Architecture is a creative field, which encompasses more than just form and function, there are many other important aspects to make our cities work, from the user group to the climate. One of the most important aspects architects have to consider is the design of our public space, all too often the design consideration stops abruptly at the boundary of the site and doesn’t take into account the variety of passers-by who experience the site from a distance every day. Jan Gehl is a Danish architect that believes that life between buildings is just as paramount, if not more, than the buildings themselves. This “Life” he talks about is initiated through activity, this activity might be as low intensity as passive contact (seeing or hearing contact). [ ] How these spaces are designed have to create points in which activity may happen for people to enter these spaces, the space must also make them feel at ease or interested through other design decisions. The public space between buildings can often define how successful the buildings are themselves, the space determines who enters the buildings, by how inviting of exclusive it appears and also how neighbouring structure relate with each to create a successful dialogue.
Society today believes sustainability is about living a greener lifestyle, in terms of Architecture there is more to sustainability than an endless number of green buildings [ ]. The Environmental side is an extremely important issue which must be taken into account in design decisions, but it’s only one small branch of the overall topic. Sustainability is built upon three pillars; environmental, economic and social. Social life is the least understood of the different methods of approaching sustainability. I would argue it is the most important and the other categories feed off it. An increase in activity in public areas begins to make the spaces more sustainable on a social level. Social sustainability is the ability of a social system, such as a country, to function at a defined level of social well-being indefinitely. [ } The well-being of the inhabitants of the new Ørestad development in Denmark is questionable due to a planning deficit that has failed to promote activity within the district. Is the vision of the new development a solution to some of the problems Copenhagen is beginning to face or another problem that will cost more time and money to resolve? In February 2017, a few of my classmates and I visited Ørestad first hand, we were open minded with no preconception of how we were going to experience the development as a whole. The Ørestad development is an Urban Multiplex of housing, retail and leisure on the peripheries of Copenhagen. High quality materials and craftsmanship have been used to bring this project into fruition. There is an elegance to the detail behind different aspects of this development, from one view you could say it’s made up of iconic silhouettes on the horizon signifying notions of destination but is Ørestad really a destination?
Chapter One – What is the Ørestad development?
Ørestad started with an ambitious politician and a problem that desperately needed a solution. The problem a low economic growth, high city debts and dwindling optimism about Copenhagen as a business hub. The politician: then Prime Minister Poul Schlüter, who quickly assembled a team to put together a report on the state of our city and what we want to change. The Ørestad development is an out of town plan on the city of Copenhagen’s “backwater” on the Amager Island in Denmark which was running on the back of new large infrastructural developments in Copenhagen such as the airport. This area is becoming of great importance to the city’s infrastructure, it houses its current international airport and the Oresund rail line between Copenhagen and Malmö, creating a physical link between Denmark and Sweden to aid transport and trade. The Oresund line which was opened in 2000 was of huge importance to Copenhagen and Demark. Wider links to Sweden became so simple but also, internally the city of Copenhagen became better connected, linking the central station and the airport. These links are essential for an increase in tourism to the city. Ørestad situates itself between the two becoming one of the first impressions tourists have of the country out the train window . How has the infrastructural priority of the area affected the planning and development of Ørestad Development is, in a sense, a break away from the original Danish finger plan, it is oriented away from the fingers and now to the east towards Malmö. It is also a break away from the traditional state-run plan and instead was a public-private partnership. The development didn’t start well due to the site of Ørestad originally being a protected national park. The state sold the land to private companies to fund the rail line running through the whole site. The development proposes to house 20,000 Danish citizens and employ a further 80,000 but the development has failed to reach half those numbers thus far. [ ] One of the main failures of Ørestad is it was originally master planned as a cohesive entity, but through state alteration to Daniel Libeskinds’ original plan it eventually moved away from overall planning and instead focused on selling individual sites to private investors to help increase their profit margins, this led to a lack of interconnectivity. Furthermore, the scale of the public space compared to the amount of people is vastly larger than the centre of Copenhagen which in comparison works very well on a social level. It appears the area as a whole was designed with open public spaces, but then the individual sites have been designed with their own individual open spaces increasing the scale of open area. You could argue how “public” these spaces are, every building having its own space becomes very exclusive and stops the inhabitants wanting to venture further than their own building . The extra in between structures space makes for an uncomfortable atmosphere to be a part of.
As a whole, the development is lacking in interaction between its inhabitants and this comes down to its design on an urban scale. Going straight through the Ørestad development on the metro line makes you feel very close to the space, you feel like you are a part of Ørestad for the time you are passing through it. After dismounting the train, I began to have strong feelings of isolation, the vast empty space and the distinct lack of people creates a very harrowing, ghost town like feel. The sound of the metro flying away as it drops you off gives a definite sense of infrastructure but after that, the silence was deafening. The pavement and buildings were very clean, even the water features had frozen perfectly still, no leaves on the ground just leafless twigs erected every 6 or so meters. It felt very clinical, clean with no personality. It seemed it was trying to invoke a more modern sleek style but in doing so it lost all cultural and contextual relevance, there was no feature giving it a sense of place or location. You could have placed the development anywhere in the world in that case. It seems that the spaces that have been built are mainly accommodation or office blocks. In these spaces for example, the Mountain by Bjarke Ingles; every flat has their own private garden and the surrounding buildings are very similar in structure, this means there is less of a need for public outdoor space because people are isolating themselves in their private space. Another flaw of the buildings that I saw would be a lack of social cohesion occurring on the ground floor of the building. There is no relation between the buildings and street with no attempt to invite people in, the ground floor spaces are mainly occupied by lobbies which seem shut off and exclusive to its inhabitants. Again, in the case of the mountain the ground floor is a multi-story carpark, which begins to feel quite unsafe and definitely does not prioritise pedestrian experience. The lack of Activity on the ground floor is in stark contrast to the centre of Copenhagen where cafes spill out on to these areas blurring the threshold and making it more inviting compared to the wall of glass which tends to be the case in Ørestad. This topology also reflects the large empty space, only making the flaws more evident to the viewer. I am undertaking this study to discover the issues as to why Ørestad is struggling to form a positive identity for itself in the public realm in comparison to its successful counter part of Copenhagen’s city centre. Currently is seems Ørestad is just a false façade, a view for the train passengers as they zip through it or a shiny impression for tourists but I doubt many of them will be getting off the train when Ørestad is called.
Chapter Two – Jan Gehl and Social Sustainability
For an area to be socially sustainable, the physical environment in which people will be inhabiting has to be of high quality. According to Jan Gehl there are very necessary parameters for this to be achieved. Three types of human activity need to occur: necessary activity, optional activity and social activity . In areas of low quality only “necessary activities” occur. Contrastingly, in areas of so called “high quality”, optional activities such as; enjoying the fresh air, sitting, reading, sunbathing, etc. also occur with increasing frequency. Furthermore, as levels of optional activity increase, the resultant number of social activities usually rises considerably. [ ] This resultant activity ¬is the key to high quality spaces, as it involves interaction between people. This level of social cohesion allows for social and physical interaction resulting in a higher quality of life.
Figure 1: Jan Gehl diagram for Quality of Public space
Source: Gehl, Jan, and Jo Koch, Life Between Buildings (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2011)
People need human contact, it is a requirement of our species, we don’t function as well with a lack of contact. Psychologists are often unable to do solitary confinement studies on humans’ due to consent issues, but one famous study from McGill University in 1951 gives us an idea of how humans react to sensory deprivation. A group of male graduates were kept alone in a room where they were asked to wear gloves, goggles and ear muffs to muffle all of their senses, they only left the room to use the bathroom. The study was meant to last for several weeks but none of the participants could function after just one week. One student was described as being unable to ‘think clearly about anything for any length of time’, another began to severely hallucinate . “It destroys one’s capacity to relate socially, to work, to play, to hold a job or enjoy life.” [ ] It can be so damaging that it’s one of the main reasons its used as a form of punishment in many prisons.
Gehl believes this is why areas with high quality spaces are necessary, he talks about how this human contact is what creates the ‘life between buildings’. These necessary and optional activities allow people to be surrounded by other people and experience a varying intensity of forms of contact. This can range from low intensity such as passive contact (seeing and hearing) to high intensity such as close friendships, both are equally as important. Cities must urge urban planners and architects to strengthen pedestrianism as a city policy to create lively, safe, sustainable and healthy cities. It is equally critical to strengthen the social function of city space as a meeting place that contributes toward the aims of social sustainability and an open and democratic society. The potential for a lively city is greater when more people are invited to go out and walk, cycle and stay in city space rather than just pass through it on their rush home. [ ]
Public space is where the built environment meets public life. This is influenced by use patterns, culture and climate, and how these spaces are design can affect our behaviour as a community. It is equally important for people to be physically comfortable as it is for them to be socially comfortable. What truly makes good quality public space? Gehl architects did a study where they found there was criteria of 12 qualities which comprise public space. These can be broken down into three categories: protection, comfort and enjoyment.
Protection consists of protection from traffic, protection from those who wish to do us harm (through creating space full of light and life that can be self-policed) and protection from the elements. These aspects not only make people feel more comfortable in the space but they give people reason to stay. Somewhere where people can go and feel safe; “Space that makes us feel not just physically, but also mentally and socially safe is as important as many of life’s other necessities” . In an age where terrorist attacks are becoming more and more common, to the point where their frequency on the news is so high ¬¬we are becoming desensitised to them. People are feeling less and less safe every day and it’s the job of architects and urban designers to provide the people with some level of assurance. This creates a new challenge for designers but it is one of the most important issues we face today in our everyday lives. Protection also encompasses the elements, which varies due to the micro climate allowing people to be have shelter from sun, wind or rain.
Comfort consists of opportunities to walk, stand/stay and sit, opportunities to see, talk, listen, play and exercise (this can consist of there being universal accessibility so no one is discriminated against). There should be enough space to walk but not so vast that everyone becomes distanced and isolated, to make a more social atmosphere you should be within a proximity where you can see others facial expressions and emotions, this means it becomes more personal.
Finally, enjoyment, this consists of scale (buildings and spaces designed to human scale), opportunities to enjoy climate, sun/shade, heat/cool, shelter from wind/breeze and design. “Man is small, and, therefore, small is beautiful,” the human scale is more relatable, easier to view and more comfortable because its relatable, whereas skyscrapers dwarfing the human scale give a presence which is imposing and gives an uncomfortable atmosphere.
Chapter Three – Analysis of Ørestad’s Social Sustainability
“A good city is like a good party – people stay longer than really necessary, because they are enjoying themselves.” [ ]
-Jan Gehl
The main weakness to Ørestad is its public space. A key example of this would be ‘Kay Fiskers Square’ located in front of the Neroport tower where the square mainly provides an evacuation space for the train station and the metro station and little else. Research into Ørestads ‘Kay Fiskers Square’ by Jan Gehl found that even though a staggering 8000 pedestrians pass through the square daily, it remains almost empty all day. The space has 0 benches or café chairs, it is a large-scale ¬¬¬¬space, open and windy. The figures showed that on average the number of people present on the square was 19, which reflects the transitional rush from the metro station to Fields Shopping Centre. Contrastingly, Strædet square in Copenhagen which is also views a foot traffic of around 8000 pedestrians daily but has an average number of 258 people present on the square. The space of Strædet square is a nice micro climate and very human in its scale, it also has 372 benches or café chairs. As a comparison, the percentage of people present in the square compared to its daily number of pedestrians is 0.24% in Kay Fiskers square compared to 3.2% in Strædet which is huge difference . This evidence shows there is something clearly wrong. [ ] Reflecting on Strædet I feel the human scale works in its favour as I see the lack of that in kay Fiskers, one of the major drawbacks to the user experience in this space is the complete neglection of the human scale. The square is situated between a skyscraper and the bridge the encases the metro line, this scale dwarfs the people passing through its shadow, creating a space where you don’t feel wanted or would like to spend time.
The lack of people passing through the space leaves it empty most of the time. This begins to bring about worries of safety, one of Jan Gehls key criteria for public space is protection, spaces with a lack of people feel very unsafe as they are hard to self-police if no one is around and the polices resources are too stretched to watch one person walk from the metro to their apartment late at night. The area is currently more of a wealthy area as the apartments are expensive and it may be seen as a target.
One of the main reasons people don’t stop is there, is there isn’t anywhere to actually stop. Benches and outdoor café seating is non-existent. If people were given the choice I believe activity would begin to increase. Thereafter, it would begin to set off a chain reaction with more people choosing to do optional activity mixing with those doing necessary activity we would begin to have a greater resultant social aspect. Therefore, one solution to the public space problems could be to begin to populate the ground floors of the many private structure with more public programs for people to enjoy and interact with.
You could argue the sustainability of a place is down to how the people which inhabit that space feel, if their quality of life is increased by living in an area then the space is more socially sustainable. In terms of this study Ørestad is quite clearly failing. Ørestad seems to be an area of fragmented urban fabric and its vast public spaces have been complied well but are of poor quality. It can be assumed that an unequal balance within the public-private alliance caused a disjointed urban tissue in Ørestad City. [ ] The result of the Ørestad development isn’t looking up, neither private nor public developers want to invest in ambitious and eager projects as they just want minimum risk and maximum profit and they believe office and accommodation blocks are the best solution. On the other hand, it has become increasingly harder to gain profit from developments in Ørestad because most of the offices and accommodation are proving very hard to rent out and this is becoming a vicious circle because no one else is willing to invest in an area in decline.
Conclusion
In Conclusion, I will now collate my analysis that has arisen through my exploration of this topic. I will consider how Ørestad has been affected by poor Urban planning and how this affected the quality of the public space and thus the community inhabiting it. Not only does the activity in Ørestad public spaces need to be analysed but also the lack of activity and what activities and why? What spatial qualities are currently preventing these from happening.