Approaches of Social Ordering in Public Space - Essay Example

? Approaches of Social Ordering In Public Space Introduction According to Silva (2009, p. 311), order is the way individuals imagine and practice their social survival. It is the way people fit together with others and their environment. In this paper, I will compare and contrast Buchanan and Monderman’s approaches in social ordering. To understand the two approaches of social ordering; a case study of road traffic has been described and varying approaches proposed by Buchanan and Monderman. This case study will form the basis for analyzing social ordering. The Road Traffic Case Silva (2009, p. 325) explains the case of road traffic in the UK. She explains that the original layout of most ancient towns in UK made provisions for the movements of people on foot or those riding on horse and later horse carriage. Initial concerns when regulations on road layout began were on the spread of fire and natural ventilation and lighting in buildings within the densely built-up environment. Further, Silva (2009, p. 325) describes that after the Second World War there was increased ownership and use of cars in UK. The increased human and car traffic lead to the decks, bridges, subways and roads being allocated to different users. This was followed by studies being commissioned to explore the varying benefits of segregation of cars and pedestrians in traffic. Buchanan published a report commissioned by UK Government in 1963 predicating the segregation of pedestrians and cars. On the other hand, Monderman’s report published later was based on the idea of shared space. Buchanan and Monderman’s Approach The Buchanan report was initiated after a realization in 1960s that cars would rule the UK transport network. According to Silva (2009, p. 326), by the time Buchanan was charged to work on the traffic problem, there were about 93 billion vehicle-kilometres on the road UK’s road network. She therefore points that Buchanan was therefore commissioned not only to look into how more roads would be constructed, but also recommend new ways in the design of towns so that they could interact harmoniously with cars. As explained by (Silva, 2009, p. 328), Traffic in Towns report was principally aimed to provide a way to separate spaces for working, shopping and leisure from corridors where cars would move. According to Silva (2009, p. 329) Buchanan’s approach was based on scientific rationality. Consequently Ministry of Transport (1963; cited in Silva, 2009, p.329) observes that the Buchanan argued that the subject of traffic in towns could be addressed on a rational and quantitative basis. Buchanan further explained that guesswork and intuition should be eliminated since many aspects can be calculated using different techniques. Buchanan advocated for segregation, with strict separation of people from vehicles. Silva (2009, p.329) notes that driving and walking were seen as not compatible. Pedestrians were allocated walking lanes in the residential blocks that terminated in quite cul-de-sacs while vehicles were apportioned their network. Silva (2009, p. 329) observes that Buchanan report led to the emergence of environmental units away from extraneous traffic. Consequently, there was creation housing units which could only be reached by indirect and at times inconvenient routes. Silva (2009, p. 329) points out that Buchanan viewed traffic as an agent with an active role of shaping people’s lives, how space is designed and the way people interact with their environment and with each other. Silva (2009, p. 331) asserts that Buchanan viewed traffic as a dangerous agent which can only be managed by segregation and bounded by laws imposed via use of visible displays in space. Silva (2009, p. 332) describes that segregation was implemented through the use of traffic lights, road markings, kerbs and railings. Monderman came up with the shared philosophy (Silva, 2009, p. 333). She observes that Monderman felt that segregation should be confined to highways while shared space could be designed in other places. However, Monderman noted that although shared space was not appropriate everywhere, such in major urban centres, there was need to rethinking the planning of the way vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists move within the neighborhood. Silva (2009, p. 333) describes that Monderman proposed that the best way of improving road safety is by abolishing roadside markings and warnings through what he called psychological traffic calming. Monderman argued that eliminating centre white lines, doing away with the kerb to blur the boundary between the road and the pedestrians’ pavement would enhance the need of the motorists and pedestrians to negotiate with each other on road use. According to Silva (2009, p. 333), the strategy was thought to be more effective in encouraging motorists to take responsibility of their doings rather than telling them what to do. Consequently, Monderman came up with the concept of ‘naked street’ in the shared space model. The model is based on the belief that a natural interaction of the driver and the pedestrian would create a civilized environment than what can be achieved through segregation of vehicles and pedestrians. Moreover, Silva (2009, p. 333) asserts that Monderman criticised segregation as an imposition by the state that is unsuitable for communal life. Comparing and Contrasting the Two Approaches Silva (2009, p. 338) observes that the coming of motor vehicles, led to the emergence of traffic experts and social problems such as congestion, accidents and pollution emerged. Traffic became a major determinant in the design of public spaces. Silva (2009, p. 338) explains that the role of solving problems on how people live was entrusted to the citizens, institutions and social groups while the government role was changed to be that of enabling productive interactions. Monderman and Buchanan concur that the coming of cars called better strategies to allow for the expansion of car ownership. Shared Space (2005, p.35 cited in Silva, 2009, p. 339) identifies two competing visions of social ordering where the value of a social environment in offering the necessary conditions for a person’s mobility competes with car ownership which is seen as a symbol of success. On the other hand, social order is proposed to emerge from cooperation and involvement of individuals capable of negotiating with others in use of share public space. Buchanan approach of social ordering is different from that of Monderman where as observed by (Ref, 390) Buchanan’s approach is advocates for the use of standardized uniform spaces, leaving no room for individual interpretation and commanding a standardized behaviour. Moreover, the approach is bent on explaining everything with text and signs and the state should exercise control over the citizens. However, this approach is different from what Monderman proposed. Monderman recommended a flexible for social ordering approach where public spaces are more individualized and asserted that every place has a different story which is critical in giving people information on how the space should be used. Silva (2009, p. 340) observes that Monderman asserted that the importance of a place is assessed relative to its location in the network. In contrast, Buchanan argues that social space is split in by rules, orders and prohibitions which require individuals to adapt to the system. Silva (2009, p.340) points that while Buchanan argued that social ordering is enforced by use of road signs, Monderman contradicts this and argues that human behaviour central in social ordering. Silva (2009, p. 341) argues that shared space approach is enhanced by social contact which is only possible when an individual is driving below 30 kph. This speed is also the limit for humans running. On the other hand, this condition is not a determining factor in Buchanan’s approach. While Buchanan’s approach is aimed at eliminating risks, Silva (2009, p., 341) explains that Monderman’s approach uses the perception of risk to increase safety. There are several distinct similarities between Buchanan and Monderman’s approaches. The two observed that change in design of urban space is a vehicle for social improvement. The two also noted that there is persistent rationality where designing of spaces increases some form of natural surveillance which enhances security or social cohesion. Silva (2009, p. 345) further explains that the two concur on the need for zoning. Their reports were all backed by statistics, maps and interviews as a way to authenticate their arguments. The reports by Buchanan and Monderman may have been influenced by other studies on social ordering. Goffman asserted that interaction is critical in social ordering (Goffman, cited in Silva, 2009, p. 311). The works of Goffman must have influenced Monderman in coming up with the shared space approach. On the other hand, Foucault placed knowledge and authority at the centre of social ordering as (Foucault, cited in Silva, 2009, p. 344). His work must have formed the basis for Monderman and Buchanan approaches. Conclusion In conclusion, social order is central in the social life. Buchanan and Monderman proposed two approaches for social ordering in public places. Buchanan argued that humans and vehicles are not compatible and therefore they should be segregated. In addition, Buchanan asserted that the state plays a crucial role in social ordering by controlling individuals and that people are individualistic, and acquisitive. On the contrary, Monderman argued that humans and vehicles should share space and the role of the state is that of enabling partnership. Moreover, Monderman explained that humans are cooperative. The two approach are similar in that they belief in change of design as a tool for bringing social change. They also concur on the need to use knowledge and information in bringing social ordering. References Silva, E. B. (2009) ‘Making social order’, in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S.,Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (Eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Read More