Everyday Urbanism

EVERYDAY URBANISM An exploration of the theory of Everyday Urbanism and how it is understood to unfold in praxis, in the context of New Delhi. Discourse on Everyday Urbanism revolves around encouraging and intensifying everyday life. The seminar paper highlights the need for an onset of a pedagogy, which promulgates designing with the everyday at the forefront of the mind. School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India Completed: November, 2015 Guided by: Ms. Mukta Naik, Dr. Ranjana Mital In Collaboration with Nikita Bhargava

OORVI SHARMA Academic Portfolio - Writing Samples [email protected] www.oorvismnotra.com

2 | Urban Theories

“To operate in the world of the everyday is a really radical project right now.” Theodore Spyropoulous

T

he concept of the everyday is a double-edged sword. On one hand,

the everyday presents itself as an exceedingly simple concept. It is difficult to imagine a world where it couldn’t or didn’t exist in some form. It could be argued that everything within our daily lives classifies as everyday where it is usual and normal; thus, descriptions of the human phenomenon motivated by the consideration of everyday life as a critical political construct and primary lens, would be unavoidably banal or ordinary. Such words are rarely used to praise architecture or urbanity. An alternate view presents the everyday as a complex, and multifaceted phenomenon. Discussions regarding the everyday in this view are comprised of so many elements and varying definitions that it is hard to know where to begin when describing it. Building and thinking that is cognizant of the complexities of the everyday, attempts to propose ideas and forms that specifically and successfully accommodate it. These informed proposals and structures facilitate a person’s ability to fully live and experience their everyday life. “It would not be unfair to say that most of the time, most people spend the majority of their time in buildings that have been constructed for the purposes of everyday activity, and as such these buildings have been designed and built for this purpose. However it is harder to say that the average house, apartment or office building has been designed with elements of the everyday in the forefront of the mind of the architect- time, financial constraints, space and other limitations are influential.”(Berke and Harris 1997)

Everyday Urbanism | 3

People experience the everyday in an architectural context either consciously or subconsciously. The influence of the concept of the everyday within society and practices is thus undeniable. It is imperative that conceptual theories and ideas smoothly translate in a practical sense, improving the fulfillment of designated purposes in designed spaces, and their collective urbanity. Designing with an emphasis on the concept of everyday overcomes any potential “estrangement of direct experience from architectural discourse, and avoids the alienation of architecture from lived experience. “ (Berke and Harris 1997) This line of thought engages intimately with the quotidian, with lived experience and political struggle. This line of thought was followed primarily by activist groups such as the Situationists, however refined

Fig 1: Scenes from videos shot at various locations in Delhi, in order to grasp the nuances of everyday life in the city.

4 | Urban Theories

1

• Exploring an aspect or a reality in cities in India

2

• Arriving at an understanding of how specific Architectural Theories influence Built + Unbuilt Spaces, Forms, Interactions and Events. • Assessing consequences in soceity and culture

3

• Deriving a definition based on the current state of architecture (or factors influencing architecture) in cities in India

4

• The architect is scrutinized, as part of a project that examines their own, and their projects' narratives in realtime. What is our identity wrt our education and the country of our education?

Fig 2: Flowchart through Lefebvreasked and Michel tactical elaboration on designing As students, weHenri are repeatedly to tackleDe theCerteau’s question of “AbKyaKarein?” while designed to organize our the concept. Recent debates involve brief scholars Margaret Crawford, and orienting ourselves in the city. The seminar posedlike a more ideological sense of the same processes and thoughts.

DellFollowing Upton, the John Kaliski, DeborahweBerke, Kelbough, question. designed breakdown, began Douglas by mapping key aspectsJeremy and influencers. Till and Steve Harris. Their arguments extend the spectrum of the In the following steps, we used the influencers as prompts to identify areas of interest in Delhi everyday within the field of architecture and urban design, by adding the that led to an all-encompassing phenomenon that could be studied in Delhi. complexity that arises from having several voices while simultaneously elucidating concepts through debate and at times, confrontational essays. By the end of our program and time in Delhi, we wish to have nurtured a sensibility that would The Brief enable us to witness and grasp the details of our environment in a manner that optimizes our We were asked to explore aspect or reality to betocontextually performance as architects. A trainedan sharpeningof observation better discernlocated the environment in New Delhi, that encountered time asprocesses studentsofofdesign that for which weneed to and design is was a necessary preludeduring to all our following Architecture in the city. We designed the above breakdown to organize require informed decision-making. The close study of existing landscapes and the everyday offers our processes, and thoughts. an opportunity to approach our urban scenario with the awareness of the “untidiness of urban life.” students, we are repeatedly asked to tackle the question of (UptonAs2002) “AbKyaKarein?” while designing and orienting ourselves in the city. The seminar posed should a more sensebutofalso thesoul same This implies thatbrief the architect notideological only invest skin, in thequestion. canvas of concern. Following the designed breakdown, we began by mapping key aspects and It is imperative for the architect to immerse himself or herself within the expanse of the influencers. In the following steps, we used the influencers as prompts to identify areas of interest in Delhi that led to an all-encompassing phenomenon that could be studied in Delhi.

3

By the end of our program and time in Delhi, we wish to have nurtured a sensibility that would enable us to witness and grasp the details of our environment in a manner that optimizes our performance as architects. A trained sharpeningof observation to better discern the environment for which weneed to design is a necessary prelude to all following processes of design that require informed decision-making. The close study of existing landscapes and the everyday offers an opportunity to approach our urban scenario with the awareness of the “untidiness of urban life.” (Upton 2002) This implies that the architect should not only invest skin, but also soul in the canvas of concern. It is imperative for the architect to immerse himself or herself within the expanse of the everyday. They should become a part of their landscape, and contribute as an integrated entity from within the system. In addition, architects, who are now immersed as citizens, have the ability to define their depth of field and thereby adjust the degree of specificity required to scrutinize the everyday. Efficiency in our performance is enabled by our ability to traverse the span of scale at our will. It is augmented when the architect is able to specify a certain degree of zoom within the entire span of control. This refines the architect’s power of perception by training the eye not to only witness sharply, but to also gather relevant data as required. The trained eye must comply with the noticedniche realities of Delhi. The context requires an empathetic understanding of the sporadic, unpredictable procession of the everyday. Delhi’s everyday landscape is scattered with intermittent sparks of brilliance that one must be trained to notice, appreciate and utilize. Delhi does not seamlessly unravel itself as a coherent, cohesive thread.The sharpening of observation would allow us, as designers to sharply capture and capitalize on these explosions of aspiration. Calibration of observation and experience in the city has a broad spectrum of diversity and driving contributories. One has to have both, a broad understanding of the scenario and sensitivity for the granularity to decode the characteristic spirit of the culture and community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations. Capturing this ethos is seminal to infusing it into any future work. There is the empirical, and the constituents of the empirical. This phenomenon is procedurally equivalent to exploring the successively


6 | Urban Theories

Fig 3: The Russian Doll serves as an example to illustrate the granularity found in cities, that must be explored and respected

enclosed layers of the Russian doll. Thus, granularity is infinite while the empirical is definitive and easily comprehensible. It is easy to broad brush any given scenario within the everyday with the empirical outer. However, successful design delves into the complex depths of the granular. Delhi is different things to different people. In lieu of this, it is important for the architect to avoid generalization. In order to propose better solutions, local and foreign designers, alike, must contextualize cognizant of the granular constituents. Another aspect that we sought to grasp, and regarded as an important step to take before participating in our visual environment was the art of drawing, but with a lighter hand. To design along the natural flow, tolerant of the “untidiness of urban life” in the existing landscape.We feel that keeping this in mind avoids the proposal of alien solutions. In Delhi, this approach is necessary to maintain a flow along the grain of the visual environment that we have inherited.


“… theeveryday is accessible to all, and at whatever level you enjoy it or benefit from it, that’s fine. Whether it’s an extremely high level of appreciating a composition, or just the everyday citizen not being put off by a building that is intimidating by its aspirations.” (Deborah Berke,1998 with Peter Halley 1998) Most importantly, we seek a mode to contribute and intervene, in a manner that does not interfere. It is our priority to eventually propose informed interventions that are inherent.This idea incorporates the challenges of designing for inclusivity in Delhi. Espino and Mehrotra present a refreshing take on this topic by suggesting that the discussion about inclusivity instead become one on how not to make the city exclusive. As architects, we influence and shape everyday space to encourage the unobstructed flow of everyday life. Similarly, we capture everyday life in instances, and employ them as sources of inspiration in our approaches when shaping everyday space. The underlying philosophy that this exchange regards is that the amorphous everyday is actively social. This dynamic, biotic character must be retained in our processes.

Fig 4: We seek to design along the natural flow, tolerant of the “untidiness of urban life”

8 | Urban Theories

“The everyday demands not design leaders, but designers who deploy design intelligence and the visualization of urban options for the citizenry at large in order to facilitate decisions that reflect the consensus of an open and democratic community.” (Upton 2002) The everyday is an assemblage of the experiences stemming from segregated urban geographies. Designing withelements of the everyday in the forefront of the mind of the architect nurtures an overall approach to design where we still intercede where we can to transform our environment, however without taking away from the vast potential of its heterogeneity, innate character and integrity. Thus, the everyday is a source of information that is of immense value to us, as it is the coming together of values we seek to embed in our future work as architects. Seminar 2015: Studying the Everyday Urbanism that Unfolds in Delhi “Urban design within the context of everyday urbanism is never an organized movement, but a critical, humbling and creative attitude towards practice open to any designer interested in the ubiquitous practices and productions of the contemporary city.” (Kaliski 2008) Delhi is read through a designed immersive experiment carried out in specific sites. The experiments elucidate the concepts of the everyday at play, in real time in Delhi. Through this exercise, we come across the various deterrents to easy observation, and acknowledge the challenges that such tasks present. Data is collected and shared to reveal that designing “with elements of the everyday in the forefront of the mind of the architect” is valuable and applicable in Delhi. Following this, we derive a vocabulary to describe Delhi’s specific scenario. The areas considered within Delhi are limited to those in Old Delhi. This limitation was implemented in order to present a cogent, complete case to the reader, which was only made possible through the selection of a small, dynamic site. The choice of site is also an expression of what we believe an interesting context in Delhi is, and what we regard is an apt space to study Everyday Urbanism in Delhi. Our literature was selected through an incremental process of finding related material on subjects that overlapped with our area of interest. While Dell Upton served as an interesting introduction to the concept


Fig 5: A scene from Khari Baoli, Old Delhi illustrating the heterogenous character of urban life we wished to study

of Everyday Urbanism, Crawford, Kaliski furthered these concepts by fortifying the relevance of the concept of the everyday in practice. Kelbaugh remained wary of the implication of Everyday Urbanism, which kept reminding us to reel in from revelling in romanticism. Lefebvre and De Certeau helped overall by providing a larger, classical canvas of thought that also helped build the foundation of our arguments. Our main argument can be considered to encourage the onset of a pedagogy that supports the building of a sensibility for the everyday, as a forerunner to other parameters i.e. time and money. The audience we specifically regard is actually the entire realm of practitioners in the field of architecture and building, as the notion of student versus practitioner is difficult to segregate in the field of architecture. Architects must be eternal students and are simultaneously schools of thought that they share and build their practices with. We believe that the principles of everyday urbanism, beginning from our case to specifically consider the everyday as a matter of importance, is of use to all in that it re-introduces the importance of a neglected principle. The overall paper will specifically be useful however, in the final presentation of the architect’s lexicon for the everyday in Delhi. Introduction to Urbanism “…the city is…a special framework directed towards the creation of differentiated opportunities for a common life and a significant collective drama.” Lewis Mumford, “What is a City?’ From a sociological lens, the city is seen as a product of the synthesis of the demands of everyday use and the social struggles of urban inhabitants. (Chase, Crawford and Kaliski 1999) Cities are not born of

10 | Urban Theories

bursts instantaneous creation but are a product of growth which must foster ‘previously dominant modes of human association’. (Wirth 1938) Urbanism is understood to be a human and social discourse in cities. Wirth (1938) defines urbanism as a ‘complex of traits which makes up the characteristic mode of life in cities’. In defining urbanism in such a manner, it is revealed that the practice of urbanism is not the domain of a single discipline, but interdisciplinary. It requires sensitivity to the ordinary, the routine, the quotidian so as to facilitate the continuum of these ‘modes of human association’. This paper, however concerns itself primarily with the domain of the architect. The architect affects this ‘mode of life’ by intervening in the urban environment. These primarily physical interventions inform human behaviour and interaction to a great degree. This highlights the need for a critical study of existing systems of human interaction. In his essay ‘Architecture and the Everyday’ Upton(2002) introduces the link between the everyday and built. He summarizes his view of one in relation to the other: “… architecture forms the fabric and setting of everyday life.” This can be understood by likening everyday life to theatre, where the backdrop to the act tells as much of a story as the actors. Architecture is much more than the backdrop to everyday life- in its most fundamental role, architecture must be conducive to the very best possible version of everyday life. This equation is seen as working both ways, where architecture acts as both the informant and the informed. Upton suggests an extant division between “life and landscape”. It is here that he introduces a binary- that of Architecture and architecture. ‘architecture’ he explains is the ‘cultural landscape that people make and think’ and ‘Architecture’, the realm of high design and theory. He develops the distinction by critiquing contemporary Architecture’s inclination towards hard, tangibility and priorities of commodification. He alludes to Sarah Wigglesworth’s and Jeremy Tills’(1998)conceptualization of the division between architecture and Architecture in the co-authored ‘The Everyday and Architecture’. The relationship between the two, as perceived by them, is explained in the following quote “…the professional world is ‘an island’ defined by the self- contained and self-referential languages of architecture. Surrounding the rarefied terrain of Architecture’s island is the everyday mainland…” However, the authors also caution against the “binary trap or remaining


immersed in the ordinary.” These leads to loss of creativity and architectural knowledge alike, and insinuate embarrassingly literal or decorative results. A world imagined comprising of only Architecture is unthinkable, for the setting of life is bound to be an expression of human identity, born out of history, culture and tradition. Similarly, to imagine for only architecture to exist is undesirable, for Architecture imbibes the aspirations of communities and may even serve a pivotal role, around which society orients itself. They must co-exist. With this understanding, it can be construed that the discussion of the everyday takes place at the intersection of Architecture and architecture - where the study of material settings of human life meets that of the narrower concerns of professional design. (Upton 2002). “At an interdisciplinary nexus, as an intrinsic element of everyday life, architecture is not composed of isolated and monumental objects. Architecture is ambient and atmospheric, and architecture allows us to tell stories.” (Upton 2002). Architects must be cognisant of the distinction made between the two so as to position themselves in alignment with their principles. ‘architecture’

Fig 6: Diagram depicting our understanding of the three dimensionality of everyday life and landscape

12 | Urban Theories

Fig 7,From Left to Right: Architecture; architecture; and the co-existence of Architecture and architecture

is what results when designing as the observed rather than the observer. The architect cannot afford to operate removed from the landscape he is to intervene within. Opening up to the idea of the everyday being the rich repository of meaning that it is, “forces one to acknowledge that Architecture is a part of architecture, that designers are a part of the everyday world, not explorers from a more civilized society…” (Upton 2002). As architects at the threshold of the profession, we wish to approach design with humility. This humility is reinforced by our focussed observation of human adaptation and innovation as revealed in everyday living. Everyday Life And Everyday Space Thus it can be established that the study of the everyday serves as a ‘critical political tool to resist and dominate a paradigm’ to counter the increased ‘commodification and homogenization of life and landscape’ (Chase, Crawford and Kaliski 1999). This may be interpreted as a subconscious phenomena with internal beginnings within society itself. However, external forces like Globalization have led to social stratification which too can be resisted with a closer reading of the everyday. The everyday may be described as “a set of functions which connect and join together systems that might appear to be distinct” (Upton 2002) More often than not, the everyday is defined more by what it is not rather than what it is- leftover, that which is looked over by power and officialdom and what remains once all specialized activities have been removed. (Upton 2002) Our tableaux of the broad, all-encompassing term everyday as seen in the city, may be analyzed with regard to two further sub divided termseveryday life and everyday space. Simply put, everyday space is the stage

for everyday life. However each of these terms is complex and open to a number of different interpretations. Of all the definitions of everyday life we came across in literature, the most apt to our research probe, as expounded by Upton, is “the nexus of spaces and times that repeatedly trigger bodily habits and cultural memories”. He goes on to say “Everyday life can be oppressive or liberating, depending on the ways it is organized temporally and spatially. Everyday life shapes selfhood and personhood through material, and particularly bodily, practices, but its critical quality is time, as Michel de Certeau realized... So the power to organize space and time, to articulate Certeau’s “organizing discourse,” those qualities of modernity that Lefebvre identified as sources of the banality and alienation of everyday life in the modern world, gives considerable power to shape self and society.” With a perfunctory reading of the everyday one would assume the somewhat pessimistic views of Lefebvre- that of everyday life in modern times to be ‘colonized’ overly influenced and dictated by those few in power. Lefebvre’s communist, Situationist tendencies must be subdued for universal acceptance. Upton states, “Lefebvre demands not transformation, but eradication of the distinction between the extraordinary and the ordinary. There can be no Architecture, only architecture.” However, as Michel de Certeau (1984) describes space as the proper domain of power. He says everyday life works in time, not space and employs ‘tactics’ – short-term raids on power. A tactic insinuates itself in fragments, spread over a period of time. Everyday practices operate where power’s radar is unable to find them. This understanding of the nature of everyday space is more in alignment with characteristics of modern everyday space. Other theoreticians have also put forth their own reading of what everyday space means to them. Steven Harris (Berke and Harris 1997) describes everyday space as ‘anonymous’, that which is ‘undated’ and ‘apparently insignificant’. It is this superficial reading of the everyday space, that the architect must overcome and celebrate the significance and complexities. Margaret Crawford (1999) introduces a new and very relevant metaphor for everyday space which clearly explains the relationship between space and life and in doing so incites a clear visual. She says


14 | Urban Theories

Fig 8: Connective Tissue

“Everyday space lies in between defined and physically definable realms such as the home, workplace or institution, it is the connective tissue that binds everyday lives together.” Much like organic connective tissue whose most basic unit is the cell, the most basic unit of the urban connective tissue is the human body. But it is not merely as assemblage of people in space, it is almost a living organism, where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. A critical, analytical and immersive reading of the everyday tableaux will reveal the inherent forces of Everyday Urbanism. It is our belief that what ensues this immersive approach to design is ‘intervening without interfering’ and the architecture so created, more purposeful and engaging. This democratic approach would lead to increased participation, and the fostering of an environment more respectful of the lives it is to contain. Everyday Urbanism Everyday urbanism does not constitute a design movement; everyday urban design is better described as an attitude that needs better definition. It can be construed as an approach to a broad-based and inclusive critical practice with approaches that seek to promulgate more humane and

liberal approaches to the production of the city. The ultimate purpose of operating under Everyday Urbanism is to bring about social change. This social change must be born out of the ‘specific concerns that arise from the lived experience’ of the people as opposed to through forced abstract political ideologies. (Chase, Crawford and Kaliski 1999) In acknowledging the everyday as a motive force, each individual learns equally from the traditional and new -precedence meets innovation. Under these conditions urban design becomes a focused endeavor to nurture daily life. This will lead to urban design where each project is necessarily special, shaped by individual circumstance and stitched together through ‘careful observation and evolution of highly specific situations and conditions’. Each everyday urban design realized is unique to itself.(Kaliski 2008) Principle support The focussed endorsement of the everyday in Everyday Urbanismwas grounded in a reaction against the determinism of any defined urban design practice. It seeks means to observe and remain open to the diversity of cities. Everyday Urbanism exhibits an interest in exploring the complexity of the whole city, championing of the role non-experts play in ameliorating neglected urban environments, a sense that professional designers would do well to acknowledge the vitality of the tactics of the everyday . Everyday Urbanism begins with what exists and then encourages and intensifies it.Any gesture made under the premise of Everyday Urbanism must necessarily be grounded in the present conditions rather than overturning them and starting over with a different model. Everyday Urbanism is interested in the neglected places and experiences of cities that other urbanisms ignore. These spaces could be a starting point to construct a practice of an inclusive urbanism. (Chase, Crawford and Kaliski 1999) Design intelligence is applied, with an acceptance of democratic design discourses to better the present situation. Although a framework describing the potential of urban design shaped by the everyday can be assimilated, discussion and conjecture regarding the specific principles and places that exemplify the approach of Everyday Urbanism prove especially varied.


16 | Urban Theories

Everyday Urbanism does however employ the core principles of inclusivity and participation as launch pads to any discourse. An attempt to frame a practice of city design through an acknowledgement of the everyday begins with respecting and honouring the daily rituals and cycles that shape communities. Forms and places of communities are therefore justly formed through incremental design processes implemented through time. In everyday contexts designers are asked to facilitate the portraits that communities desire to draw for themselves. A framework of democracy becomes the most cogent means to shape citizens’ and designers’ ideas regarding the space of the city. Designers, working with communities, also benefit from the scrutiny of public debate. Democratic urban form-making demands urban design nimbleness. (Chase, Crawford and Kaliski 1999) Parameters Everyday Urbanism is seen to be non-utopian in having little pretence about the tidiness or perfectibility of the built environment. It is however idealistic about social equity and citizen participation. (Chase, Crawford and Kaliski 1999) Everyday Urbanism is associated with the city intangibles of ‘ephemerality, cacophony, multiplicity and simultaneity’ which designers must be open to and incorporate. This departure from a strict doctrine of purely visual continuity and willingness to open up to informality, is what makes Everyday Urbanism conversational. (Kellbaugh 2009) Everyday Urbanism is seen to be the most populist of the three urbanisms by way of seeing the design professional as an equal participant in public dialogue whichaspires to be very democratic and open-ended. There are no pre-conceived notions of what is ideal and pure but a sense of wonder at what is common and popular. (Kellbaugh 2009) Everyday Urbanism has been criticised for being difficult to translate into a formal language of urbanism. However, it must be understood that it is an attitude towards the city which can have a number of different formal outcomes. “Everyday Urbanism is about small moves grown out of real needs- must be woven into coherent recognizable schema for urbanism thus bringing to formal types, the richness of human presence.” (Crawford, Speaks and Mehrotra 2005) Everyday urban design is situational and specific-studies retrofits already

existing to better accommodate everyday life . It flourishes as a by-product of economic and cultural activities. (Chase, Crawford and Kaliski 1999) It is non-structuralist in downplaying the direct relationship between physical design and social behaviour, unlike New Urbanism. It acknowledges the unpredictability of human behaviour and champions adaptation and innovation- the ‘spontaneous and the indigenous’. It, for instance, looks for inspiration in the imaginative ad hoc ways that marginal spaces are used for commerce and recreation. This highlights culture more than design as a determinant of behaviour. Thus ‘form and function are structurally connected in an open-ended way’. (Kellbaugh 2009) The Three Types of Urbanism Everyday Urbanism operates in a city, in conjunction with the other types of urbanisms. The divergence of urbanisms owes itself to individual sensibilities. Sensibilities often come down to early experiences and memories, such as childhood play. They are less conscious and harder to change than cognitive knowledge and learned values.(Kellbaugh 2009) As identified by theoreticians like Douglas Kelbaugh, Margaret Crawford, John Kaliski, to name a few, there are broadly three types of UrbanismNew Urbanism, Post Urbanism and Everyday Urbanism. Though typologizing urbanism in such a manner may over simplify concepts, it helps contrast and find overlaps in the three approaches. New Urbanism may be said to be the most popular paradigm of the three urbanisms, especially in the realm of pedagogy. Broadly described as ‘idealist’, it operates on a set of principles and ideals which are translated into the built environment, to best suit the needs of people. This makes it easy to relate to and hence imbibe in practice. At the heart of new urbanism is the belief that there is a relationship between physical form and social behaviour. It propagates aesthetic unity and caters to consumer tastes. (Crawford, Speaks and Mehrotra 2005) New Urbanism results in tidying up the city and is committed to walkability, mixed use, compactness and transit-oriented development. Though efficient, practical and easily adaptable, such development oftentimes fails to represent the culture and context it sits in and leads to visual homogeneity-you could be anywhere in the world. Post Urbanism is associated with visual drama in the urban landscape. Forms are ‘predictably unpredictable’ designed for the ‘wow’-factor. They are bold and make you notice them. It can be described as ‘relativist’,


18 | Urban Theories

Fig 9, From Left to Right: New Urbanism; Everyday Urbanism; and Post Urbanism

always attempting to challenge the pre conceived notions of architectural and design knowledge. (Crawford, Speaks and Mehrotra 2005) Post Urbanism is the realm of the ‘Starchitects’, designed to be provocative. The attitude is criticised for disconnecting from the context and many a time, for being out of scale. The experience of post-urbanist forms is designed to be out of the ordinary, at the risk of leaving one feeling disconcerted, intimidated and overwhelmed. “Everyday Urbanism, New Urbanism and Post Urbanism’s wrestle amongst one another does not highlight a contest – it’s only part of a narrative that highlights the pre-eminence of New Urbanism.”(Kellbaugh 2009) New Urbanism’s success is in providing straightforward place-making principles that are image-able, reassuring and communicable. It is fleetfooted: New Urbanists create constant renewal within their movement by quickly adopting exterior concepts. However, holding interest in the everyday makes it difficult for other forms of Urbanism, to claim a single position in Urban Design. Where Everyday Urbanism succeeds in being more inclusive and democratic is


where the other two forms of urbanism are in lacking. Praxis of Everyday Urbanism The preceding arguments compound and establish a common database for potential democratic changes to be imagined through the concepts of Everyday Urbanism. What lacks, however, is clarity on the undertaking of these principles in architectural praxis. The arguments supporting Everyday Urbanism provide richness to the discussion and design of a potential mode of implementation. Balancing the amassed information with the end product of what our training as architects equips us to do – propose and construct physical solutions – reveals an unreconciled caveat between the amassed theory and practice. This gap makes it difficult for Everyday Urbanism to be understood as more than innovative terminology and interesting concepts that persuade powerfully, but only on paper. These leads us to question- What is the praxis of everyday urbanism? How do the concepts of everyday urbanism materialize? This line of thought exceeds the current body of knowledge on everyday urbanism, as the majority of thinking associated with the concept

Fig 10: Venn diagram showing theory, practice and praxis

20 | Urban Theories

remains largely preoccupied with the defence of its own principles and against competing schools of thought. A conundrum introduced earlier, periodically resonates in these arguments. On one hand, the everyday presents itself as an exceedingly simple concept; while on the other, it is seen as a complex enigma. Having made the leap from operating with the former conviction to the latter, one is confounded as to where one must begin acting. Decoding the details of everyday life and everyday space by rethinking the tools we use and redesigning the methods we employ, leads to the familiar becoming unfamiliar. Here we witness the emergence of previously unforeseen solutions. In this context we propose a methodology for the praxis of Everyday Urbanism that realises the constructed taxonomy and leads the way to a more holistic practice. Registering details about the everyday isn’t about registering everything within it. It isn’t about dwelling in the details for prolonged periods of time. There is just so much to everyday life that regarding it in a great amount of detail seems exhausting, counter-productive and inefficient. The taxonomy of Everyday Urbanism that we have encountered till date, does not relate prolonged, exhaustive exposure with clarity. We may depend on a sense of knowing. The whole pie does not need to be eaten to know what it tastes like. A single bite may suffice. We deconstruct to address the irrationality, by establishing specific, intelligent parameters. This way, we can hope to efficiently extract the vitals of any scenario. However, the nebulousness of everyday scenarios make them extremely difficult to study. As expressed by Jeremy Till, one is at the risk of adopting a detached view of the city in which a series of social and political issues are excluded. Upton quotes John Friedmann’s concern of there being very real difficulties of authentically representing the city of everyday life. The standard method of architectural production is ‘stable, unified and ordered within a coherent system’ and ‘demands a linear trajectory of investigation and production’. He goes on to say that maps and statistics often fail to do justice to reality. “The formal devices of the figure ground, the diagram, the zone and the type all contain the investigation within tidy boundaries, a certain type of quasi-scientific analysis-questions of quantity are addressed before those of quality. The city is reduced to a series of codes in which the issue of content is bypassed. The realm of the body is excluded in scale, the social and political is excluded in the graphic and the


Fig 11: A line drawing and a satellite image showing ground realities (Source: Google Earth)

rational method excludes the imaginative & the irrational.” (Till 1994) When faced with these complex tableaux, designers feel the need to either find order or impose one, for ease of translation and coherence. This reduction fails to represent the true picture. The urban miniature, according to Jeremy Till, concentrates the attention to such an extent that one can no longer ignore the detail or what it may represent beyond. It is seen as the authentic repository of experience and meaning. He goes on further to define the urban miniature where the body is seen not as a diagrammatic object but as the subject of conflicting forces. This method of viewing the city reveals the ‘hazardous play of dominations’. One may see the urban miniature as a catalyst to productive disorder. In adopting this method, the designer is removed from podium and is forced to act. At the small scale the individual is empowered to act. The urban miniature is seen as part of a wider structure and means of resisting unwanted mechanisms of control can be developed. Idiosyncrasies and differences flourish and are celebrated. Here, the everyday is addressed as something with extraordinary productive possibilities. Having narrowed the focus of study down to the urban miniature, one must recognise that the urban miniature is further constructed of the synergetic relations between many different elements and activities. In a manner parallel to the construction, and viewer experience of Marcel Duchamp’s 1966 ‘Etant Donnés’, the concept of urban miniatures and their potential can be interrogated, and the details and layers of the city segment’s composition exposed. Inspired by the Etant Donnés, we can design and develop a construct to read and continue the developing, evolutionary dialogue of the everyday. Etant Donnés begins by drawing the viewer to a heavy wooden door

22 | Urban Theories

Fig 12 Left to Right: Construction of Etant Donnés (Source: http://dirae.weebly. com/etant-donnes. html); Image through the peephole (Source: http://dirae.weebly. com/etant-donnes. http://gorselara.com/ gorsel/%C3%89tantdonn%C3%A9/ html)

with two small holes, through which they are prompted to peer through. Looking through the peephole, the viewer sees a strange, confounding three-dimensional diorama. Etant Donnés’ composition, not as a twodimensional image, but instead as an elaborate assemblage of materials and artefacts, parallels an original conjecture discussed as the paper was written; where, everyday life is the three-dimensional facing a twodimensional façade which is representative of the architect’s effort to spatialize the richness of the temporality he or she witnesses. The Etant Donnés is a similarly constructed experience: an apparently complete image composed of disparate, abstract parts, viewed in totality through a lens - the peephole. In a similar manner, the constituent elements of the urban miniature can be understood to be pulsating with life and meaning which are then interpreted and translated according to the lens adopted. The lens one adopts is informed by one’s discipline, past experiences and individual sensibilities. Architecture, in lieu of the paper’s arguments, works better from a place of interdisciplinary interaction, as opposed to working in esoteric isolation. This interaction largely comprises the base upon which the act of building is undertaken. Architects need to be able to collect, interpret and utilize dynamic data in a malleable manner to discern and consequently instruct the synergies between the components of everyday space and everyday life. A mode that can be used to implement a vision of operationalizing based on this dynamic data would allow the everyday to materialize a grand vision of architectural thinking, where the architect is considered a value addition and assimilator of all opinions and stakeholders that can potentially invest in their environment.


“To be effective, an architect must recognize and respond to a host of factors that taken in their totality describe the architectural problem, which a building represents: a building is not the solution but a solution. We embrace the complexities and the contradictions of the contemporary, recognizing that today’s issues are not for architects to tackle in a vacuum. Architecture is a collaborative art…”(Robert A.M. Stern) A methodology designed to decode the dynamic data, ideally involving several participants, would result in data, which would be far more representational of users as it sources the data itself, from an incredibly diverse array of users. Together we create a database to make a better urbanism that everyone contributes to through his or her needs to. This mode of observation was attempted in a selected Urban Miniature in Old Delhi. Through direct contact, layers of the selected Urban Miniature in Old Delhi were exposed, in an attempt to decode components of its everyday life. As the group observed, recorded and hypothesized, responses as embedded in the environment of the everyday life – everyday space – were assessed for their suitability and success.

Fig 13: Flowchart of Methodology proposed.

24 | Urban Theories

As the group wove through Old Delhi, observations were shared within the walls of the Naughara havelis, at the intersection of Fawwara Chowk, and atop the terraces of Khari Baoli, overlooking the Fatehpuri Masjid. Site selection dilemmas became grounds for the sharing of critical opinions. Any potential convolution of ideas and intent was straightened out by returning to approaches practiced in Design Studio where, design problems were identified, and potential solutions were proposed with the intent of ameliorating and overcoming any observed lapses. The intent of the research group was to decipher alternative narratives, by assessing the construction of everyday life and space in the form of images, videos, urban plans and spatial and material scenarios. This inception of this method by members of a particular discipline, in this case students of architecture, must be understood to have a direct bearing on the data presented. Designed Methodology While framing the methodology, it was established that as no two scenarios are alike, it is difficult to ascertain a standard fit-for-all. In this case, we must isolate universal criteria within which the differences revel. The three dimensions of Everyday Life: 1) pace and rhythm, 2) phenomena, 3) properties can be assumed to apply universally as can the three dimensions of Everyday Space: 1) latitudinal, 2) longitudinal, and 3) vertical. Once the dynamic data is broken down into these dimensions, the data can be interpreted with respect to the collective interactions. For example, determining how different archetypal characters constitute different floor levels could be representative of how the everyday-life dimension of phenomena meets vertical dimension of everyday-space. Similarly, an alternate example could relate pace and rhythm with that of the longitudinal dimension of everyday space – where one could observe how recorded points of pause in the citizen’s movement could affect characteristics of the street edge, and vice versa. We live in a world of interdependence where the difference between success and failure hinges on the ability to see, shape, and shift a broader ecosystem. The wide lens in our proposed paradigm is the definitive framework to capture the perspectives of this new world. Its breakthrough approach can help eliminate strategy blind spots and multiply our odds of success.


The architect now operates using a database of meanings and interpretations sourced from stakeholder citizenry, each of whom would have their own unique reading. The results of any sequent act would no doubt be more democratic, inclusive and responsive than one where the architect were to operate in isolation. Conclusion A methodology is a means to an end. It is not the end. By broadly coalescing modes that would allow us to specifically discern, smartly interpret, and democratically design solutions, we construct an approach which addresses Everyday Urbanism’s promulgation of more humane and liberal approaches to the production of the city. We appropriate these values and finally, propose a mode that a designer may use. We live in a world of interdependence where the difference between success or failure hinges on our ability to see, shape, and shiftthe broader ecosystem. The wide lens in our phoropter paradigm forms the the definitive framework to capture the perspectives of this new world.

Fig 14: Left to Right: Dimensions of Everyday Life; and Dimensions of Evryday Space

26 | Urban Theories

The paper does not conclude with a formula. The method is a proposal. As explained earlier, Everyday Urbanism does not constitute a design movement: it is better described as an attitude that needs better definition. Everyday Urbanism is read between the lines. It is the structure that underpins all other methods, and leads one to a cogent understanding of the end.

Bibliography

BERKE, Deborah and HARRIS, Steve (1997). Architecture of the Everyday. Illustrated ed., Princeton Architectural Press. CHASE, John, CRAWFORD, Margaret and KALISKI, John (1999). Everyday urbanism: featuring John Chase. New York, Monacelli Press. CRAWFORD, Margaret, SPEAKS, Michael and MEHROTRA, Rahul (2005). Everyday urbanism: Margaret Crawford vs. Michael Speaks. Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan, A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture. Deborah Berke,1998 with Peter Halley. (1998). [online]. http://www. indexmagazine.com/interviews/deborah_berke.shtml KALISKI, John (2008). Everyday Urban Design: Toward Default Urbanism and/or Urbanism by Design. New York, Monacelli. KELLBAUGH, Douglas (2009). Three Urbanisms and the Public Realm. University of Michigan, USA. TILL, Jeremy (1994). The Urban Miniature. [online]. https://jeremytill. s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/post/attachment/44/1994_The_Urban_ Minature.pdf UPTON, Dell (2002). Architecture and Everyday. New Literary History, 33 (4), 707-723. WIRTH, Louis (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. The American Journal of Sociology,.

Everyday Urbanism

Recommend Documents