INTEGRATION THROUGH DESIGN
An Ede case study
Group 3 Geertje Maagdenberg Alice Närep Stephanie Pelgrum Pasha Vredenbregt Fajar Winarsih
6.1 What are ongoing spatial developments of the Veluwse Poort Ede? 14 6.2 What is the strategy of the municipality of Ede to cope with homelessness and what are the ongoing developments regarding homelessness? 16
6.3 How can design influence behavior? 17
6.4 In what way can a harmonious neighbourhood be achieved in Maurits Noord? 18 6.5 What are the conflicting interests of the different actively involved actors? 19
7. DESIGN 21
Concepts 21
Principles 21
Concept 1 Private garden 24
Concept 2 Middle ground 27
Concept 3 Public garden 30
8. CONCLUSION 33
Design to encourage interaction 33
Design to increase acceptance 34
9. RECOMMENDATIONS 35
10. REFLECTION 36
REFERENCES 37
APPENDIXES 40
Appendix I : Invitation to online survey to residents Maurits Noord 41 Appendix II : Interview questions with Salvation Army 42 Appendix III : Interview questions with residents of Building 17 (Dutch) 43
Appendix IV : Survey residents Maurits Noord 44
Appendix V : Responses survey residents Maurits Noord 47
1. INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 THE AIM OF THIS RESEARCH 4
1.2 Defining homelessness 4
1.3 Social support in the Netherlands 4
1.4 Case study 4
1.5 Scientific and societal relevance 4
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6
2.1 Social Theory of Homelessness 6
2.2 Harmonious Neighbourhood 6
2.3 Participatory Design Process 7
3. CASE STUDY EDE 9
3.1 Problem Statement 9
3.2 Project Description 9
3.3 Scope of Project 9
3.4 Goals and Deliverables 10
4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 11
4.1 Main Research Question 11
4.2 Sub-Research Questions 11
4.3 Sub-Design Questions 11
5. METHODOLOGY 12
5.1. Literature Review 12
5.2. Semi-Structured Interview 12
5.3. Survey 12
The research design 13
6. RESULTS 14
TABLE OF CONTENT
focus area, not many large scale projects to tackle homelessness are developed and not much research has been conducted on tackling and housing the homeless in these regions. Therefore, focusing on these ‘neglected’ regions regarding the tackling of homelessness is of important societal and relevance and adds to the scientific knowledge.
Furthermore, little research has been conducted on how public participation could be used in a design for homeless communities to enhance the connection (safety and integration) with the local neighborhood. This research focuses on this knowledge gap by exploring the possibilities of public participation to create ‘collaborative design’
between the community of homeless people and local neighbourhoods.
1.1 THE AIM OF THIS RESEARCH
Homelessness in the Netherlands is becoming a bigger challenge each year. According to CBS the official number of homeless people more than doubled in the period 2009-2018: from 17.8 thousand in 2009 to 39.3 thousand in 2018 (CBS, 2019). Municipalities face a difficult task in tackling this phenomenon and the associated problems like finding suitable places to create shelters. Namely, projects that focus on creating shelters for homelessness tend to provoke negative public reactions. The Not-In-My-BackYard (NIMBY) principle, in this case, means that people objectively don’t reject the concept of a homeless shelter, they understand the social need, but when placed in their “backyard” they become opponents and begin to protest. These public interests conflicting with goals and ambitions of municipalities add to the complexity of finding spatial solutions to cope with homelessness.
This research aims to contribute to solving the societal conflict associated with housing the homeless by finding ways to enable all actively involved actors to co-create and design a functional, safe and harmonious/integrated place.
1.2 DEFINING HOMELESSNESS
Defining homelessness is not straightforward, and the definition of homelessness often varies between countries and/or institutions. In the Netherlands, homelessness divided into only two categories.
It is ‘literal’ homelessness and ‘residential’
homelessness; this categorisation was developed by Wolf et al. (2002) (in van Straaten, 2016).
“Literally homeless people are those that do not have their own living accommodation and have no fixed address, sleep rough on the streets, in homeless shelters, in public buildings or are staying with relatives or friends. Residentially homeless people live in residential homelessness services, such as accommodations for homeless people (e.g.
hostels, pensions) (Dutch Government and four major cities, 2006; Statistics Netherlands, 2013;
Wolf et al., 2002).” (in van Straaten, 2016, p9).
1.3 SOCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NETHERLANDS In the Netherlands, a shelter (maatschappelijke opvang) is the temporary accommodation for homeless and those who are in need of support or care (Oostveen, 2019). There are different types of shelter provided for people in needs in the Netherlands; night shelters and crisis shelters. Night shelters designed to provide short-term stays. People are not allowed to stay in this shelter during the day.
Meanwhile, crisis shelters provide an immediate and urgent need of a safe place to stay as a result of a crisis situation such as a crisis in psychological healthiness, uncontrolled misuse of drugs that lead to addiction, and people who deal with domestic violence (Oostveen, 2019).
One of the most well known non-governmental
organizations in the Netherlands is the Salvation Army, and has become the most progressive organization in providing temporary shelter for homeless people throughout the country. According to Oostveen (2019), there are 70,000 people living in shelters in the Netherlands.
1.4 CASE STUDY
The case study area for this research is Maurits Noord in Ede, a relatively new neighbourhood developed on the former military terrain. The presence of the homeless shelter in Building 17 has been the topic of a heated discussion between residents of the neighbourhood and the municipality of Ede.
Currently, the municipality plans to redevelop the outside space of Building 17 and sees this as an opportunity to improve the relationship with local residents and enhance integration between the neighbourhood and Building 17. The end goal of this case study is to reflect, draw lessons and create a framework on achieved results and look for possibilities to apply this research to similar other situations in the Netherlands.
1.5 SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIETAL RELEVANCE Research on homelessness in the Netherlands mainly focuses on the G4 area (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht) (Sleegers 2000, van Straaten et al 2016, Oostveen 2019). The most progressive governmental programme is the G4 Homeless Action Plan, which focuses on the Netherland’s four major municipalities. However, outside of this G4
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Surroundings that are peaceful and harmonious will be achieved if the separation of space is respected, and 2). Encourage interaction. This principle aims at creating a community that is united, cooperative and harmonious. It also calls for the need to develop surroundings that encourage interaction and creation of community with an identity besides enhancing the neighbourly concept.
2.3 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS
The first critical literature on the traditional, top- down, way of planning and design emerged around 1970. Researchers and practitioners began to put emphasis on the value of opinions and experiences of different stakeholders. One of the key-figures in this movement was Arnstein. In 1969 Arnstein stressed the importance of citizen power to increase the legitimacy of the plan making process (Arnstein, 1969). But since then, not only more attention was being paid to the involvement of actors in the plan making process but also the design process was critically reflected upon. (Meyer, 2011; A. Tellier, 2011; Brandt, 2006). Some of these concerns were addressed by Bruce Nussbaum, the curator of conversation on innovation at Business Week, in his speech “Are designers the enemy of design?” (Given at the New School for Design, in New York, 2007).
Incited by the speech many researches started a passionate discussion on the topic of the role of designers. Some go as far by claiming we need a whole new perspective on design thinking and design practices; “The design community is challenged to Yone, 2000 p.815). The existence of boundaries
within the neighbourhood cannot simply be ignored.
It creates interpersonal networks as a bounded unit in the neighbourhood. The combination of various formal and informal associations, facilities, services, and activities defined neighbourhood as a spatial function of the land use (Chaskin, 1997).
COMMUNITY WITHOUT PROPINQUITY
Community without propinquity is not necessarily defined as a neighbourhood with conflict (Chaskin, 1997). It is merely a neighborhood that lacks social interaction between its residents. There are several influences at play in constructing harmonious neighbourhoods. Physical elements are built upon the constructed “pathways” that allow people to safely move from one place to another and to be friends with anyone who lives in the neighborhood (Perkins, 2002). These constructed factors, the design, inform individuals’ interpretation of space and the delineation of boundaries help to determine dwellers’ action and behaviour towards their neighbourhood, influencing the sense of community.
Urban planning doctrine (Hashim, 2005) stresses on harmonious neighbourhood living through the relationship between men and fellow men.
This doctrine outlines two relevant principles in neighbourhood planning: 1). Respect for private space and separation of space. This principle calls for separation of private, semi-private and public space.
in the case study area.
NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A SOCIAL & SPATIAL UNIT One of the most well-known theories of neighbourhood as an analysis unit is a “Theory of Neighbourhood Unit” firstly introduced by Perry in 1929. This theory later evolved into a foundation of design principles and paradigm for the development of local communities. Later in 2009, Lawhon denoted the concept of neighbourhood from the perspective of institutional and social backgrounds which translated into a physical design. As a result, the theory of neighbourhood unit thrives into a physical model providing an opportunity for various interactions within the neighbourhood.
Neighbourhood can be seen as a smaller ecological model within the city with a natural process of selection and competition. Within the neighbourhood, competition between social groups for scarce resources (mostly arguing about land) led to the domination of the best-adapted community or the community with the loudest voice which led to their domination of the neighbourhood and gave them power to influence the planning process (Chaskin, 1997).
The instrumental approach is regarded as one of the most suitable approaches in defining neighborhood as a spatial unit. It views the “neighbourhood as a planning device, an integral building block in the development of urban structure” (Kallus and Law- experience an accumulation of disadvantages
within the broader society (Vrooman & Hoff, 2013), consisting of two generally distinguishable dimensions. These dimensions are the structural- economic exclusion, which refers to a distributional dimension of material- (wealth and goods) and non- material (social rights) aspect and the socio-cultural exclusion, referring to a relational dimension which involves: social relations and networks and cultural integration concerning values and norms (van Straaten, 2016). Generally, homeless people fall in both categories of exclusion (Van Straaten et al., 2015). Research showed that entering a social relief system, where people are guided towards living independently and a stable housing situation has the potential to decrease the social exclusion and health problems drastically (Straaten et al., 2015). This gives planners and designers the task to integrate homeless shelters in the best way as possible in society, to preserve their existence and effectiveness.
2.2 HARMONIOUS NEIGHBOURHOOD
In practice, residential stability influences the formation of locality-based friendships and participation in local activities (Chaskin, 1997).
These formations play a significant role in increasing residential attachment (as a spatial unit) and social cohesion (as a social unit) which become the parameter on defining harmonious neighbourhood in this research. Later, the concept of community without propinquity refers to the social interaction of people that have become homeless (through
design) is a complex practice.
With this complexity in mind, we aim to form a theoretical framework on the social aspect of homelessness that forms a base for how to deal- and assist with the different types of homeless situations in the Netherlands specifically.
Research on aspects of homelessness related to housing status, drug dependency psychosocial problems and social exclusion concludes that meeting the self-reported care needs of the homeless such as housing, finances and physical health should have priority over life domains such as mental health issues or substance use (Van Straaten et al., 2015, p. 134). This is in line with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1943), which states that without having fulfilled basic needs, it is difficult to deal with higher-order needs. Therefore, to tackle the higher order of needs, listening to the current wishes, needs and struggles of the homeless is vital.
This input has to be used to develop solutions and policy which may form a stable base from which one can work on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The integration into society is a challenging topic on its own, since homeless individuals can be considered as one of the most extreme socially excluded groups in society (European Commission, 2009). Social exclusion refers to people who For the theoretical framework in this research, a brief
discussion of homelessness in general is presented.
Whereafter we lay the groundwork for understanding the social dimension of homelessness, the definition of a harmonious neighbourhood and participatory design through a design game. We aim to do this by applying a set of theoretical lenses linked to our specific case and challenges. The set framework will later be used to tackle the challenges and translated into a collaborative design.
2.1 SOCIAL THEORY OF HOMELESSNESS
In; Explaining Homelessness: a Critical Realist, Fitzpatrick (2005) concludes that homelessness is caused by four major reasons: economic structures, housing structures, interpersonal factors, and individual factors. Homelessness therefore needs to be explained in terms of a specific combination of structural factors (relating to the labour market or the housing system) and individual vulnerabilities.
This is more or less in line with van Straaten who explains that the cause of homelessness can vary much but is often a combination of individual circumstances and structural factors (van Straten, 2016). Next to that (Thomas and Dittmar, 1995) conclude that homelessness has a multidimensional character which makes it a complex concept in need of complex solutions. Their papers show us that one can become homeless due to varying causes and the people that become homeless can’t be characterized clearly beforehand. Therefore, coping with the wishes and needs of this great diverse group
3.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The neighbourhood Maurits Noord, built on the former military grounds of Kazerneterrein Ede hosts, next to a new neighbourhood, a homeless shelter for a variety of people in need, called Building 17 (De Kazerne Terreinen, 2020). Among the inhabitants of the homeless shelter are people that need to be protected from domestic violence for example but also psychologically vulnerable people or homeless with an addiction (Leger des Heils, n.d.). However, miscommunication between local government and residents caused a commotion about the placement of temporary housing units; portable cabins in the garden of Building 17 (Omroep Gelderland, 2020).
There have always been challenges regarding the presence of the homeless shelter inside the neighbourhood of the Veluwse Poort. These challenges were mostly related to nuisance and feeling of unsafety of the residents (Gemeente Ede, 2020). The temporary housing units in the garden of Building 17, host the so-called ‘forest-sleepers’.
These ‘forest-sleepers’ were homeless people who had been living in the forest near Ede for a while but got offered temporary housing at the homeless shelter during the winter. However, currently, the temporary units are still present. The intention is to be able to use the temporary units as sleeping accommodation for the people whose room in Building 17 is being renovated. This renovation is set to take place in the coming two years.
Research conducted by the municipality of Ede shows that the residents generally feel less safe in their neighbourhood since the temporary units were installed (Gemeente Ede, 2020). This is mainly caused by the increase of incidents in the neighbourhood related to homeless people since placement of the units. The report shows that nuisance of homeless people in general has decreased, but more nuisance is now being experienced in the area around the temporary units (Omroep Gelderland, 2020). Examples of the experienced nuisance are burglaries, abandoned needles and minor thefts (Gemeente Ede, 2019).
The increased nuisance, poor communication of the placement of the temporary units and the lack of participation possibilities for the residents on developments in their neighbourhood resulted in suspicion and mistrust among residents towards the municipality and further polarisation in the neighbourhood (Omroep Gelderland, 2020).
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The municipality of Ede has the duty, as the central municipality of the Valleiregio, to take lead in giving shelter to- and supporting local psychologically vulnerable homeless people or homeless with an addiction (Gemeente Ede, 2020). As a part of the municipalities strategy to slowly integrate these people in society again, placing the homeless shelters close to other residents is important. In the placing of these shelters situational factors also play a role, inhabitants of these shelters want to stay in the vicinity of cities and their city centres. However, the municipality also seeks to minimise nuisance issues linked to the presence of the homeless shelter in a neighbourhood. Therefore, the municipality of Ede is looking for ways to reduce nuisance and increase acceptance of the homeless shelter in the neighbourhood through participation and dialogue- driven design of Building 17’s public space and its surrounding landscape. While simultaneously boosting the quality of the public space of the neighbourhood.
3.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT
The scope of the case study project is to develop different designs based on input from the residents, Salvation Army, homeless people, municipality and other actors involved, to create a vision that decreases nuisance while increasing quality and safety of the neighbourhood. With these design scenarios based on wishes and needs of involved actors, we aim to provide independent guidelines
3. CASE STUDY EDE
think beyond both the omnipotent designer and the obsession with products, suggesting that designers should be more involved in the big picture of socially innovative design” (Telier, 2011) p2). In other words:
we need to go beyond delivering products and projects.
However, this leads us to the how question: “How can we as designers work, live, and act in a public that permits a heterogeneity of perspectives and actors to engage in alignments of their conflicting objects of design?” (Telier, 2011, p.3)
One theory that can provide an answer is the theory on Participatory Design. “Participatory design is an organized process by which non-experts- users, residents, visitors, or stakeholders- work with planning and design experts to construct open space into valuable places” (Meyer, 2011, p15.).
Participatory design focusses on anticipating and envisioning the potential use of space before the actual place is created (Telier, 2011). But organizing a fair collaboration process between different people with various interests is challenging. The paper “Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in Participatory design”
by Brandt (2006) provides a framework on how to do participatory design through design games. This theoretical framework will elaborate further on the concept of the
4.1 MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION
How can the surroundings of Building 17 be designed to increase the acceptance of the presence of the homeless shelter and encourage interaction between homeless and residents of Ede Maurits Noord?
4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
environment of Building 17 in cooperation with potential actors such as the local community, local municipality and NGO’s like the Salvation Army.
Lastly, through the flexible design we aim to ensure the durability of the project, to be of service to both the inhabitants of Building 17 and adjacent neighbourhoods. Sustainability of design, constant communication with stakeholders and social aid aim to ensure this.
DELIVERABLES:
• Create flexible designs for the direct environment of Building 17
• Two short movies about the process of this project and a planting and construction movie
• Develop a participatory plan (design game) for designing
for public space design, while also offering the municipality a tool of communication with the local residents and other involved stakeholders. The design process and communication tools may have the power to improve the relationship between residents, homeless and local government.
Currently, the municipality is making plans to renovate Building 17. The outcomes of this research can contribute to the development of the surrounding environment that will take place in the upcoming years.
This project will be addressed as a research- and design project, meaning the process of this project will be led by research and design questions that will be answered with the use of planning and design methods. In the design process, not all wishes can be fulfilled. The outcome of our research will be the optimal combination of scenarios within the boundaries of the physical environment.
3.4 GOALS AND DELIVERABLES
This project aims to strengthen the relation and interaction between inhabitants of Building 17 and the inhabitants of the surrounding neighbourhood.
The design of this area will be developed through collaboration with both inhabitant groups. This approach assures that our project upgrades the existing area of Building 17 and direct environment.
This project aims to provide a design for the direct
TERMINOLOGY Acceptance
Noun [ək’sep.təns]
General agreement that something is satisfactory or right (Cambridge Dictionary) In our research, acceptance means that the neighbourhood has no negative feelings towards the presence of the homeless shelter in Building 17.
Interaction
Noun [Іn.tə'ræk.∫ən]
An occasion when two or more people or things communicate with or react to each other (Cambridge Dictionary)
In our research these parties are the residents of Maurits Noord and the staff and residents of Building 17.
4.2 SUB-RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What are ongoing spatial developments in the neighbourhood Maurits Noord in Ede?
2. What is the strategy of the municipality of Ede to cope with homelessness and what are the ongoing developments regarding homelessness?
3. How can design influence behavior?
4. In what way can a harmonious neighbourhood be achieved in Maurits Noord?
5. What are the conflicting interests of the different actively involved actors?
• What are the interests (concerns/goals) of the municipality of Ede?
• What are the interests (concerns/wishes) of the residents of Ede Veluwe Poort?
• What are the interests (concerns/wishes) of the homeless living in Building 17?
• What are the interests (concerns/goals) of the Salvation Army managing Building 17?
4.3 SUB-DESIGN QUESTIONS
1. Which design scenarios translate the interests of the different actively involved actors (concerns/
wishes/goals) and contribute to acceptance and balanced integration of Building 17 and the Maurits Noord neighbourhood?
2. Which design principles guarantee to fit the needs of all involved actors?
made during the interview. It also transcribed, after which the transcript was used as an analysis in this research.
5.3. SURVEY
A survey was conducted with residents of the Mauritius Noord neighbourhood. Residents were informed of the existence of the survey by letter.
184 envelopes were distributed, inviting people to give feedback on their surroundings. The study was assisted by the municipality, they helped to formulate the challenge and gave permission to ask the opinion of local residents.
5.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
A document analysis was conducted with relevant sections of articles, journals, and scientific papers.
This research also consisted in reviewing the public document of the “redevelopment plan of Maurits Noord” issued by the municipality of Ede.
This document captured the whole area of the neighborhood of Maurits Noord. However, this research will only focus on the redevelopment plan of Building 17 that is also designed in detail on this master plan.
5.2. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
Semi-structured interviews were applied to the residents of Building 17. Conducting these interviews continued until knowledge saturation was accomplished. Face-to-face interview strategy was conducted in order to maximize the quality and quantity of the obtained data. During the interview field notes were made according to the observation protocol about body language of the participant, general observations and other remarks. The goal of the interviews was to substantiate the residents’
opinion about their wished community garden within the Building 17. The interview questions were open-ended, which allowed the interviewee to describe her/his opinion in detail and to create the opportunity to give additions.
The interviews lasted for a maximum of 60 minutes and were conducted face-to-face. The interviews were recorded with a phone and field notes were
5. METHODOLOGY
THE RESEARCH DESIGNRESEARCH QUESTION METHOD DATA DATA SOURCE
1. What are ongoing spatial developments in the neighbourhood Maurits Noord in Ede?
a. Interview
b. Document analysis
a. Notes
b. Bestemmingsplan (development plan for the area)
a. Municipality of Ede, b. Salvation Army c. Municipality of Ede
2. What is the strategy of the municipality of Ede to cope with homelessness and what are the ongoing developments regarding homelessness?
a. Document analysis a. Policy documents, newspaper articles
a. Municipality of Ede, Journalists
3. How can design influence behavior? a. Literature review a. Scientific articles a. Scientific journals
4. In what way can a harmonious neighbourhood be achieved in Maurits Noord
a.Literature review d.Public document analysis c.Survey
d.Interview
a. Scientific articles
b. Bestemmingsplan (development plan for the area)
c. Results of surveys/interviews
a. Scientific journals b. Municipality of Ede c. Residents Maurits Noord d. Residents Building 17
5. What are the conflicting interests of the different actively involved actors?
a. Survey b. Interview
a. Results of survey b. Notes of interview
a. Residents Maurits Noord b. Municipality of Ede c. Salvation Army
d. Residents of Building 17
6. Which design scenarios translate the interests of the different actively involved actors (concerns/wish- es/goals) and contribute to acceptance and balanced integration of Building 17 and the Maurits Noord neighbourhood?
a. Interview b. Survey
a. Notes of interview b. Results of survey
a. Residents Maurits Noord b. Municipality of Ede c. Salvation Army
d. Residents of Building 17
7. Which design principles can be used to guarantee the highest quality of varying design scenarios?
a. Interview b. Survey
c. Literature review
a. Notes of interview b. Results of survey c. Scientific articles
a. Residents Maurits Noord b. Municipality of Ede c. Salvation Army
d. Residents of Building 17 e. Scientific journals
SUB-DESIGN QUESTIONS
the Bergansiuskazerne (U-shaped), Bureelgebouw, manege, blacksmith, training fields for horses and the stables and Building 17.
SPATIAL ELEMENTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
The rich history of the area is used as inspiration for the urban main structure (stedenbouwkundige hoofdstructuur) of the redevelopment. The structures, symmetries and lines of the former military grounds are still visible in the structural vision (structuurvisie) of the new neighbourhood.
Also, the green and open character will be preserved.
In the structural vision of the municipality, eight of the characteristic buildings will be protected from demolition and will function as elements to safeguard the identity of the place. The preserved buildings will, or are already, appointed a new function. These buildings are shown in figure 3.
NEW RESIDENTIAL AREA
The redevelopment of the area is focussed on creating a coherent and pleasant neighbourhood. A diversity of housing types is offered. Approximately 285 homes are being realized in the area with a density of about 31 homes per hectare.
Approximately, 135 single-family homes and 130 multi-family homes are already realised in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, as already stated in the previous paragraph, about 20 housing units will be realised in the existing monumental buildings
(Projectorganisatie Veluwse Poort, Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling en Beheer, & Gemeente Ede, 2011).
PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Next to the realisation of new residential buildings the redevelopment plan also reserves space for cultural and social facilities. One of these facilities is the homeless shelter in Building 17, the plot approximately 3.500 m2. Other public functions that will be represented are (semi)commercial facilities, businesses, a daycare and space for educational and cultural activities. Some of these facilities will be realised in the monumental buildings (Projectorganisatie Veluwse Poort, Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling en Beheer, & Gemeente Ede, 2011).
ON-SITE DEVELOPMENTS
The master plan of the neighbourhood includes the plan to develop the “Smaakpark”. This park will become a public park for the entire neighbourhood managed by the similar-named private initiative SmaakPark. In addition to the large scale development plan, the Municipality of Ede together with the Salvation Army created a plan to rebuild Building 17. One important aspect is the creation of individual front doors at the ground floor. During the construction, the residents of Building 17 will be relocated to the portable cabins located in the backyard of the Building 17.
structure linked to the cultural history of the site.
Currently the outside edges of the neighbourhood host a clear green structure, yet inside the neighbourhood, this green structure is still relatively absent. The neighbourhood hosts a cluster with education, childcare, two gyms and startups or small businesses. Also, places to host cultural activities and expositions are being developed (+- 7.500 m2). Lastly, Maurits Noord hosts provision for social relief (homeless and addiction care) which will roughly be the size of 3,500 m2 (Projectorganisatie Veluwse Poort, Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling en Beheer,
& Gemeente Ede, 2011).
SURROUNDINGS AND LANDSCAPE
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAURITS NOORD
The surroundings of the plan area can be described as diverse. As can be seen in figure 2, Maurits Noord is situated South of the city centre of Ede and West of the Veluwe. Other environmental factors that influence the sense of place are the natural elevations in the landscape, the monumental lane of trees along the Parklaan and the nearness of the accessible forest “de Sysselt”. The combination of these factors give the area a parklike air and make it an attractive living environment.
The military history of the area is the main factor that influences the characteristics of the built environment (figure 3). The two former main buildings are H-shaped and therefore unique in the Netherlands. Other characteristic buildings are 6.1 WHAT ARE ONGOING SPATIAL
DEVELOPMENTS OF THE VELUWSE POORT EDE?
Development plan Veluwse Poort Ede entails a plan for city expansion on the east side of Ede adjacent to the Veluwe. The development will be situated on the former military complexes and the industrial site of ENKA Ede, which have steadily been moving away from their practices since 2000. This left open roughly 140 ha of space without function, for which the municipality came up with a redevelopment plan to a thriving residential and business area in 2011 (Commissie, n.d.).
Within the larger master plan of the Veluwse Poort Ede, our focus lies specifically on the development of the former military terrain of Maurits Noord (see figure 1). Development in this neighbourhood consists mostly of the redevelopment of military buildings, development of new housing and infrastructural development.
In the development plan, different neighbourhoods also have secondary identities assigned. For Maurits Noord this means focussing on maintaining and developing culture and art. It aims to do this by reusing the structure of cultural buildings in contemporary design and aims to provide an atmosphere associated with urban, museum and small-scale (applied) art. Furthermore, the design for Maurits Noord aims to host a prominent green
6. RESULTS
figure 2: Layout of Maurits Noord (source: Projectorganisatie Veluwse Poort, Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling en Beheer, & Gemeente Ede, 2011)
figure 3: Military history in the plan area (source: Projectorganisatie Veluwse Poort, Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling en Beheer, & Gemeente Ede, 2011)
6.3 HOW CAN DESIGN INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR?
Design can be seen as an act of creation (Murphy, M.D, 2016). This act of creation as explained by John Chris Jones, is a hybrid activity, of which its success depends upon proper blending of art, a science and mathematics and is unlikely to succeed if it is exclusively identified with any one (Jones, 1992). In order to be able to properly design a future for a specific place and address all elements described by Jones, the designer needs to understand and feel the site conditions and human interaction in that place. As Murphy put it: ’’design is defined as a process of reflection and consideration to guide intentional change in the environment to achieve identifiable goals’’ (Murphy M.D, 2016). Reflection upon- and understanding site specific conditions is therefore important before being able to design space in both artistic and scientific ways in order to influence behaviour.
A key challenge to influence people’s behaviour is to present small changes that are minimal but yet provide meaningful support (Ploderer et al, 2014).
A big part of influencing behaviour and attitude is social support. Implementing a design without a social system to support this design will not result in behavioural change. Social support entails different forms of interactions between people. This can manifest itself in esteem support, companionship, tangible support, advice and help (Ploderer et al, 2014). Currently our case area consists of a secluded and haggard plot around Building 17. A
fence separates this plot from the public space of the adjacent neighbourhood, because of this secludedness, there isn’t much interaction between residents of Building 17 and the neighbourhood’s residents. Our aim is to alter this separation and interaction through design.
In order to really alter behaviour design, changes should be made in relevant places. Places like these are homes, shared workspaces and open public spaces, the public space surrounding Building 17 fits in this category. Making a design to change attitude or behaviour could encourage change on a large scale. But to make such a place is challenging in terms of the level of ‘designed’ engagement. It should be able to engage people while still respecting the privacy of the actors who enter and inhabit a made design (Ploderer et al, 2014).
Considering Cultural Theory, which explains that in society are potentially four types of cultural prejudices that are difficult to intertwine (Douglas, 1998). In our case, we can conclude that in this neighbourhood, there are different groups of people from social backgrounds with different understandings of societal norms and behaviours, daily lives and needs. According to the theory, everyone can be divided into four categories which are isolates, by choice or compulsion; competitive individualism; hierarchies which means strongly incorporated groups with complex structure; and egalitarian enclaves or sects strongly incorporated
groups with weak structure (Douglas, 1998). When social beliefs are different and placed in a common space, conflicts arise between different people.
Our goal is to find designs that help everyone in a common neighbourhood feel safe in a common space. How to do this when everyone has different beliefs? In this case, it is not possible to change people’s beliefs directly, but it is important to come up with alternatives that suit all groups of people and satisfy people’s basic needs. In terms of design, our aim is to provide an environment that is welcoming and offers a sense of safety.
When designing with the aim to alter behaviour it is also important to keep in mind that design elements in itself have the power to do so. This phenomenon is called the politics of artifacts (Latour, 1992), where the design elements have the power to influence behavior. An example of this could be
‘hostile architecture’ like ‘anti homeless’ benches, where a tilted seating surface or armrests prevent the possibility to use this as a sleeping place. In our project design it is important to take note of how specific design elements could steer behaviour and how this could be used.
We conclude that elements such as the location of the designed case, the groups of people interacting with it and the artifacts you place in public space play a big role related to behaviour. Therefore keeping all of the above in mind when designing for the public space of Building 17 is important to actual work (EdeStad.nl, 2020).
Currently, there is a great shortage of cheap (rental) homes in the municipality of Ede. There are approximately 700 small and cheap homes with a monthly rent below 610 euros situated within the municipality of Ede, but they are all occupied. To solve this shortage Ede aims to provide up to 1200 cheap housing units for the chance poor before 2030. To come to this amount of housing units, the municipality will build new houses/studio’s but also seeks to redevelop existing buildings to housing units and back public initiatives that aim to provide cheap housing opportunity (Gemeente Ede, 2019, pp. 6). Sufficient housing is vital for reintegration of the chance poor people as described earlier, since it’s the first large step to independence from which they can build up their life again.
How the phenomenon of homelessness on the regional scale will develop the upcoming years is uncertain. However, national statistics on homelessness still indicate a growing number of homeless people (CBS, 2019).
reach this goal they are currently working on new strategies. One of the new aims is to provide enough shelters so no one has to sleep on the streets, however, the municipality is aware that they cannot force anyone to stay in a shelter. Another strategy the municipality applies, is to tackle the core of the problem by focussing on prevention. People who risk becoming homeless will be introduced to “bemoeizorg” (active interference). The role of social shelters will be a short term solution to provide shelter and stability but the municipality aims for quick in- and outflow (EdeStad, 2020).
The maximum stay for an inhabitantin a shelter is 3 months, however, this period can be extended if this seems necessary after the evaluation with the organisation providing shelter, the client, WMO consultant and the municipality (Gemeente Ede, 2020).
The municipality of Ede has a strategy to not only provide shelter for people in need but also actively help these people out to integrate back in society (Gemeente Ede, 2019). People that receive this aid are very diverse but examples are people with a psychiatric background or a mild mental disability.
But also for people who, for example, have lived on the street for some time under varying circumstances and who seek to take the path to independence through shelter (Gemeente Ede , 2019, pp. 3). The municipality expects these people to at least spend 20 hours per week to do something back for society.
This can vary from very basic daytime activities to 6.2 WHAT IS THE STRATEGY OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF EDE TO COPE WITH HOMELESSNESS AND WHAT ARE THE ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING HOMELESSNESS?
The ultimate goal of the municipality of Ede is to prevent all forms of homelessness in the Valleiregio (Edestad.nl, 2020) The municipality carries the responsibility for social care, including homeless shelters (maatschappelijke opvang) for the whole Valleiregio. The Valleiregio covers the municipalities of Barneveld, Renswoude, Scherpenzeel, Wageningen and Rhenen. In 2018, Valleiregio counted 137 registered cases in need of social care and shelter. The actual number of people in need of shelter can be higher as one case can concern one family. In 2019 the number of cases was 110 (EdeStad.nl, 2020).
The municipality of Ede works closely with the Salvation Army, Humanitas and the RIBW to guide people to independence and rebuild their life (Gemeente Ede , 2019, pp. 7). There are three partner organisations who offer shelter: Leger des Heils, Johanniteropvang en Timon. Partners who offer ambulant support are: Elan, Kwintes, RIBW, Ontmoeten en Verbinden (bemoeizorg) en Iriszorg (Individuele Instap Verslavingspreventie).
As already stated in the first paragraph, the municipality of Ede has the ultimate goal to prevent all forms of homelessness in the Valleiregio. To
6.5 WHAT ARE THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THE DIFFERENT ACTIVELY INVOLVED ACTORS?
As is stated in the methodology, to map the different interests of the different groups multiple methods of data collection have been used. The interests of the municipality of Ede became clear in the description of the assignment and during open conversations.
The interests of the residents of Maurits Noord are collected by an online survey. Semi-structured interviews and open conversations with the Salvation Army gave insights into their interests. The interests of the inhabitants of Building 17 were mapped during an open conversation with three inhabitants, who were picked by the Salvation Army. The results were all analyzed and the following paragraphs will give a short summary of the received answers to all different involved parties.
WHAT ARE THE INTERESTS (GOALS/CONCERNS) OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF EDE?
Goals
The municipality of Ede has the responsibility to house the homeless in the Vallei regio. Building 17 is appointed to fulfill this responsibility and the municipality wants to keep the social pension in Building 17. However, at the same time they would like to provide a nice living environment for the residents of Maurits Noord of whom they now receive complaints because of the presence of Building 17. For the municipality the most ideal
situation, and thereby main goal, is when Maurits Noord is a coherent neighbourhood where both groups accept and respect each other.
Concerns
The main concern of the municipality is that the neighbourhood will keep experiencing nuisance.
One of the aspects adding to this concern are the consequences of the solution to temporarily house the forest sleepers in portable cabins.
WHAT ARE THE INTERESTS (WISHES/CONCERNS) OF THE RESIDENTS OF MAURITS NOORD?
Wishes
The wishes of the residents of Maurits Noord vary.
In general, there are two dominant opinions: those who reject Building 17 and those who accept the presence but would like to minimize nuisance. The main wish of the first group is to move the homeless shelter out of the neighbourhood. The second group is more open to the redevelopment of the outside space of Building 17 to make it fit in more with the neighbourhood.
Both groups would appreciate more transparency about the events and developments of Building 17. In addition, both groups would also like the appearance of Building 17 being improved. Some specific ideas to improve the neighbourhood that were suggested multiple times were a shared vegetable garden, a playground (for older children),
• Respect for private space and separation of space. This principle calls for the separation of private, semi-private and public space.
Surroundings that are peaceful and harmonious will be achieved if the separation of space is respected.
• Encourage interaction. This principle aims at creating a community that is united, cooperative and harmonious. It also calls for the need to develop surroundings that encourage interaction and creation of community with an identity besides enhancing the neighbourly concept.
Both principles could be implemented through the landscape design of the neighbourhood. Separation of space into private, semi-private and public space is one of many ways to keep these communities (residents of Building 17 and the local community of Maurits Noord) respect for private space. These principles need to be reflected in this research’s end product
• Streets are to be a place where pedestrians feel safe so that residents are encouraged to use streets.
• If public spaces are a pleasure to inhabit, they will be used, and their usefulness as promoters of a sense of community will flourish.
The whole concept about developing a harmonious neighbourhood started when each community understood their position within the society. Their environment influences their behaviour towards their living situation. Achieving a harmonious neighbourhood in a conflicted area sounds a utopian concept, but by designing their community and placing them into a participatory design of the neighbourhood might be a solution.
CREATING COMMUNITY BY DESIGN
A harmonious neighbourhood could be achieved when each community shares the same responsibility towards their living environment (Luo et al, 2016). To minimize the conflict, minimization of social interaction within communities could be preserved when one or both communities do not have a mutually beneficial relationship.
Urban planning doctrine (Hashim, 2005) stresses on harmonious neighbourhood living through the relationship between men and fellow men.
This doctrine outlines two relevant principles in neighbourhood planning:
responses were dominated by the rejection of the redevelopment plan of Building 17 due to the nuisance and safety within the neighbourhood.
On the other hand, an open discussion was conducted with three residents of Building 17 to gain information about their perspective towards their neighbourhood. According to the result of this interview, the residents of Building 17 mostly focused on the private park development plan surrounding their building.
Both findings could be concluded that the local residents of Maurits Noord are likely to want to improve the non-physical factors, while the residents of Building 17 are likely to demand the improvement of the physical factors (such as a private garden) surrounding their temporary home.
THE ROLE OF THE DESIGN OF PUBLIC SPACE Aperson’s actions do not determine situations but rather situations determine a person’s actions (Hartmann, 2016). Both these statements stress the importance of the effect of the design of public space on social interaction. In the case of Maurits Noord (where we have to deal with conflicting groups), it’s important to understand the role and effect of public space in these interactions. Talen (1999) investigated the design principles to promote social interaction and sense of community through the physical design of communities, the two most important design principles:
be able to provide a safe, welcoming and inclusive space for all related users.
6.4 IN WHAT WAY CAN A HARMONIOUS NEIGHBOURHOOD BE ACHIEVED IN MAURITS NOORD?
The harmonious neighbourhood concept combines design of the physical environment with a focus on how the people who live in and use a space relate to each other and function as a community (Berkeley Group, 2011). It is enhanced by development which provides the right infrastructure to support a strong social and cultural life, opportunities for people to get involved, and scope for the place and the community to evolve. The factors that underpin local quality of life can be categorised as physical and non-physical. Physical factors include decent public space, and non-physical factors encompass safety, social networks, spatial integration, and a sense of belonging (Berkeley Group, 2011).
IDENTIFYING COMMUNITY’S PERSPECTIVE
In the case of Maurits Noord, a survey within the local neighbourhood of Maurits Noord and an open discussion with residents of Building 17 has been conducted. The result refers to the different perspective on how they see their neighbourhood (see Appendix V). Identifying their perspective is essential to capture their position within the neighbourhood. The survey has been delivered to the local residents of Maurits Noord (184 letters) and 20% of these letters were answered. The
CONCEPTS
Through conversation with the municipality of Ede, residents of Maurits Noord, the staff of Building 17 and residents of Building 17, we have formed three design scenarios that aim to bring wishes and needs of varying groups together through design.
The extent to which different groups’ wishes and needs are incorporated in design differ per concept, but the main aim to contribute to acceptance and balanced integration of Building 17 in Maurits Noord is present in all scenarios.
CONCEPT 1 : PUBLIC (UTOPIAN DESIGN)
This concept’s essence is to blend Building 17 and its outdoor space into the neighbourhood as intuitively as possible. The aim of this is to stimulate intuitive interaction between Building 17 residents, residents of the neighbourhood and visitors of parks in the neighbourhood like the SmaakPark or casual by-passers. We think that unforced and intuitive interaction between the different societal groups in the neighbourhood will positively impact the perception and acceptance of residents of Building 17 and Building 17 itself. To stimulate this interaction, developing space that invites interaction
and outdoor activity is important. We plan to design the north side of the Buil17 garden as a space to host this particular power. Next to stimulating interaction, it’s also of high importance that this section of space provides overview and shelter simultaneously. Furthermore, to also provide a more secluded space, the southside of Building 17 will host a garden with a more private atmosphere.
Since we feel that to have comfortable integration in the neighbourhood, a private space to which one can retreat is also vital.
CONCEPT 2 : MIDDLEGROUND
During conversations with staff and residents of Building 17, the general consensus was that Building 17 residents wanted to be treated as normal people within the neighbourhood. This concept aims to provide the feeling of being ‘normal’ and fitting in the neighborhood through design, where possible.
The base principle is to mimic other living conditions linked to private space in the neighbourhood, giving residents of Building 17 the feeling they are valued equally to other residents of Maurits Noord. This concept spatially consists of providing a front garden for B17 which will be seen as more formal space linked to the neighborhood, a informal and more private back garden for the homeless category and protected care category and individual small private spaces for residents of the ground floor, linked to their personal front door. Furthermore a clear connection to the streetscape and neighborhood at the front garden is an important feature.
where they can have conversations with clients.
Another wish is a place where all residents can come together for a barbecue.
Concerns
For the Salvation Army a very important aspect for the design is safety. To guarantee the safety of the social workers and residents all corners and parts of the garden should be visible. In addition, the entrance should be visible so it can easily be checked who enters or leaves the property.
Another main concern is the maintenance of the garden. They argued that sometimes clients do like to work in the garden but when those people are not present no one will look after the garden.
Therefore they prefer a garden that has no to little maintenance.
greenhouse and that was a success. Other details that were pointed out in the conversation was the need for enough trash bins and ashtrays throughout the garden. The people we spoke to were open to more interaction with the neighbourhood but they understand that the neighbourhood might have a negative attitude towards Building 17 because of other inhabitants of the shelter.
Concerns
No concerns were discussed.
WHAT ARE THE INTERESTS (GOALS/CONCERNS) OF THE SALVATION ARMY MANAGING BUILDING 17?
Wishes
The main aim of the salvation army is to improve the wellbeing of the inhabitants of Building 17.
Currently, they are working on a project to separate the people in need of social care and protected living. This translates into the garden design as well. The salvation army would like to provide the protected living clients a private garden. The Salvation Army would like an inviting garden that stimulates residents to go outside. Many residents stay inside all day but the organisation thinks it would be beneficial for their mental health to go outside. In addition, social workers think that a nice garden to show off to the adjacent neighbourhood will stimulate residents of Building 17. One specific idea that was suggested is multiple sitting areas more spaces for different activities.
Concerns
The main concern of all residents of Maurits Noord is to experience nuisance or being harassed by residents of Building 17 loitering in the neighbourhood.
The other concern is about the transparency of the construction timeline of the whole neighbourhood including Building 17.
WHAT ARE THE INTERESTS (WISHES/CONCERNS) OF THE HOMELESS LIVING IN BUILDING 17?
Wishes
The inhabitants of Building 17 would like to have a colourful garden where they can relax together but also have some more privacy. Privacy is a really important aspect because now they sometimes feel like zoo animals behind a fence where people come and look at.
In addition to a garden to relax in, they would also like to have some activities. However, keeping animals or a labour intensive garden would not be ideal because of the changing people who have to take care of it. Sometimes there will be no one who wants to look after the animals and if the garden is not being maintained it still should look nice. Two specific features that they would really like to have is a pond, with a fountain, and a greenhouse or communal garden that is shared with the neighbourhood. They used to have a shared
7. DESIGN
In the following chapter we sketch an image of how we envision to tackle the previously discus- sed challenges, linked to our case study area. We aim to do this by developing fitting design prin- ciples, concepts and design applications, with integration through design as ultimate goal.
spaces.
“A socially just outcome can only be achieved by creating a universally inclusive space that embraces the needs and desires of a diverse citizenry” (Young, 1990, in Schmidt & Németh, 2010). Therefore, all wishes of different parties should be translated to and present in design. In addition, as is stated in the answer of research question 3, when social beliefs are different and placed in a common space, conflicts can arise between different people. In the case in Maurits Noord it is not possible to change people’s beliefs directly, but it is therefore all the more important to come up with alternatives that suit all groups and satisfy people’s basic needs.
health is an essential development that can lead to a more stable situation in Maurits Noord. In addition, a quote by Talen that indicates the influence of the physical environment on social dynamics, argues the importance of this design principle in order to establish a harmonious neighbourhood:
“If public spaces are a pleasure to inhabit, they will be used, and their usefulness as promoters of a sense of community will flourish” (Talen, 1999).
3.THE MANAGEABLE LANDSCAPE : Neglect does not result in chaos
Key elements: no grass, vegetation that needs no to little maintenance, hard edges, sufficient trash bins.
Another characteristic that was pleaded for by the staff of Building 17 and its residents is an easy maintainable garden. The social workers won’t take on the responsibility to maintain the garden and because of the fact that the residents of Building 17 can change quickly, one can not assume that there will be someone who likes, or volunteers, to work in the garden. To prevent the garden from overgrowing and end up in chaos, the design should therefore take this wish into account.
4.DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE LANDSCAPE : embrace needs and wishes of a diverse citizenry
Key elements: multiple activities (e.g. BBQ place, fire pit, swing, outdoor gym), different spaces for different forms of interaction, private and shared PRINCIPLES
To be able to guarantee design quality throughout all different concepts, while also assuring that the wishes and needs of involved actors were addressed simultaneously, we developed 4 main principles.
These 4 main principles are each build up out of sub-principles that provided the desired depth and specific elements that can be translated into design.
1.THE SAFE LANDSCAPE : A safe place to abide in.
Key elements: low vegetation , clear and visible entrance(s), separate garden for the protected living, vandalism proof materials, adequate lighting.
Because of the presence of sometimes unpredictable people and quickly changing social dynamics in Building 17, all four actively involved parties agreed that to ensure safety of the residents of Maurits Noord, the staff of Building 17 and the residents of Building 17 should be a priority.
2.THE INVITING LANDSCAPE : To inspire to pursue an active lifestyle
Key elements: secluded sitting areas, green and colorful design, optimal use of sunlight, wide variety of materials.
The answer to research question 3 shows how design can influence behaviour. The social workers stress the importance to trigger those with mental health issues to go outside. A design that is inviting can be this trigger. The improvement of mental psychological, where acceptance of presence of the
homeless shelter plays a role with limited physical interaction.
Lastly, in all concepts we aim to use the same design language and materialization to make sure that potential preference of involved actors for a specific design is based on the actual concepts and its underlying strategy and not only the aesthetic value of design. Later, when the most optimal design (or merger of designs) for the outside space of Building 17 is determined, the concept can be developed further where potential variety of design language comes back into play.
CONCEPT 3 : PRIVATE
The last concept focuses on sheltering Building 17 and its outside space off from much of the interaction with the neighbourhood. This introverted approach focuses on providing quality space, to stimulate residence of Building 17 inhabitants on site and a natural border between neighborhood and the shelter. The aim of this is to reduce nuisance inside the neighbourhood as much as possible while simultaneously countering the feeling that many Building 17 residents have of being observed and watched.
CONCEPT CREATION
We propose tree different concepts for designs of the public space of Building 17, which all react differently to varying wishes and needs of involved actors.
Some concepts may lay more focus on wishes and needs of a specific set of actors while compromising at some other area’s. However, all concepts aim to respond to all wishes and needs of actors as well as possible, to guarantee a pleasant outcome space for all actors. The tree concepts furthermore aim to function as a conversation starter between involved actors and form a basis for reconciliation.
We namely see our proposed design concepts as a way to integrate the homeless shelter better in the neighborhood of Maurits Noord. This integration can be either physical integration, where interaction between neighborhood- and shelter residents is stimulated or integration could be more
THE DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE LANDSCAPE
“A socially just outcome can only be achieved by creating a universally inclusive space that embraces the needs and desires of a diverse citizenry” (Young, 1990, in Schmidt & Németh, 2010). Therefore, all wishes of different parties should be translated to and present in design. In addition, as is stated in the answer of research question 3, when social beliefs are different and placed in a common space, conflicts can arise between different people. In the case in Maurits Noord it is not possible to change people’s beliefs directly, but it is therefore all the more important to come up with alternatives that suit all groups and satisfy people’s basic needs.
Therefore, the garden design should be attractive for all potential users. This ranges from protected care and homeless people to neighborhood residents and accidental bypasses.
VARYING INTERACTION SPACES
To create spaces for different groups of potential users, variety in interactive spaces is preferred.
PRIVATE AND SHARED SPACE
To make sure everyone feels at ease in space, some spaces are designed to be more private while others are more public. Giving people the choice where they want to spend time is important to make people feel at ease.
VARIETY IN ACTIVITIES
To create a diverse and inclusive space, a variety in program and activities in the garden is essential.
THE MANAGEABLE LANDSCAPE
Creating a design which needs little maintenance is important since the Salvation Army has little funds to maintain the garden and not all residents of B17 can be expected to help maintain the garden themselves.
NO GRASS
Keeping a good-looking lawn in a garden costs much effort and is therefore high in maintenance. Grass in the garden for B17 was therefore out of the question.
LOW IN MAINTENANCE
The vegetation used in the garden had to be low in maintenance and preferably sturdy, to also cope with sub-optimal environmental circumstances.
HARD PLANTING EDGES
Hard edges along plantations give a structure to the vegetation even when maintenance has been little.
SUFFICIENT TRANS BINS AND ASH TRAYS
To prevent the garden floor- or vegetation from being covered in used cigarettes or litter, many trash-cans inside the garden are necessary.
INVITING LANDSCAPE
Focus on an inviting design for not only residents from Building 17 but also for residents of the neighbourhoods an important tool to reduce nuisance and negative stigmas surrounding B17 and to integrate the shelter better in the neighbourhood.
Furthermore, research question 3 shows how design can influence behaviour and spending time outside helps reduce mental health issues of residents of B17. An inviting landscape is vital to achieve this.
SECLUDED SITTING SPOTS
Sitting spots where shelter is provided through vegetation or where spots are placed further away from the main pathway, has the power to make users feel more at ease in public space.
OPTIMIZE LIGHT
A clear orientation of a garden to the sun is important aspect of the attractiveness of the garden. However, not everyone likes to sit in the sun and needs differ throughout the seasons. Therefore, variety in shade and sunlight is also important.
MATERIAL VARIETY
A variety in material use within the garden keeps the design interesting and has the power to calm users of space.
USE OF COLOURS
A variety in colour use within the garden keeps the design interesting and has the power to calm users of space.
THE SAFE LANDSCAPE
The main base principle of safe landscapes aims to assure general safety through design on physical- and mental aspects. Applying this overall principle helps to create a safe and pleasant surroundings of Building 17 and the adjacent neighbourhood. This safety is vital due to the sometimes unpredictable behaviour of shelter residents and the rapidly changing social dynamics in Building 17.
SUFFICIENT LIGHTING
Sufficient lighting throughout the premises and near rooms and entrances is important for the sense of safety but also for staff of the shelter to observe and keep check on the residents.
CLEAR AND VISIBLE ENTRANCES
A clear and easy way to enter Building 17 from the street or from the garden is important to create clarity and provide overview while moving in space.
LOW VEGETATION
Low vegetation assures that from every standpoint in the garden or Building 17 an overview of space is presented.
SECLUDED GARDEN FOR PROTECTED CARE
To minimize encounters between protected care residents and homeless residents of Building 17, a part of the garden is assigned for the protected care while the rest of the garden is accessible for all
STURDY MATERIALS
Sturdy materials are used throughout, to assure as minimal vandalism inside the garden as possible.
secluded sitting spots
use of colours
optimal light
Material variety
The safe landscape The inviting landscape The manageable landscape The inclusive landscape
sufficient lighting
clear and visible entrances
sturdy materials low vegetation
seperate garden for protec- ted living inhabitants
no grass
low in maintenance
hard planting edges
sufficient trash bins and ash trays
Private and shared spaces
variety in activities
varying interaction spaces
