Vibrant space / Problem space: Improvement of public spaces in Dutch underprivileged housing areas to increase social cohesion and safety

In this project the answer was searched on the research question how the perceived safety in Dutch underprivileged housing areas can be improved through the enlargement of the social cohesion by means of the design of the public space. In most underprivileged housing areas the socio-spatial problem is that the inhabitants do not feel connected with the neighbourhood and with each other. Furthermore, they are unhappy with their living environment, and in particular the public space. Visitors of the neighbourhood find the public space bad as well, and in some cases do not even dare to go to the housing areas. Currently the method used by municipalities and housing corporations to tackle the socio-spatial problems of underprivileged housing areas, is to demolish (part of) the housing area, and build new housing blocks. This forces inhabitants to move, and in a lot of cases they will not be able to return to the newly build houses, because they are more expensive. This method has been proven ineffective because it only moves the problem from one area to another. The main problem, inhabitants being unhappy with their living environment, and passers-by sometimes even afraid to go in the housing area, is not addressed with the current inhabitants in mind. To answer the research question two sub research questions on the use of public space were relevant. The first sub research question on which different roles in terms of social cohesion can different types of public spaces have produced the following answers. In underprivileged housing areas a large part of the leisure time is spent outside, on the street. It is therefore important that the inhabitants have places in the public space where they can meet. Secondly, to increase social safety, it is important for passers-by to understand what kind of neighbourhood they are in, who is living in the neighbourhood. This can be done by providing space in the public realm where indirect contact between passers-by and inhabitants can be established. But, more importantly, in order to enhance the social cohesion it is important that the inhabitants can actively claim the public space. Laying a claim on the public space can be achieved through having a front garden, or facade garden, but also in communal outdoor areas. This claim can be strengthened by handing over the management of (parts of) the public space to the inhabitants. In some streets, handing over the management is not advisable, because they are also used by other groups than the inhabitants, for shopping, school, or going from one important location to another. In these kinds of streets the management cannot be totally transferred to inhabitants, but letting inhabitants have a say in the design of the public space is already beneficial for the social cohesion. This means that in the neighbourhood the publicness of a street has to be defined according to the presence of public facilities and are therefor of public interest, or whether it is a street in which only inhabitants need to be. This results in a division of four levels of publicness. The second sub research question, how can public space be made easily adaptable to the users, but without great costs for the municipalities, was inspired by that fact that due to the current economic crisis municipalities and housing corporations have less funds to spend on revitalising urban living areas. In order to achieve the two goals, adapting the public space to the wishes of the inhabitants and without great costs for municipalities, cooperation with the inhabitants can be used. This cooperation can be in the form of letting inhabitants have a say in the design, which creates better support for the design. Another possibility is to let the inhabitants contribute in the execution of the public space. This can be done in the form of funds, but also, and perhaps more important in underprivileged housing areas where the inhabitants have little money, in the form of labour. When inhabitants have invested in the public space, this creates a bond between inhabitants and the space, and they will take better care of their public space. Therefor not only money in the short-term is saved, but also in the long-term. This also benefits the social cohesion between the inhabitants themselves and between the inhabitants and their living area. The location and the function of the street, the level of publicness, defines how much the inhabitants can be involved in the management of the public space. To test the found answers to the research question, the underprivileged housing area of the Schilderswijk and Stationsbuurt has been used. This is a housing area which was from the start build for the working-class. In first instance the building quality was deplorable, and from the eighties onwards many parts have been demolished and rebuild, but without one general plan. This created a living area with many different architectural styles. At the moment the quality of the buildings is adequate, but here as well people are not happy with their living environment. The neighbourhood has been analysed and the public space defined on its level of publicness, according to its function. For each level of publicness a design was made to show how the public space will look if designed in a manner that improves the social cohesion and the perceived safety. The combined designs create a network in which streets are legible and support the intended function, thereby increasing the perceived safety of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the passers-by.Urban RegenerationUrbanismArchitectur