INTRODUCTION — From Mixing with Strangers to Collective Placemaking: Existing Theories, Policies and Practices around Social Cohesion in Public Space Design
Social cohesion is often considered a sign of a well-functioning society, nowadays it's seen as less necessary due to the rise in individualism and a 'culture of fear, intolerance and distrust of strangers' (p1). It is even not considered necessary for a fully democratic society (Mouffe, 2000).
"Public spaces are the key contact and encounter spaces" (Parkinson, 2012). Public space = interaction = community-building.
Public space will be 'perceived, experienced and used' differently by everyone however.
Urban scholars are divided, some believe that public spaces are linked strongly to the citizenship (agency?), others believe this has been diminished (p3).
'Social cohesion' has never simply been defined, this can be seen as a hinderance when there is no clear definition for public policy. However Jenson (1998) offers 'five dimensions of social cohesion' (belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition, legitimacy), Kearns and Forrest (2000) offer four (common values and civic culture, social order and control, social networks and social capital, place attachment and identity). These definitions highlight the multi-dimensionality of the term.
Tactical urbanism - DIY urban interventions, usually temporary and often in 'disregarded' spaces. Evidence is showing that interventions like this can leak into more progressive forms of politics and improved social cohesion (p12).
Consider 'collective identity', what can be considered in the collective identity of Rhyl? Not only historical but 'place-based meanings, place-based attachment'.
"The ties people develop towards spatial locations signify an important source of strength, recognition and stability (Rogaly and Taylor, 2007, 2009)". An answer to why we put a fairground paint job on the handcar.
The feeling of 'belonging' is an important part of social cohesion, linked to feeling comfortable to be oneself.
Social interaction and integration leads to trust, diversity is important here (Sennett, 1973).
For key characteristics of spaces that support social interaction through design see: "The seminal works of Gehl, Whyte and Alexander, and more recent work by Marcus and Francis (1990), Madanipour (1996), Kaplan et al. (1998), Childs (2004), Franck and Stevens (2007), Mehta (2013) and Sim.es Aelbrecht (2016)."
"A good public social space is responsive to human needs and thus is contextual and adaptable, and therefore cannot be prescribed, proposing design principles rather than blueprints" (p21).
Designing with communities becomes part of the process of forming social bonds and enforces a sense of belonging and ownership over outcomes.
3 points for meaningful participation: "first, an attitude which implies generosity and curiosity about the issues, desires and knowledge from both sides; second relevance – which means that it is informed by the multiple voices of the insiders; and third, responsibility on the part of the designers to act for and on behalf of the users. (Till, 2011 drawing on Miessen, 2010)" (p22). Does this imply participation from an early stage is key? Participants are not there to validate ideas that designers are already set on.
Participatory design leads to placemaking, "placemaking is the process whereby collective meaning is incorporated into physical designs" (p23).
Comments