vitaly dependend on the studied spaces (live or work there), - those who are not neccessarly in daily interaction with studied spaces but use them frequently for different reasons. 1 The common image of the city has been checked among locals (residents of Ljubljana), regular visitors (people who daily migrate to the city for various reasons) and occasional visitors (tourists and alike) to uncover which are the most important elements of the city image and to see which public open squares appear in this image. 3

4 An integral part of this questionaire is a graphic sheet with the morphological map of the area which covers a 5 minutes walking distance from the studied space. The interviewee is asked to imagine himself/herself being on the spot marked on the map. This approach was chosen for the interviewees to picture themselves more vividly into the studied environment and serves as a basic tool for detection of physical materialisation of mentally perceived borders. The questions focuse on three main topics: - the first part focuses on the perception of boundaries of so called ''initial'' space (starting space, which is marked on the map) and the perception of its qualitative characteristics; - the second part focuses on the perception of the surroundings of previously defind space, their qualitative and quantitative characteristics and the perceived degree of connectedness with the starting space; - the last part uncovers the role of different sensoric stimuli in perception of previously defined spaces and the notion of their mutual connectedness and integration into a network of open spaces on a city level. Partial results 34 interviews have been conducted so far. The following sections reports some of the most significant findings due to the date of submission of this paper. The analisis of answers are based on Montgomery's concept of sense of place, which states that space can become a meaningful place, if there is overlaping of physical characteristics, activities and mental values (1998). Montgomery's concept of ''Sense of Place'' The research has proved that the perception of borders of certain open spaces is in a close relation to its physical structure. When describing and reasoning the track of the perceived borders, a great majority of interviewees (75%) quoted the physical characteristics of space, such as: - changes in horizontal dimensions, namely the narrowing of widely open space into a tighter space (for example from square into a street, etc.), - extensive and well defined surfaces, vertical or horizontal, which act as closures of space (for example uniformly paved areas, buildings' fronts, etc.), - visual accessibility of built structures (no matter how distant an object is, its visual accessibility makes it perceived as a part of the initial space). Functions of space and activities that take place there were less oftenly mentioned, the most often recalls relate to specific uses of space (for example borders of pub gardens, borders of children 4

5 playgrounds, etc.) and flows through the space (for example perception of borders of studied (pedestrianised) space often coincided with the edges of the pedestrianised area). The main characteristics of so defined spaces mainly refer to physical settings (57%), followed by activities and functions (40%). Some of the most often mentioned elements are: particular buildings, urban greenary, street furniture, particular views and presence of users. Among activities the most often mentioned were mixture of permanent uses, everyday activities, the possibilities for meeting people, periodical street performances/events and various kinds of traffic. When defining the (most) positive and (most) negative characteristics, the following rank was established (see the table below). POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS Pubs offering drinks and snacks Selected architecture (buildings) Selected street furniture Urban greenary Architectural details All services in a walking distance Unity of architectural expression NEGATIVE CHARACTERISTICS Motorised traffic Surfaces filled with parked cars Dirt, bad smell, bad condition of facades Unused buildings Table: Most positive and most negative characteristics of the studied squares. The interviewees are also asked to map all the spaces which they perceive as neighbouring, and define and reason their limits. The interviewees were also asked to arrange the neighbouring spaces from the one they perceive most to the one they perceive least connected to the initial space. The spaces, that were perceived to be most connected to the innitial space, were said to have one of the following characteristics (arranged from most to least often mentioned): - has remarkable building(s), - is a vibrant place with lots of people, - holds shops, - act as a thoroughfare place to some other significant spaces, - holds a monument, - is a wide open areas, - is architecturally unified, - offers views. When reasoning what makes these spaces most connected to the initial space, the following answers applied very often: - there is no heavy traffic running inbetween, - it is also a square, - it has the same architectural expression, - both spaces are centres of happening, - high number of people is passing inbetween (from one space to another). At the same time, the neighbouring open spaces perceived as least connected to initial space, were said to be perceived as least connected for the following reasons: - they can't be visually reached, - they have no distinctive activities (are boring/dead spaces), - they have a very different function. There is a clear correlation between the presence of the same sensoric stimuli in the two neighbouring open spaces and the perceived level of their mutual connectedness too. In more than half of the cases people were naming the same sounds and smells in the initial space and the space they feel most connected to it. Additionally to this notion of connectedness of two neighbouring places is also related to: - the most often used paths (in the majority of cases (36%) the most common paths run through the space, which is perceived as most connected to initial space, while less than 10% run through the ones which are least connected), 5

6 - the general attractiveness of space (33% of the interviewees would take a newcome tourist to the space, which they perceive as most connected to initial space, while less than 14% would take them to the space which they perceived as least connected), - visual uniqueness (if interviewees could take only one picture from the initial space, the majority of respondents would orient the camera towards the space which they perceive as the most connected to initial space). The characteristics related to people's own past experinces with/in places, common memory, or symbolic values seem to have less importance in shaping the mental image of open urban space(s), according to the results so far. Nevertheless the data processing is still in progress, so minor alterations may appear. Lessons to be learnt for open spaces in housing environments When conceptualising open public spaces in cities, planners or a designers usually tend to form pleasant and memorable places. In the times of informatisation and parallel virtual world, when the traditional physical open public spaces have to compete with their very popular virtual extensions (or should we better say counterparts or even rivals?) this issue is getting even more complex and topical, especially in the housing areas where strengthening of the sense of local community is one of the tasks of open public spaces. Understanding the perceptual borders of open spaces - where and why are they set there and how they could be possibly exceeded is helpful for both - the strategic decisions and the detailed design of open spaces. The method developed through this research can be used in shaping new open spaces (the level of conception of open space) as well as in the redesigning of existing open spaces. On a general level it can give suggestions what has to be planned to the highest degree (physical or non-physical characteristics or both, and if so - in what proportion and which exactly) in order to make open spaces clearly present in the mental image of users. On a local level it gives suggestions where the studied space belongs or gravitates according to the perception of users and which characteristics it should retain or acquire in order to be perceived as an integral part of the wider network of open spaces. Having these data the mental limits of existing positively perceived spaces can be exceeded and their positive notion can be spread into the surrounding spaces. Some of the relevant instruments which result from the esearch so far 2 may be enabling visual conections between spaces, placing complementary, varied but not adverse functions, assuring some common audio and olfatory stimuli in neighbouring spaces and application of the same generic design codes in singular spaces. Sources: Bell et al. (2001). Environmental psychology. Fifth edition. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Eberhard, J. P. (2006). Architecture and the Mind. Internet access in May 2006: Fowler, T. A. (1995). More than Meets the Eye. Internet access in February 2006: 2 The final results of the research are due in late

7 Goličnik, B. (2005). People in Place. A Cinfiguration of Physical Form and the Dynamic Patterns of Spatial Occupancy in Urban Open Public Space. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University. Grinder, J. and Bandler R. (1983). Reframing. Neurolinguistic programming and the transformation of meaning. Real People Press. Lynch, K. (1981). The Image of the City. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Maurele-Ponty, M (1962). Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Smith. London: Routledge. MeSH. National Library of Medicine's controlled vocabulary thesaurus. Internet access in May 2006: Miller, T. L. (2005). Behavioral and spatial change in response to an altered behavioral setting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. Volume 3, Number 1, pp Internet access in March 2006: Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city. Journal of Urban Design, 3, p Nikšič, M. (2003). Place identity and information society. The case study of Ljubljana. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Stanovanjske krajine (2006). Zbornik konference Stanovanjske krajine: trendi, perspektive. Ljubljana: Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za krajinsko arhitekturo in Trajekt, Zavod za prostorsko kulturo. 7