THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE RESEARCH

As indicated earlier (chapter one) the purpose of this research is to establish a holistic concept that may help assess the appropriateness of the contemporary stock of public spaces within modern residential areas in Jeddah to their users and context. In doing so, we need to analyse the attributes of these spaces using a multi-dimensional model, investigating how these spaces are produced, constructed, renovated, and maintained from spatial, institutional, psychological, and social dimensions. This also requires us to examine the perspectives of different stakeholders involved in the design and development process rather than focus our analysis on a single viewpoint (Carmona, Heath et al. 2003; Madanipour 2006). To establish the conceptual framework of the research and broaden our understanding of multidimensionality and the complexity of issues relating to public space provision, it is important to provide a brief review of the contemporary debate regarding the decline of the public realm.

3.4.1 The quality of the public realm

Recent urban design literature presents a bewildering range of opinions regarding the issue of the public realm. The current debate about changes in the role of public spaces and the consequences they have led to a shared sense of dissatisfaction about the state of modern urban public spaces, a dissatisfaction that is particularly concerned with the quality of spaces within suburban residential environments. In explaining the reasons that lie behind this dissatisfaction, some researchers (e.g. Lynch 1960; Jacobs 1961; Alexander 1966; Lefebvre 1974; Hall 2002) have linked the problem to macro-spatial planning

73

practices and methods of regulating larger-scale urban developments; these failed to provide desirable social environments. Others (e.g. Whyte 1958; Cullen 1971; Newman 1972; Krier 1979; Trancik 1986; Gehl 1987) have highlighted the deficiencies in micro- spatial planning, design, and architectural detail, and have explained how these morphological attributes affect the quality of public life. Yet others (e.g Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sideris 1992; Madanipour 2006; Punter 2007; Carmona, de-Magalhaes et al. 2008) have indicated that the problem of public spaces is not only related to the way in which the urban environment is planned or designed. The absence of appropriate public space management, must, they argue, be considered as a key reason for an experience of decline within these areas.

Regarding the impact made by macro-spatial planning and the increasing scale of development, Kevin Lynch (1981: 401) (who strongly criticized the functionalist approach to city planning) has argued that dividing the city into a series of residential areas and creating a large segregation of activities by sharp boundaries is ‘futile’ and does not enhance accessibility nor support social integration. Likewise, Madanipour (2003: 148) points out that imposing specialized zones on cities with highly regimented streets and separating urban areas into functional cells with a single use – as an attempt to control the overall shape of urban growth – ‘led to an artificial fragmentation of cities which has been confronted by a generation of protest’.

With regard to the issues concerning fragmentation of the built environment and how these have affected the quality of the social realm within modern cities, Jacobs (1961) points out that these issues have increased the heterogeneity of modern residential areas, which has in turn encouraged uncivil behaviour and fear of crime. Newman (1972: 2), argues that the fragmentation of the physical environment and the heterogeneity found in modern residential areas created a monotonous residential environment; he goes on to say that these indistinct environments have also ‘crippled our ability to agree on the action required to maintain the social framework necessary to our continued survival’. Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sideris (1992) and Dear and Wolch (1989) likewise point out that the increased density and heterogeneity of the modern city have created an overload of inputs in the form of fragmented encounters, experiences and information. Similarly, increased mobility has enabled people to move away from the social problems of their communities.

74

Subsequently, individuals withdraw from public life, retreat inside the private realm of the household, and become fearful of others.

From the socio-cultural, psychological, and institutional points of view, some writers (e.g. Habermas 1962; Lefebvre 1971; Relph 1976; Canter 1977; Castells 1977; Sennett 1977) have argued that the decline of the public realm was not only affected by the imposition of modern city planning, but was also influenced by non-spatial forces such as modes of human experience, changes in the political economy, social ecology, lifestyle, fear of exposure to strangers, and the complexity of urban life in general. Starting from an environmental perception viewpoint – which emphasizes the importance of people’s experience in establishing a sense of identity with place, something achieved through dependence and attachment – Edward Relph (1976: 106) points out that the quality of a place and its spatial attributes cannot be captured only by their objective reality, such as their form and the activities that take place inside it, but also and more importantly through the ‘intentional interpretation’ of those who perceived and experienced it. According to Relph, contemporary public spaces have lost their significance because the people who experience them do not feel at all deeply that they are functionally and emotionally attached to them. Regarding the impact of cultural values on the quality of the contemporary public realm, Richard Sennett (1990 cited in Barnett 2003) believes that the decline of communities cannot be solved through design. He argues that cultural differences among various groups and the fear individuals have of engaging with others have made it hard to achieve a sense of community, and that this in turn has discouraged sociability.

Basing themselves on a political economy perspective, based on historical materialism and a Marxist reading of the city (dialectical relationships between space and society) a constellation of writers (e.g. Habermas 1962; Lefebvre 1974; Castells 1977; Hervey 1985; Knox 1987; Dear 1989; Hall 1998) view urban space as a mediator of ideological hegemony and cultural identity. Put differently, this symbolizes either the power exerted by different human agents (e.g. the territorial expansion of capitalism) or organizations (e.g. collective consumption and social movements). In its turn, this power manifests itself in the framework of daily life and imposed spatial forms that have changed social relations. As pointed out by Goonewardena (2004: 166) and others, the commodification

75

and homogenization of some public spaces through over-management by private investors has reduced their significance as facilitators of sociability.

From an institutional point of view, Carmona et al (2008) suggest that, while planning and design standards played a major role in making the public environment in modern cities a public space issue, they were not the sole contributors to the problem. The management of public space constantly defines the condition of these areas. Carole Rakodi (2001) argues that visible issues such as the deterioration of the urban environment can be directly connected to political imperatives rather than being identified as outcomes of the failure of urban spatial planning or urban management approaches. She also adds that, without legitimacy, the realization of political actions and priorities cannot be sustained. Aydin- Wheater (2002) argues that the lack of appropriate open spaces is not only a function of the design process, but also a component of urban development itself. Thus, while economies and cities have grown, the public realm has come to be neglected.

To sum up, the gaps between different views indicate that contemporary urban environments encapsulate modern phenomena which have caused a dramatic rise in spatial-social fragmentation and polarization. People’s active participation in public spaces has been reduced as a result of their fear of others and their transformation into passive participants. As indicated in chapter two, though no generally accepted conceptual framework has been developed by researchers, the interaction between different dimensions of the built environment such as spatial, institutional, psychological, and socio-cultural factors and the impact they have on people’s behaviour and perceptions has been considered the overarching focus (Van-Kamp, Leidelmeijera et al. 2003). Thus, for urban designers to play a more influential role in enhancing the public realm within modern residential areas, a scrutiny of objective spatial qualities and the socio-cultural experience combined with a critical interpretation of space-society relationships is urgently needed to help us understand the ‘dynamic multiplicity’ of the nature of public spaces (Madanipour, Hull et al. 2001).

76

3.4.2 The Multi-Dimensional Urban Design Approach

There is a rich and extensive literature covering research that explores residents’ appraisal of both specific and general aspects of the environment and the quality of life (Festinger, Schachters et al. 1950; Whyte 1980; Coleman 1985; Marcus and Sarkissian 1986; Gehl 1987; Lang 1987; Smith, Nelischer et al. 1997; Varady and Carrozza 2000; Pasaogullari and Dortali 2004; Williams 2005; Kearney 2006; Lichtenberg, Tra et al. 2007; Hamilton- Baillie 2008; Rogers and Sukolratanametee 2009; Mohit, Ibrahim et al. 2010). This appraisal typically takes the form of perceived environmental quality indicators that can be extensively used in the fields of urban planning and design, and in environmental, social, and psychological studies (Craik and Zube 1976; Carp and Carp 1984). However, the context in which the concept environmental ‘quality’ is used in research and policy- making is seldom consistent. It is not possible to give an exhaustive review of all approaches within this research. Instead, the present study aims to offer a broad insight into a diverse range of approaches and concepts, as explained in earlier section. Generally speaking, a broad variety of models or conceptualizations is used as a guideline for the macro- and micro-urban design and management processes in urban development (Van- Kamp, Leidelmeijera et al. 2003).

Concepts such as environmental quality, community well-being, the public realm, and urban design enjoy great public popularity and are central themes in research programmes, policy making, and urban development. The general key issues (conceptual and methodological) have been used to compare core concepts, namely the overlap between quality of place and the quality of individual life. They all refer to different aspects of the man/environment relationship (Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al. 2004). Environment is hereby broadly defined as physical, functional, social, cultural, psychological, institutional, and economic. Some concepts, however, are primarily related to the environment and others to the individual. While quality of place is linked to the environment, from a socio-cultural and psychological point of view, quality of life is primarily related to the individual and the community. In other words, there are issues of community and personal psychology that have to be addressed. The central theme in these different approaches is the interaction between different dimensions of the built environment (Carmona, Heath et al. 2003; Van-Kamp, Leidelmeijera et al. 2003).

77

As stated in chapter two, in environmental psychology studies, several scholars, including Relph (1976: 45), have argued (based on the theory of place) that physical setting, activities, and meanings constitute the three basic elements of the quality of a place. Drawing on Relph's ideas, Canter (1977) stated that the quality of a place is a function of activities, physical attributes and conceptions. He also defines inhabitants’ residential satisfaction as the experience of pleasure or gratification derived from living in a specific place. From this conceptual standpoint, environmental quality includes three main components of the psychological construct of attitude. These are, namely, cognition, attraction and behaviour. Previous studies (e.g. Rosenberg and Hovland 1960; Carmona, Heath et al. 2003) have confirmed the plausibility of distinguishing between these three aspects of environmental perception, and has also highlighted how they may interconnect. According to an earlier study by Punter (1991), environmental quality can be determined by activity, form, and image. The multi-dimensional nature of people’s perceptions can be predicted, however, by combining these three constructs within explicative conceptual frameworks, and by considering all possible relationships between different sets of predictors and criteria.

As also indicated above, a review of recent relevant literature revealed that no generally accepted conceptual framework in relation to community well-being has thus far been developed, nor has any coherent system been devised to measure with precision the different dimensions of environmental quality. Moreover, since there is an urgent need for reliable tools with which to evaluate these dimensions – something stressed by a variety of authors – we argue that, building on the work of Madanipour (2006), a framework of spatial, institutional and socio-cultural characteristics is important in order to determine the quality of an urban setting. According to this framework, understanding the interdependent influences of these three distinct constructs of the man-environment relationship could result in a better prediction of the appropriateness of the residential environment to its users and should ultimately affect their social and psychological well- being. Moreover, a greater understanding of the physical and non-physical properties of public space would enable the urban designer to play a more influential role in the development of successful urban settings. Based on this model, the formulation of urban design strategies should be built upon the establishment of a link between the spatial,

78

socio-cultural, and institutional dimensions of the built environment. This, in turn, will involve an analysis of notions pertaining to civic life, such as ‘community’ and ‘public realm,’ as well as the concept of ‘urban design’ itself. These three components together form a multi-dimensional model for all aspects of coherent urban design, as shown in Figure 3-4.

79

These concepts find their origin in research carried out in social and psychological theory and in professional publications comprised of community studies, quality of life theories, human behaviour research studies, and physical environmental studies. They are also derived from recent public policy implementation, urban development management publications and administrative procedures for urban growth management in general and for the protection of public space in particular (World-Bank 2000; Healey 2002; Rakodi 2003; Dekker and Kempen 2004; McGill 2007; Carmona, de-Magalhaes et al. 2008; UN- Habitat 2008; Madanipour 2010; Punter 2010).

The urban design criteria are derived from current leading urban design guidelines and books authored by professionals in the various design disciplines (Madanipour 1996; Carmona, Heath et al. 2003; Lang 2005; Carr 2006; Carmona and Tiesdell 2007; Madanipour 2007; Punter 2007). In the best case, these notions can function as a point of departure for theory building and thus have heuristic value (Kahana, Lovegreen et al. 2003). It should be noted that the literature referred to in this thesis draws largely on Anglo-American sources. There are reasons for this. Firstly, the planning regimes of Saudi Arabian cities in the 1960s have drawn heavily on these sources for inspiration, and further relevant international publications have themselves drawn on these texts, so it was decided to refer to the source material rather than secondary interpretations. The appropriateness of public spaces is here defined as anything that serves to elevate and distinguish these spaces in the minds of their providers, regulators and users (Madanipour 2006). Defining the appropriateness of different public spaces allows us to analyze the different levels at work. From this point of view, the design of public space may provide a sense of ease and comfort and encourage familiarity and camaraderie among residents (Jackson 2003; Walton, Dravitzki et al. 2007). Thus, socially and psychologically, it can encourage social cohesion, emotional experience and a sense of attachment for deracinated, alienated, and heterogeneous individuals, further creating a symbolic sense of participation and communal identity (Sircus 2001; Carmona, Heath et al. 2003).

Institutionally, this social contact should lead to smooth community relations, which in turn facilitate the control and management of spaces by appropriate local bodies (Lawrence 1996; Smith, Nelischer et al. 1997: 230; Madanipour 2003). The extent of the

80

‘appropriateness’ of the public spaces within the modern residential areas in Jeddah city can therefore be measured against these concepts or criteria. With regard to the urban design concept, this research proposes that determining whether a public space is ‘appropriate’ depends on how far urban design interventions (local area planning and management) help create useful, desirable and meaningful spaces, on how far urban space is responsive to its potential users and compatible to its context; and on how far it has been organised to be a setting for social interaction and a meeting ground for a wide range of people (Newman 1972; Whyte 1980; Carr, Francis et al. 1992; Carmona, Heath et al. 2003).

Let us examine the criteria that go to define the meaning of ‘community'’. Community is a very flexible term, which may be used for an ethnic group within a geographic context. But it is also used for a settlement or a part thereof. For the purpose of this research, it is used to denote a self-contained mainly residential urban settlement which is part of a larger urban setting or part of the administrative boundary of different branches of the Jeddah municipality. We shall argue that the appropriateness of public space in this regard is related to the extent to which urban design intervention will help to provoke a sense of community, to foster awareness of communal responsibility, to reinforce cultural norms, to serve social objectives and to bring about energized community participation in the construction and improvement of the built environment. This does not mean that urban designers are required to act solely in accordance with what the community wants, but to acknowledge communal hopes and views and to take them for their inspiration, while using their knowledge and experience as professionals in order to transform them into achievable solutions. In other words, this study argues that the appropriateness of urban space depends on how far the local community and the urban designers can work together to create an urban setting which will be designed, constructed, managed, and, above all, used by those for whom it has been provided (Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sideris 1992; UNCHS 1997; Akkar 2003; Arefi and Meyers 2003; Madanipour 2003).

Finally, we shall show how a public space may be in tune with the criterion of ‘the public realm’ only insofar as the urban institution, decisions and development management programmes can help create an attractive and peaceful public environment, and to the

81

extent that a public space sharpens civic awareness, maintains public culture, reminds people of their responsibilities and restores a community ethic. Therefore, the appropriateness of public space provision depends on how far local decision makers succeed in introducing regulatory policy that enhances human experience in the public realm. In addition, how far the public arena is ‘appropriate’ depends on how far it is directed towards the benefit of the community; how far it is accessible and welcoming to everyone, and how far it responds to different interests and behaviours rather than being single-purpose (Appleyard 1979; Arefi and Meyers 2003; Carmona, Heath et al. 2003). It should be noted that concepts such as urban design, community and public realm do overlap, and are often used as synonyms– – but every so often are contrasted with one another. The objective is to gain insights into which concepts are needed to evaluate urban environmental quality and to describe human well-being within a conceptual model (Van-Kamp, Leidelmeijera et al. 2003).

Furthermore, according to the Madanipour model, a scrutiny of the objective spatial qualities and the socio-cultural experience and a critical interpretation of the space-society relationship are urgently needed to understand the ‘dynamic multiplicity’ of the nature of public space from the perspective of providers, regulators and users (Madanipour, Hull et al. 2001; Madanipour 2006). A public space within an urban setting can be produced, regulated, and used by different actors. The regulators may be the public sector, such as government bodies and planning agencies who seek to regulate urban development and use of land through the planning system. The developers comprise a wide range of agencies from the private and public sectors as well as non profit organizations. All developers, such as landowners and their professionals, are motivated by the opportunity