Measuring the Value of Public Space
How can we measure the excitement and temporality of public space?
Abstract
In the proposal of OurSpace.CoOp, the afterlife of public space is post-tracked, becoming a learning opportunity for future developments. Inherently, the idea of post-tracking implies that public spaces need to be productive and valued, where any form of temporariness, alteration, and excitement are lost. While the proposed feedback loop structure does offer a valid learning opportunity, the conditions of public space are more temporal and informed by surrounding spaces, which means forms of tracking may need to be altered.
The traditional POE (post-tracking evaluation) is wrapped up in the nature of what defines architectural knowledge as the connection between the critical process of design and the way buildings perform. The RIBA validates the use of a POE as tool to put people and their needs first, reduce waste, and to measure how well buildings perform. In this sense, the evidence in favour of using a POE embeds certain types of care that could be removed otherwise if it weren’t for a system of post-tracking performance. By contrast, the use of a POE also assumes that public spaces must take on a productive form and does not get to the heart of the problem. By examining models of measuring the success of the built environment and public space, a critical assessment can be made to determine if as an industry we should be post-tracking and evaluating these types of works. The impact of a feedback loop development structure also needs to be explored further to see if this is the right form for the process of procuring and developing public spaces.
Based on the current systems of POEs’, monitoring guidance, and post-tracking, my belief is that they are not ideal nor worthwhile when it comes to reflecting on public space development. Through this critical examination, I aim to analyse the validity of these forms of assessment and determine if there are other, more flexible forms, that post-tracking could tackle in order to maintain the temporality and excitement of public space.
Introduction
OurSpace.CoOp proposes a community-based model that challenges the current structure of public space in terms of its procurement and function. The structure of the process and timeline is based on a circular feedback loop, utilising a post-tracking system which becomes a learning opportunity and a chance to improve the quality of public space. While OurSpace.CoOp does propose a model that allows for public space to have a longer lasting impact both socially and environmentally, the implementation of a post-tracking system inherently implies that public space must be productive in some form. Typically, post-tracking systems like Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) are validated by the RIBA as a tool to put people and their needs first, reduce waste, and to measure how well buildings perform. In this sense, the evidence in favour of using a POE maintains that certain types of care could be removed otherwise if it weren’t for a system of post-tracking performance. These types of care and values are based on disciplinary knowledge rather than everyday life, leaving a larger gap between the construction industry and the user. POEs thus become trapped in an academic field, defined by architectural knowledge as the connection between the critical process of design and the way buildings perform. The implication of post-tracking on public space resulting in its need to be productive and valued, means that any form of temporariness, alteration, and excitement are lost. The purpose of feedback loop processes and post-tracking systems needs to be examined holistically in order to understand if as an industry these methods enhance or benefit public space development. Public space is inherently more temporal than the built environment, informed by its’ surrounding spaces, which means forms of tracking need to adapt to different conditions. By examining current models of measuring success of the built environment and public space, the validity of these forms of assessment can be analysed, to determine if there are other, more flexible forms, that post tracking could tackle in order to maintain the temporality and excitement of public space.
Feedback Loops and POEs: Disciplinary Knowledge
The growing gap between the user and the construction industry stems from design not meeting the everyday reality of space. Systems like feedback loops and post-tracking performance aim to gather the lessons learnt at many stages through a project, in order to make educated changes for future development. Frank Duffy, a former RIBA president, argued that we must contribute and build a body of knowledge that creates more value for architecture as a service, becoming more accessible for the greater society and clients. The intent behind implementing a circular feedback loop structure within architectural development is meant to continually update the collective body of knowledge so that meaningful contributions to the built environment are commonplace. Feedback loop structures become part of the plan of work, providing learning opportunities throughout the procurement and development of architectural projects as a tool to link all aspects that make up the construction industry. The gaps found within the industry tend to fracture the influence and relationships between design, construction, fabrication and academic sectors of the field. In this sense feedback loops are intended to provide a more holistic view on design and its impact on the user.
Similarly, to circular feedback loops, POEs are seen as a tool to generate and guarantee collaboration in the process of building a common body of knowledge. Post Occupancy Evaluations are a process in which, feedback on a building’s performance is obtained, typically looking at information surrounding building performance and user satisfaction. Socially and environmentally, POEs do prioritise collecting information on the users and environment, providing specific feedback into how sustainable the built environment is and its effect on the larger population occupying the spaces. POEs are a direct measure to judge how well a building puts people and their needs first, reduces waste, and how businesses perform, but often only represent a snapshot of how the spaces are actually used and what the true failures are. Current RIBA Benchmarking highlights that only 10% of RIBA Chartered Practices follow up with a POE, meaning the growing body of knowledge within the field is still quite limited. While the practice and implementation of POEs needs to become more universal in order to analyse if it is an effective tool, they also need to be undertaken as a collaborative process. The collaboration in post-tracking systems allows for the gap between the construction industry and the community to be bridged, leading to research that can better future development. POEs become the place in which the claims that we make about design are tested and evaluated, to encourage the industry to better serve the user in practice rather than in theory.
The overall problem with current methods of applying feedback loop structures and POE monitoring guidance is that they are too wrapped up in the nature of architectural or disciplinary knowledge. Disciplinary knowledge is the connection between the designer the way buildings perform but is often based around theory rather than practice. Since there are many forces and pressures that contribute to the complexity of building good buildings, much of the post-completion reflection does not take into account the true impact on the user. Often design and academic practices are prioritised within the feedback loop structure and post-tracking evaluations, creating an inevitable “bracket” which contributes to why these processes and timelines are too caught up in disciplinary knowledge.
Feedback loops tend to focus on how to better the process of procurement and development which may work for buildings; however, it imposes that public space must be seen as productive rather than considering that these spaces should have temporality built in. While architects like Flora Samuel argue that POEs are vital in understanding what works and demonstrating value, they tend to only be used on one occasion, post-completion. The variability and temporality of public space demands that if a post-tracking system were to be used, they need to collect observations and insights over a considerable amount of time in order to draw meaningful conclusions. If feedback loop systems and post-tracking performance methods are to be used in terms of measuring and learning from public space, they need to move away from the academic field, and consider the variety of conditions and factors that continually evolve over time.
The Variability of Public Space
In order to examine if forms of post-tracking like POEs are beneficial, it is important to understand how these systems work in relation to public space. The nature of public space is fundamentally different to that of buildings which means that traditional feedback loop models and POE criteria cannot be directly applied. The factors that determine the value of public space are much more fluid and temporal. Public space occupies a dimension of multiplicity, where place is determined by its porosity and relationship to other spaces. Doreen Massey argues that space is a product of interrelations and must be composed through its interactions. Space and the public realm are always evolving and never finished, where the nature of the place cannot be defined by one singular time.
Massey’s argument for the recognition of space in this manner, allows for place and the public realm to be thought of through its temporality and ambiguous form, undefined by ideals that all space needs to be seen as productive. In this sense, public space is not meant to last forever, nor should we design for it to. The user or community are able to reclaim what public space is for them, instead of accepting a presupposed use or function that results from the over-designing of the public realm. The numerous factors that contribute to how public space is used and perceived highlights that the standard snapshot of occupancy provided through a traditional POE is an inaccurate representation. The factors that alter the way public space is occupied include a wide range of information, from length of time spent there, to environmental conditions. By gathering information or data relating to the variety of influences, the relationships between the use of public space, the spaces surrounding, and its evolution, can be better understood. The variability of public space demands that any form of post-tracking should take place over an extended period time so that more accurate findings can be discovered. The application of feedback loop processes in the development of public space differs from the conventional model used for the development of buildings. By viewing public space as an entity that is continually evolving, the feedback loop would have a number of inputs that span over an extended period, long after construction is completed. When it comes to public space, in order for feedback loop processes to work, they need to be extended, so that the information gathered from theses spaces during their occupation, learns from how the space evolves rather than from one isolated instance. The collective body of knowledge gained from feedback loops and POEs is important so that the profession can continually reflect on its impact and make positive change, keeping in mind that the variability of public space does make it complicated to monitor or track. Instead, perhaps public space does not need to follow the same conventional structure, but rather continual reflection on these spaces can be made to aid future development over an extended period of time.
Impacts of Post Tracking and Evaluation
The variability of public space is a major factor in determining the impact of post-tracking systems. POEs do not take into account two key concepts of public space: its ambiguous function and its temporality. Public space should not be considered a productive space, rather it should be viewed as space that is not forever. Massey’s theory on how space should be viewed, offers a positive alternative to understanding the public realm as having no fixed or permanent form, constantly influenced by its porosity and relationship to other spaces. The combination of a feedback loop process and POEs currently does not account for the variability and non-programmed qualities of public space that should be maintained. Conventional post-tracking systems impact the reading of public space negatively, reflecting on inaccurate readings of these spaces’ performance. The three broad levels of POE look at how buildings perform compared to their design intention, yet as previously mentioned, since public space does not perform in the same manner, the conventional POE is not an ideal form of post-tracking. The most general level is described as a “light touch POE”, aims to provide a rapid evaluation before the building contract concludes. The “diagnostic POE” builds off of the light touch, highlighting areas that need a more detailed review. Finally, the “detailed (forensic) POE” is a comprehensive investigation, aiming to identify and resolve any persistent performance issues. These levels do not consider the variety of factors, adjacent spaces, temporality, or continual evolution that influence public space. By applying the same black-and-white thinking used in the conventional forms of POE on public space, the outcomes generated from the studies provide inaccurate feedback. The over-academizing of POEs is further increased as these types of studies result in over-designing spaces that are meant to be determined by their user.
By considering other forms of influence on public space, a new form of post-tracking could help build a body of common knowledge, helping the construction industry better understand the value of these spaces in their unprogrammed, unproductive, and exciting forms. Perhaps instead of tracking and measuring public space in the same manner as buildings, POEs should be reworked to include a review of how the public space evolves over time.
Moving Forward
Beyond POEs, the forms of post-tracking public space need to evolve in order to make a meaningful impact. Jan Gehl, a Danish architect, has built his practice surrounding the multiple ways in which communities use the public realm. Gehl’s distinction between necessary, optional, and social activity, helps to provide a different perspective as to how we can measure the value of public space beyond POEs. Gehl’s study of the life between buildings highlights that these spaces are composed of necessary, optional, and social behaviours that should be understood prior to beginning planning processes.
Gehl proposes a method of studying these public spaces through three key parts: a quality evaluation of the spaces, recording of public life within the spaces, and from this information, recommendations for improvements, all of which can contribute to a wider body of knowledge for future development. Gehl’s proposal on how to measure the value of public space offers a more flexible, gradual approach than that of a POE. Rather than imposing changes to what the industry sees as problems, a gradual transformation of public space allows for greater flexibility in the design process. This gradual transformation thus supports to link between the construction industry and the user, helping to continue the development of positive spaces that communities need.
The implication of post-tracking in the conventional sense of a POE results in public space needing to be viewed as productive, which in turn means that any form of temporariness, alteration, and excitement are lost. While feedback loop processes aim to enable better social and environmental outcomes, the model cannot be applied directly to public space. By integrating a more flexible form of iteration as seen in Gehl’s model of studying public life, the nuance, relationship to surrounding spaces, variability, and excitement of public space can be maintained. This more flexible form is more of a study rather than an evaluation, yet it helps to remove the academic bubble surrounding POEs for its direct understanding of how communities want to use public space. This more nuance approach to studying and reflecting on public life can contribute to better future development, getting to the heart of the problem of how the value of public space is currently measured.
Bibliography
Ben Anderson, ‘For Space (2005): Doreen Massey’, <https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/18967_26_Hubbard_Ch_26.pdf> [accessed 28 December 2020]
Derbyshire, Ben, ‘Extending our knowledge through research will benefit the profession and society’, The RIBA Journal, (5 January 2018), <ribaj.com/culture/research-and-develop-riba-president-culture> [accessed 27 December 2020]
Doreen Massey on Space’, Social Science Space, (2013), <https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/02/podcastdoreen-massey-on-space/> [accessed 26 November 2020]
‘How Buildings Learn: Magazine Architecture’, Notion Parallax (30 December 2019), <https://notionparallax.co.uk/2019/magazine_architecture> [ accessed 23 December 2020]
‘Jan Gehl’, Projects for Public Spaces, (31 December 2008), <https://www.pps.org/article/jgehl> [accessed 29 December 2020]
Kraus, Chad and Nils Gore, ‘Educating for an Embodied Culture of Building’, Shaping New Knowledges, (Kansas: University of Kansas), p. 168–176
RIBA and Hay, R., S. Bradbury, D. Dixon, K. Martindale, F. Samuel, A.Tait, ‘Pathways to POE, Value of Architects’, RIBA (2016), <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/post-occupancy-evaluation/additional-documents/buildingknowledgepathwaystopoepdf.pdf> [accessed 26 November 2020]
Patel, H. and Green, S. D., ‘Beyond the performance gap: reclaiming building appraisal through archival research’, Building Research & Information, 2020, 48.5, p. 469–484
‘Post Occupancy Evaluation’, RIBA, (26 November 2020), <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/GatherContent/Paywalled-resource-with-many-PDFs-VPC/Additional-Documents/Post-Occupancy-Evaluationanessentialtooltoimprovethebuiltenvironmentpdf.pdf> [accessed 22 December 2020]
‘Post Occupancy Evaluation’, Sci-Network, (1 June 2012), <https://sci-network.eu/fileadmin/templates/sci-network/files/Resource_Centre/Reports/SCIN_POE_final_report_-_June_2012.pdf> [accessed 28 December 2020]
‘Post Occupancy Evaluation wins over clients’, RIBA, (27 April 2017), <https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/post-occupancy-evaluation-as-a-new-business-winner> [accessed 26 November 2020]
‘Professor Flora Samuel’, University of Reading, <https://research.reading.ac.uk/urban-living/people/fsamuel/> [accessed 27 December 2020]
‘The Future of Public Space Analytics’, Smartcitiesdive, <https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/future-public-space-analytics/1048426/> [accessed 26 November 2020]
