Observational Analysis of Public Space | 20.303 Urban Analysis

20.016 Urban Analysis

OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SPACES 415 and 434 Fajar Road Clifford Mario Kosasih (1000294) Goh Pei Xuan (1000286) Leon Jared Cher Tian Jun (1000214) Lim Zheng Hao Eugene (1000142) Oor Eiffel (1000293)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION

3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3

3. RESEARCH QUESTION

4

4. HYPOTHESES

5

5. PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

6

6. DISCUSSION ON TIME-LAPSE VIDEO

8

7. SYMBOL SYSTEM

9

8. COMPOSITE MAPS

10

9. GRAPHS

24

10. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

26

11. CONCLUSION

28

12. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

29

13. BIBLIOGRAPHY

32

1. INTRODUCTION This experiment started with the group helping out with a research for the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities. Our group was sent to the residential district of the western side in Singapore to observe the people passing by in the district, how they interacted in groups and the activities involve. Observations were done through marking on observation sheets and taking time-lapse videos.

The two typologies our group observed were that of a small plaza and a void deck. It has helped us understand the two different spaces better. And through the collection and analysis of the data, we hope to find more clues that would help us improve the spaces for the bulk of activities happening there.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW What research questions have been addressed?

In life between buildings, they first started defining the different type of activities and went on to describe how each factor affects the type of activities. In the social life of small urban spaces, there are more explanations of what factors make the public spaces specifically plazas and sitting spaces successful.

Which types of behaviors in public spaces are known and which features of public space design are known to affect users behavior?

Behaviors have been defined to 3 categories: • Necessary activities: More or less compulsory and continued regardless of conditions of the space.

• Optional activities: Pursuits that are participated in if there is a wish to do so and if time and place make it possible.

• Social activities (dependent activities): Spontaneous and dependent of the presence of others on site.

Residential streets vs Busy mega city An interesting finding is that in a space with limited number of people with common interest and backgrounds, social activities in public space can be quite comprehensive. While in in city streets and city centers, social activities will generally be more superficial with the majority being passive contacts.

3

People attract people In both readings, observations show that people and human activities are the greatest object of attraction. Life in buildings and between buildings seems to rank more relevant and essential to spaces and buildings themselves.

What factors might be particular to Singapore or your cases?

One of the case studies had shown one of the main streets in Copenhagen converted to a pedestrian street. This was successful as suddenly there is a physical possibility for city life. So just a thought was what would happen if a main street in Singapore were converted to a pedestrian street. (eg. F1 racetrack) In social life, it was also shown that children plays in street not because they have to but they do prefer it.

Spaces have to be deliberate to cater for each of these activities. Benches have to be place at regular interval, and placed in a way that is conducive for conversation to happen. Places have to be aesthetically pleasing and comfortable for both walking and just standing around. Convenience is an important factor too, it is mention that it is tiring to walk, more tiring to walk a detour if the destination in sight. Maybe more open spaces and amenities could better the situations.

Everything in Singapore from lamps to planter box and pavement boundary could be made to accommodate secondary sitting like the ones in the plaza of Venice. And both quantity and quality of sitting spaces can be greatly improved in Singapore.

3. RESEARCH QUESTION To understand how the spatial context and design of public spaces in a residential estate in Singapore affects the quantity and type of activities on the site.

4

4. HYPOTHESES The number of passers-by across and within the public spaces increases with a larger quantity of amenities around.

• The amenities, which include Fajar LRT station, wet market, food centers and supermarket, act as activity nodes attracting people to go there. Therefore, the public spaces, which are nearer to these amenities, will have more people passing through it (as necessary activity) since it has higher betweenness index.

The number of users increases with the amount of facilities in the public space.

• Increases in the amount of facilities such as toilet, exercise equipment and vending machine encourage people to use the space and stay in the public space. This increases the amount of optional and social activity in the space.

The number of users increases with a larger quantity of sitting space.

• Increase in the quantity of sitting space such as benches, stools and parapet encourages people to use and stay in the public space.

The number of users increases with higher quality of sitting space.

• Higher quality refers to the provision of backrest, the position of the seats, and it facing people. The higher quality of sitting space enhances the users’ experience in the public space, making more people want to use the seats.

The intensity of social activities increases with the scale and openness of public space.

• Scale of the public space refers to the actual area of the space itself, while openness refers to the visibility and accessibility of the site. With more area, visibility and accessibility, it increases the opportunity for people to engage in more social activities.

5

5. PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL Site B

1 Hardcourt and Blk 434

2 Fajar Shopping Centre and LRT Station

Site C

3 Blk 415 from Fajar Road

4 Chi Hock Keng Temple

5 Car Park in front of Blk 415

6

CONTEXT MAP

426 432

1:2500

431 435 425 424

433

GREENRIDGE PRI SCH

452 434

P

453

423

Site B-1 Residents’ Corner at Blk 434

P

1

451

Site B-2 Hardcourt at Blk 434

422

P 505A

P 453A

P 420 505

421

FA

JA

R

D A RO

FAJAR (BP10) LRT STATION 454

418 449

P 419

417

446 MARKET

2

P 446A 448

440 445 FAJAR SHOPPING CENTRE

415

5

CHI HOCK KENG TEMPLE

4 441

447

416

3

P

411

Site C Void Deck at Blk 415

439 437 P P

412

438

FAJAR ROAD

414

P

410

P 442A

442 409

413 436

SAUJANA ROAD

7

6. DISCUSSION ON THE TIME LAPSE VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_iCc3gqEhc&feature=youtu.be

SITE C VOID DECK

SITE B RESIDENT’S CORNER

SITE B HARD COURT

8

7. SYMBOL SYSTEM Type of Users Gender

Male

number of users type of behavior

Female Age Group

2 X

Child (0 - 12) Teenager (13 - 19) Adult (20 - 60)

2 male elderly exercising

Elderly (> 60)

W 3

Type of Behavior Activity

Necessary:

Walking

W

Optional:

Cycling Eating Exercising Sitting Others

C E X S O

Talking Playing

T P

Social:

Speed

Walking Running

3 female teenagers walking

1 P 1 1 T 1 type of male users

1 male child and 1 female adult playing

1

1 male adult, 1 female adult and 1 female elderly talking

type of female users

9

8. COMPOSITE MAP

SITE B: BLK 434 HARD COURT

434

1600 - 1700

W 1 W 3 1 W 1

1 W 1 W 1

1 2 W

W 2 W 1

1 W

W 1

1 W 1 W 1 W

W 1

1 W

W 1 1 W W 1

1 W W 1

1

W 1

1 W 1 1 W 1

1

FAJAR (BP10) LRT STATION10

434

SITE B: BLK 434 HARD COURT

1 W 1 1

1 W 1 W 1 1 W 1 W W 1 W 1

1700 - 1800 1

1 W 1 W 1

1 W W 1

1

W 1

1 W

W 1

1 W

W 1

W 1

1 S 1

2 C

2 P

2 P

1 W 2 W 1

1 W

W 1 W 1 W 1 W 1

W 1 W 1

1

1

1 W 1 W

W 1 W 1

1 W 1

W 1

W 1

W 1

1 W

W 1

W 1

1 W

W 1

W 1

1 W

1

1 W

FAJAR (BP10) LRT STATION

11

SITE B: BLK 434 HARD COURT

434

1800 - 1900 1 W 1 W 1 1

1 W 1

1 W

1

W 1

1

1 W 2 W W 1

W 1

1 C

C 1

2 C

2 W 1 1

1 W 1 W W 1 1 W 1 W

1

1 W 1

1 W 1 1 W 1 W 1 W

1 1 W 1 1 1 W 1 1 1 W 1 W W 1

1 W 1 1 1 1 W 1 1 1 W 1 W 1 1 W 1 W

FAJAR (BP10) LRT STATION

12

SITE B: BLK 434 HARD COURT

434

1900 - 2000

1 W 1 1 W

2 P 3

1 W 1 W 2 X

2 P 2 X 1 O

W 1 W 1

1 W 1 1 W 1 W 1 W W 1

2 X

1 O 1 2 P 1

1 W 1 W 1

2 W 1 1 W 1 1 W

1 W

1 W

1 W

1 W W 3

W 1

1 W 1 1

W 1

W 1

W 1

1 W

W 1

1 W

1 W

W 1

1 W

1 W

1

1 W 1 W 1

1 W 1 W 1 W W 1

1 W

FAJAR (BP10) LRT STATION

13

SITE B: BLK 434 HARD COURT

434

2000 - 2100

1 W 2 2 W

2 W

2 W 2 1

1 W 1 1 W

1 W 1 W

2 W 1 W

4 T

W 1

2 W 1 2 W 1 1 W

1 W 1 1 W 1 W 1 W

1 W

O 1

1 W 1 W 1 W

1 W W 1

FAJAR (BP10) LRT STATION

14

SITE B: BLK 434 RESIDENT’S CORNER 1600 - 1700

434

1 O 1

1 O

O 1

2 P 3

W 1

15

SITE B: BLK 434 RESIDENT’S CORNER 1700 - 1800

434

W 1

1

1 W

O 1

W 1

1 W 1 O

1 W W 2

1 W 1 1 1 S 1 O

S 1

1 S

P 2

S 1

P 1

2 P 3 1 S

W 1

1

W 2 1 W

16

SITE B: BLK 434 RESIDENT’S CORNER 1800 - 1900

434

1 W 1 2 W 1

1 W

W 1

1 W T 2

1 T 1

1 W 1 1 W 2 W 1 W 1

1 W 1 W 1 W

17

SITE B: BLK 434 RESIDENT’S CORNER 1900 - 2000

434 1

1 W

1 W

1 W

1 W 1 W 1 W

S 1

W 1 W 1 W 1 W 1

1 W

1 W W 1

1

W 1

18

SITE B: BLK 434 RESIDENT’S CORNER 2000 - 2100

434 1 W

1 W

2 T 1

W 1

1

W 1 1 W W 1

19

SITE C: BLK 415 VOID DECK 1200 - 1300

CHI HOCK KENG TEMPLE

415 2 P 1

1

1 W 1 W

W 1

1

W 1

1 W 1

S 1

1 T

1 X W 1

1 S

1

S 1

W 1

1 W 1

W 1 W 1

1 W

414 1:250

20

SITE C: BLK 415 VOID DECK CHI HOCK KENG TEMPLE

1300 - 1400

415

W 1 1 W

1 C

W 1 1 W 1 W 1 W W 1

W 2

W 1 S 1

1 S

2 W 1 W 1

1

1 W 2

414 1:250

21

SITE C: BLK 415 VOID DECK CHI HOCK KENG TEMPLE

1400 - 1500

415

W 1 W 2

1 W 1 2 W 1 W 1

2 W

1

2 W

1 S

1 W

1 S

1 S

1 W

414 1:250

22

SITE C: BLK 415 VOID DECK CHI HOCK KENG TEMPLE

1500 - 1600

415

1 C

1 W 1 1 W

C 1

2 W

1 W

414 1:250

23

9. GRAPHS Behavior Intensity by Category Site B-1: Resident's Corner at Blk 434 48

50 45

50 45

10

40 35 30 25 20

22 21 5

27 4 5

20 1 14

15 10

15

16

18

19

5 0

1 1600 - 1700

4 4 6

Number of People

Number of People

Site C: Void Deck at Blk 415

40 35 30 25 3 3

25 20

29 3 5

21 1 2

15 19

21

1200 - 1300

1300 - 1400

10

9 2 1 6

18

5 0

1700 - 1800

1800 - 1900 1900 - 2000 2000 - 2100

Time Period

1400 - 1500

1500 - 1600

Time Period

Site B-2: Hardcourt at Blk 434 78

80 67 7 3

Number of People

70 60 50

13 8 51 2 2 37 3

40 30

28

57

20 10

57 47 33

28

0 1600 - 1700

1700 - 1800

1800 - 1900 1900 - 2000 2000 - 2100

Time Period

Necessary

Optional

Social

Walking

Cycling Eating Exercising Sitting Others

Playing Talking

24

Distribution of Users by Age Group Site B-1: Resident's Corner at Blk 434

Site C: Void Deck at Blk 415

48

50

50 45

40

20

35 30 25

27 21

20

19

12

20 1 14

15 10

19

9

14 13

5

9

0 1600 - 1700

1700 - 1800

2 3 1 1800 - 1900 1900 - 2000 2000 - 2100 6

Number of People

Number of People

45

40 35 29

30

25

25 20

7

21

11

6

11

15

8

10

8

3

5

2 4

8

3 4

1200 - 1300

1300 - 1400

1400 - 1500

0

Time Period

9 3 6 1500 - 1600

Time Period

Site B-2: Hardcourt at Blk 434 78

Number of People

80 70

67

60

15

10

51

50 11 30 20 10 0

46 37 5

23

40 28 11

5

24 8

7 4 6

24

1600 - 1700

1700 - 1800

15

14

25

6

1800 - 1900 1900 - 2000 2000 - 2100

Time Period

Child

Teenager

Adult

Elderly

0 - 12 years

13 - 19 years

20 - 60 years

> 60 years

25

10. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Relationship between quantity and distance of amenities and number of necessary activities We have identified the more prominent amenities in this area, which are activity nodes where many people gather and transit. Comparing the number of amenities around the various sites, taking distance decay into account, Site B has more users walking through the site as compared to Site C. This corresponds with our hypothesis, as the betweenness index of Site B would be higher than that of Site C due to its closer proximity. Therefore, the location and quantity of amenities has a direct impact on the number of necessary activities on the site.

Effects of quantity of sitting areas in public spaces on the number of optional and social activities A common feature found in both sites is the provision of sitting areas, allowing optional and resultant social activities to happen. With more seats provided, it allows for more people to use the public space, increasing the chance for social interactions, whether with the others seated around, or with those passing by. Comparing the void decks of Site B and Site C, the increased amount of sitting area available in Site B corresponds to the higher total number of people sitting there.

Diagram 1: Sitting area at Site C

Effects of quality of sitting areas in public spaces on the number of optional and social activities Quality of sitting areas encompasses the comfort of seating areas and their positions on site.

We noticed that seats allowing users to have a view of other people are more popular. From Site C, it is evident that the bench facing the main pathway taken by passers-by is more utilised as compared to the seats around the stone table (Diagram 1), which do not allow for as much view. This also proves that the comfort of the seats influences the user’s choice of seat and its duration.

The position of seats affect the amount of social activities carried out. Users that are seated facing the main walkway, or near it, have a higher chance of interacting with passers-by (Diagram 2), increasing the amount of social activities. This is related to the positions of entrances to the sites too, as it determines the main path taken by passers-by.

Diagram 2: Passers-by stopping to interact with users sitting on parapets

26

Effect of quantity of facilities in public spaces on the number of optional and social activities An increase in quantity of facilities allows for a larger capacity of users and caters to a wider range of needs, increasing the number of optional activities (apart from sitting) carried out. The layout of these facilities has an impact on the amount of resultant social activities too, as their positions influence the path taken by the users to get there. If the path passes by areas used by others, it increases the chance for interaction. As observed in the hard court in Site B, as users walk to the exercise equipment, they pass by those sitting on the benches and may stop to talk to them (Diagram 3).

Relationship between scale and openness of public space and intensity of social activities

Diagram 3: Benches along pathway to exercise equipment in hard court

From our observations, the scale of the public space does not influence the amount of social activity significantly. Even though the hard court in Site B is much larger than the resident’s corner, there is relatively less optional activity going on. This could be due to the lack of facilities on site, which results in a lower intensity of social activity. However, it allows for a greater variety of social activities, such as playing with others.

The openness of the public space affects the visibility and accessibility of the facilities, where a greater visibility allows for more social activities, as it is easier for people approaching the site to see if the facilities are already occupied, or if they see anyone that they know there. As observed in the resident’s corner in Site B, several users enter the public space intentionally to interact with their friends. Thus, the intensity of social activities is influenced by the openness of the public space.

Comparison with Europe sites The characteristics of the sites observed in Bukit Panjang are vastly different from the ones observed in Europe, in terms of demographics, scale and function. The former is located in a residential district, whereas the ones in Europe are in the downtown area, influencing the type of usage of these spaces. Bukit Panjang has a rather significant amount of elderly living there, and they usually have more leisure time to spend at these public spaces. As such, they are more willing to spend more time there and this breeds familiarity with the other people using or passing by the area. On the other hand, the pace of life in the Europe sites is higher, and this results in less time spent in these public spaces. Even though there is a higher frequency of usage on site, the level of familiarity is lower and this has an influence over the degree of social interaction between users, which is more likely to be more superficial.

27

11. CONCLUSION The number of passers-by increase with a larger quantity of amenities around.

People make use of amenities such as LRT stations to get to and fro work/home. Since Site B is located closer to such amenities, a larger volume of necessary activities take place over there compared to Site C. The number of users increases with the amount of facilities in the space.

The presence of facilities such as televisions or vending machines increases the attractiveness of the space leading to an increase in optional activities and by extension social activities. However, necessary activities are not directly influenced by the presence of such facilities.

The number of users increases with a larger quantity of sitting space.

It is observed that where there is more seating, there will be more elderly using these spaces. This also creates more opportunities for social activities.

The number of users increases with higher quality of sitting space.

When sitting spaces face each other, there are greater opportunities for interaction. While this may not directly correspond to a greater number of users, it increases users’ utility of the space, which encourages more social activities. It is also found that the positioning of the seat is a more important factor compared to the comfort of the seat (e.g. backrest).

The intensity of social activities increase with the scale and openness of public space.

The scale and openness of the hardcourt (Site B) provides a platform that promotes social activities especially those that requires big spaces. However, a prerequisite for this is the residential estate where users have already developed a sense of familiarity with each other over time.

Limitations and Areas for Improvement Due to the nature of the site, the human traffic flow through the site and number of people utilising the site is too low for us to come up with a generalised conclusion of behaviours within these public spaces. For a better comparison between the sites in Singapore and Europe, a more suitable site could be chosen, preferably one with a more similar scale and use.

Possible sites include the open plaza outside Raffles Place MRT Station or Plaza Singapura, or in residential hubs like Toa Payoh Hub. In addition, a longer observation period would allow for a more comprehensive observation, allowing for a better comparision through the day during the various time periods.

28

12. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The hard court is situated between the LRT station as well as the residential blocks. Besides that, other amenities are also located close by. Hence, there is actually quite a large human traffic flow into the hard court as people do need to pass by it to get across to their destinations. However, even though the hard court is highly visible from a distance and also very accessible, it has been under utilised by the people in the neighbourhood. Most people only walk through it and do not actually use the space for activities. Although it is a big and open space that could potentially encourage groups of people to gather, it is too huge and empty that people do not really know how to utilise the space fully and activate the area for sports or play.

Diagram 4

Hence, we propose to add court markings (Diagram 4) onto the ground so as demarcate various court spaces for the different kinds of sports like basketball/soccer/volleyball. These could help provide ideas to the residences on how to use the space and they would not need to trouble themselves to set up the game boundaries on their own.

Furthermore, the hard court is large enough to provide enough space for such outdoor sports to take place besides cycling and playing catching around the area. We also thought of providing net poles (Diagram 5) to attach various nets so as to facilitate certain sports like volleyball/badminton. Hopefully, with such sports additions to the hard court, it would encourage the residences to engage in a healthy lifestyle and exercise and gather at the hard court more often to play. Other game markings (Diagram 6) may also be added to the ground such as Hopscotch.

Diagram 5

Also, we propose to have benches all around the perimeter of the court instead of just along one side of the court. We realised that there is an under-provision of benches as many elderly actually just stood around to talk to each other without having a place to sit down and rest. Hence, they are not able to interact with each other for longer periods of time there as they would have to find an alternative place to rest or head back home.

Many of them actually also like observing others playing in the court. Therefore, the benches around the court also serve as sittings for the audience to enjoy the match or game that is taking place in the court.

Diagram 6

29

This resident’s corner is situated at the void deck adjacent to the hard court. The area is mainly used by the elderly living in the blocks nearby as well as young children as well.

We noticed that there are already ample seats in the area for people to sit and rest.

However, those seats are not accompanied by tables. Hence, the elderly and children are unable to play certain card games or board games without any tables. Hence, we propose providing some chess tables (Diagram 7) with chairs accompanying them.

This would then allow the people to play card games and chess. Furthermore, they could also be enjoying some snacks or having a meal there together for more interaction.

Diagram 7

We also propose adding some ceiling-hung television sets (Diagram 8). This would help to entertain the adults and parents while their children are either playing there or at the hard court. Also, this could help entertain the elderly who are bored while waiting for their friends to arrive or waiting to pick their grandchildren up after they end school on a week day.

Although there are already more than enough seats in the resident’s corner, suggest to position most of them facing outwards (Diagram 9) instead of inwards. This would then encourage them to face the hard court where they could get a good view of the people playing and cycling there. This provides a more interesting site for them to enjoy rather than to sit facing the lift lobby or the toilet at the void deck.

Diagram 8

Diagram 9

30

Site C is also situated at a void deck. As there are many children often running around the area (playing catching with one another) while waiting for the lift to arrive or waiting for their parents to meet them, we should actually put in place certain safety measures to prevent injury for the children. One of such ways is to provide rubber grounding (Diagram 10) so that the children would not be badly hurt if they happen to fall on the ground while running about. Furthermore, this rubber grounding would also make the place more vibrant because of its many colours and may even encourage more children to play there as well.

Diagram 10

We also noticed that the bench that was placed against the wall/column was particularly popular with passers-by. Many of them would actually take short rests and sit on that bench while waiting for someone or just taking a break. Hence, instead of placing solitary benches around the void deck, we suggest having these benches mounted against the walls/columns (Diagram 11) so that it is more space efficient and people would not worry about the benches getting shifted to another position.

Lastly, we also noticed that the residences have actually brought down their own arm chairs/sofas to be places near the stone table/chess table. Hence, we felt that maybe the stone seats were not comfortable enough or there simply was not enough chairs for sitting. We propose providing comfortable sofas (Diagram 12) so that the people using the space would feel more at home and with larger seats, a larger group can then also be accommodated.

Diagram 11

Diagram 12

31

13. BIBLIOGRAPHY Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: using public space (pp.1-48, .129-196). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (pp.10-39). New York City Zeisel, J. (1984). Observing Physical Traces. In Inquiry by Design (pp. 89–110) Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2011). Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space . MIT Press. (Ch 1,12) Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great streets (p. ix, 331 p.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (pp.295-308) Fajar Rd - Google Maps. (2012, April 1). Retrieved March 22, 2015, from https://www.google.com.sg/maps/place/Fajar/@1.384729,103.77108,17z/ data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x31da119f166369bd:0xf8d7b12d3de1285b

32