how might boundaries define the quality of a public space?

issue

As an open and public place, public space is presented as a place to carry out various kinds of activities that are spontaneous (Carr, 1992: 50; Garnham, 1970: 5; Siswanto, 1993: 2). Because, in this place humans are free to interact with each other, have a mutual relationship in the communal context of urban planning.

Normally, a public space would always be designed with great visual and physical accessibilities towards its surroundings. But what if the public space contains some important historical artefacts? What are the possible reactions towards having a historical artefact within a public space? Should it be ‘protected’? Would you allow people to even touch it?

name
Tugu Pahlawan
location
Surabaya
area
30900 sqm
client
Municipality of Surabaya
status
Proposal

figure 1

Tugu Pahlawan initial design.

how might boundaries define the quality of a public space?

project name

Tugu Pahlawan

location

Surabaya

area

30900 sqm

client

Municipality of Surabaya

status

Proposal

issue

As an open and public place, public space is presented as a place to carry out various kinds of activities that are spontaneous (Carr, 1992: 50; Garnham, 1970: 5; Siswanto, 1993: 2). Because, in this place humans are free to interact with each other, have a mutual relationship in the communal context of urban planning.

Normally, a public space would always be designed with great visual and physical accessibilities towards its surroundings. But what if the public space contains some important historical artefacts? What are the possible reactions towards having a historical artefact within a public space? Should it be ‘protected’? Would you allow people to even touch it?

context & background

Located at the heart of Surabaya City, Tugu pahlawan is one of the places that has a historical value in Surabaya and has a strong bond between the place and the community (fig. 1). The Tugu Pahlawan Surabaya area is a museum complex consisting of over open space or outdoor space and the museum building that stands below ground level. This open space is the same public space which serves as a museum in the outdoor space where there is the Tugu Pahlawan monument in the middle of that open space. The Tugu Pahlawan area has a concept as a memorial park, which is a place to recall historical events in the past that had a huge impact on the survival of the place. With the memorial park, people can learn or reflect on the great events that have long passed.

Apparently, the existing visual and physical access seemed to “separate” the people with the existence of the monument after being renovated in 2000 through a design competition (fig. 2).

It is quite problematic because the renovation process was actually funded by the local citizens themselves. For those who deserve the use of the Tugu Pahlawan area as their public space, it is without a doubt questionable on why the Tugu Pahlawan area was a failure for a city that is well-known for its publicity.

idea

The basic intention for this project was an attempt to improve the quality of a public space in the form of constraints and rules to create design concepts of public spaces in the later stages. The main criteria in designing the Tugu Pahlawan public space is that the entrance and exit points should be easily seen and recognized so that it makes it easier for visitors to reach them and is on the side that is easily traversed by vehicles and pedestrians.

1. Visual Accessibility

The least thing for a public space’s visual quality is to enable people to see each other or easily see what is behind the barrier, creating a place to see and can be seen. The existing barrier wall on the west and east side of the monument area can be replaced with another form of ‘barrier’ (fig. 3). The height of the barrier should be no more than 80 cm from the ground, or be replaced with a barrier that is not massive. This allows interaction between people on the outside and those on the inside to occur at the same time increasing the surveillance of outer space. This idea also gives a chance for the landmark to be seen fully intact from at least the west and east side.

2. Physical Accessibility

The existing entrances, namely the south, east and west gates, can be optimised to increase visitor accessibility, especially for pedestrians. Existing access should still be able to protect the public space from the invasion of street vendors, by guarding it or creating access only possible to be traversed by one pedestrian only.

design method

#Identifying Visual & Physical Accessibilities

Posed criteria are entrance and exit point should be easily seen and recognized (fig. 4) that facilitate the achievement of visitors and was on the side that was easily traversed by vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed zoning division (fig. 5) is to try to define more creatively the "boundary" and to try to distinguish between physical and visual boundaries. In the diagram of the bag, there are several zones, including:

1. Zone A: Indoor museum, has physical boundaries

2. Zone B: The outdoor museum area (Tugu Pahlawan field), has physical boundaries but has no visual boundaries.

3. Zone C: Zone of public space, has no physical and visual boundaries.

4. Zone D: Vehicle parking zone, has no physical and visual boundaries.

#Defining the Language of the Boundaries

The barrier wall in the eastern and western parts is replaced with public spaces that could be public parks by working on the vegetational and pavement patterns (fig. 6). This park will be physically accessible by the pedestrians. This public park has a physical boundary that is not in the form of a guardrail, but only in the form of a surface/platform elevation, so it is not possible to be crossed by vehicles or street vendors (fig. 7). However, this open space has no visual boundaries, so that people will be able to freely access what is in the Tugu Pahlawan area visually. By doing so, it is hoped that space ownership boundaries will be much more flexible and less rigid (fig. 8).

This transformed pedestrian park also has the potential for a resting or gathering space when an incidental event occurs such as the street vendor market on Pahlawan street (fig. 9).

result

As a public space owned by the people, the transformation in the perimeter of the Tugu Pahlawan area has the potential to return to a public space that is comfortable, safe, and most importantly accessible to the public (fig. 10).

how might boundaries define the quality of a public space?

project name

Tugu Pahlawan

location

Surabaya

area

30900 sqm

client

Municipality of Surabaya

status

Proposal

issue

As an open and public place, public space is presented as a place to carry out various kinds of activities that are spontaneous (Carr, 1992: 50; Garnham, 1970: 5; Siswanto, 1993: 2). Because, in this place humans are free to interact with each other, have a mutual relationship in the communal context of urban planning.

Normally, a public space would always be designed with great visual and physical accessibilities towards its surroundings. But what if the public space contains some important historical artefacts? What are the possible reactions towards having a historical artefact within a public space? Should it be ‘protected’? Would you allow people to even touch it?

context & background

Located at the heart of Surabaya City, Tugu pahlawan is one of the places that has a historical value in Surabaya and has a strong bond between the place and the community (fig. 1). The Tugu Pahlawan Surabaya area is a museum complex consisting of over open space or outdoor space and the museum building that stands below ground level. This open space is the same public space which serves as a museum in the outdoor space where there is the Tugu Pahlawan monument in the middle of that open space. The Tugu Pahlawan area has a concept as a memorial park, which is a place to recall historical events in the past that had a huge impact on the survival of the place. With the memorial park, people can learn or reflect on the great events that have long passed.

Apparently, the existing visual and physical access seemed to “separate” the people with the existence of the monument after being renovated in 2000 through a design competition (fig. 2).

It is quite problematic because the renovation process was actually funded by the local citizens themselves. For those who deserve the use of the Tugu Pahlawan area as their public space, it is without a doubt questionable on why the Tugu Pahlawan area was a failure for a city that is well-known for its publicity.

idea

The basic intention for this project was an attempt to improve the quality of a public space in the form of constraints and rules to create design concepts of public spaces in the later stages. The main criteria in designing the Tugu Pahlawan public space is that the entrance and exit points should be easily seen and recognized so that it makes it easier for visitors to reach them and is on the side that is easily traversed by vehicles and pedestrians.

1. Visual Accessibility

The least thing for a public space’s visual quality is to enable people to see each other or easily see what is behind the barrier, creating a place to see and can be seen. The existing barrier wall on the west and east side of the monument area can be replaced with another form of ‘barrier’ (fig. 3). The height of the barrier should be no more than 80 cm from the ground, or be replaced with a barrier that is not massive. This allows interaction between people on the outside and those on the inside to occur at the same time increasing the surveillance of outer space. This idea also gives a chance for the landmark to be seen fully intact from at least the west and east side.

2. Physical Accessibility

The existing entrances, namely the south, east and west gates, can be optimised to increase visitor accessibility, especially for pedestrians. Existing access should still be able to protect the public space from the invasion of street vendors, by guarding it or creating access only possible to be traversed by one pedestrian only.

design method

#Identifying Visual & Physical Accessibilities

Posed criteria are entrance and exit point should be easily seen and recognized (fig. 4) that facilitate the achievement of visitors and was on the side that was easily traversed by vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed zoning division (fig. 5) is to try to define more creatively the "boundary" and to try to distinguish between physical and visual boundaries. In the diagram of the bag, there are several zones, including:

1. Zone A: Indoor museum, has physical boundaries

2. Zone B: The outdoor museum area (Tugu Pahlawan field), has physical boundaries but has no visual boundaries.

3. Zone C: Zone of public space, has no physical and visual boundaries.

4. Zone D: Vehicle parking zone, has no physical and visual boundaries.

#Defining the Language of the Boundaries

The barrier wall in the eastern and western parts is replaced with public spaces that could be public parks by working on the vegetational and pavement patterns (fig. 6). This park will be physically accessible by the pedestrians. This public park has a physical boundary that is not in the form of a guardrail, but only in the form of a surface/platform elevation, so it is not possible to be crossed by vehicles or street vendors (fig. 7). However, this open space has no visual boundaries, so that people will be able to freely access what is in the Tugu Pahlawan area visually. By doing so, it is hoped that space ownership boundaries will be much more flexible and less rigid (fig. 8).

This transformed pedestrian park also has the potential for a resting or gathering space when an incidental event occurs such as the street vendor market on Pahlawan street (fig. 9).

result

As a public space owned by the people, the transformation in the perimeter of the Tugu Pahlawan area has the potential to return to a public space that is comfortable, safe, and most importantly accessible to the public (fig. 10).