STARS InternationalDesign Research Seminar

R M I T L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E S E M E S T E R 0 1 , 2 0 1 0 C O U R S E P A M P H L E T

image

image

Private/Public – states of being and designing

Who questions private and public? What significance does the distinguishing in these two entities hold? What are consequences for designing urban land-scapes? The design research seminar will be delivered in co-operation with Dr. Beu Beza’s urban design project, visiting scholar Dr. Juliane Pegels from RWTH Uni-versity in Aachen, Germany and is integrated in the StaRSinternational research project.

The seminar aims to reflect on the theoretical context of the disparity between private and public through examining a current issue arising in urban contexts: urban interventions that engage actively in modifying urban space. These interventions range from politi-cally motivated re-appropriation to apolitical expres-sion of creativity to simple efforts of beautification. Examples of actions that impact on the physical space are guerrilla gardens, graffiti or occupation of sites or buildings. All the interventions are informal infringing on clear ownership and legal statues of urban space. In this seminar the informal nature of interventions will be employed to investigate the terms private and public in various urban contexts.

The Seminar was run in cooperation with Dr. Juliane Pegels, RWTH University Aachen, STARSinternational and Dr. Beau Beza, RMIT.

context: privatization, consumerism and design

context: safety , surveillance and civic rights

course abstract

international

Lynda Atanasovski

Ryan Baragwanath

Zhipeng Cai

Hwei Peing Sarah Gan

Bronwyn Tan

See May Ang

Nada Filipovic

Alice Lewis

Phillip Smith

Irene Laplanche

Andrew Plant

Jin Yan

Cyprian Czajkowski

Fang Ji

Niki Schwabe

Dr. Marieluise Jonas

Dr. Juliane PegelsDr. Beau Beza

course leader:

thanks to:

Matthew Hamilton

Chloe Edwards

Nicholas Newham

Natalie Swan

Katrina Duncan

contents

Through undertaking this research we have found that boundaries between public and private spaces can never be clearly defined or allocated, when con-sidering the different positions on what constitutes each. Is it the site boundaries? Are the users an indi-cation or determination of a public or private space? These questions relate to particular edge typologies that can ‘create’ a space, which themselves rely upon users for their definition and temporality.What makes a space private?

Private spaces can usually be determined by how a user’s activities are restricted within an area. Tools such as signage, security installations and level changes are all examples of a private presence within a space. However, when there is little or no signage in or around a space, how can we determine if a space is private or not? Can a congregation of people within a public setting make a space a private space? Can the materiality of the landscape or surrounding building facades reveal privatisation of space?

Nick Newham, Katarina Duncan, Natal ie Swan

l iv ing on the edge

image (s)

Moral value is, at a certain extent, the standard that leads us into differentiating right and wrong; it gov-erns an individual’s behaviour and choices. Wether we realise it or not, we as members of the public, are constantly under the influence of social expectations. Within most public spaces there are behavioural norms and social expectations. These expectations of what is appropriate come from the public and are in-directly enforced by them. It is only human nature to follow the general public in relation to behaviour thus

expectations and limits are rarely challenged.These questions have been compiled to make it easier to understand the relationship between public space and the way in which values and expectations affect its accessibility. When we classify a space as public there is a notion that that space can and will cater for the general public. There are however unspoken expectations from the public that certain programs/activities are inappropriate within a space.

Andrew Plant, J in Yan, I rene Laplanche

acceptance and behaviour

image (s)

In terms of a larger framework, public space is con-sidered to be an important role in defi ning the social network and operation of a city. They act as the sig-nifi cant other to the built up infrastructure and other form within an urban environment. Public spaces are seen as ‘a distinguishing feature, a cultural landmark, a symbol of development’ (Benitez, 2007) but more importantly act as the flexible aspect within a city that allows for and works with changes in society.How they are used and understood is governed by the

individual. Meaning and use can be put on a space by the designer but it is not until people leave their mark on the space that it has gained some sort of defi niti-on. What is acceptable to do in a public/private space is more or less dictated by how we, as society, deem it as acceptable. This relay of information, both within a space and across multiple spaces, can affect how it is used, who it attracts and its ultimate success.What is to say that these activities are acceptable or not and who actually monitors these acts?

Lynda Atanasovski, Ryan Baragwanath,Zhipeng Cai

survei l lance

image (s)

Key to our research method is an understanding and appreciation of personal space dynamics. The study of social distance or proxemics, has been the subject of detailed research and much is currently under-stood about the spatial dynamics of social interac-tion. Edward T. Hall for instance isolated four distinct categories of meaningful human distances: intimate, personal, social, and public each engendering very specific functions (Hall,1966). Since then there havebeen many related studies. Given what we already

understand about how people interact and define temporary territories, we now consider how these characteristics are expressed and mediated in the public realm. We ask how public behaviour and so-cial interactions are affected by publicly accessible settings. What implicit factors in an urban context can enhance social interaction and to what extent can implicit de-sign gestures mediate the generation of quality public space via the interaction of people?

Fang Ji , Niki Schwabe

terr i tory

image (s)

This research project attempted to investigate both existing public perceptions of safety as well as the various ways in which existing perceptions could po-tentially be challenged, using an inner city laneway as the area in which to conduct the study. The three interventions chosen were specifically looking at exploring various modes of surveillance and how effective each of these modes might be at both engaging with, and altering public perceptionsof safety. The first intervention was of a psychologi-

cal and suggestive nature and involved the use of four mainstream surveillance signs. The second in-tervention, using seven activity lights was a slightly less recognisable mainstream style of surveillance as the lights chosen differed considerably from standard council street lighting or private property lighting generally used within the CBD. The final intervention, the use of household furniture items was, even less recognisable as a mainstream public form of surveil-lance.

Nada Fi l ipovic, Al ice Lewis, Phi l ip Smith

safety

image (s)

Currently, some laneways do not provide an envi-ronment for social interactions. This is because the laneways “fail to connect with local communities” as society is focused on creating places to generateincome for private business (Minton, 2006, pp 4). Even though economic viability is important, otherapproaches must be incorporated in order to create successful spaces which are seen as ‘non places’.Laneways which are not used to cater for private busi-ness have lower social interaction due to the fear of

crime which correlates with the “level of trust” among people “rather than actual crime figures” (Minton, 2006). Portland Lane and Georges Place are great example of this, which has resulted to the priva-tization of a public space.

Anna Bari l la, Matthew Hamilton, Chloe Edwards

laneways as social space

How does city infrastructure control our society? The questioned posed here remains quite ambiguous however relevant not only to Melbourne but also to other cities around the world. In Deyan Sudjic’ book The Edifice Complex a grotesque concept for archi-tecture emerges from dictator Sudan Hussein were he states “We build for emotional and psychologi-cal purposes, as well as for ideological and practical purposes”. (Sudjic, p.148) Today the psychological purpose of a Melbourne laneway is to form a sensa-

tion of movement and the practicality of the laneway becomes the efficiency of this movement, allowing for swift access to certain destinations.

Cyprian Czajkowski

laneway soccer

How do we challenge the existing function of public space through private appropriation by insertingobjects such as inflatable balls? Public spaces have different aspects of private appropriation. People appropriate the space through their own activities. This is an issue in designing public space. Designers cannot entirely direct the user rights/limits in public space we design at some point; asthere will be agree-ment and conflict between all parties involved in the construction, development, day-to-day management

and use of the space. Design and functional opportu-nities clearly affect what people can and cannot do. As stated in Carmona, Heath, Oc & Tiesdell (2008, p109) “environment-people relationship is not a one way process. They influence and change the environ-ment, as it influences and changes them”. For exam-ple, in Harbour Town, public amenities like benches, trees and street signage along the middle of the pe-destrian mall duplicate a public street, the design in-vited the public to relax in the space. (Brandes, p195)

See May Ang, Bronwyn Tan, Sarah Gan

transforming space