Urban Research Workshop Documentation

Report from the Workshop to Examine

‘The Relationship between Physical Fabric and Social Cohesion in Chennai’s neighbourhoods’ Date: 11th July 2015, Saturday Venue: Chennai

Hosted by:

and

Chennai

2

Executive summary This report reflects on the findings from a workshop held in Chennai in July 2015 which examined the relationship betwen physical fabric and social cohesion in the neighbourhoods of Chennai, India. The workshop was delivered as a part of Department of Town and Regional Planning (TRP), The University of Sheffield’s 50th Anniversary fund.

The workshop was co-organised with Indian parrtners Urban Design Collective (UDC) a non-profit organization that works as a collaborative platform towards the creation of livable & sustainable cities.

The workshop convened academic experts, Architects, Urban designers from UK and India to explore an area of emerging importance with a view to future collaboration and enhanced inter-disciplinary engagement. Over the day long workshop scholars considered four main themes: 1. Identity of Chennai; 2. Social cohesion in Chennai; 3.

Relationship between social cohesion and urban fabric 4. Measuring Social cohesion.

Key areas that emerged from the discussion included: how to engage with the understanding of Social cohesion from a context based perspective; how we can consider the future of social cohesion as well as its history and contemporary context; the extent to which comparitive studies analysing one or more neighborhoods in the city of Chennai may enable a deeper undertsanding of social cohesion at city level; the relationship between intangible and tangible social cohesion and the need to examine more closely the relationship between physical fabric and social cohesion. A number of specific research questions, covering issues such as how the changing intricacies and patterns of physical urban fabric affect understandings of social cohesion; the role of linguistic and cultural transformation arising from urbanisation in shaping social cohesion and whether the value of social cohesion can be quantified were also produced.

The ideas stimulated by the discssions in the workshop would benefit from pilot study projects that would allow scholars from the UK and India to work together to develop outputs and longer-term collaborative projects.

The outcomes of the workshop can be summarised as• Enumerated an understanding that engaged with social cohesion and social capital from a context based perspective • Tested a perception mapping exercise for Chennai’s neighbourhoods • Identified two neighbourhoods- Perambur and Velachery- for a pilot study to follow this workshop along with a SWOT analysis for these two neighbourhoods • Narrowed down on a list of parameters to understand social cohesion in the pilot study

3

“Chennai Central” by jamal haider from india - maroon. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Commons

“Marina Beach as seen from Light house.”

by KARTY JazZ - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Commons

4

Context and Workshop focus The tension between rapid urbanisation and mix of diversity is acute in India. The country’s urban population has doubled from 100 million to 200 million in the twenty years between 1991 and 2011. The trajectory is expected to continue as 50 percent of India’s population is expected to live in cities by 2041. Internationally, debates around the value of social cohesion in an urban context have recently intensified as cities and its people experience both the process and consequences of urban development. Urban change through rapid urbanisation or urban redevelopment initiatives have posed as challenges and opportunities for social cohesion. This is amplified by the recent move towards advocating social cohesion by the developed western countries. Given the historical evolution and contemporary condition of this Indian city, Chennai, this workshop sought to make a timely contribution to the understanding and analysis of a complex relationship between social cohesion and physical urban fabric.

Chennai / Chennai (also known as Madras) is located on the Coromandel coast of Bay of Bengal. It is the biggest industrial, commercial centre in South India as well as a major cultural, economic and educational centre. Chennai is the 36th largest urban area in the world. As home to the third largest immigrant population in India, the city faces substantial pollution, logistical and other significant socio-economic problems.

The workshop delivered to the need to ponder on the quotient of social cohesion in the rapidly urbanising city of Chennai and examined the relationship between the physical fabric and social cohesion in the neighbourhoods of Chennai. This was achieved through group discussions and mapping exercises that were facilitated to achieve the following objectives • To discuss and define the understanding of social cohesion in Chennai’s context • To identify how strong the connection is between the physical fabric and social cohesion • To define what it means to be socially cohesive? What contributes to social cohesion? How desirable is social cohesion?

• To explore how social cohesion is manifested in the different neighborhoods of Chennai • To examine how social cohesion can be measured • To discuss social cohesion in the context of a migrant/ floating population • To share knowledge on initiatives, projects (past or ongoing) and proposals that already exist from elsewhere • To identify two neighborhoods of Chennai that can be taken up for a pilot study to test methodologies The workshop brought together fellow architects and urban designers from the city who brought a range of perspectives to the discussion from having lived, worked and schooled in various neighbourhoods.

5

6

Structure TIME

SESSION

09:30 – 09:45

Introduction and Objectives of the workshop Bobby Nisha, Teaching Associate- Urban Design, TUOS

09:45 – 10:00

Overview of Chennai Vidhya Mohankumar, Founder, UDC

10:00 – 10:20

Presentation of similar case examples Bobby Nisha, Teaching Associate- Urban Design, TUOS

10:20 – 11:00

Discussion on scope and feasibility of the project

11:00 – 12:00

Perception mapping exercise

12:00 – 13:30

Discussion to select two neighbourhoods for a pilot study along with a SWOT analysis of these selected neighbourhoods

13:30 – 14:30

Lunch

14:30 – 16:00

Methodologies for the pilot study – Working group session

16:00 – 16:15

Concluding Remarks and Way forward Bobby Nisha, Teaching Associate- Urban Design, TUOS

7

01 Introductory presentations and discussions on the scope of the project

8

The workshop commenced with a presentation by Bobby Nisha (TUOS) outlining the objectives of the Sheffield institute of International Development (SIID) and the reason for interest in carrying out research in the global south under this program. She explained to the participants how the scoping workshop came to be and also what she hoped would be a plausible outcome of the workshop by the end of the day-long session. She also shared a few relevant examples of projects from different parts of the world that were in some way similar to the potential urban research project being envisaged for Chennai, starting with the scoping workshop. She ended with a definition of the term ‘social cohesion’ as a springboard for further discussion.

Vidhya Mohankumar of Urban Design Collective (UDC) then made a short presentation on Chennai starting with a historic perspective and bringing it up to the present development scenario. She then followed it up with a few slides about the upcoming Habitat III United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development in Quito in 2016 and pointed out that ‘Social Cohesion and Equity’ is very much on the list of the six urban dialogues that the conference intends to address. Vidhya ended her presentation with Habitat III’s definition of social capital and posited urban planning and design as key drivers for social integration.

Participants of the workshop were then given a chance to respond to the presentations and this led to a rich discussion on factors that lead to or hinder social cohesion in Chennai’s neighbourhoods. It was agreed that while lack of infrastructure brought the residents together in a state of distress, there were far many factors that hindered social cohesion such as• A migratory and/ or floating population that does not have a sense of belonging or pride • A lack of public spaces or social connectors such as clubs to linger and mingle • Economic disparities, also manifest in the built environment • New building typologies such as gated communities, malls alienate sections of people • Technology as alienator • Building-regulations such as setbacks from the street do not allow activating street edges 9

Cities of the Global South

Case examples of similar projects

10

Urban dialogues at the upcoming Habitat III conference

11

Agreed definitions of social cohesion and social capital “Social capital refers to social networks, to relationships of trust and to institutions; how individuals and/or communities enter and participate in social networks and how this participation results in obtaining opportunities for individual or collective action that contribute to community cohesion, to the strengthening of solidarity and social integration.�

- Habitat III 12

Urban planning and design as a key driver for social integration Reinvigorating urban design through gender and age inclusive and adequate public spaces (including streets) • as places for people to meet • as sites for social interaction and exchange • as landscapes of economic vitality especially for the urban poor • for the construction of citizenship and the framework for social and • territorial cohesion and • the coproduction of safety for all.

- Habitat III

13

02 Perception Mapping

14

Following the introductory presentations, workshop participants worked with a large map of Chennai and place post-it tags on all the neighborhoods, with their perceptions of the neighborhoods written out on them.

This purpose of this exercise was to understand the mental image that each participant held of the various neighbourhoods particularly the ones they were not familiar with.

After this, a second exercise was introduced which directly assessed each participant’s perception of social cohesion in the various neighbourhoods. For this, sticker dots in three colours were used, each signifying a degree of social cohesion. The green sticker dot implied low levels of social cohesion, pink implied moderate levels of social cohesion and orange implied high levels of social cohesion.

It appeared from this mapping exercise that neighbourhoods that were not so affluent appeared to be more socially cohesive than affluent neighbourhoods. It also indicated that the neighbourhoods in the north and west part of Chennai were more socially cohesive than the rapidly urbanizing southern neighbourhoods of Chennai.

15

Perception mapping

16

17

Neighbourhoods with high levels of perceived social cohesion Neighbourhoods with low levels of perceived social cohesion Neighbourhoods with moderate levels of perceived social cohesion

18

Phrases or words describing participants’ perceptions of each neighbourhood in Chennai

19

03 Discussion on pilot study and SWOT analysis of selected neighbourhoods

20

The next session involved a discussion on the scope and viability of the research project itself with a specific focus on the pilot study. The objective of this session was to arrive at two neighbourhoods- one in the north and one in the south- that could be a pilot to test out research methodologies prior to taking up all the neighbourhoods of Chennai in the future. The north-south polarization came up in earlier discussions and also through the perception mapping exercise which led to an agreement on picking a neighbourhood each from the north and the south.

The discussion led to the short-listing of two contrasting neighbourhoods that have a deep rooted historic and contemporary undertone to their being- Perambur in the North and Velachery in the South.

This was then followed up with a SWOT analysis of the two neighbourhoods in light of the dialogue on social cohesion.

21

Perambur

Velachery

<

N

22

4km

SWOT Analysis

23

Perambur / Perambur is a neighbourhood in the northern part of Chennai. Perambur is widely regarded as a place which used to be a bamboo forest a few hundred years ago and was annexed to Chennai in 1742 AD by the British Raj along with neighbouring Vepery. Perambur is currently a mix of commercial and residential establishments. Madhavaram High Road is one of the busiest streets in Perambur known for its jewelry stores, pharmacies and a busy grocery market.

Demographically, Perambur is also noted for the largest presence of Anglo-Indians in Chennai and arguably in South India because of the erstwhile abundance of British settlements in and around Perambur, during the construction and running of the Integral Coach Factory (ICF). Perambur is also home to a large number of migrants from the neighbouring state of Kerala who came and settled here to work for the Railways.

Perambur

<

N

24

1km

Perambur is served by three railway stations- Perambur, Perambur Carriage Works and Perambur Loco Works- out of which Perambur is one of the major railway hubs in Chennai owing to a number of express/super-fast trains that stop here. It is the fifth largest station in Chennai in terms of passenger volume after Chennai Central, Chennai Egmore, Tambaram and Mambalam.

Strengths

Weaknesses

• • • •

Good level of public transport connectivity Permeable street network Mix of old and new fabric Sense of community organized around the same language spoken or the same employer • Strong mental image- Legibility • Fosters small businesses as well as the informal sector

• Lack of demographic diversity- mostly bluecollar employees with low to middle incomes • No new economic drivers • Less options for higher education • Railway edge conditions

Opportunities

Threats

• Potential for infill development • New ground for migrant population • Historic significance- Perambur was among the oldest villages brought into the fold of the British Raj to form the urban agglomoration of Chennai

• Exodus of native population because of lack of options for employment and higher education • Spectrum Mall which acts like a magnet and thereby negates the demand for quality public realm

25

Velachery / Velachery is a neighbourhood in the southern part of Chennai. Till the 1990s, Velachery was comprised of swathes of farm land. The transformation of Velachery happened with the widening of Bypass Road in 2005 to a six-laned road and the growth of the IT sector in south Chennai which gave ample opportunities for private developers to commercially exploit the place. Since then it has become one of Chennaiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prime residential neighbourhoods. The rapid growth of Velachery as a commercial and residential hub can also be attributed to its geographical advantage in terms of the connectivity to other parts of the city.

Velachery

<

N

26

1km

Many parts of Velachery are below sea level and originally were lakes. As a result, every year in November during the rains, Velachery experiences flooding. It is believed that encroachments and rapid urban development have caused a marshland that was once a natural bird sanctuary in Velachery to disappear. There are also two open garbage dumping grounds in the vicinity. These contaminate ground water, are breeding grounds for mosquitoes and the frequent burning of waste also results in air pollution. Rapid urbanization has also resulted in water scarcity, congestion of roads and damage to the existing Pallikaranai marshland.

Strengths

Weaknesses

• Velachery MRTS Station and the connectivity it offers • Shopping street along Velachery Main road • Amenities such as the aquatic centre • Proximity to a green belt • Good variety of housing type options • Varying plot sizes • Varying street right-of-ways • Schools • Geographic relocation with respect to surrounding neighbourhoods

• Ecological degradation of natural resources particularly water bodies • No sense of place • Lack of orientation/ legibility • Poos accessibility standards • Lack of demographic diversity- mostly corporate-sector professionals between the age of 25-45 • Car-centric lifestyle • Poor quality of public realm • Impermeable street network

Opportunities

Threats

• Proximity to city’s economic drivers • Ecological lay of the land- water bodies • Transit infrastructure

• Rains/ drainage issues/ flooding • Phoenix Mall which acts like a magnet and thereby negates the demand for quality public realm

27

04 Methodologies & Parameters for the pilot study

28

As a final working session, the group put together a list of criteria/ parameters that contribute to or hinder social cohesion and could serve as a starting point for a research framework.

Some of these larger themes that emerged were• • • • •

Improving the quality of streets and the public realm Encouraging diversity in building uses and open space programming Accommodating and promoting demographic diversity Temporal dimensions of public spaces Improving legibility of neighbourhoods

29

This is an unsorted list of study parameters/ criteria put forward by workshop participants-

30

Study Parameters

31

Data collection framework

Urban fabric analysis - Attributes of inquiry in pilot study 32

The interconnectedness of urban features and systems demand a deeper understanding in order to positively influence the cascade or ‘domino’ effect from related impacts. Cities are characterized by distinctive: • • • • •

physical/ spatial environmental socio-cultural economic and political/ institutional features

It is necessary to understand these features in order to systematically and comprehensively analyse the reciprocal relationship between urban fabric and social cohesion. Urbanization finds its visible expression in the urban fabric. A conscious stand point of the research is that it will not operate from a notion that assumes the interconnectedness of these two concepts and hence will inquire indvidualy into the understanding of these concepts. The understanding into the urban fabric will be on a two fold data collection framework that are spatial features and urban charactersistics. The concept of soial cohesion will be mapped both at data informed level and perceptional level. Data collected under each of the parameters listed will be inquired for any distinctive urban feature they may contribute to. Any relational attributes between social cohesion and physical fabric will then identify itself in the data analysis process.

Robust data-collection framework 33

05 Concluding Remarks

34

Bobby Nisha made the concluding remarks by briefing the group on the next steps forward including a tentative timeline for the research project. The next steps involved would be• Preparation of a draft framework for data collection and research based on this workshop’s responses • Conducting a pilot study of the two selected neighbourhoods based on this framework • Preparation of a white paper on the subject of this research project including findings from the pilot study • Application for a research grant based on this white paper The data collection framework was put together based on the insights that arised from the workshop and a following review of relavant literature whose findings will be published. The facilitated sessions provoked lively discussions and resulted in attaining a research framework for the pilot study. The richness of this discussion is hard to capture in a short report. This brief summary reflects on key ideas that emerged from the sessions and then places these in a systematic overview of emerging pilot study. There is real potential in taking the research idea forward to crystallise new ideas and nurture emerging research partnerships.

35

06 List of Workshop Participants BOBBY NISHA Teaching Associate- The University of Sheffield Bobby is a Teaching Associate in the Department of Town & Regional Planning at University of Sheffield. She is an architect and urban designer who worked in Dubai and the UK prior to pursuing her PhD in design decision-making. Her research inquiry domains include urban design process, process management, design thinking, design research, psychology of design and cities of the global south. She has published in key urban design journals and international conferences.

VIDHYA MOHANKUMAR Founder & Managing Trustee- Urban Design Collective Vidhya is an architect and urban designer with over a decade of work experience in India, Ireland and the United States and a passion for creating livable and sustainable cities. Apart from this, she also advocates sustainable development through training and capacity building programs for staff from various government agencies and also within academia through her association with a number of universities as guest faculty since she returned to India in 2008.

TAHAER ZOYAB Trustee, Manager - Research & Projects Tahaer is an architect urban designer with an interest in graphics and multi-faceted design.

His work experience as an architect/ tour guide/ site worker in New York City gave him a set palette of skills to start work â&#x20AC;&#x153;On Our Ownâ&#x20AC;?. He is Partner and Principal Designer at Triple O Studio, a young Chennai-based design studio.

MAHESH RADHAKRISHNAN UDC Core Team Member Mahesh is an architect with work experience ranging from large scale urban design to human scale interface design. He has been an urban research scholar at the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation in Germany and is the founder of a small architectural practice with a long nameMOAD- The Madras Office for Architects and Designers.

36

BHARATH GANDHI PALANISWAMY UDC Core Team Member Bharath is a civil engineer with a specialization in Geoinformatics. He is an urban enthusiast and always up for the cause of better cities. He is the Director at his own firm Rajarajan Engineering Consultancy & Construction Pvt. Ltd.

BIJU KURIAKOSE Architect & Urban Designer Biju is the co-founder of Chennai-based architectureRED. With over 12 years of experience developing architectural and urban design projects throughout the world, he brings crucial sustainable planning and international design expertise to the firm. Biju is a USGBC LEED Accredited Professional and has been invited to several prestigious forums including MWANew York, Pratt Institute and Columbia University, NYC as a speaker and studio critic.

ARVIND RAMACHANDRAN Architect & Urban Designer Arvind is a feminist architect and urban designer, who is interested in collaborative processes of city making. His attempt to understand how design can facilitate inclusive and just urban environments, especially for minority groups ignored by mainstream urban planning, have taken him on study, research, teaching, work and consulting assignments across the Nordic countries since 2010.

HARI SRINIVAS Architect & Urban Planner Hari is an Architect and a Masters graduate in urban planning from the Saxion HS IJselland, Netherlands. He has worked both in the Industry and academia. He is currently teaching a university in Chennai and has strong interest in urban development research.

37

Sheffield Institute for International Development (SIID) is a flagship interdisciplinary research institute within the University of Sheffield (TUOS). SIID brings together researchers, partners, students and stakeholder groups to develop new approaches to development research. Understanding the challenges of development is increasingly important in our inter-connected world. siidgroup@sheffield.ac.uk http://siid.group.shef.ac.uk

Urban Design Collective (UDC) is a non-profit organization that works as a collaborative platform for architects, urban designers and planners to create livable and sustainable cities through community engagement. info@urbandesigncollective.org www.urbandesigncollective.org

38

Report authored by: Bobby Nisha and Vidhya Mohankumar Copy Editing: Shruti Shankar