Accidental Public Space

Since we have become so engaged with the topic of movement and congestion within a city, I decided to undertake some research regarding the subconscious understanding of movement understood by all people using the city space. Therefore, I went for a stroll through the city in an attempt to make an observation about the way people move and interact without realising that they are actually doing it. As I strolled, it seemed as though there was no un-ordinary activity, no unpredictable results. Than an epiphany hit me (at the same time a rogue bus almost did as well). The reason I couldn’t make observations regarding people’s movement was because I was unknowingly doing the same thing as everyone else and therefore couldn’t recognise it. The mutually accepted norm amongst pedestrians in the city is that a person will walk at a constant pace in a direct motion, more often with a solemn, silent look on their face. I couldn’t observe this fact because I was doing the exact same thing, along with the other 90% of pedestrians. It occurred to me that the abnormal activity regarding movement amongst pedestrians in the city was either people who were running or people who were at a complete stop. I therefore decided to record where these events occur throughout the city.

As inconspicuous as I could, I took photos of people where they were sitting or standing still. It became quickly apparent that people stood still very frequently at traffic lights which seemed quite ordinary. Though it brought to light the overwhelming hierarchy between vehicles and people and the vastly overpowering nature that vehicles have in the city, despite the way it may appear.

However, the more interesting observation was that regarding where people decided to claim seemingly unclaimed space as their own. As I walked taking photos, I noticed that some people had discovered little niche's and gaps in the city fabric where they could make their own refuge. An unused doorway had become one man's oasis in the midst of the harsh, stressful and congestive nature of the city. Though there were specified places throughout the city where planners and architects had undoubtedly planned for people to take refuge, these were definitely not sufficient and so, people had sub-consciously taken matters into their own hands and accidentally discovered their own public space. A testament to the evolving and organic nature of the city!

Unsuspecting and redundant spaces where a person could sit and avoid the mindless stroll of the conforming masses were transformed into either a personal sanctuary (like a library) or social gathering place (like a cafe). It seems that the unprecedented programming of these spaces is their main appeal. The fact that they were not designed by the all powerful and governing city to be public places was the main encouragement for their use. People could feel an empowering sense of sub-conscious rebellion against the authorities of the city in a mutually accepted manner.

Recesses between two neighbouring buildings, steps in front of forecourts, spaces in between programs, niches in building walls, unused shop fronts and window sills, unsuspecting sculptures, all had been allocated an unforeseen program.

I also noticed that, If the space was big enough (the infamous Australian 2 m2 personal space rule), than there would always be more than one person. Different places had different popularity, resulting in a different impact on the local environment. If the space was very popular (such as in front of the George St. Cinemas), people would walk around and alter their route to avoid those standing still, suggesting a power hierarchy. If the space was unpopular (such as a small unused doorway), people would stroll by, clearly unaffected and undeterred whatsoever. This gives the spaces an unexpected power over planned public places, through your actions in these spaces, you can choose whether to be noticed or not. In planned public places you will continually go unnoticed, as everyone is expecting you to be there, engaging in some sort of leisure activity. In the accidental public spaces, you can create your own program, either engaging the rest of the city or divorcing from it completely. This also provides a great appeal and explains why some people have the need to discover such places.

It would be untrue to claim that these accidental public spaces are more popular than the planned spaces. This is indeed the opposite. People seem to vastly prefer the planned public spaces. I can not claim that these spaces will take over the planned public spaces in popularity, but rather, they have evolved into nodes between transportation hubs. They are stopping stations between destinations.

It seems that the accidental public spaces work very well and have some great advantages over planned public spaces. Could there be some relevance in planning for better accidental public spaces? Or does will we constantly rely on the city's evolution of necessity? Is it possible to plan a successful accidental public space?