Social Sensitivity of the Public Realm
And the role of the architect
Introduction
OurSpace.CoOp is a community-based model that challenges the current structure of public space in terms of its procurement and function. The model aims to enable greater input from the local community, encouraging the development of public space projects that reflect the needs and values of the users. OurSpace.CoOp thus allows for public space to have a long-lasting impact both socially and environmentally.
Understanding the role of community in the development of public spaces, by putting the community at the center of the project. This essay will look at how public space is designed and how it facilitates appropriation by users. It will analyze the collaborative process of working to include the client and client constituency or user/audience, as well as specialized professionals. This will be done by studying interventions that address both the physical and social fabric of the urban environment. Hence, by studying and comparing the project management and stakeholder diagrams for two contrasting case studies. The first will be Kings Cross Central, owned and controlled by the Kings Cross Central Limited Partnership, Backed by Argent (property developers), and Hermes Investment Management on behalf of the BT Pension Scheme. The second case study will be Barking Town Square, by Muf Practise, and the client is Redrow Regeneration with the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. This project formed networks with local communities such as the client developer, local authority, and the master bricklayers from the local building college.
Public Space
“ …. The word ‘public’ signifies the world itself, insofar as it is common to all of us and distinguished from our privately owned place within it… it is related to the human artifact, the fabrication of human hands as well as to affairs which go on among those that inhabit the man-made world altogether. ..”[i]
Public Space is traditionally an Urban Space that is due to withholding or clearing of the built fabric from the area. They are architectural propositions that are the development of voids. The Kings Cross Central is an example of a contemporary public space. The idea of context and continuity form the basis of contemporary architecture. Architects moved from the private sector and profit to the public realm. When the New Labour came to power in 1997, there was an increasing concern about the state of the public realm in the cities of England. This led to the formation of two documents — The Urban Task Force Report and ‘Our Towns and Cities: The Future (2000)’.[ii]
The community is defined as a group of representatives that form OurSpace.CoOp within each local council. This group of representatives is members of the local council, volunteers for social and environmental organizations, members of key associations, and keen local residents looking to collaborate on social public space work within their respective community. Public space is defined as public squares, parks, small green spaces, etc. In terms of this model, we also define public space as informal areas of gathering such as the open/wide expanses in front of shops where the boundaries are less defined yet still allow for public development.
The revival of the public space came about in the 21st Century. Good urban public spaces would reinforce a sense of community. The Mayor’s Architecture and Urbanism Unit became Design for London in 2007 and was absorbed into the GLA’s Regeneration unit in 2013. According to the Design for London, the main aim when designing for public space was to ‘ devise a cohesive strategy of tactical urban design for Regenerating London’. [iii] Procurement in the Barking Town Square models, is largely dependent on the production team, which consists of developers, planners, designers, and planning guidance. However, this does not always guarantee the best outcome. The production of places such as this depends more on determined councils, personal relationships, and insightful developers rather than the procedures, common requirements, and protocols.
History
Architecture has often been influenced by the social struggle as seen in the last century. For example, the Avant-Garde spatial practitioners in the 1920’s played the role of the agents of revolution. Currently, architecture imaginary is being consumed rapidly, which in turn naturalizes issues that could have been publicly contested.[iv] However, the relationship between architecture and class struggle in the past 20 years has been questioned. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) contacted and conducted a number of researchers and conferences to try and ensure the social responsibility and creativity of the architect remains intact.[v] However, Macewen, the author of the book ‘Crisis in Architecture’, proposed that a separate body from the RIBA, called the Architecture Center, in which the public such as the users, non-architects, and clients would have a say too. [vi] The Architects Revolutionary Practise (ARC), questioned the RIBA and the character of the profession in 1970. They questioned who the architect was really helping. [vii] In the late 1990s, the “Egan Report Rethinking Construction”[viii] affected the role of the architect. It proposed improved management and supervisory skills, and an increased role for the contractors. It stated that competitive tendering would be replaced with long term relationships and that that leading public sector bodies should become best practice clients.[ix] The RIBA ‘Meeting the Challenge’ strategy for architecture and architects in 1999, set out a five-year plan that outlined a series of challenges for architects covering the context in which the profession and the Institute must work in producing architecture for clients and the wider societal needs.[x]
Professional bodies such as the RIBA or the ARB, define architectural standards. Hence, there are constant shifts in the organizational models and roles in the construction industry which show that the profession extends more than economic and personal reasons, but also affects the social environment.
It has been argued that the nature of architectural work requires special management practices to handle the creative temperament within an organizational frame: ‘Of all the challenges facing the profession, the problems of motivating architects and sustaining office morale and performance might be the most difficult to address’.[xi] Today, architects are seen as an agent of design between the client and the contractor.[xii] The architect has to continuously change their role according to global changes. To survive they need to balance creativity and social responsibility. Architecture has the potential to act as a double agent to be able to respond to the opposing ideologies. [xiii] Hence, urban planning requires architects that can work and collaborate with people from different fields. [xiv]
Kings Cross Case Study
The Kings Cross Central was developed between 2000–2012. The King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership (KCCLP) is the single landowner at King’s Cross. The partnership is composed of Argent King’s Cross Limited Partnership which has 50%, and London and Continental Railways Limited (LCR) and DHL supply chain which have 36.5% and 13.5% ownership respectively. It consists of 53% buildings, 15% for streets, and 32% for public spaces. Argent was formed in 1981, and they have been the main client, retain long-term site ownership and therefore management of the site. They brought together the first design team for Kings Cross Granary Square which consisted of Allies and Morrison, prepared with Porphyrios Associates and Townshend Landscape Architects.
Argent founded the King’s Cross Estate Services. This council oversaw the public areas and many of the buildings. It had long term ownership of the land and the principle of “stewardship”. This leads them to foster connections with the local community and involved members in the upkeep of the site. According to plan 350–400 members of the local community are involved through employment or voluntary jobs. They also engage with the community outside of the direct site, local councils, and different transport authorities. These communities include King’s Cross Development Forum, King’s Cross, Neighbourhood Forum, London Cycling Campaign, Islington Cyclists’ Action Group, Camden Cycling Campaign. Argent LPP, the developers of Kings Cross Central, Allies and Morrison and Porphyrios Associates, established an urban space with mixed-use, that reused the existing buildings. They maximized the use of the brown field on the site and created a sustainable public space. [xv]
King’s Cross is an inner-city area, located in the London Boroughs of Islington and Camden. The local authorities for it are the Camden and Islington Councils. The Camden Borough Council helped shape the development of the Kings Cross Central. The first London Plan in 2004 identified King’s Cross as an Opportunity Area, and the subsequent Opportunity Area Planning and Development Brief prepared by Camden and Islington Council provided an overarching framework to guide investment and regeneration in the area. The Camden and Islington Borough Councils' main objective was to create a relationship between the development and the public realm. This was achieved through physical connections such as easy access and movement throughout the site.
The contractors for Kings Cross are HBG and Nuttal. The regeneration plan and delivery program were procured by a competitive bids by developers. The lead consultants for Granary Square were appointed directly by the client. The budget for the project of the public realm scheme of Kings Cross Central was approximately 250 million pounds. [xvi]
Muf Architects — Barking Town Square Case Study
The regeneration of Barking Town Square is one of the main focuses of regeneration in the Thames Gateway project. There was a need to create a public realm in the area to facilitate communities to get together. The Redrow Regeneration (Barking) and third-party London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD), developed the Barking Town Square in Barking Central, London between 1999–2010. It is a medium-sized community and public space. An architectural competition was held by the local council, and Allford Hall Monaghan Morris ( AHMM) were chosen as the architects. In 2006, they appointed Muf Architecture as the public realm architects. The Barking Town square is a public mix — used area, that consists of residential apartments, a Learning Centre compromising of a new library, lecture rooms and galleries, and a public square. The project was delivered in two phases, over the span of two years. [xvii] The 6000m2 town square is T shaped. It consists of four elements; a civic square, an arboretum, a folly wall, and an arcade. The square is surrounded by four new buildings, which have public functions at ground level and private apartments above it. Small series of regenerative projects along with the A-13, organized by architect Tom de Paor, inspired the regeneration of the Barking Town Square. [xviii]
The procurement of the public space was commissioned to the Muf Architecture. Muf Architects are a collaboration of designers, artists, and architects that are based in London. Their main aim is to create urban public realm projects that facilitate the needs of the users. In her interview, Mel Dodd, a collaborator with Muff Architecture described the different roles of the future architect and explained how they would need to act as a double agent.[xix] The process of planning in their work, including urban projects, buildings and strategic documents all includes the voices of the people it is designed for and is about the voice of others. [xx] Muff architects come up with suggestions rather than specific courses of action which then led to the negotiation of interests, that take place through discussions and consultations between the private and the public, and communal and individual. As the practice engages in art and designing has a social aspect to it as well.[xxi]
Muf collaborated with the civil engineer, Peter Watson. They created two public squares. The first one was as per AHMM’s guidelines and existing buildings, and the second one was a ‘Civic Square’, which was in front of the existing Town Hall.
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD), developed the ‘Barking Code’, as they believed that the quality of the public realm was important as it is a reflection of the borough. The public realm links the existing fabric and new developments. It is also the area where existing and new communities could meet and interact.[xxii] Muf Architecture were commissioned by the LBBD, with the Design for London, to rewrite the Barking Code for 2007. The Barking Code sets out rules for the choice of materials, lighting, planting and street furniture.
Conclusion
OurSpace.CoOp believes that social and environmental justice go hand-in-hand with one another. Often the “big picture” thinking of public space doesn’t account for the day-to-day life of the community that will interact with the projects the most.
After looking at the two case studies, The Kings Cross Central and The Barking Town Square, it is clear that architects need to be agents of change to ensure social practice. Developers Argent LPP commissioned the same master planners and landscape architects for Kings Cross Central as they had done in Brindley Place in Manchester a few years prior. Townsend Architects and Argent, together produced ‘employers requirements’ so that the quality of the design could be achieved.[xxiii] According to them, there must be a strong desire from all parties to deliver a high-quality public realm. New forms of contracts ensure this togetherness. It is treated as a team where there is a collective success. Liza Fior from Muf Architecture, identified a problem with Argent’s methodology as it could not be transferred to local authorities.
For Kings Cross Central, Jane Roberts, leader of the Camden Council said that they understood the importance of design as the quality of the square was determined by the public space as a core object.[xxiv] Argent and Camden were on the same page about this. For the Barking Town Square, the council leader Charles Fairbrass and Jeremy Grint thought there was a need for regeneration of the town square. Redrow, the developer was less concerned about it and had to be convinced that the public realm would add value for the community. The Kings Cross Central took for granted what the Barking Town Square had to argue for. According to Muf Architecture, a continuous fluid discussion with the client could facilitate the social role of the architect. Merging the role of the client and the architect would also create a new relationship.
In the Barking Town Square, the square connects back to the community. Liza Fior had to explain that Muf Architecture was not anti-architecture, however, they felt that architecture should expand further than the built solution. They question the role of the architect and what role the architect plays socially and politically, by in-cooperating the influences of the locals whilst meeting corporate standards.
[i] Matthew Carmona, ‘Contemporary Public Space: Critique and Classification’, Journal Of Urban Design, Vol 15 (2010): 134–48.
[ii] Susannah Hagan, Designing London’s Public Spaces: Post-War and Now, 2019, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=2275619.
[iii] Alison Smithson and Peter Smithson, ‘The New Brutalism’, Architectural Design, 1957.
[iv] Cristina Goberna and Chao Lun Wang, ‘Architecture as Double (Secret) Agent’ (2013), http://abstract20122013.gsapp.org/architecture-as-double-secret-agent/.
[v] Evangelia Iliopoulou, ‘The Role of the Architect as the Double Agent’ (University Of Brighton, 2015).
[vi] Malcolm MacEwen, Crisis in Architecture (London: RIBA Publications, 1974).
[vii] Jeremy Till, Schneider, and Awan, ‘Spatial Agency’, n.d.
[viii] RIBA, ‘Adapt or Die’, Building Design, 1999.
[ix] John Egan, ‘Rethinking Construction’, n.d.
[x] Royal Institute of British Architects, Meeting the Challenge: RIBA Strategy for Architecture and Architects, 1999–2003. (RIBA Publications, 1999).
[xi] R Gutman, ‘Architectural Practice: A Critical View’ (Princeton, 1988).
[xii] Stewart Clegg and Andrew Brown, ‘“Invisible Walls” and “Silent Hierarchies”: A Case Study of Power Relations in an Architecture Firm’, Human Relations, n.d.
[xiii] Rosa Ainley and Katherine Shonfield, eds., This Is What We Do: A Muf Manual (London: Ellipsis, 2001).
[xiv] Till, Schneider, and Awan, ‘Spatial Agency’.
[xv] Hagan, Designing London’s Public Spaces.
[xvi] Hagan.
[xvii] AHMM, ‘Barking Central Information Pack’ (London, n.d.).
[xviii] ‘Regenerating Barking’, Architect’s Journal, 13 September 2007.
[xix] Iliopoulou, ‘The Role of the Architect as the Double Agent’.
[xx] ‘Muf Architecture’, Spatial Agency (blog), 10 March 2010, https://www.spatialagency.net/database/muf.
[xxi] ‘Muf Architecture’.
[xxii] Muf Architecture, ‘The Barking Code for the Public Realm’ (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, 2012 2008).
[xxiii] Martha Alker and Townshend Landscape Architects, ‘Public Spaces and the Role of the Designer : A Symposium for Practioners’ (University of Westminister, 20 June 2017).
[xxiv] Lisa Fior, Interview with Project Researchers, 1 February 2017.
