UBC Graduate Research

Intensifying Publicness Within The Void Potvin, Joshua James 2019-04-25

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Potvin_Joshua_Intensifying_publicness_2019.pdf [ 28.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0378510.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378510-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378510-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378510-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378510-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378510-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378510-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0378510-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0378510.ris

Full Text

INTENSIFYING PUBLICNESS WITHIN THE VOID By Joshua James Potvin MASc, Queen's University, 2013 BASc, Queen's University, 2011 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture 1n The Faculty of Applied Science Committee: Chair: Blair Satterfield Internal: Mari Fujita External: Darryl Condon External: Thomas Daley The University of British Columbia April 2019 Joshua James Potvin © iiiAbstractVancouver’s downtown is faced with a disappearing public realm. The rezoning of privately-owned public spaces for commercial, high-end retail and luxury housing, has further fragmented the urban public ground plane with sameness after sameness. As capital demands perpetuate, and land for permanent public intervention is diminished, the city of Vancouver is unable to adapt to the changing social and public demands within the downtown. This project proposes a kit of parts for the city to adopt within privately owned public spaces, to create a connected public urban network and support vibrant and dynamic public life within the downtown of Vancouver.viv8PART 2AppendixBibliography910Prototype               70/ Design Principles/ Shift in Ownership Model/ Shift in Funding Model/ Strategy of Kit of Parts  Kit of Parts             82/ The Parts/ The Units/Pink Body/ Durable Design/ Legible Design/ Adaptable Design/ Temporal Design/ Deployable Design/ Formal VariabilityVancouver’s New Public Life          96                                117            1261PART 12453Abstract                iiList of Figures                 viAckowledgments               xDefinition of Terms             xiiIntroduction: A disappearing public realm           01Public Void History: Elements of Public Porosity   14  Boundaries             24/ Boundary Dichotomies/ Demarcating the Urban Void/ Deconstruct the Boundary - Precedent Case StudiesSocial Boundary: Rights to the City         32/ Interface of Social and Geographical Imaginations/ Studying Social SpacesCultural Boundary: Public Privatization           36/ Publicness/ Publicness in Dense Urban Environments/ Exclusion of PrivatizationPublic Porosity: An Expanded Field Framework             50/ Public Porosity/ The Klien Model of Public PorositySite Context            54/ Genba Walk Study/ Historical Site Analysis 67ContentsviiList of FiguresFig.1 Centralized Urban Network        04Fig.2 Research focus         05Fig. 3 Vancouver development        07Fig. 4 Interstitial Space (negative) of Downtown Vancouver     09Fig. 5 Decentralized Urban Network 12Fig. 6 Ancient Greece Polis - Plan, NTS (Adapted from Aydemir Ahmet, Miletgrabung, 2002) 16Fig. 7 The Piazza del Campo in Sienna (By author adapted from Gehl, Jan, et al. 2014).  17Fig. 8 City aerial map of Palmanova, Italy, 1593 obtained from Google Earth, 2019  18Fig. 9  Hausmann’s Plan of Paris adapted from Graham, Steve, and Simon Marvin., 2002.  20Fig. 10 Chicago City Plan 1909 (Adapted from Burnham, Daniel Hudson, and Edward Herbert Bennett, 1909).           21Fig. 11 Central Park’s Boundary condition creates continuity between adjacent buildings.  26Fig. 12 Conceptual High Line Perception along Spectator’s Path     30Fig. 13 Ownership of Public Spaces and Locations in Vancouver     38Fig. 14  Downtown Vancouver POPS (Pink) at Pender St and Burrard St (Author)   43Fig. 15 Locations and quantities of select cities containing Privately Owned Public Spaces (Author) 44Fig. 16 Public Space Ownership Breakdown as percentage of total quantity (Author)  46Fig. 17 Public Space Ownership Breakdown as percentage of total quantity (Author)  48Fig. 18 Public Porosity and the expanded field. Adapted from (Krauss, 1979, 38) and (Goodwin, 2011,66-67)          52Fig. 19  Standardized, ambiguous and inactive POPS in downtown Vancouver (Author)  57Fig. 20 Superposition of movement at downtown Vancouver’s POPS - Shangri-La Hotel (Author) 59Fig. 21(top left), 22(bottom left), 23(top right), 24(bottom right)   Photographs of Privately Owned Public Spaces from 1969 to 2019 (top photos obtained form City of Vancouver Archive,1986) 60Fig. 25 (top), 26 (bottom)   Photographs of Privately Owned Public Spaces from 1969 to 2019 (top photo obtained form City of Vancouver Archive,1986)      61Fig. 27  Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)     62Fig. 28  Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)     63Fig. 29   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)     64Fig. 30   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)     65Fig. 31   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)     66ixviiiFig. 32 (top left), 33 (bottom left), 34 (top right), 35 (bottom right)   POPS redeveloped. Top left photo from Google Earth, 2018; top right from digitalmonkblog, 2015; bottom left from Perkins+Will Canada, 2016; bottom right from B+H Architects, 2018.      67Fig. 36   Size of POPS (Author)        72Fig. 37  Partial Site Plan of Interventions. See Appendix for full plan.    75Fig. 38   A Downtown Narrative        76Fig. 39   Shift in Ownership Model for Privately Owned Public Spaces    78Fig. 40   Current  Programming and Experiences Near Burrard Station    80Fig. 41    Proposed Public Programming for Downtown Vancouver Near Burrard Station  81Fig. 42   Kit of Parts Urban and Architectural Strategy      83Fig.43   Kit of Parts         85Fig. 44  Unit Organization         86Fig. 45   Hinged Model of Unit        87Fig. 46   Exploded  Unit  Mezzanine / Double Height Ceiling     88Fig. 47   Exploded  Unit/Circulation Level       90Fig. 48   Temporary Footing Design        92Fig. 49  Kit scaled for deployability        93Fig. 50   Adaptable Units         95Fig. 51   A place for post work activities       99Fig. 52  A place to meet and act as public signage      101Fig. 53   A place sheltered from the rain       103Fig. 54   A place to integrate youth        105Fig. 55   A place for civic services        107Fig. 56    Activating alleyways        108Fig. 57   A place for weekend activities       109Fig. 58   Visiting the evening night market       110Fig. 59   Activating alleyways         111Fig. 60   Daycare incorporating youth into the downtown     112Fig. 61  Sheltered activities during rainy months      113Fig. 62   Weekend public life        114Fig. 63   Thesis Defense Photo 1 (Author)       118Fig. 64  Thesis Defense Photo 2 (Author)       119Fig. 65 Genba Walk Study (Author)        120Fig. 66 Program Usage Studies        122Fig. 67 Site Plan          124xiAcknowledgments The work outlined in this thesis would not have been possible without the endless support and mentorship throughout my Architecture degree.I would first like to thank my chair, Blair Satterfield. Blair not only provided me guidance throughout this thesis but also shaped my architecture degree and helped me grow as a designer. Working with Blair in my first architecture design studio, extracurricular research endeavors and my graduate thesis has broaden my design skills as a designer.The development of this thesis would not have been possible without the support from Mari Fujita. Mari’s enjoyable personality and dedication to this project as my GP1 supervisor and GP2 mentor have created the most positive learning experience. Mari’s background on urban systems helped me shape the narrative for this project. A huge thank you goes to my external committee members, Darryl Condon from HCMA Architecture + Design and Thomas Dhaley from the City of Vancouver’s Urban Planning Department. I had the pleasure of being mentored by Darryl on a second year design studio and was drawn to his attention to detail and his rigorous design methods. His passion for public architecture brought out my passion for social design and was a key component to the success of this project. I would like to thank Thomas for his guidance leading up to and during this thesis. Thomas’ urban design background and passion for public space within the city helped shaped this project around urban design issues within the city. His urban design expertise helped expand my background at an urban scale.I would like to thank Stuart Lodge and Christine Rohrbacher for there assistance on drawings and models in the last few weeks of my thesis.And finally, this thesis and journey through my Architecture degree could not have been completed without the support from family (Albert, Graziella, Jon and Andrew), friends and my partner Suzie Kimball. Grazie di tutto!xiiiDefinition of TermsBOUNDARYThe boundary is the interface that demarcates the void. It can have physical or immaterial qualities that are constructs for either static or ephemeral space. The boundary is the interface for opportunity in this thesis, a host, offering exchange and negotiation between two opposing forces — the private and public realm.VOIDThe void is negatively defined in urbanism as the interstitial, residual and junk space — a bi-product of both architectural and urban boundaries. The void is controlled by it’s boundaries. The void is the subject of this thesis, in which the design will begin to transform the void both spatially and socially. The void will become productive, integrated and transform with it’s agents.NETWORKThe network is the connective tissue of the public realm. Through the aggregation and reorganization of the void, the tissue will become a binding agent across the urban territory. The tissue will expand and contract as demanded by agents of the public realm.PUBLIC POROSITYPublic porosity exists through the cohesion of its element: boundary, void and network. It is not the singular element but the totality that will redefine the public realm. Public porosity will permeate the boundaries between the private and public realms and create a cohesive 3 dimensional network of social public space.PART 1What is Public Space?03Urban public spaces are lively, entertaining and offer social opportunities, but can also be lonely, quiet and rejecting. Public spaces are a place of democracy but struggle with inequality and social injustice. Cities have public spaces that are open, allow expression and engagement. Conversely, public spaces can be limiting, controlling and disengaging. Public spaces may be identifiable but can also be indeterminate and ambiguous. These dualistic perceptions of public space exists throughout contemporary metropolitan cities. As a result, the urban fabric has become fragmented and is no longer held together by the public realm (Koolhass,1994).The fragmented urban fabric is a product of urbanization and magnified by capitalism. In the neoliberal city the “maximum-profit” or “maximum-efficiency“ goals for urban developers is not targeted for a “maximum social benefit” for the people (Harvey, 1973, 87-92). As urbanization and capital control progress drastically forward, there is a shiver of uncertainty as to where the public realm, a space requiring democratic and social agents, may exist within spaces of capital. As a result, dense urban communities are faced with issues around social equity and are struggling to connect within the city. In Vancouver, approximately one-in-four people find themselves alone more often that they would like and want more opportunities to meet their neighbours (Connect and Engage, 2017). With fewer communal spaces being integrated into the tight living quarters of dense cities, residents are looking to the public realm to interact. However, real estate developers have a “predatory attitude,” in which the profit driven attitudes heavily overpower any desire to achieve social good through the public realm and the city (Armborst et al, 2017, 262). With the current top-down design approach, like an automotive assembly line, the city systematically organizes its elements, from a globalized to finite scale, for economic development. “50% of people living in an apartment or condo do not have a common area to socialize with  neighbours”Connect and Engage Report/ A Disappearing Public RealmIntroduction10504URBANPUBLICSPACEAGENCY + CONTROLOWNERSHIPINTERNAL INPUTSATTRIBUTEEXTERNAL INPUTSPOROSITYdistributed networkagentscapitalismpolicyexperiencefeedbacklooptemporalityvoidterritorypublic / privateactivitieseconomics EQUITYdiversityrights to the cityaccessibilityNETWORKS + SYSTEMSPROGRAMMINGCULTURAL SOCIALSPATIALPredominantly in Western Cities, there was a movement between 1850 and 1960 in which cities adopted centralized and standardized systems to support the intensification of the industrialized city (see Fig. 1).  The standardized ‘Fordist’ notion that developed controlled the production methods of all new network infrastructures so that they favored industrial societies focused around mass production, distribution and consumption (Armborst et al, 2017). The urban grid has demarcated the mobility networks to support automobile efficiencies, and urbanization to maximize city density. However, as the elements of a city coexist, there have been gaps or glitches in the urban system. The infrastructural systems have splintered the urban fabric creating interstitial, residual or void spaces.  (Graham and Marvin, 2002). The voids are negative spaces that are disconnected from the urban social fabric throughout the city, which been referred to as “Border Vacuums” (Jacobs,1961), “Anti Space”(Peterson, 1980), ‘“Junk Space” (Koolhass, 2002), “Terrain Vague” (Rubió, Solà-Morales, 1995) and “Fake Estates” (Matta-Clark and Kroessler, 2005).The urban voids are a consequence of the edge conditions or borders that are created within the city. In some instances, borders are positively incorporated to intensify density within the city. However, it is the void that forms from borders that may fragment the public spaces within the urban fabric (Jacobs, 1961).  As cities densify, the void or interstitial spaces are seen as a host in which the social life of the public realm can stitch together the spaces in between capital. The decentralization of public space and social intensification of the voids will be the urban connective tissue that will catalyze the social regeneration of public space necessary to support urbanization. The continuity between the private and public realms will create Public Porosity within the city (see Fig. 2).Fig.1 Centralized Urban NetworkFig.2 Research focus0706 Fig. 3 Vancouver developmentThe downtown  of Vancouver, British Columbia has been selected as an urban subject to test the idea of public porosity. Vancouver’s relevancy to the urban issue of shrinking social networks is suitable based on it’s current economic growth, real-estate pressures (i.e. investor demand) and population growth. Between 1999 and 2009, 32 new towers above 100 m, for mixed use or residential use, were built (City of Vancouver, 2018). As seen in Fig. 3, the city is continuing to densify spatially. Creating architectural responses that socially engage a city in a densified urban environment is a challenge for contemporary architects and designers. Within Metro Vancouver, the population is expected to rise by approximately 65,000 people per year until 2021 (City of Vancouver, 2017). However, the rate of population growth in downtown Vancouver has been steadily decreasing with a population change in 5 years of 26% to 13% in 2011 and 2016 respectively. Based on the development stats within downtown Vancouver, this suggests that the investment demand is higher than the rate of population growth within downtown Vancouver. As a result, the shrinking social network will have immersed effects on the social capital of Vancouver’s downtown communities. This raises a fundamental question for downtown Vancouver’s public spaces:How can Public Space in Downtown Vancouver become a connected network, support vibrant and dynamic Public life and make better use of existing and future spaces?The public realm or interstitial space (see Fig 4) is a product of the varying boundaries of ownership and infrastructure networks throughout the city. The street, even though public, is treated as a positive form in this mapping analysis. The interstitial space and it’s corresponding boundary conditions are continually fluctuating spatially with changes in politics, culture and social norms (see Fig. 3). The fluctuation and negotiation between boundary conditions presents architects and designers with opportunities to design intentionally for the in between spaces. Creating  engaging spaces and the potential, at the architectural scale, for an informal, social public life.19992009DowntownEnglish BayFalse CreekVancouver Harbour0908Fig. 4 Interstitial Space (negative) of Downtown Vancouver10/ BOUNDARIESBoundaries are necessary for the production of space. The boundary is dependent on the dialect between inside and outside, solid and void and contraction and expansion. In opposition, their negotiation defines the perception of the space. Thus, the physical boundary is not represented by a singular part but as a totality. (Van de Ven, 1978). The void is the spatial product of the boundary that conceptualizes one’s feelings of the space. Within a public space these feelings and perceptions that have matured over time and should express a sense of place (locality) and comfortability within the space (Schulz, 1980).Urban voids exist because of the discontinuity across the boundaries defined by infrastructure and engineering space. The varying degrees of ownership creates a sense of ambiguity in the continuity between the private and public realm. Thus, the spectator may experience discomfort and no locality. Even though, the private property, represented by solid form, may be cut off from social space using barriers or walls, they are still a part of the totality.“Essential is not the form, but its reversal space; the void, that expands rhythmically between the walls, and is defined by walls.....to those who these movements of the void mean music, is revealed an almost unknown world: the world of the architect and painters.” Van de Ven, 1978Over time, we accumulate in our memory a perception of an object in space. The accumulated experiences become the basis for the conceptual knowledge of the object and the surrounding space. Thus, the physical boundary defines our perception of space (Van de Ven, 1978). The decay in social experiences of a place become social vacuums for voids to exist within the city. The social character decays from the void until influenced by adjacent boundaries and their corresponding voids. Thus, social decay propagates across repetitive urban voids. Depending on the location and scale of the urban voids across the territory, the decay in social character can distribute from the site, to the block, to the neighbourhood and across territories (Jacobs, 1961).However, since the existence of boundaries are necessary for the production of space and are a part of the totality, this thesis will deconstruct the boundaries of urban voids to formalise a method which allow the boundary to be a catalyst for social regeneration. The perception of the voids should evoke curiosity in the spectator. There should be continuity across the boundary to form a sense of place and comfortable feelings within the space. “the perimeter of a single massive or stretched out use of territory forms the edge of an area of “ordinary” city. These borders may be considered to be passive but typically they have more of an active influence.”Jacobs, 196112“The Generic City is fractal, an endless repetition of the same simple structural module; it is possible to reconstruct it from its smallest entity, a desktop computer, maybe even a diskette” (Koolhass, 1994)Koolhass, 1995/ DECENTRALIZED NETWORKSThe social regeneration or urban voids is influenced by adjacent social spaces. “Considered in isolation, such spaces are mere abstractions. As concrete abstractions, however, they attain ‘real’ existence by virtue of networks and pathways, by virtue of bunches or clusters of relationships” (Lefebrve, 1991). The intensification of urban voids is not only local. Intensification of urban voids as a decentralized network will be vital to the social regeneration at a territorial scale (see Fig. 8). This intensification simulated over a network will create an urban condition, that will be explored in this thesis as Public Porosity.Fig. 5 Decentralized Urban Network15Public Void HistoryElements of Public PorosityPolis: a Greek city-statebroadly : a state or society especially when characterized by a sense of community“The polis, properly speaking, is not the city-state in its physical location; it is the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together, and its true space lies between people living together for this purpose, no matter where they happen to be (Arendt, 1998). 21716Fig. 7 The Piazza del Campo in Sienna (By author adapted from Gehl, Jan, et al. 2014).VIBRANT PUBLIC LIFE OF INFORMAL MEDIEVAL CITYUpon the fall of the Roman Empire, the medieval cities between AD 500 to AD 1500, were constructed in locations of demand and by the people of the city using a direct city building process (Gehl, 2011). The public agency that formed these cities created unique and lively spaces. The street life that meandered through the city provided strong social connections and the unpredictability of the meandering street did not restrict city life to evolve (Gehl, 2011). The street system was the interstitial space for citizens to move freely and interact informally to form a  vibrant network of commercial and public spaces (Carmona et al, 2008).During the middle ages, the Church became powerful with the decline of the state. The church and it’s adjacent plaza became the public space for citizens to gather. In Italy, The Piazza del Campo in Sienna (see fig. 7) became a “public living room for its citizens” with an enclosed space that was orientated to accommodate climatic conditions, and a bowl-shaped section for a dynamic ground plane. Carefully organized fountains and bollards accommodated meeting and socialization (Gehl, 2011). THE DEMOCRATIC PUBLIC REALM OF THE POLISThe polis, properly speaking, is not the city-state in its physical location; it is the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together, and its true space lies between people living together for this purpose, no matter where they happen to be (Arendt, 1998). The Agora (see fig. 6) had a role in politics and was described as a democratic space. It allowed for informal gatherings and communication between the citizens. However, the Agora was only accessible by citizens of the state. It secluded women, foreigners and slaves. A change in function within the Agora shifted the non-citizens interpretation of the space.  The introduction of marketplaces offered a space for everyone to consume goods produced by the state (Carmona et al, 2008).The Forum within the Roman Empire functioned around markets, religious meetings, political events, athletics, and informal meetings. The Roman’s began to carefully integrate the public space within the fabric of the city. The adjacent civic infrastructure bounded the spaces providing symbolism to the state or religion. The Forum was filled with activity and life where all political, religious or social discussions took place (Carmona et al, 2008).BC ADFig. 6 Ancient Greece Polis - Plan, NTS (Adapted from Aydemir Ahmet, Miletgrabung, 2002)19181600 1800URBAN PUBLIC REALM BECOMES FORMAL Radical changes in city planning occurred during the Renaissance. Cities were no longer free forming and were planned by a group of elite professional urban planners. Using city planning theories, these professionals projected their vision of the future city to construct the built environment. The city was no longer a “tool” to accommodate and form to the people’s needs (Gehl, 2011). The planning of the city focused on the urban appearance and the visual influence of architecture on the urban fabric. At this time, public squares were formalised around architecture and were activated with the market typology. Life of public spaces revolved around consumerism and became spaces for social, political, religious and informal exchange. Cities soon became realised as a place for economic power. In order to maximize density within cities and meet infrastructural demands, the industrial revolution led to major shifts in architecture and urban design.‘TERRAIN VAGUE’ OF INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONDuring the industrial revolution there was a shift from decentralized production methods to centralized models that allowed for the mass production, consumption and standardization of all products. This transition led to the development of infrastructure (factories, plants, ports and railways) to meet the new demands. Constructed outside the city’s limits, workers were required to infill the in between spaces of these strange production neighourhoods. These strange urban environments transitioned to what Sola-Morales refers to as the cities “terrain vagues” (Morales,118-123). Industrial areas, railway stations, ports and adjacent neighbourhoods decayed economically and socially as they were no longer major economic drivers for the city. These spaces became voids at the periphery of the city which have a sense of ambiguity and indeterminacy to a spectator.  Terrain vagues pose an architectural and urban design challenge. The projection of any order, form and boundaries onto these strange spaces, to achieve uniformity and standardization, will inherently transform the space’s social character. Morales states that “the absence of the limit precisely contains the expectations of mobility, vagrant roving, free time, and liberty” (Morales, 18-123). There is a sense of continuity between the strange spaces which is governed by the ambiguity and indeterminacy of these spaces. When designing within them, one must not impose violently with architecture conceived around form, but rather explore the potential of the indeterminacy of the terrain vague — a construct which shapes both the spatial and social aspects of society. Terrain Vagues offer an opportunity for designers to not recreate modernity but rather seek solutions that consider “forces instead of forms, for the incorporated instead of the distant, for the haptic instead of the optic, the rhizomatic instead of the figurative” (Rubió, 1995, 118-123).Fig. 8 City aerial map of Palmanova, Italy, 1593 obtained from Google Earth, 20192120NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE’S CONTROL PUBLIC REALMHaussmann’s Paris is one of the first modern conceptions to stitch the urban fabric together through a organized and connective street system, in an attempt to frame a standard circulation system within and between cities. Broken up into it’s element, the network of boulevards organized the layout of gas, lighting, water mains, drains and sewers.  The elements have been so integrated into the modern ideal of the city, that they have characterized the social and physical fabric of the city as we see today. The public realm which was once controlled through the “organization of people” was now governed by the organization of network infrastructures.PUBLIC REALM AS BI-PRODUCTS OF NETWORKSFollowing the technological revolution there was an expansion of both public and private investments in infrastructure networks. The technological advancements and centralized networks of production allowed for this shift. Underground sewage and water networks were regulated across cities, electricity networks and telephone lines rapidly expanded, and mobility networks for electric streets cars, subways and elevated transit systems plunged through the urban fabric. The compact city was transformed to an industrial metropolis. It was not long before these networks expanded connecting the technological infrastructural islands throughout the world.  In 1994, Herbert Muschamp, a public leader in the City of New York clearly captured the modern ideology regarding urban infrastructure. He stated “infrastructure networks are ‘the connective tissue that knits people, places, social institutions and the natural environment. They were ‘the structural underpinnings of the public realm’” (Cited in Graham and Marvin, 2014, 76). The industrial metropolis had experienced the chaoticness of urbanization. 1850 1900Fig. 9  Hausmann’s Plan of Paris adapted from Graham, Steve, and Simon Marvin., 2002. Fig. 10 Chicago City Plan 1909 (Adapted from Burnham, Daniel Hudson, and Edward Herbert Bennett, 1909).22THE MACHINE’S CONTEMPORARY URBAN CONDITIONCities post Haussmann and the modern ideal were thought of as “machines” or “organisms”, in which all planning would be planned as an engineered industrial process (King, 1998, 23). Master planning was used to organize the essential functions of housing, work, recreation and traffic. Standardized methods that created rational plans, as a fixed state, guided the development of cities into the future (Graham and Marvin, 2011). The irrational thinking extended to public space, partly in due to the standardized Master Planning methods which have violently forced the public realm to live within the interstitial spaces. These spaces are the bi-products of the collision between the machine’s urban forms.Urban form’s, post 1930, that were conceived on the notion of functionalism “made no mention to the psychological and social aspects of the design of buildings or public spaces” (Gehl, 2011, 43). Buildings were engineered to have light, air, sun, ventilation and provided it’s residents with access to open space. Open spaces which were no more than empty green spaces, bland plazas and exclusive privately owned public spaces. These spaces were visualized in the planning process as the obvious locations for a rich public life to magically form.It is clear, through the progression of architecture and urban history, that  the public realm is a complex by product of a system that was intended to simplify, organize and enrich public life. Post modernity, many social activists (Levebre, 1984; Harvey, 1961; Jacobs, 1961 and Gehl, 2011) throughout the architecture and urban communities critiqued this modern ideal in order to shift the public realm to be conceived not solely on the functional qualities but the spatial-social theories of architecture and urbanism. PRESENT25“An edge may be more than simply a dominant barrier,” “if some visual or motion penetration is allowed through it- if it is, as it were, structured to some depth with the regions on either side. It then becomes a seam rather than a barrier, a line of exchange along which two areas are sewn together.”/  BOUNDARY DICHOTOMIESA boundary is complex: it can have physical or immaterial qualities that are constructs of either static or ephemeral space.   Boundaries of form exist throughout the urban fabric. Walls that have once divided nations are now psychological constructs that are perceived as a transitional barrier as one passes by (i.e. Check Point Charlie, Berlin). Memories and experiences of history, shifts in culture and social behaviours all complicate the visceral response at the interface along the boundary. Interfaces are present through multitudes of scales: from the clothes we wear, the homes we live in, the neighbourhoods and cities we grew up in and between the countries we border. All boundaries offer a unique point of exchange. In architecture, it is the dichotomy between solid or void, inside or outside, contraction or expansion. In urbanism, it exists between the dualism of private or public. In both architecture and urbanism, the boundary can either be permeable, Lynch,1960Boundaries32726creating a totality between the parts, or the boundary can be a division, creating a void. In architecture, the void is the spatial product that defines mass and one’s perceptions and phenomenology of space.  In urbanism, a void is an undesirable area, that are of consequence to it’s boundaries. / DEMARCATING THE URBAN VOIDDescribed by Jane Jacobs, the urban fabric can be divided up into two types, general land and special land. General land is the space the public can move by foot. It is land for public circulation, allowing free movement. The streets, parks and public lobbies allowing public circulation make up the general land. The special land is referred to the spaces which limit free flow movement on foot by the general public. However, the special land provides the means for the public to circulate the general land and is required for urban public life to exist. The space which is interesting is the interface between the general land and the special land. There is tension from the transition between this boundary. The activities within this transitional space can be ambiguous to the moving spectator. If the transitional space does not allow continuity of activities and movement between the general and special land,  a decay in social quality may occur. If there is a localized decay of the activities in the special land than this will transition to the general land (Jacobs, 1961). The relationship at this interface needs to be further understood, as the special land will become a border vacuum for the general land in some form. The affects of the special land is not always detrimental. Some civic buildings or small parks knit together the distinct territories separated by borders. Understanding the borders that are generated in a city are crucial in order to work within the gaps and voids that these border vacuums create in order to catalyze urban social regeneration. (Jacobs, 1961).Kevin Lynch describes the significance of borders as seams, having either “visual or motion penetration.” The barrier will than become “a line of exchange” in which continuity is formed across the border. Continuity suggests that the Fig. 11 Central Park’s Boundary condition creates continuity between adjacent buildings.2928space will have a single identity. This can be achieved through the “continuance of edge surface; nearness of parts; repetition of rhythmic interval; similarity, analogy of rhythmic interval; similarity, analogy, or harmony of surface, form or use.” As described by Lynch, these are all necessary qualities that will control the perception of complex physical environments (Lynch, 1961)./ DECONSTRUCT THE BOUNDARY - PRECEDENT CASE STUDIES Case studies will be used to deconstruct the urban boundaries at both an architectural and urban scale. The projects will focus on the continuity of the boundary between the private and public realm, movement through public space and identify design challenges or successes.New York High Line  Diller and ScofidioThe High Line is one of New York Cities most profitable public spaces. Since it’s completion in 2009, there has been over $4 billion dollars of new development along it’s edge. Prior to it’s rehabilitation, the elevated freight rail line cut through the city transporting goods. Upon closure, wild plants begun to invade the infrastructure leaving it a void within the city. The old factories were replaced with new development  along it’s edge. The High Line created discontinuity between the new developments with the lack of integration.Post construction, the adaptive reuse project was not benefiting the locals and was primarily supporting the tourist industry. With it’s narrow design, minimal activities and access to private adjacencies it became a place to go for the traveling spectator but not a place to typically stay. The path does have visual continuity along it’s path creating strong visual connection to the city. Park rules prohibit (obtained from highline.org):1. Walking on rail tracks, gravel, or plants2. Picking flowers or plants3. Throwing objects4. Sitting or climbing on railings5. Bicycles6. Use of skateboards, skates, or recreational scooters7. Amplified sound, except by permit8. Solicitation9. Commercial activity, except by permit or otherwise authorized10. Littering11. Obstructing entrances or paths12. Drinking alcohol, except in authorized areas13. Filming or photography requiring equipment or exclusive use of an area, except by permit14. Events or gatherings greater than 20 persons, except by permit15. Smoking16. Dogs, except for service dogs.307.7 million visitors in 2016 — are actually localscity housingseniors housingPARKAffordable HousingHigh End-ShoppingPARKRailyards (to be developed)$$$$$$Expanded for viewingThe space offers very few nodes of activity and opportunities to the high diversity of programmatic adjacencies. It has still effectively intensified a void which existed in the city. I argue, along with owner Robert Hammand, that there are clear missed opportunities in which this project could be better integrated with it’s adjacent infrastructure.This precedent validates the significance in creating continuity between the private and public realm to allow for better social integration for the local communities. Nodes of social clusteringAccess PointViewsPathRequires ActivationPublic AdjacencyPrivate AdjacencyFig. 12 Conceptual High Line Perception along Spectator’s Path33/ INTERFACE OF SOCIAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGINATIONThe Geographical Imagination, defined by David Harvey,  “enables the individual to recognize the role of space and  place in his own biography, to relate to the spaces he sees round him, and to recognize how transaction between individuals and between organizations are affected by the space that separates them” (Harvey, 1973). The challenge and bias of the geographical imagination is that it is dependent on intuition of the individual (Harvey, 1973). This is complicated as one’s feelings associated with a place may change over time, altering one’s geographical imagination of the space.“our everyday life-world consists of “concrete phenomena”. It consists of the people, of the animals, of flowers, trees and forests, of stones, earth… sun, moon and stars, of drifting clouds, of night and day and changing seasons. But it also comprises more intangible phenomena such as feelings. This is what is “given”, this is the “content” of our existences” Norberg Schulz, C, 1980Social BoundaryRights to the City434/ STUDYING SOCIAL SPACESIt is clear that one’s perception of public space will vary between different cultures, demographics and social classes as each individual will be engaging with the public realm for a different purpose. Shaping public space is dependent on one’s culture, aspirations, and their needs and fears. (Harvey, 1973). Thus, to truly study public space, architects must understand the relationships between form and the social norms of individuals (Harvey, 1973).The formal qualities that inform one’s social image of the public urban fabric will be dependent on boundaries, continuity, mobility networks, scale, visual depth, singularity and simplicity of form and time (Lynch, 1960). All elements are interconnected and will inform the intuition of one’s geographical imagination as they experience a space. The elements cannot be considered in isolation (Lynch, 1961). A negotiation between all elements in forming social space will create a sense of place and comfortability within the public realm.“social space is complex, non-homogeneous, perhaps discontinuous and almost certainly different from the physical space in which the engineer and the planner typically work”  “social space is not only variable from individual to individual and from group to group; it is also variable over time”Harvey, 1961Harvey, 196137/ WHAT IS PUBLICNESS?To be public, a space must express publicness. Hannah Arendt, a political philosopher of the 20th century, critiqued modernity as the age that eliminated the public sphere for action and speech in favor of economical means. Arendt argues, with the rise of the social, everything has become dependent on production and consumption, inherently blurring the relationship between the private and public realms. She critiques the modern public realm as lacking individual expression and free communication, both qualities for people to live in harmony with each other. Individuals are attracted to the public realm in search for interaction, communication and cooperation with others. However, it is not natural for people to act in public space. Actions within public space are contingent on human agency and the environment of the space. The challenge of achieving publicness in dense urban environments revolves around the variety forms of ownership of space (Arendt, 1951)./ PUBLICNESS IN DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENTSAs cities begin to expand and densify there are high pressures on the spatial quality and organization of the public realm throughout the urban fabric. The publicness of the public realm in dense urban space is controlled by both government and private developers as shown in Fig 13. Varying forms of ownership, whether government or private, provide the parks, plazas and leisurely open spaces for social connection. In the neoliberal city, real estate economics are the principle contributor to the spatial qualities of these spaces. Cultural BoundaryPublic Privatization53938PRIVATEMALLCOMMUNITY GARDENATRIUMPOPSPUBLICTypical Vancouver Downtown BlockPLAZAPARKMINI PARKPARKLETGOVERNMENTDEVELOPERFig. 13 Ownership of Public Spaces and Locations in Vancouver 40 m80 m/ VARYING DEGREES OF OWNERSHIPWithin an urban context, public space comes in different forms, scales and operates on varying degrees of ownership (see fig. 13). Whether it is publicly owned such as a park or city plaza, or privately owned such as a mall or courtyard, all these spaces exist to enhance the publicness throughout the city.4140“A place to sit and for information” “A safe spot outside of your home to do anything whether alone or with friends”“Something to play with, like a playground, a hill or a slide”“Opportunities for sensory interaction - with people, elements of nature, culture, technology and learning”“Vitality, openness and access”“Convenience in my life”Local SeniorToronto Young TeenLocal ChildLocal RetireeLocal ProfessionalLocal Young Professional- Morag Cuthbertson - Suzie Kimball- Jenny Cuthbertson- Thom Stubbs- Jason Piotrowski- Gianna Guzzo/ VARYING DEGREES OF OWNERSHIPFor a space to express publicness, there will be varying needs from individual to individual. Through interviewing the public on their perception of public space, it is clear that there is a wide range of needs that the public desires in their public space across varying demographics.4342Developers own the majority of space within dense urban environments. With urbanization, increased density are altering the spaces in between capital. The in between spaces (public realm) have a monolithic formal quality, they are bland spaces that typically detract one from experiencing publicness. The spaces have become social vacuums. They are repetitive voids throughout the urban fabric, controlled by borders of capital and have characterized the publicness of the city. The urban field is fragmented and it’s totality is no longer cohesively formed by the public domain, but characterised by the spaces in between (Koolhass, 1994)./ EXCLUSION OF PRIVATIZATION The privatization of public space proliferated  in 1961 in New York, upon adopting the incentive zoning resolution.  Municipalities negotiated with developers to allow increased floor space ratios (FSR) and relaxation on other planning policies in exchange for providing additional public space on the property. Through this negotiation, developers have not only increased their profit margins but have also gained control on the majority of the urban public realm.  In consequence, developers have strategically offered ‘public’ spaces that are “weapons of social exclusion” (Armborst, 2014).These privately owned public spaces (POPS), typically act as transitory spaces and have accessibility issues (see fig. 14). POPS are typically designed as extensions to commercial entries with minimal seating and seating walls to detract those from resting. POPS are enforced with security and rules that deny particular social groups the right to use and access the space. Through these forms of control, POPS have become ambiguous spaces for the public. There is typically no continuity of these spaces within the urban fabric at a local or territorial scale. However, with their small scale they appear to not have a huge impact on the local social quality. However, the socio-impact of POPS is prominent when viewed as a territorial system of privatized spaces. The socio-impact from the agglomeration of these small nodes becomes comparable with larger urban projects elsewhere (Armborst, 2014). Fig. 14  Downtown Vancouver POPS (Pink) at Pender St and Burrard St (Author)454450+6340681006941176503VancouverSeattleSan FransiscoTorontoTokyoSeoulNew YorkLondonFig. 15 Locations and quantities of select cities containing Privately Owned Public Spaces (Author)/ GLOBALISED POPS MODELThe development of POPS has become a globalised model since the 1950s and has spread across the world throughout some of the most populous cities such as new York, London Seoul and Vancouver (see fig. 15). These are all cities that are faced with high economic pressures, density issues and have minimal affordable land for permanent public intervention. Thus, POPS have spread throughout the urban fabric in hopes to offer the public a space for use outside of their undersized and overpriced living spaces. 4746A wide range of public spaces exist throughout Vancouver’s downtown core (see fig.16). As seen in fig. 17 the POPS of downtown Vancouver are largely distributed where there is no population density. These spaces will likely have a large fluctuation in activity and use between the work week/weekend and day/evening. 1 1646AtriumCommunity GardenMewsPOPS422POPS POPSPublic PlazaAtrium11 32616153AtriumCommunity GardenMewsMini-ParkParkParkletPublic PlazaStreet Plaza1CityFederalProvincialPrivatePublic Space Ownership Breakdown(As percentage of Total Quantity)55%36%8% 1%QUANTITY %Fig. 16 Public Space Ownership Breakdown as percentage of total quantity (Author)4948POPSGov’t PlazaGov’t ParksPopulation Density ppl/ha 200-150150-100100-7070-5050-3030-2015-100m50 100150 m10-0UninhabitedFig. 17 Public Space Ownership Breakdown as percentage of total quantity (Author)51Public PorosityAn expanded field framework6/ PUBLIC POROSITYPublic porosity exists through the cohesion of its elements: boundary, void and network. It is not the singular element but the totality that will redefine the public realm. Public porosity will permeate the boundaries between the private and public realms and create a cohesive 3 dimensional network of social public space. Like a Rhizome, the network of porosity will be non-heirachial and continually expand across the urban territory. It’s process of formation will have “neither beginning nor end, but always a middle (milieu) from which it grows and overzspills, [composing] linear multiplicities” (Deleuze, 2004, 6).  Porosity is complex as it is founded on the polarization between architecture and the urban landscape and requires continuity between the private and public realm. To further define a foundation for these polarized principles, the Klein expansion diagram by Rosalind Krauss is adopted./ THE KLEIN MODEL OF POROSITYRosalind Krauss (Krauss, 1979, 38) demonstrated using a Klein expansion diagram the complex relationship between architecture and landscape. Adopting the modernist view point, that sculpture is what is not-architecture and not-landscape, Krauss exposed other schemas of architecture. These three categories are conditions of the expanded field (Krauss, 1979, 38-44). The Klein diagram is a useful tool that can be used to demonstrate the polarization between the private and public realm. This diagram of binaries was expanded on the relationships developed by (Goodwin, 5352axiomatic structuressite constructionlandscape architecturenot-landscape not-architectureneutercomplexsculpturemarked sitespersonnelspaceformal social spacepublic privatenot-public not-privateneutercomplexinformal social spaceambiguous spacePOROSITYFig. 18 Public Porosity and the expanded field. Adapted from (Krauss, 1979, 38) and (Goodwin, 2011,66-67)2011, 67). The expanded field diagram (see fig. 18) starts with the premise, what is not-public and not-private must be an informal social space. If it is neither public nor private, their is a new form of ownership, one that exists at the interface between these two realms. The informality allows for new social connections and an intensified publicness in between privatized spaces. In contradiction, the field is expanded to include formal social space: private and public space; the ambiguous space (urban void): public space formed from the public realm; and personnel space: private space formed by the public realm.By deconstructing the boundaries that inform ambiguous spaces, they can be remodeled with a continuous, adaptive topology that permeates both the private and public realm. The informal topology will thus cohesively integrate both the private and public realms, intensifying the publicness in the urban voids. “There is some kind of intervention into the real space of architecture, sometimes through partial reconstruction, sometimes through drawing...but whatever the medium employed, the possibility explored in this category is a process of mapping the axiomatic features of the architectural experiences – the abstract conditions of openness and closure – onto the reality of a given space” (Krauss, 1979, 41).55Site ContextVancouver’s Downtown7/ GENBA STUDYThe Genba Walk adopted from the Japanese term, Genba, means “the actual place.” The process used in Japanese business management places the management team on the ground floor to ensure the efficiency of the operation. A similar approach is used in the preliminary stages of this thesis to be critical of the public realm throughout downtown Vancouver. By submerging myself into the spaces of downtown, that both invite and exclude people, I am able to synthesize the relationships between the private and public realm.The site that was chosen for study is near Burrard Station in Vancouver’s downtown (see Genba Walk site map in appendix). The sites connection across the urban territory with both ground and rail transit make it a high traffic route within Vancouver. However, due to the single use zoning, this site is voided from both recreation and living. As a result, it is a high demanding space during the work week and a transitory zone otherwise. Contained within this region is a high density of privately owned public spaces for use by the public.The Genba Walk study was conducted by two participants. The goal of the exercise was to identify the perceptions of public space throughout the site. The Genba Walk study moved each participant along an informal path between various public and non public spaces within the site. Through the development of evaluation criteria, participants were asked to evaluate their experience at each node and the transitional space in between. The results from this study are shown below in fig. 19 and fig. 20.5756 Fig. 19  Standardized, ambiguous and inactive POPS in downtown Vancouver (Author)“Big white marble slabs – like tomb stones in a graveyard” - Participant 1“Noone here is home – Passing through one to the next –  On grey cladding” - Participant 1“I had no idea this existed!” - Participant 2“Not sure what would make someone come here” - Participant 2“Would only come here if it was my bank, I can’t even sit on the ledge” - Participant 2“Mirrored cubed volumes – changing over my little head – commerce place duh  ” - Participant 2“Great view, I love it!” - Participant 2“Sketchy people, I didn’t want to stay here” - Participant 2Node 1Node 2Node 3Node 4Node 5Node 65958 Fig. 20 Superposition of movement at downtown Vancouver’s POPS - Shangri-La Hotel (Author)“An edge may be more than simply a dominant barrier, if some visual or motion penetration is allowed through it – if it is, as it were, structured to some depth with the regions on either side, it then becomes a seam rather than a barrier, a line of exchange along which two areas are sewn together.” (Kevin Lynch, 1960, 267)6160/ HISTORICAL ANALYSISIn Vancouver, POPS have been distributed throughout the downtown core’s central business district as a dominant public space typology. As the city continues to grow these spaces have become static spaces within the changing urban fabric. These public spaces cannot adapt to the changing social and cultural norms of the public, and thus have sat relatively still within the surrounding bustling setting of downtown Vancouver for the last 50 years. The following photographs in fig 21 to 26 outline the minimal change in these spaces over the last 50 years.1969 1969 19692019 2019 2019Fig. 21(top left), 22(bottom left), 23(top right), 24(bottom right)   Photographs of Privately Owned Public Spaces from 1969 to 2019 (top photos obtained form City of Vancouver Archive,1986)Fig. 25 (top), 26 (bottom)   Photographs of Privately Owned Public Spaces from 1969 to 2019 (top photo obtained form City of Vancouver Archive,1986)6362/ CRITIQUE OF POPSPOPS offer limited use and their defensive architectural style limits the users and programs which can inform a place for social interaction and public connection.Fig. 27  Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)POPS are not systematically integrated into the city whole. With “no spatial coherence, no visual hierarchy, and no experiential logic”, the ambiguity and vagueness of POPS has fragmented the urban public realm (Armborst, 2017).Fig. 28  Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)6564POPS have become “transitory spaces” within the urban fabric and do not attract the public for daytime or evening use (Armborst, 2017) .Fig. 29   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)POPS have altered the urban fabric creating material and cultural boundaries of exclusion within the city (Armborst, 2017). Fig. 30   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)6766The corporate architectural language and disconnection from the sidewalk and other public amenities has created an ambiguity in their uses.Fig. 31   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)As the city continues to grow, many privately owned public spaces are being replaced with high end retail, commercial uses and luxury living as shown in fig 32 to 35.The public realm is diminishing within downtown Vancouver and the majority are struggling to live within the city. As a result, many working class citizens and programs offering public services are displaced from the city. The richness in public life created through diversity of activities struggles to exist within the downtown of Vancouver and the city struggles to incorporate these services into its urban fabric.Fig. 32 (top left), 33 (bottom left), 34 (top right), 35 (bottom right)   POPS redeveloped. Top left photo from Google Earth, 2018; top right from digitalmonkblog, 2015; bottom left from Perkins+Will Canada, 2016; bottom right from B+H Architects, 2018.PART 2Deploying Public Space71Prototype8/ DESIGN PRINCIPLESDeploying Public Space is a project that prototypes a new future for the city of Vancouver in which a kit of parts strategy will be an architectural and urban strategy to create a dynamic and connected public realm within the downtown core of Vancouver.Based on the research developed in Part 1, five principles have guided the design for intervening within the urban private and public realms.1) Public Space is a space that needs to be dynamic. Public spaces should be designed with open-endedness and be adaptable for a cities public realm to evolve with the changing social and cultural needs of the city. 2) Public spaces allow for human agency creating an urban living room throughout the city.3) The public realm is not centralized but a network that connects people throughout the urban fabric.4) Accessibility and legibility makes it a safe and enjoyable space to interact, communicate and socialize.5) Public space varies in scale to accommodate the varying needs throughout the city.7372 Fig. 36   Size of POPS (Author)/ SITE SELECTIONFour sites near Burrard Station were selected to prototype the project. Sites were chosen based on proximity, scale and varying relationships to the sidewalk (see fig. 36).28000 m2300 m2Population Density ppl/ha Size of POPS200-150150-100100-7070-5050-3030-2015-1010-0Uninhabited12347574PRIVATELY OWNED1:1000CITY PLAZA CITY PARK ALLEYWAYBURRARD STTHURLOW STHORNBY STGEORGIA STDUNSMUIR STMELVILLE STW PENDER STW HASTING STW CORDOVA STVANCOUVER HARBOURThe Kit is a method used to deploy public amenities that are being displaced from the city. The project prototypes how Vancouver would operate if privately owned public spaces throughout the downtown became a host for civic spaces, work spaces on demand and flex spaces.Fig. 37  Partial Site Plan of Interventions. See Appendix for full plan.BURRARD STGEORGIA STHORNBY STDUNSMUIR STMELVILLE STFig. 38   A Downtown Narrative7978Streets/LanesParksGovernment PlazasPublicly Owned SpacePRIVATE RESIDENTSPARKING LOTSCAR PARKSVACANT LOTSStreets/LanesParksGovernment PlazasPrivately Owned Public SpacePRIVATE RESIDENTSPARKING LOTSCAR PARKSVACANT LOTSCURRENT PRIVATE OWNERSHIP MODELFUTURE SHARED OWNERSHIP MODELCIVICWORK SPACES ON DEMANDFLEXFig. 39   Shift in Ownership Model for Privately Owned Public Spaces/ SHIFT IN OWNERSHIP MODELA new ownership model is assumed in this project in which privatized public spaces are transferred back to public ownership to incorporate civic spaces, work spaces on demand and flex spaces (see fig. 39). The kit of parts allows for the programming of a dynamic system. The adaptable system allows for the program spaces to be interchangeable and the close proximity of these three functions brings programmatic diversity to the downtown (see fig. 40 and fig. 41)./ SHIFT IN FUNDING MODELTo support the new public infrastructure, the project assumes the city has created a Reserve Fund for Public Space Design which capitalizes on increased development fees, property line encroachment fees, rezoning application fees, etc., from privatized developments. Annual fees required by developers will be added to the reserve to support public space design within the city. 81800 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24CIVIC WORKEATINGPARK PLACERELIGIONBURRARD STATIONRECREATIONCOMMERCEPING SLEEStandingPassiveActiveEatingSittingFig. 40   Current  Programming and Experiences Near Burrard Station0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24CIVIC WORKEATINGCIVIC USESFLEX SPACEFLEX SPACEWORK SPACES ON DEMANDPARK PLACE EatingRELIGIONBURRARD STATIONRECREATIONPassiveCOMMERCEActiveSLEEPING HOMELESSStandingSitting54321 6654321ZONESMORNING WORK RUSHMORNING LUNCH TIME RUSHPOST  WORK DAY NIGHT TIMEPRE WORK RUSHAFTERNOONFig. 41    Proposed Public Programming for Downtown Vancouver Near Burrard Station83Kit of Parts9ACTIVATED GROUNDPROGRAMSPUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURECITYPEOPLEINTEGRATEDSTREETPOPS SIDE-WALKCIVICBUSINESS EXCHANCERESTAURANTSWORK SPACEFLEX Fig. 42   Kit of Parts Urban and Architectural Strategy/ STRATEGY OF KIT OF PARTSThe cultural significance of the ground plane in Vancouver has tied the majority of public activities to the ground plane. The intervention intends to create continuity between the ground plane and the elevated intervention. A thickened layer of public programs that expand the threshold of public programs vertically from the ground plane will alter the social dynamics and connectivity throughout the urban fabric. The intervention operates no more than two floor levels above the ground plane so that is does not eliminate the significance of the ground plane but enhances it. Flex programs such as markets, commercial pop-ups, community events and passive activities activate the ground. The accumulation of mixed uses, such as daycares, artist studios, safe injection sites, homeless shelters, senior learning spaces etc, program a dynamic system. The intervention operates between both the private and public realms in order to create continuity between the city, public infrastructure and the public (see fig. 42).8584/ THE PARTSThe kit comprises four units: the Coupling, the 22.5° Elbow, 45° Elbow and the Tee. Each unit shown in Fig. 61 represents the most basic assembly of the kit (see fig. 43)Fig.43   Kit of Parts1.0 COUPLING 2.0 ELBOW 22.5° 3.0 ELBOW 45° 4.0 TEE87861500mm1500mm4000mmUnit Mezzanine Or Double Height Circulation + UnitGroundFig. 44  Unit Organization/ THE UNITEach unit follows a similar organization as shown in the fig. 44 above. Designed around the typical sidewalk, the design is able to be connected throughout the urban fabric. Fig. 45   Hinged Model of Unit/ PINK BODYWrapped with durable, pink, metal panels, the units become a legible component within the urban fabric (see fig. 45).8988Service PlemunPolycarbonate or Opaque PanelsMetal Flat PanelsFig. 46   Exploded  Unit  Mezzanine / Double Height Ceiling/ DURABILITYDesigned with durable metal and polycarbonate panels, the robust  public infrastructure can withstand being assembled and disassembled over it’s lifetime in order to accommodate varying public needs (see fig. 46).A built in plenum allows for the expansion of the units and the connectivity of services to the urban system.9190 Connected Adjacent UnitMetal Flat Panels Steel I BeamsTransparent Operable DoorsSolid Operable DoorsPrivate Aluminum PanelsTranslucent  Polycarbonate PanelClear 75% Opaque Polycarbonate PanelPink 75% Opaque Polycarbonate PanelUnit Signage16LEGIBLEADAPTABLEPanel SignageUNIVERSAL ELEVATORFig. 47   Exploded  Unit/Circulation Level/ ADAPTABLEWith adaptable parts the intervention allows for public agency in adapting the occupied spaces to suit varying programmatic needs./ LEGIBILITYPublic way-finding allows for the expansion of units throughout the downtown.9392TEMPORARY FOOTINGSFig. 48   Temporary Footing Design2600SCALED FOR DEPLOYABILITYFig. 49  Kit scaled for deployability/ TEMPORAL DESIGNUnits are intended to adapt to the changing needs of the public. The minimal ground disturbance allows for units to be added or removed to accommodate changes in program, scale and urban development./ DEPLOYABLE DESIGNUnits are sized around a typical flat bed truck in order to be stored as parts of site, transported throughout the dense neighbourhoods of downtown Vancouver and installed as needed.9594Open AirExpanded Ground Circulation + Expanded Ground Expanded Second Level Ground CoverDouble Side CirculationDouble Side CirculationDouble Side CirculationInternal CirculationSingle Side CirculationUnit ExpansionsFig. 50   Adaptable Units/ FORMAL VARIABILITYThe adaptability of the kit allows for varying formal organizations which create relationships between the ground, the unit and the mezzanine. The unit can be adapted for varying circulation needs, provide varying degrees of protection from the elements  and control sun exposure into the units.97Vancouver’s New Public Life10The deployable public system is a method for the City of Vancouver to respond to the increasing capital pressures from developers which have ultimately displaced many public amenities throughout downtown. The adaptability and flexibility of the kit of parts allows for the programming of a dynamic system. Future public space is designed with open-endedness and can respond to the public’s changing social and cultural needs. The human agency given back to the public through this deployable kit creates an urban living room condition throughout the city. The kit provides a sense of public ownership over the public realm. The public realm is connected throughout the urban fabric. The continuity of the system across public and private boundaries is made possible by designing around accessibility and legibility. The public infrastructure becomes integrated into the urban fabric and creates a safe and enjoyable space to interact, communicate and socialize. As the city continues to grow, the kit will continually adapt in scale to accommodate the varying needs into the future (see fig. 68 to fig. 79).The public realm of the City of Vancouver has been transformed throughout the downtown. With an adaptable and flexible system the public realm is designed as a connected network, supports vibrant and dynamic public life and makes better use of existing and future spaces within the City of Vancouver.9998 Fig. 51   A place for post work activities101100 Fig. 52  A place to meet and act as public signage103102 Fig. 53   A place sheltered from the rain105104 Fig. 54   A place to integrate youth107106 Fig. 55   A place for civic services109108 Fig. 57   A place for weekend activitiesFig. 56    Activating alleyways111110 Fig. 59   Activating alleyways Fig. 58   Visiting the evening night market113112 Fig. 61  Sheltered activities during rainy monthsFig. 60   Daycare incorporating youth into the downtown114 Fig. 62   Weekend public lifeAppendix119118 Fig. 63   Thesis Defense Photo 1 (Author) Fig. 64  Thesis Defense Photo 2 (Author)121120123BURRARD STHORNBY STGEORGIA  STHASTING STPENDER STCORDOVA STGENBA WALKThe goal of the genba walk is to be an observer of the spaces between the built environment at the location of study.Below are instructions for the study.1. Turn on a GPS tracker app (strava etc) or GPS watch.2. Start at node 1 and walk in sequential order to node 6 by choosing your own path between each node.3. Between nodes, in the note box, expand on your perception of the space as you immediately enter and leave, the connection to the previous node and the connection to the city.4.  At each node spend 2 to 10 minutes to experience the space around you, fill out the evaluation criteria, and expand on criteria in notes if necessary (photograph to aid notes).5. After you are finished at node 6 meet me at node 7 + save GPS recording.Study Time - approx 1 hrLOCATION OF STUDYEVALUATION OF SPACE AT EACH NODENot Comfortable Comfortable Not Comfortable Comfortable Place to Leave Place to Stay Place to Leave Place to StayPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPlace to Avoid Place to Enter Place to Avoid Place to EnterPlace to Leave Place to Stay Place to Leave Place to StayPlace to Avoid Place to Enter Place to Avoid Place to EnterPlace to Leave Place to Stay Place to Leave Place to StayPlace to Avoid Place to Enter Place to Avoid Place to Enter125 6340 50 150 m7THURLOW STShangri LaBurrard StationSunkenPlazaAlleyCIBC Lot 19OLYMPIC CAULDRONNot Comfortable Not ComfortableComfortable NOTES/SKETCH NOTES/SKETCHNOTES/SKETCH NOTES/SKETCHNOTES/SKETCH NOTES/SKETCHComfortable Not Comfortable6Private not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesibleNot Comfortable Comfortable Comfortable 4NeutralCriteria CriteriaNeutralCriteria Criteria123BURRARD STHORNBY STGEORGIA  STHASTING STPENDER STCORDOVA STGENBA WALKThe g al of the genba w lk is to be a observer of the spaces between the built environment at the location of study.Below are instructions for the study.1. Turn on a GPS tra ker app (strava etc) or GPS watch.2. Start at node 1 and walk in sequential order to node 6 by choosing your own path between each node.3. Between odes, in the n te box, expand on your perception of the spac  as you immediately enter and leave, the connection to the previous node and the connection to the city.4.  At each node sp nd 2 to 10 min tes to experience the space around you, fill out the evaluation criteria, and expand on criteria in notes if necessary (photograph to aid notes).5. After you are finished t node 6 meet me at node 7 + save GPS recording.Study Time - approx 1 hrLOCATION OF STUDYEVALUATION OF SPACE AT EACH NODENot Comfortable Comfortable Not Comfortable  Place to Leave Place to Stay Place to Leave Place to StayPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePerc vi d asPublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPercevied as PrivatePercevied as PublicPlace to Avoid Place to Enter Place to Avoid Place to EnterPlace to Leave Place to Stay Place to Leave Place to StayPlace to Avoid Place to Enter Place to Avoid Place to EnterPlace to Leave Place to Stay Place to Leave Place to StayPlace to Avoid Place to Enter Place to Avoid Place to Enter125 6340 50 150 m7THURLOW STShangri LaBurrard StationSunkenPlazaAlleyCIBC Lot 19OLYMPIC CAULDRONNot Comfortable Not ComfortableCo fortable NOTES/SKETCH NOTES/SKETCHNOTES/SKETCH NOTES/SKETCHNOTES/SKETCH NOTES/SKETCHComfortable Not Comfortable6Private not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesiblePrivate not accesiblePrivate accesibleNot Comfortable Comfortable l  4NeutralCriteria CriteriaNeutralCriteria CriteriaFig. 65 Genba Walk Study (Author)123122240012181521060903SAFE INJECTIONSITEARTIST STUDIOSCULTURAL SPACE240012181521060903KINDERGARTENARTIST STUDIOSCHURCH SOUP KITCHEN240012181521060903SENIOR LEARNINGMICRO BREWSALSA LESSONS240012181521060903COMMUNITY CLASSES240012181521060903POPUP MARKETARTIST OPEN HOUSE240012181521060903DAYCAREARTIST STUDIOSMORNING MARKET240012181521060903HOMELESS SHELTERTRASIT WIFI HUBMUSIC EVENT240012181521060903COMMUNITY CLUBARTIST STUDIOBUSKERSFig. 66 Program Usage StudiesDayEveningWeekendPRIVATELY OWNED1:1000CITY PLAZACITY PARKALLEYWAYBURRARD STTHURLOW STHORNBY STGEORGIA STDUNSMUIR STMELVILLE STW PENDER STW HASTING STW CORDOVA STVANCOUVER HARBOURFig. 67 Site Plan127BibliographyArendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998.Armborst, Tobias, et al. The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion. Actar Publishers, 2017.Athena M. Von Hausen. Woodward’s: Urban Design & Public Space - Measuring a sense of Place. School of Urban Regional Planning, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, 2015.Boddy Trevor. Underground and overhead: building the analogous city, en AA. VV., Variations on a theme park. The new American city and the end of public space Hill and Wang, New York, 1992, 123-153.Carmona, M., Magalhães, C., Hammond, L. Public Space. London: Routledge., 2008.City of Vancouver. Places for People Downtown. September 15 2018.Clay, Grady. Close-up: How to read the American city. University of Chicago Press, 1980.Cuff, Dana, and Roger Sherman. Fast-forward urbanism: rethinking architecture’s engagement with the city. Princeton Architectural Press, 2011.Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Continuum, London;New York, 2004.Easterling, Keller. Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. Verso Books, 2014.Elmer Eddy. Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Seniors in Vancouver: Strategies for Reduction and Prevention. City of Vancouver ‘Senior Advisory Committee, May 29 2018.Galloway, Alexander R. Protocol: How control exists after decentralization. MIT press, 2004.Gehl, Jan, et al. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Island Press, 2014.Gehl, Jan, and Birgitte Svarre. How to study public life. Island Press, 2013./ Works Cited129128Graham, Steve, and Simon Marvin. Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Routledge, 2002.Goodwin, Richard. Porosity: the architecture of invagination. RMIT University Press, 2011.Hall, P., Cities of Tomorrow, Oxford: Blackwell. 1988Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City. Geographies of Justice and Social Transformation; 1. University of Georgia, 2009.Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. The social logic of space. Cambridge university press, 1989.Jacobs, Jane. The death and life of American cities. 1961.Kayden, Jerold. “Using and Misusing Law to Design the Public Realm” in Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America. Ed. Eran Ben-Joseph and Terry S. Szold. New York: Routledge, 2005: 115-140. Print.King, A., “Writing the transnational city: the distant spaces of the Indian city”. In H. Dandekar. City, Space and Globalization: An International Perspective, Ann Arbor MI: College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, 25–31. 1998Koolhaas, Rem. “Junkspace.” October, 2002: 175-190.Koolhaas, Rem, and Bruce Mau. “The generic city.” Theory, Culture & Society 16, 1994: 4.Koolhaas, Rem, and Bruce Mau. S, M, L, XL: Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large: Office for Metropolitan Architecture. 010 Publishers, 1995.Krauss, Rosalind. “Sculpture in the expanded field.” October 8 1979: 31-44.Lerner, Jaime. Urban acupuncture. Island Press, 2014.Leary-Owhin, Michael Edema. Exploring the production of urban space: differential space in three post-industrial cities. Policy Press, 2016.Lefebvre, Henri, Eleonore Kofman, and Elizabeth Lebas. Writings on cities. Vol. 63. No. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.Lefebvre, H. The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell. 1998.Lynch, Kevin. The image of the city. Cambridge Massachusetts 1960.Matta-Clark, Gordon, and Jeffrey A. Kroessler. Odd Lots: Revisiting Gordon Matta-Clark’s” fake Estates”. Cabinet, 2005.Németh, Jeremy and Stephen Schmidt. “Toward a Methodology for Measuring the Security of Publicly Accessible Spaces”. Journal of the American Planning Association 73.3, 2007: 283–279.Norberg Schulz, C. Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture (Trad. de l’ital.), 1980.Otto, Frei. Occupying and connecting. Edition Axel Menges, 2003.Peterson, Steven Kent. “Space and Anti-space.” The Harvard Architecture Review 1, 1980: 101-102.Rahi, George, Andrew Martynkiw, and Emily Hein. “Accessing Vancouver’s Privately Owned Public Spaces.” Trail Six: An Undergraduate Journal of Geography 6, 2012.Rubió, Solà-Morales. “Terrain Vague.” Anyplace, 1995, 118-123.Ven, Cornelis van de. “Space in architecture.” The Evolution of a New Idea in the Theory and History of the Modern Movement. Van Gorcum, Assen, 1978.131130/ FiguresFig. 1 Centralized Urban Network (Author)Fig. 2 Research focus (Author)Fig. 3 Vancouver development (Author)Fig. 4 Interstitial Space (negative) of Downtown Vancouver (Author)Fig. 5 Decentralized Urban Network (Author)Fig. 6 Ancient Greece Polis - Plan, NTS from Aydemir Ahmet, Miletgrabung, 2002, www.ruhr-uni-     bochum.de/milet/in/stadtplan.htmFig. 7 The Piazza del Campo in Sienna from Gehl, Jan, et al. Life Between Buildings: Using    Public Space, Island Press, 2014.Fig. 8 City aerial map of Palmanova, Italy, from Google Earth, April 04, 2019, Retrieved April 20, 2019Fig. 9 Hausmann’s Plan of Paris  from Graham, Steve, and Simon Marvin. Splintering     urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition    Routledge, 2002.Fig. 10 Chicago City Plan 1909 from Burnham, Daniel Hudson, and Edward Herbert Bennett. Plan of    Chicago: prepared under the direction of the Commercial Club during the years MCMVI,       MCMVII, and MCMVIII. The Commercial Club, 1909.Fig. 11 Central Park’s Boundary condition creates continuity between adjacent buildings,. Sergey    Semonov, www.thepinnaclelist.com/pics/best-aerial-photo-central-park-new-york-city/Fig. 12 Conceptual High Line Perception along Spectator’s Path (Author)Fig. 13 Ownership of Public Spaces and Locations in Vancouver (Author)Fig. 14  Downtown Vancouver POPS (Pink) at Pender St and Burrard St (Author)Fig. 15 Locations and quantities of select cities containing Privately Owned Public Spaces (Author)Fig. 16 Public Space Ownership Breakdown as percentage of total quantity (Author)Fig. 17 Public Space Ownership Breakdown as percentage of total quantity (Author)Fig. 18 Public Porosity and the expanded field adapted from (Krauss, 1979, 38) and (Goodwin,    2011,66-67).Fig. 19  Standardized, ambiguous and inactive POPS in downtown Vancouver (Author)Fig. 20 Superposition of movement at downtown Vancouver’s POPS - Shangri-La Hotel (Author)Fig. 21 CIBC Building, 400 Burrard Street from City of Vancouver Archive, 1986 searcharchives.   vancouver.ca/cibc-building-400-burrard-street-3Fig. 22 Photographs of Privately Owned Public Spaces from 1969 to 2019 (Author)Fig. 23 Park Place Plaza, 666 Burrard Street, from City of Vancouver Archive, 1986,     searcharchives.vancouver.ca/park-place-plaza-666-burrard-street Fig. 24  Photographs of Privately Owned Public Spaces from 1969 to 2019 (Author)  Fig. 25 Bentall 4 Plaza, 1055 Dunsmuir Street from City of Vancouver Archive, 1986, hsearcharchives.  vancouver.ca/bentall-4-plaza-1055-dunsmuir-street-3Fig. 26   Photographs of Privately Owned Public Spaces from 1969 to 2019 (Author)Fig. 27  Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)Fig. 28    Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)Fig. 29   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)Fig. 30   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)Fig. 31   Photograph of Vancouver Downtown POPS (Author)Fig. 32 POPS to be redeveloped in downtown Vancouver from Google EarthFig. 33 POPS to be redeveloped in downtown Vancouver from Perkins+Will Canada, 2016, Retrieved on   April 15, 2019, urbanyvr.com/uniqlo-vancouverFig. 34 POPS to be redeveloped in downtown Vancouver from digitalmonkblog, 2015, Retrieved on April   20 2019, cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/601-west-hastings-public-square-photo-  gallery/Fig. 35   POPS to be redeveloped in downtown Vancouver from B+H Architects / PCI Developments,   2018, Retrieved on April 15, 2019, urbanyvr.com/601-west-hastings-office-towerFig. 36   Size of POPS (Author)Fig. 37  Partial Site Plan of Interventions (Author)Fig. 38   A Downtown Narrative (Author)Fig. 39   Shift in Ownership Model for Privately Owned Public Spaces (Author)Fig. 40   Current  Programming and Experiences Near Burrard Station (Author)Fig. 41    Proposed Public Programming for Downtown Vancouver Near Burrard Station (Author)Fig. 42   Kit of Parts Urban and Architectural Strategy (Author)Fig. 43   Kit of Parts (Author)Fig. 44  Unit Organization (Author)Fig. 45   Hinged Model of Unit (Author)Fig. 46   Exploded  Unit  Mezzanine / Double Height Ceiling (Author)Fig. 47   Exploded  Unit/Circulation Level (Author)Fig. 48   Temporary Footing Design (Author)Fig. 49  Kit scaled for deployability (Author)132Fig. 50   Adaptable Units (Author)Fig. 51   A place for post work activities (Author)Fig. 52  A place to meet and act as public signage (Author)Fig. 53   A place sheltered from the rain (Author)Fig. 54   A place to integrate youth (Author)Fig. 55   A place for civic services (Author)Fig. 56    Activating alleyways (Author)Fig. 57   A place for weekend activities (Author)Fig. 58   Visiting the evening night market (Author)Fig. 59   Activating alleyways (Author)Fig. 60   Daycare incorporating youth into the downtown (Author)Fig. 61  Sheltered activities during rainy months (Author)Fig. 62   Weekend public life (Author)Fig. 63   Thesis Defense Photo 1 (Author)Fig. 64  Thesis Defense Photo 2 (Author)Fig. 65 Genbaa Walk Study (Author)Fig. 66 Program Usage Studies (Author)Fig. 67 Site Plan (Author)Joshua James Potvin ©

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0378510/manifest

Comment

Related Items