‘Place’ as an open framework

Place as an open framework

We are constantly surrounded by space. We assign meanings to these spaces, an identity consciously built over time. These spaces thus become places, having specific character. In our daily life, we experience different places, such as a home, a work place and many more.

The discipline of Urban Design and Architecture offers elaborate definitions of place based on different criteria, such as function. In the last twenty years or so, designers in the field of CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) have considered the notion of place, distinguishing it from space. Dourish and Harrison (1996), in their path-breaking article “Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems”, introduced a distinction between place and space. They took a designerly perspective at place, suggesting that “Space is the opportunity; place is the understood reality” (p. 67). This perspective provides a useful insight in looking at place as a distinct phenomenon that occurs in space.

A space can be seen as a physical configuration of materiality that has been deliberately created for human need. We as humans choose a particular composition of space such that it supports our actions. In short, the space on its own, without our interaction, is a dead space. It is only through interaction it evolves, changes, gets enriched and becomes a place. This does not mean that the physicality is unimportant; rather, the physicality is an equal participant in the phenomenon of ‘place-making’.

Karen Barad’s posthumanist ontology affords us to understand these interactions as intra-actions, where the human body does not pre-exist the interaction with the space but achieves meaning and identity only through the interaction with the material world (Barad 2007). The material world and the human body are co-constituted in the intra-action, bringing each other to life (read: acquire meaning). The intra-action is a progressive phenomenon of reciprocal exchanges where the openness of the space is negotiated as it gets defined. This negotiated space can be seen as an open framework, where place will evolve through intra-activity.

The inherent socio-political aspects of interaction enrich this open framework. We as humans and the space that we inhibit are embedded with rich cultural information, and so is the place. Architect Bernard Tschumi emphasises the need of conceiving the architectural space as a cultural narrative (Tschumi 1994). According to him, ‘place’ is a continuous evolution constituted through events. He talks about a system made of space, event, and activity. The events have a temporal existence and are situated.

Similarly, Harrison and Tatar (2008) propose an idea of place, which is dynamically constructed through three elements: ‘People’, ‘Events’ and ‘Loci’. The ‘Loci’ is a perceived notion of a place, constructed through the activities performed by ‘People’, leading to the formation of an ‘Event’. The ‘Loci’ is a temporal framework, evolving as ‘People’ construct ‘Events’. The phenomenon of reciprocal exchange (i.e., intra-activity) as stated above can be seen as a temporal event. The body interacts with a space by interpreting it, thus formulating an event. The conception of place as a series of temporal events that embed cultural narratives in space helps to visualise the evolution of a place. The open framework of a place, then, can be seen as constructed by a series of temporal events.

Participant observations in a social place

The temporality of events and the resulting ‘place-making’ can vividly be seen in a social place, for example, in a public garden. It is dynamic in nature with multiple activities taking place simultaneously. In a public garden there are smaller events such as groups of people chatting with each other, kids are playing nearby, couples seat detached from the crowd. But they are all part of a larger place called a garden. There are thin boundaries between the smaller events, which are private, and the larger one, which is public.

Since May 2015, I have studied various social places such as public gardens, streets, and a lakefront. I finally chose to work on a lakefront because there I could observe the ‘place-making’ more dynamically compared to other social places.

At this point it is necessary to state my position in this research and why I chose the methodology that I adopted. My approach of looking at place was to see it as a series of events. If it was a phenomenon to be observed, the best thing was to be a participant. I adopted the ethnographic method of participant observations, situating myself in the event. I decided to do observations at a regular interval of time throughout a day on a fixed spot. Observing a fixed spot was useful to produce a progressive map of temporal events over time. I chose to visit the same spot on weekdays and on weekends to observe variations. Marking a spot on the ground, I took thirty-second videos from the same spot every thirty minutes. When I was not filming, I sat around, ate, wrote, hanged out with friends around the same place, bought things that were sold; I was ultimately being part of the events taking shape. There were tourists on the lakefront taking videos, selfies, photos—and I was doing the same. Before I talk about the maps that I present in the video, it would be good to know more about the lake.

Lakefront: Talav-Pali

Lake Talav-Pali is located in Thane, a suburb of Mumbai, India. The lakefront—being a large, open public space in the heart of the suburb—has become the most vibrant ‘place’, changing its identity throughout the day. The periphery of the lakefront has a varied character. It has some important landmarks, like the statue of a famous local king protruding from the periphery into the lake. There is a temple in the middle of the lake. Part of the lakefront is closed-off by buildings that house a boat club, an auditorium, an administrative building and a swimming pool. From this particular edge of the lake, one cannot see water and hence it is only used by passers-by. This part of the lakefront has no seats; the footpath becomes narrow. But, the other part of the lakefront is open. It is open to water; it is wider and has fixed seats. It is in this part a lot of action happens during the day. The openness of the space allows many different events to take place. It changes drastically per hour.

In the morning, people use it as a jogging track; vegetable vendors use it as a parking lot for loading vegetables, and the elderly use it as a place to just meet and chat. In the afternoon, it is used by the passers-by to rest. People prefer to wait here rather than in the administrative buildings, while their work is in progress. The edge of the footpath becomes a place to park private vehicles. It is during afternoon the street hawkers start to come and settle on spots they have carefully chosen. These are tattoo makers, ear cleaners, snack salesmen, and so on. In the early afternoon, when the school hours are over, teenagers come in pairs or in groups and seat near the hawkers to eat snacks or just to chat. In the late evening, people of all ages come either in families or alone to seat and be part of the changing place as it starts to become more active. Slowly, the edge of the footpath gets lined with hawker carts stationing themselves on the spots that they have selected over many years. The horse carts start to come; they circulate around the lake and charge for each trip. Families with kids come after office hours and the lakefront changes completely as it gets crowded with people. People spend hours walking along the lakefront engaging in different activities until midnight.

Progressive mapping of an open framework

Traditionally, maps are cartographic representations of statistical data about a location which is politically defined. The cartographic maps have been instruments of generating quantitative information about geography for defining or enforcing political powers. J. B. Harley (1989), by arguing the validity of such maps, has discussed the importance of deconstructing their relationship with power structures. Harley proposes to re-frame the discourse within which maps have been conceived historically.

My pursuit of mapping ‘place’ through a visual narrative and exploring its character is an attempt on the similar lines. The maps that I present in the video are aimed at establishing the evolution of a place. Hence, the mapping depicts an evolution achieved through the layering of temporal events. Rather than focusing on the politics of how and why particular events evolve, I have chosen to put emphasis on how the space allows layering of varied events, leading to the formation of place.

In the maps, I have used graphics to illustrate how an event is constructed; what are its constituents and how one can see a body-space relationship. The maps are indicative of events constructed on a spot over a day. I present them in series as they change from morning to evening. In each map, I start with a spot at a particular time, calling it just a ‘space’, then highlighting the immediate surrounding within which the event will evolve. I call this the ‘event framework’ of a ‘place’. Within this framework, the ground is highlighted as if it was a stage on which activities are taking shape. In the end, I highlight bodies making sense of the ‘event’. Towards the end of the map, I have illustrated a layering of all the events of the day on top of each other. This is the ‘place’, finally achieved through the construction of series of events. In the video, presented herewith, I start with justifying why I chose the particular spots to work on around the lake. This is presented through activity mapping around the lake. I chose two spots to work on around the lake where I saw dense activity throughout the day. I present a map for each spot.

A beginning

Through the mapping of ‘place’ as layering of events, one can see how ‘openness’ of space is seen as defined by the formation of a ‘place’. I have attempted to formulate the ‘place’ framework, which is open-ended. This work marks the beginning of my quest in investigating ‘place’. I would not like to conclude it now. My observations presented here in the video format helped me to create a basic understanding about ‘place’. There is more to ‘place-making’ than I have touched upon in this work—my approach to look at ‘place’ as an open framework is just scratching the surface of it.

The videos that I took over three weeks on the lakefront were taken without the consent of the people. They were however aware of my presence and that I was recording. I was not stopped and questioned. But, I felt many times that I might be questioned by the police rather than by the people. As for them, I am not recording the people but the place. Soon, for security reasons, the lakefront will get surveillance cameras like many other public places in Mumbai. The methodology of recording in public place the way I did might not be possible in the future. I would like to pursue this work by making my methodology more open-ended, by letting people participate in it, by taking their inferences, thereby justifying the call for ‘openness’. I will continue exploring ‘place’ further with this approach.

About the author

Neha Sayed is an Architect from Mumbai, India. She did her Masters in Experience Design from Konstfack, Sweden, in 2009. She has done a combination of teaching, research and architectural practice since 2000. Her research interests include social interaction and co-design methodologies. She is currently working on exploring the phenomena of ‘place-making’, through varied perspectives.