Pandemics, wellness and the senses!

---

Never before in the newly refined urban strata have we experienced such a paradigm change in the way humans live, work and interact. The pandemic has altered the world outside our threshold into a freshly defined wilderness.Public spaces are now areas to be stepped into meagerly, except by essential workers, for most of us our existence has shrunk to the size of our homes. Social distancing, digital socializing, technology taking over our daily routine and food security are quintessential components of our lives now. It can be rightly said that the Covid-19 global crisis has forced the world’s focus to shift from wealth to health.

While world economies are struggling to protect societies and communities from the effects of the pathogenic outbreak, the design and role of cities, urban public space and the built

environment is also being scrutinized in terms of social resilience and the it’s flexibility to

accommodate the alteration the world needs today.

Being put on a pedestal are issues of food security, health infrastructure and the

seamless, unhindered access to public space. The discipline of architecture can be perceived as an interdisciplinary communal effort to cater to contemporary needs and corresponding future issues. While the Urban dimensions of the built physical environment are often considered as structures related to functionality in the contemporary world, cities are also places of human experiences of complex social relationships, the emotions they evoke and the memories created in the public realm. Integrated within these processes is the key question of how senses intercede one’s interaction with the urban life, consequently rendering modality into the interdisciplinary nature of Urban realm.

How do Cities effect mental health?

The wide expanse of economic, social and educational opportunities in cities acts as a stimulus for most people migrating from rural to urban settings.

Even though these factors might be considered important for financial and social growth of an individual, life in cities could also have a negative impact if not designed with sensitivity.

With exploding numbers of people living in cities, public mental health is now augmenting

beyond the scope of psychopathology and psychological sciences.

The sensory overload from various factors such as population influx, rigid gray

infrastructure, intimidating scales of buildings, blistering transport system results in the brain

being excessively stimulated.

As city designers what role can we play to make the urban realm acceptable to the

human psych, making our cities socially inclusive, healthy and happy?

The four basic ideologies that must be integrated in designing cities for a happier public realm are green spaces, social spaces, active spaces and safe spaces.

There’s a powerful relation between green space and mental well-being, with fairly coaxing

investigation exhibiting how, for example, access to green space reduces anxiety or improves attention-deficit/hyperactivity condition in children. This does not necessarily mean large central parks and plazas, but small scale pocket parks evenly distributed for easy access.

When designing for health, active spaces allocation takes precedence. It serves as a big

opportunity for physical health, but besides that there’s a powerful mental health correlation.

For mild symptoms of depression, day-to-day physical exertion can act in the same way that

an antidepressant drug does. Walk-able, sheltered streets, green corridors that stimulate walking are some illustrations of these spaces.

Social spaces are spaces that encourage organic interactions among people.

Research shows that people living in such neighborhoods have lower mental adversity.

The key question is to make these spaces more acceptable to people, say by incorporating

more street furniture or making streets safe-houses for social activity.

Safe spaces are crucial, whether it implies security in terms of crime, traffic, or, for people

with dementia, safety from getting lost. Streets with low traffic, more trees, shelters with

buildings looking onto the street are some examples of safe streets.

Active ground floors where there can be physical interaction between the street and building

activity stimulates sense of safety for the passer-by.

Three primary hypothesis combine to help explain the positive impact of open green spaces.

Edward Wilson’s Biophilia Theory claims that human beings have a biological necessity that

is satiated when they are in physical contact with other species.

Roger Ulrich’s Stress Reduction Explanation proposes that being able to acknowledge the

aesthetics of a natural environment while experiencing some aloofness from one’s day-to-day demands is how green spaces have their impression.

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory suggests that earthy settings

capture people’s attention without the simultaneous need for concentration that epitomizes

non-natural settings.

As mentioned by Charles Montgomery in his critically acclaimed book “Happy City”, a livable city is a happy one.

The well-designed city, he exclaims towards the end, “offers a thrilling new

freedom to choose how to move and how to live. It manifests that ineffable but undeniably

good feeling we all get when we know we are most truly alive.”

A successful, safe livable city must be able to impart in it’s residents higher senses of

belonging, safety, balance, association and comfort.

Singapore : A confounded success?

Ever since it’s independence in 1967,Singapore has grown from a natural marshland to highly

dense, compact and technologically advanced urban realm.

Following it’s vision of “Garden city” the city planners focused on the importance of conserving biodiversity while disregarding the concept of blighted Urban concrete jungles.

Even though Singapore has successfully managed to cater to the open urban space

requirement of its residents by initiating the garden city program and investing heftily in park

connector networks and Urban parks, improvement can be made to accommodate the needs of the future developments.

The citizens of the country moved from living in “kampungs” to high rise structures marketed by the HDB’s as living quarters of the new Singapore in 1960’s.

The Bukit Ho Swee fire in 1961, which rendered some 16,000 roofless, convinced the citizens

that the HDB flat was a more viable lodging alternative.

While life in kampungs emphasized on the importance of social interactions, with closely knit

houses and meager streets, the HDB tower blocks were the exact opposite of that.

In order to make the transition from horizontal living to vertical living acceptable to the

residents, the HDB established the concept of the “Void-Decks”

The void decks were and still continue to be social spaces where people meet, interact and

socialize. The void deck acted as a substitute for social open space in the kampungs.

From hosting weddings to selling parrots, the void deck was not just a void but a quintessential component of the HDB’s.

However, due to rapid urbanization and increase in population, the size of these void decks has reduced significantly. Restrictive HDB policies make it difficult to conduct many activities in these decks depriving it’s residents of the social space they always craved for.

The issue with Singapore’s planning is the mono-functional enclave system.

The planning follows the ‘Athens Charter Principle of a functional city’ which are-

1. Segregation of residential units from workplaces, while industries are located away from

the city core.

2. Well ventilated residences separated by large open spaces.

3. Exclusive space for cultural and social gathering.

4. Separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

The streets-capes are characteristic to HDB housing typology of High rise slabs that are

smeared evenly and homogeneously across the whole neighborhood.

The dense cluster of these towers are segregated with large open plazas that are elevated

from the ground level. Regardless of the meticulously designed courtyards and waterfront with lush green walkways, the buildings fail to make substantial conversation with the environment and its inhabitants.

With most towers built on pilotis, the resulting ‘void decks’ (or ground floor) results in a

seamless open space framework, where each space is accessible without any physical

barrier. However, the quality of this wide expanse of open space without enclosures is

debatable.

In addition, since most cultural or commercial spaces are segregated from the main residential clusters, the ground floors remain inactive and mundane.

One may find fragmented bits of standardized spaces designed for recreation or

congregation activity, like shopping malls, community centers, hawker markets, however these too are introvert in nature, resulting in rigid, uninspired streets-capes.

The framework follows a twisted grid system with an effective transport network with streets

and roads. The streets are car dependent, using heavy gray infrastructure for movement

leaving little scope for easy movement of pedestrians.

One may argue that the park connector network caters to the needs of the

pedestrians, however a safer street would be the one pedestrian priority.

The city is equipped with a potent network of Mass Rapid Transit and Light Rapid Transit

networks which allows people to move across the neighborhood in about 10 minutes.

However, the spaces in and around the transit nodes are mere thoroughfares allowing large

influx of people to move across in a rather mechanical fashion.

The planning detail however is rigid and standardized allowing little room to accommodate the psychological and social behavior of people living in the area.

The quality of the space within the enclaves does not emphasize the importance of activity.

The waterfronts of the city for example are extruded, monotonous, linear stretch of planted

avenue that definitely adds aesthetic value to the space but does not generate any kind of

significant activity.

In order to cater to the mental health of its citizens, Nparks initiated the therapeutic gardens

scheme.

The therapeutic garden at Hot-park was a prototype for the network of therapeutic gardens in Singapore.

As an initiative, it was a complementary idea to enhance the mental state of its

citizens, however, these spaces in isolation are not enough.

These ideas need to be integrated with the street system for a comprehensive approach.

The other subject crucial today is to make our cities pliable to combat of pandemics such as

the Covid-19,which has as of today become a global crisis, disrupting the social, economic and mental wellness across the globe.

The 21st century has so far been hit by Mers, Ebola, Bird flu, Swine flu, Sars and now the novel Covid-19. If we have entered and era of pandemics, are our cities of tomorrow ready to face the brunt? How should our cities be designed so that outdoors don’t become prohibited zones on the contrary are safe and habitable?

Designing for the pandemic-resilient city.

In times of the pandemic, population density within a city becomes one of the biggest problems to curb.

In-spite of big parks like the central park in Manhattan, US today is the most effected by the

pandemic. This suggest that availability of green space is not enough, its the quality and

distribution of this network that matters.

Learning from the Super-blocks concept in Barcelona, where streets are closed off for cars, one can see the impact on the users.

The streets are vibrant, safe and dynamic.

Corey Johnson, New York city councilor suggested closing off parts of the city to traffic and

opening them up for pedestrians, cyclists and exercise enthusiasts. It is believed to deliver more social distancing if certain streets are not accessible to cars or private mobility vehicles.

Pedestrian priority should be key in city planning. This would also initiate a sense of safety in

the users.

The initiation of polycentric self sufficient, decentralized clusters could be the next intervention in times of the pandemic.

Such models have the capability to improve quality if life, promote walking, encourage social

interactions and free up space for uses like parks, horticulture gardens etc.

Design of flexible buildings that are hybrid in nature and allow for quick transformation to

alternate spaces in times of emergency.

With most of us spending our time confined within our homes, this adaptive design could pose useful for multiple purposes.

Apart from this, our buildings must reconsider the idea of social spaces at alternate planes.

By incorporating sky gardens, communal terraces, social spaces within the buildings, the

biophilic sense can be instigated.

It allows for users to feel closer to nature, manipulating with their sense of self and balance.

These spaces however should be distributed uniformly to avoid congestion in times of

emergency.

Another important factor essential for building cites for the pandemic is self-sufficiency.

As we noticed, the first instinctive reaction at the dawn of the epidemic was sense of fear

among the people.

The paranoia in turn created issues of congestion in markets, hoarding of supplies etc.

Nuclear centers with local food production zones can help curb this problem.

Apart from this, the community could be involved in small scale horticulture, enhancing the

social network of the district.

Horticulture gardens integrated with streets and pocket parks could serve both, economic and social purposes.

A paradigm shift is needed in the way we envision the cities of the future.

Connectivity being the core armature of a city, connecting people, services and goods would be the new ideology, which is least dependent on investment on rigid infrastructure.

Smart corridors, with effective public health network, sensor systems would be the future of our streets.

Green corridors would need to replace cars for alternative modes of mobility, the concept of

walk-able cities would need to be endorsed in order to reduce dependence on modes of

transport.

The buildings would need to be more adaptable to change, allowing ample light, ventilation and visual access to nature in times of crisis.

Urban voids would need to re-purposed for alternate uses to a cohesive, safe system.

The focus is not only to intensify the health care infrastructure of a city, but the intent must be to avoid a rise of such a pandemic.

Our cities must be able to endure the effects through ingenious planning and new ways of

thinking.

Singapore’s urban realm in the future: The Wellness City

For a pandemic resilient city, Singapore’s Urban design strategies would need to slightly

altered in order to cater to the needs of its future citizens.

From a mono-functional enclave system, the need of the hour is to envision hybrid clusters

where people can live, work and socially interact.

Decentralization of public greens into pocket parks with enhanced sanitation services would

ensure safe transmission of people and would allow them to feel safe and barrier free in the

city.

A pedestrian friendly street system that is safe, interactive and universal in nature needs to be incorporated. This allows a sense of rhythm and continuity in the user.

These streets could be technology driven with alternate modes of mobility and sensors to

detect temperatures and pathogens.

The built environment in the HDB’s where most population of Singapore resides needs to be

enhanced. The void-decks could be activated again, re-purposed and used for retail/commerce activity in case of emergency. Communal modes of connectivity like elevators and stairwells could be redesigned.

Increasing sky-rise greens in the existing structures could allow for close encounter with

nature for the people, particularly the elderly.

The concept of “vertical kampungs” could be incorporated, that allows for social space on

multiple levels within the building. This instigates a sense of belonging among the people.

Food self sufficiency would be another factor crucial for Singapore’s future.

To curb the paranoia, localized, self sustained clusters that engage all strata of society would

need to be established.

The challenge would be to expand our thinking while staying true to the values of safe city

planning, making sure our cities are safe, livable, self- sufficient, vibrant and happy.