The film, The Social Life of Small Urban Space: William H. Whyte, begins with a team of researchers and film makers conducting a study of city dynamics by observing the interplay of human behavior in urban spaces. The team records their observations of interactions between people and space, taking note of a wide range of factors including, gender, age, body language, mimicry behavior, sunlight and also performing an analysis of design factors, such as elevation, sculptures, water features, staircase width, bench height, and sitting space; all of which affect human behavior in a multitude of ways. More importantly, the film is particularly revealing of how design can help infuse life into a space, insofar as it attracts people to it, and facilitates interactions, engagements and conversations within it. This is contrasted to dead spaces, that are lifeless, and devoid of people and human interaction. The aim of the film then, is to uncover the reasons behind the successes of some spaces, insofar as they are steeped in animation, vibrancy and dynamism. Emulation of such design features across urban spaces could then, possibly invigorate the city, city life and city experience as a whole. The data collected by the research team is massive, but communicated in a concise and entertaining manner, often peppered with jokes in the commentary. What made the film memorable for me, was how it could relate its findings in a compelling manner, while still not diluting the significance of its research. For one, the film posited that urban parks are an important structure in stimulating interaction within the city. 1 1 Image retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeltk/6214822029
It is particularly interesting to apply Whyte s findings to the context of Singapore. To be sure, in Singapore, we see evidences of urban parks sprawled across the city. In fact, the Singapore Urban Development Authority emphasizes upon its plans to enhance the city through lush 2 landscaping, with the creation of lush greenery and attractive waterbodies. One such example would be NTU s very own ADM Roof top, boasting of it s own Roof Garden perched atop the Design School. A more ubiquitous public park, would be Raffles Place Park, with its inclusion of tree canopies, flower bushes and grass squares, accompanied with ledges for people to sit on factors which Whyte has found to be crucial in creating a lively and robust social environment. Furthermore, Raffles Place Park is often a square used for flash mobs, installations and exhibitions. To be sure, such features align with the concepts of lush landscaping, and seemingly parallel Whyte s findings on the inclusion of key features to invigorate public plazas. 3 However, a comparison of Raffles Place Park during 1967, to the present day Raffles Place, 2 Retrieved from Urban Development Authority, Master Plan, Public Space: Towards a Liveable City https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master plan/view master plan/master plan 2014/master plan/key focuses/publ ic spaces/public space.aspx 3 Retrieved from Urban Development Authority, Master Plan, Public Space: Towards a Liveable City https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master plan/view master plan/master plan 2014/master plan/key focuses/publ ic spaces/public space.aspx
might hint at a perversion of good urbanism, with a regression and removal of several highly interactive urban features. In 1967, Raffles Place Park was similarly, a public park. However, it was adorned with interactive sculptures, a greater number of seating places, and more importantly a seamless integration of the public park with the streets, one prominent feature of good urban design, as identified by Whyte, who stated that, 4 4 Image retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/argentem/4000469334/
In addition, Raffles Place Park also featured a water fountain. As illuminated in the video, Whyte has demonstrated how water features draws both adults and children to it, as it is not only an element of fun and movement, but also something which people like to sit next to, and watch or simply cool down. 5 Such a comparison of the changes made to Raffles Place Park hints at a perversion of good urbanism and a regression of social urban spaces, despite the URA pledging its commitments towards creating social areas for community bonding. In contrast to Raffles Place Park from 1976, the present day Raffles Place Park seems barren and sparse, although squares of grass and seat ledges will adorn the park. It seems as though the designers of Raffles Place Park could pick up a lesson or two from the video themselves. A pertinent issue which struck me though, was how the video mentioned that the upkeep of social spaces, would keep undesirables away. Undesirables was a term used as a referent to the homeless and the poor. The video suggests that by creating a social space that would attract 5 Image Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/argentem/with/4010102063/
people, the homeless would shun the place accordingly, as it is seemingly not befitting of them to be lingering in the area. I had 2 concerns with this statement. My first thought went to beggars who seek street donations from passer bys on the street. It seemed to me, most likely that beggars would position themselves on as crowded a street as possible, so as to come into contact with as great a number of potential donors as possible. I cannot say to have much knowledge on this, but that it occured to me that the proposition made by the video seemed counter intuitive. Secondly, and on a more problematic note, it seemed to me, cruel and lazy even, to fix the problem of homelessness and the undesirables through good design. The argument that good design will keep the problem of the undesirables away, does not inherently solve the problem of homelessness. All it achieves, if it succeeds, is to keep the problem hidden, away from the urban spaces and the eyes of city goers. This seemed to me an insensitive and self serving design for city living, contrary to the messages of the high quality of city living. Denise Soong Ee Lyn HS3004 Cities and Urban Life