See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319086479

Community centers as a socially responsive space

Conference Paper · June 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 1,850

2 authors:

Adiba Shafique Mohammad Tahir

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   
7 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

the relationship between spatial organisation and social interaction in public open space View project

The relationship between spatial organisation and social interaction in public open space View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adiba Shafique on 29 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Community centers as a socially responsive space
A. Shafique1*, M. Tahir2
1
Former Assistant Professor, Accurate Institute of Architecture and Planning, Greater Noida, India
2
Project Architect, Saudi German Hospital, Jeddah, KSA

*Corresponding author: E-mail: adibashafique@gmail.com, Tel + 966-599048137

Abstracts
This paper attempts to investigate that, in a city like Delhi, where people don’t have time to interact or
to do a social meeting, does community centers promotes the social activity. The study examines that
what are the different spaces and design elements in community centers which attract the visitors and
acts as a bridge in promoting social life of a city and what are the factors which govern social activities.
Keywords: community center; open public space; social life; outdoor design spaces; public spaces in Delhi.

1. INTRODUCTION

From the past evidence, public spaces have always given an identity to every civilization. These spaces
have ever been the focal point of the urban structure and act as a center for a meeting. Greek, roman and
Indus valley civilizations are the best examples which demonstrate the importance of public spaces in
our society. Many cities like Rome, Copenhagen, Florence, etc. are known for their significant public
life whereas few cities are still fighting to sustain their social life. Delhi is one of the examples of it. Due
to the high density and harsh climatic conditions, Delhi is deficient in high quality of social life in open
public spaces. Therefore, to make balance in public life, the government of Delhi has provided many
“Community Centers” around the city, which is an open public space, offering an opportunity for social
interaction.
This paper attempts to investigate that, in a city like Delhi, where people don’t have time to interact or
to do a social meeting, does these types of public space promotes the social activity. The study examines
that what are the different spaces and design elements in community centers which attract the visitors
and make a space socially responsive and the factors which govern social activities.

For a research, three case study sites were carefully selected in different parts of the city, having similar
size with different design spaces, users and connectivity in order to represent the relationship of design
spaces with a variety of users.

1.1 Defining community centres

The Community Centers should be conceived as shopping and business centers catering to the needs of
the population at community level. According to the master plan 2021 norms, for 1 lakh population, 1
community centers is allotted of 4 hectare area [1]. The community center includes plazas, shopping
areas, eating joints, temporary markets, commercial offices, clubs, etc.
1.2 Defining Sociability

Sociability means social life in a particular space. Jan Gehl

in his book defines sociability through three basic
components. The three main components of Sociability are:
Social contacts and its relationships, Activities and Actors Figure 1: Concept of varying degree of
[2]. contact intensity by Jan Gehl [2]
1.2.1 Social contacts and relationships

Jan Gehl emphasizes on the concept of a natural need for

contact in public space: being among others, seeing and
hearing others, receiving impulses from others, implied
positive experiences, alternatives to being alone. One is not
necessarily with a specific person, but one is, nevertheless,
with others. As opposed to being a passive observer of other
people´s experiences on TV, or video or the internet, in Figure 2: Representation of
public spaces the individual himself is present, participating relationship between the qualities of
in a modest way, but most definitely participating [2]. outdoor spaces and the rate of
occurrence of indoor activities [2].
1.2.2 Activities
Jan Gehl indicates that outdoor activities in public space can be divided into three types: necessary
activities, optional activities, and social activities. Through figure 2 Gehl wants to explain that necessary
activities like going to the office, school etc. could be offered in poor as well as in the good physical
environment. Optional activities like meeting, walking, shopping are the optional activities, these are
highly depend on the physical environment. If the environment is poor, activities will be less and if the
environment is good, a number of activities will be more.

1.2.3 Actors
It seems quitee obvious that public spaces, being by definition “public”, “everyone” should allow having
access to them [2]. That means actors are the public which performs different types of activities in a
particular space.

2. METHODS

The methodology of this research consists of two main parts- Literature review and observation of
community center. The first part of the work is the literature review, in order to get the background
information about community center, their functions and qualities. From the literature review, I had
extracted the parameters in which study has been done and incorporated those parameters in the case
study. The selected books are Life between buildings by Jan Gehl and Social life of small urban spaces
by William. H. Whyte.
2.1 Literature Study
I have extracted 8 aspects which helped me to describe the character of each community centre.
Social life of Life between Derived Elements Description Mode of
small urban buildings by J.Gehl approach observation
spaces by (parameters)
William H.
Whyte
Attractions and Uses and activities Uses and Route mapping, Route mapping ,Activities Map
destinations activities Activities and use and use Setting mapping Charts
Setting mapping Photography
Access Accessibility Access and Parking, Car, Bus, Bike, Metro, Map
Parking, Paving mobility Accessibility Road, Subways, Cycle, Description
Traffic security paths, Footpaths Photography
Amenities Urban elements Urban Amenities Trees/bushes/planters, Dust Map
Flexible design Aesthetics quality elements/ bin, Benches, Commercial Description
amenities sign, Clock, Street light, Photography
Newspaper box, Fountain,
Sculpture, Post box
Image and Facades Visual image Façade, Attractiveness, Scale, Shape Map
identity Edges and identity Architectural and Composition/aesthetics Photography
Views and vistas design identity Historical background Description
Human scale Function Landmarks, Views and Framework
vistas, Entrance, Function Photography
of building
Management Aesthetic quality Maintenance Cleanliness, Map
and Maintenance, Description
management Safety, Photography
Greenery
Reaching out Proximity and linkage Surrounding, Significant spots Map
like an octopus connection Neighborhood Accessibility Description
Inner square Outer space around Signposts Photography
and outer Legibility/visibility Urban structure/function
square
Seasonal Climate Microclimate Noise, Wind, Noise, Wind, Sun/shade, Map
strategy Night situation and time Sun/shade, Smell Smell charts
Diverse funding changes Description
source Photography
safety safety safety day situation, Shades/other design, Map
Night situation flexibilities, Lighting, Description
Night services Photography

Table 1: Overview of most significant approaches with key factors and tools for site survey

2.2 Selection of site

For this research I have taken three community centers as a case study and the selection of community
centers is guided by the following consideration – Firstly, all the three community centers should be
from the same city i.e. Delhi, so that structure of the city does not change at each community center.
Secondly, they should be of the same size having different design and spaces. Thirdly, users of
community center should have different age group, class, and income group and lastly, they should be
differently linked to the surrounding. The selected case studies are Community Centre New Friends
Colony, Community Centre Janakpuri and Community Centre, Saket
3. OBSERVATIONS

First I had visited each community center and took a walk to get pictures, videos and note down the
activities which are going on in community center. It was a plain inventory to study the structure of the
community center as well as the surroundings. To carry out a study, field survey has been done including
observation of human activities, structured interviews and microclimate monitoring.
3.1 Surrounding and Connectivity

Figure 3: Image showing Figure 4: Image showing location Figure 5: Image showing
location and nearby areas of and nearby areas of Saket location and nearby areas of
New Friend Colony Community Centre [3] Janakpuri Community
Community Centre [3] Centre [3]

Location- New Friends
Colony, South Delhi
Connectivity- adjacent to
Mathura Road
Surrounded by
Posh colony i.e. New Friends
Colony, Middle class colonies
– Jamia Nagar, Sarai Julena
Okhla, , Jamia Millia Islamia
Location- Saket , South Delhi Location- Janakpuri , West
Connectivity- adjacent to Mehrauli – Delhi
Badarpur Road Connectivity- Shivaji Marg
Surrounded by Surrounded by
Posh colony Mehrauli, Middle class Middle class colony –Uttam
colonies – Saket , Lado Sarai Nagar, Janakpuri
Institutional area

3.2 Open and Buildup space

Figure 6: Image showing open Figure 7: Image showing open and Figure 8: Image showing
and buildup areas of New buildup areas of Janakpuri open and buildup areas of
Friend Colony Community Community Centre Saket Community Centre
Centre
 Open spaces are in smaller Two large-scale plazas are there Open and build up spaces are
scale which creates confusion which allows visitors to interact and highly congested which
in visitors mind and visitors perform activities. restrict views as well as
does not get a large area for creates confusion in visitors
activity and meeting. mind and do not get a large
(concept of “people attracts area for activity and meeting.
people” by J.Gehl)

3.3 Access and Mobility

Figure 9: Image showing access Figure 10: Image showing Figure 11: Image showing
and parking areas of New Friend access and parking areas of access and parking areas of
Colony Community Centre Janakpuri Community Centre Saket Community Centre

High Medium Low Legal Parking Illegal Parking

It is accessible from all four sides.
I have observed that main
pedestrian movement is between
the two large open spaces or
piazzas.
Proper parking is provided for
two wheeler as well as for four
wheeler. But No taxi parking is
provided which leads to illegal
parking at the back of the
community center.
It is accessible from two sides i.e.
from Janakpuri district center and
another from the main road.
Very less parking is provided
which leads to illegal parking in
some areas especially in the
service lane.
Proper parking is provided for
two wheeler as well as for four
wheeler. Taxi parking is at the
service lane.
People have much options to
move around and have a clear
view/ vistas from all parts of
the community center.

3.4 Route mapping

 Figure 12: Image showing route Figure 13: Image showing route Figure 14: Image showing
mapping of New Friend Colony mapping of Janakpuri route mapping of Saket
Community Centre Community Centre Community Centre

People don’t have much more People have numerous options People don’t have many
options to move around, visitors to move around and have a clear options to move around.
are force to move in a single view/ vistas from all parts of the
direction. community center.
3.5 Activities and uses
52 59
83
49
67 41 41 39
39 37
35
32 34 33 32 34 34 31
28 28 42 24 23 21 23 24
23 22 24 32 34 29 35 19
15 14
16 18 24 21 21
14 17 4
10 10 13 12 15
11 12 00
5 00 25
20

Figure 15: Chart showing types Figure 16: Chart showing types Figure 17: Chart showing types
of activities preferred by of activities preferred by number of activities preferred by
number of visitors in New of visitors in Janakpuri number of visitors in Saket
Friend Colony Community Community Centre Community Centre
Centre

From these charts we can easily access that New Friends Colony has a maximum footfall in eating,
while Saket offers maximum activities like playing, sitting, smoking, talking+walking, waiting and
Janakpuri has a maximum footfall in shopping/stalls area.

3.6 Visual Identity and Microclimate

Visual Identity, Noise, smell, wind and shade

Figure 18: Image showing Figure 19: Image showing visual Figure 20: Image showing
visual identity and microclimate identity and microclimate in visual identity and
in New Friend Colony Janakpuri Community Centre microclimate in Saket
Community Centre Community Centre

Good Visual Average Visual Poor Visual Shade Smell Noise

Wind Shade by Tree
 We can easily access that Saket has most attractive façade, while New Friends Colony has good
aesthetics but in some areas especially in the inner part of the community center most of the shops are
ill looking whereas Janakpuri has simple and least captivated façade.

In some areas, foul smell of
drains is present, which creates a
negative impression on visitors
mind. Shades are only provided
in front of shops and restaurants,
and also near sit outs.
No planned sitting is provided
and because of the non-
maintenance problem of foul
smell is also quite annoying.
In some area of community
center stinking of drainage
creates a bad impression on
visitors mind.
Quite less natural sunshades are
provided but buildings have a
colonnaded structure which
works as a shade and provides
comfortable environment during
day time.
Temporary shade are provided
in every part of the community
center.
There is no foul smell in the
community center.
Trees provides shades especially
near sit out which acts as
comfortable open interactive
area and buildings have a
colonnaded structure which also
enhances the comfort level for
visitors.
Proper sitting with green shade
is provided in every part of the
community center.

3.7 Urban elements and Amenities

Sit out, Stalls, Public Toilets, Security, Fountain, Sculpture, Street light and Lamp posts

Figure 21: Image showing Figure 22: Image showing urban Figure 23: Image showing
urban elements and amenities in elements and amenities in urban elements and
New Friend Colony Community Janakpuri Community Centre amenities in Saket
Centre Community Centre

Stalls Fountain Sitouts Street Light Security Camera

Stalls- There are varieties of
temporary stalls which attract
people and creates a pause in
visitor’s movement.
Sit outs- very few sit outs are
there which is a major drawback
of this community center.
People, who are visiting here
Stalls- There are varieties of
temporary stalls provided in semi
basement area which could be
accessed during daytime. It attracts
people and creates a pause in
visitors’ movement.
Sit outs- There are number of sitting
areas and most of them are different
which attract people for the social
Stalls- There are varieties of
temporary stalls which
attracts people and creates a
pause in visitor’s movement.
Sit outs- There are number
of sitting area and most of
them are of different which
attract people for social
meeting. People who are
 gets very less space to sit, relax
and interact with each other.
No proper street light or lamp
post is there, which creates the
sense of insecurity and also lead
few areas as a garbage dumping
zone.
meeting. People who are visiting
here gets more space to sit, relax and
interact with each other.
No street lights and cameras are
there near o.a.t. which obstruct
people to go there.
visiting here gets more space
to sit, relax and interact with
each other.
Proper lighting and security
camera with loudspeakers
are place in all parts.

3.8 Maintenance and managing

Cleanliness, Maintenance and Safety

Figure 24: Image showing Figure 25: Image showing Figure 26: Image showing
maintenance and managing in maintenance and managing in maintenance and managing
New Friend Colony Community Janakpuri Community Centre in Saket Community Centre
Centre

Water choking Closed dump area Illegal dump area Open Drain

Due to open drain, water
choking and illegal dump,
visitors feel more unhygienic
and it also affects walkability.
Due to the absence of street lights
and lamp post area serves as a
darker spaces, which leads people
to dump garbage. Because of dark
and dump area, minimum people
visit this place
Because of no open drain
and water choking, there is
free movement of visitors in
all spaces.

4. ANALYSIS
4.1. Linkage and accessibility
During the investigation I have analyzed that linkage, connection and accessibility have a strong relation
with the visitor’s footfall. These factors had a direct effect on the social attractively and liveliness.
Surrounding and linkages also decide the typology of visitors coming in a community center for example
NFC and Saket are mostly visited by people of every income group while Janakpuri is mostly visited by
middle-income group people.
4.2. Uses and activities
For analyzing Uses and activities I had drawn route maps which explains that which route is generally
preferred by visitors in different community center and during observation I have analyzed that because
of compact planning in New Friends Colony and Janakpuri, people explore only a few parts of the
community center whereas in Saket people explores all the spaces of the community center due to the
open planning. Another factor which attracts visitors, is the types of facilities provided by community
center. Through my study, I have analyzed that outdoor food services attract people to eat and spend
times and New Friends Colony has the highest footfall in eating joints and its offers different types of
food like Chinese, Mughlai, continental, etc.
Janakpuri has different types of activities than others. It offers activities like temporary markets, open
gaming zones for children as well as for elders whereas Saket offers maximum facilities to visitors like
sitting, meeting, walking+ meeting, playing, etc.
4.3. Urban elements
The area turns into space where people like to sit, meet and spend time rather than a place of transit
character where passing through is an activity. During my case study, I have analyzed that, people are
more invited and encouraged to spend time in Saket community center because of urban elements, which
are more conveniently arranged, located and designed to spend time. Urban elements like sitting are
design according to the Indian climate. All the sit outs are shaded with trees or with the temporary
structures which offer people to sit comfortably during daytime when sunlight is unbearable, whereas,
in New Friends Colony and Janakpuri community center, minimal urban elements are there. Both the
community center have insufficient street lights and lamp post which generates darkness during night
time and creates a sense of insecurity in visitors mind.
4.4. Visual identity
Visual experience also plays a major factor to enhance the social attractivity of a place. Mostly people
prefer to meet in those places which they find visually attractive. For example, in New Friends Colony
and Saket people are moving around those areas where they find good aesthetics.
4.5. Microclimate
Microclimate is the common factor which had a major impact on the visitors. In some parts of the New
Friends Colony, I had observed that problem of smell occurs which usually avoided by the visitors and
had a bad impression on them whereas in Saket and Janakpuri problem of stinking was not present.
Delhi's has an extreme climate. It is very hot in summer and cold in winter. In summer adequate
precautions need to be taken, to avoid the intense heat, like open spaces to be covered with some
temporary structures and had a wind movement in order to get rid off from the harsh climate. During my
study, I have observed that Saket offers maximum shade and wind movement near sitting which provides
comfort to the visitors while sitting and moving whereas colonnaded galleries of Janakpuri only offers
comfort during shopping and walking. In New Friends Colony, few sittings are provided which offers
fewer shades to visitors but because of the enclosed planning maximum portion near buildup provide
shades during walking.

5. CONCLUSION
After studying three community centers, I have concluded that all three of them have different kinds of
spaces, and offers different kinds of facilities which generate a number of activities and its usage. All the
three community centers almost fulfil the social need of the public but there are some aspects which need
to be fulfilling while designing of a community center. While designing in a city like Delhi, one should
have to give emphasis on the accessibility of the community center, in order to avoid confusion on
visitors mind and reduce the traffic halts in nearby areas. The impact of a good linkage, connection and
 accessibility within a whole was proved as a significant factor, which positively affects the social
attractivity and liveliness of the community center.
In this study I had concluded that sociability of community center is also increases by the urban elements
like sit outs, lamp post, street light, dustbins etc. People generally prefer to sit in an area which is are
shaded by with trees or with the temporary structures.
Another statement suggests that people are more invited and encouraged to spend time at the Saket
community center because the urban elements are more conveniently located, arranged and designed
than at the New Friends Colony and Janakpuri community center. Consequently, space turns into a place
where people like to spend time, perform various activities rather than a place of transit character where
passing through is a predominant activity.
Outdoor food services represent a factor of high attraction which immensely influences the number of
people spending time at the community center. Moreover, it was found that the mixture of different types
of outdoor food services brings higher user diversity into the community center
From the whole study, I have generated some recommendations which need to be considered while
designing the community center.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
New friend’s colony community center- Proper maintenance with sitting areas should be provided.
Urban elements should be installed in every place as well as there should increase the quality and quantity
of greenery elements.
Janakpuri community center- Proper maintenance with sitting areas should be provided. Urban
elements should be installed in every place and increase the quality landscape areas.
Saket community center- Number of activities should be introduced with increase the quality of
landscape areas elements and make use of the available variety of flexible design, use temporary art and
other attractions to activate users. Provide food and other outdoor services in different spaces.

REFERENCES
1. https://dda.org.in/ddanew/pdf/Planning/reprint mpd2021.pdf (accessed December 2013)
2. Gehl, J., 1987. Life between buildings: using public space. Copenhagen: Arkitektens forlog
3. http://www.googlemap.com (accessed February 24, 2017).
4. Gehl, J., 2006. Life between the buildings: using public space. 6th ed. ed. Copenhagen: Danish
Architectural Press.
5. Whyte, W.H., 1980. Social life of small urban spaces. Washington: Conservation
6. Foundation Jacobs, J., 1961. The life and death of great American cities. New York: Random House.
7. Carr, S., 1992. Public space. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. http://edepot.wur.nl/159088 (accessed December 2013)

View publication stats