In my book, Bridging Cultures, I describe two factors that gave me access to engaging with different cultural contexts and creating ‘bridging’ social networks. The first was a mindset, and the second was the circumstances in which social interaction took place. I identified certain key public spaces where opportunities for interaction were present, what I called circumstances. These circumstances were of two types. The first was the nature of the public space and the second was the presence of peers that invited me in to a social network. This blog looks at the qualities of these public spaces that support social interaction. In the previous blog, we established that public space is increasingly being considered in terms of its sociability capacity rather than its physical properties.

Two general types of social interaction in public open spaces can be identified: casual social encounters, such as chance meetings on a street, and organised social events and activities, for instance, a carnival in a park. The opportunity for informal interaction, or weak ties, is one of the most valued aspects of public open spaces. Casual encounters range from meetings with friends and neighbours in residential areas to brief exchanges with strangers in markets and shopping streets. But public space is not only for social interaction. It can also provide a place for relief, reflection, and retreat. Casual social interaction can itself be divided into two types: routine encounters and serendipitous encounters. Routine social encounters occur on a regular basis and are pre-arranged or occur in a set place and at a set time. These days many of these routine social encounters are arranged by technologically-enabled communication such as mobile phones, websites, social networking sites and Mobile Apps. However, sometimes routine encounters are both unorganised and unmediated while being more or less anticipated. These encounters often help to maintain loose ties between neighbours and familiar strangers but also provide the first step towards friendships. Routine meetings between people take place where people’s everyday paths are most likely to cross: semi-domestic spaces (such as forecourts to flats and houses), residential streets, local shopping centres, the street outside a local mosque or a small park next to a primary school. One of the key qualities of these spaces is the opportunity and freedom to linger. Serendipitous encounters are the result of both regular and occasional use of spaces. Unexpected meetings are associated with particular spaces that enhance sociability. Places located outside the immediate neighbourhood arena that draw a greater number of people, such as a market or a main street, are more likely to be settings for serendipitous encounters.

There are a number of key circumstances that underpin successful socially-enabling public spaces; familiarity, proximity, regular use that meets everyday needs; endurance, freedom to linger, available facilities, and physical characteristics.

Casual encounters are more likely to occur in places that are familiar to people and where over time they can build trust. There are instances, however, where trust and familiarity can be fast-tracked when invitations by peers embed newcomers into existing social networks and encourage use. Familiarity is built up with routine visits to school, work, the market or the high street. They become familiar spaces of interaction where people come into contact with strangers regularly. Markets in particular provide an active and engaged community of traders that contribute to the social scene because of the opportunity for face-to-face conversations when selling goods.

Having public spaces in close proximity supports regular use. These public spaces can be quite non-descript, such as a telephone box or street railings, but they become a self-organised hang out. Street corners, forecourts and front gardens to houses, the pick up area in front of a school within walking distance are all opportunities for people to venture out of their private spaces into the public realm.

The range and type of uses of public spaces that are adaptable to people’s diverse and changing needs and desires is a significant factor. The study by Mean and Tims identified eight types of public space dictated by the activity happening within it at different times. The study was based on the central importance of trust and confidence from users in creating valuable public space. What they found was these spaces were not overly prescriptive in their design. They left room for self-organisation and encouraged a degree of appropriation. These ‘spaces of potential’ are:

• Exchange spaces: places where people exchange ideas, information and goods
• Productive spaces: used by people engaged in activities to grow or create goods
• Spaces of services provision: support services are run from these spaces, either by statutory or voluntary providers
• Activity spaces: where people gather for leisure, such as for play, sport or informal events
• Democratic / participative spaces: for shared decision-making or governance
• Staged spaces: ‘one-off’ special occasions where people are brought together for a specific purpose
• In-between spaces: places which are located between communities
• Virtual spaces: non-physical spaces, such as those created online by social networking sites

What these spaces provide are multiple uses, with different activities embedded or allowed throughout the day (such as e.g. shopping, commuting, play, the office lunch-hour, a café). They also hosted organized social activities such as public open-air events, football leagues, fairs or self-organised activities such as health walks, dog walking, picnics.

These uses also provide opportunities for social interaction or reflection. The public spaces may be vibrant and hard landscapes, or they may be quiet, private and green landscapes. What is fundamental is that they meet the needs of people at different stages in their lives and from different cultural contexts. For example, street markets are a valuable asset for many people and particularly the elderly in reducing isolation, and access to good, fresh and cheap food. It is spaces like these that move beyond mono-cultures and encourage diverse groups and activities to share common spaces.

The continuity of public spaces and their enduring nature is key to encounters with people. Regular encounters help build an individual sense of community. It is the basis for establishing closer ties.

The freedom to linger is another circumstance that provides impromptu and incidental encounters. People are allowed to remain in spaces without a specific reason. William H. Whyte in his seminal book, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, highlights the importance of seating in providing opportunities to ‘watch the world go by’ and for more meaningful encounters. Whyte explains the importance that seating be ‘socially’ comfortable; people have choice to sit alone, in groups, in the sun, in the shade, with their backs against something or not, etc. He also emphasizes the importance of more impromptu sitting areas such as ledges and steps, as well as more formal benches and movable chairs.

Another circumstance for social interaction is what facilities are available that give purpose to a space and enhance its social vitality. A place that has one main purpose but can support many other diverse social activities facilitates encounters. As Whyte showed in his study of New York’s plazas; adding seating, food, shops or toilets to a public space attracts people to that space and provides an opportunity to linger. As an example, a sports hall is a specific facility, however a small public space in front of it, a play ground nearby, and a café can provide opportunities for greater interactions either with people doing the same thing (e.g. ties between people on the same team sport) or people using the facility and its associated activities that are casual encounters.

The final circumstance for social interaction is how the design and layout of the physical space can encourage casual or serendipitous encounters. Jan Gehl, author of Life Between Buildings, draws correlations between the quality of the urban environment and the types of activities that take place. He found that ‘necessary activities’ that are more or less compulsory, such as going to school or work, took place no matter what the quality of the environment. ‘Optional activities’, however, such as taking a walk to get fresh air or sitting and sunbathing, only took place when the weather was favourable and conducive to this type of activity. On the other hand, he argues that ‘resultant activities’ or social activities, only take place in high quality public spaces that are designed to invite people to stop, sit, eat, play and so on. For example, a cul-de-sac or a homezone on a housing estate provides the opportunity for ball games and water fights among children and interaction between neighbours. We have already mentioned a number of key qualities for successful public spaces, however, there are key design features that affect the possibilities of meeting, seeing and hearing people.

• Accessible and easy to move through to anyone who desires access without barriers to any groups either physically or symbolically
• Legible in lay-out and design, with clear and recognisable routes, defined edges and clarity about the boundaries between public and private
• Distinctive, locally relevant, designed with local character and the community in mind through participation
• Open-ended, without exclusive domination of singular and incontestable cultural messages
• Safe and welcoming, give the idea of comfort and a degree of control, with for example good lighting and sightlines, and paying attention to different groups’ needs with regard to safety
• Not over regulated but which rely on natural surveillance and active use for safety
• Features, such as a fountain, greenery or seating, that attract visitors to the place

In summary, successful public spaces that support casual and organized encounters are considered in terms of their sociability capacity as well as physical properties to create the right circumstances for weak ties to be created.

On Dotun Adebayo’s Sunday Night Live on BBC London Radio, Noha argued Council Estates do not support a socially cohesive society. They are divisive – they support segregation on socio-economic lines and culturally diverse lines that excludes people from within them and without them. However, they do support high levels of social capital in many instances where people get a sense of belonging to this clearly demarcated territory they call ‘their estate’; children play on the streets, mothers congregate near schools, old age pensioners watch over each other, youth groups create their own turfs – these are all ways to belong to a place and to create strong sense of community.

Look back through history to the Garden City model like Bournville where a strong economic base like the Cadbury Factory was a focal point for residents. Streets were laid out cheek by jowl with middle managers in semi-detached houses, living a few streets away from the factory workers living in cottages who lived a few streets away from the larger homes of senior managers. This blurring of the socio-economic stratas was reinforced by the fact they encountered each other in the shared public spaces; gardens, allotments, the park, the local parade of shops, the school etc. It was a mixed community and this is the secret to regenerating the council estates. How do you maintain the residents of the council estate within the sphere of the communities they know, love and cherish? How do you mix the estates up so that they are not segregated? Savills have published a report this month that suggest the ‘Complete Street’ approach to regeneration which I fully support. They claim by integrating the modernist tower block into an urban pattern that is more like the victorian street blocks you could increase the number of homes by 73% from 78 homes per hectare to 135. According to their report, 1750 hectares of London’s Council Estate land can provide 190,000 to 500,000 new homes to re-settle people in socially rented accommodation as well as provide more affordable homes.

Therefore by building more diverse neighbourhoods we can retain old social networks and ties, as well as introduce new elements of diversity both socio-economically and culturally that would create greater balanced communities. These mixed communities would need to be supported by mixed uses and public services that would become new meeting points such as shops, sports centre, library, cafe, and park. The council estate will no longer be a clearly defined territory but one that blurs into its surrounding context integrating homes and amenities, with cultures and social networks.

When arriving and settling in a new place for the first time, neighbourliness becomes a crucial factor in creating a shared sense of belonging. The Young Foundation has done some work on ‘neighbourliness’. It is a way to negotiate the choices people have in helping their neighbours during time of great need, but at the same time respecting boundaries which allow people to retain their sense of privacy. Respecting boundaries is articulated as a key aspect of good neighbourliness. The Foundation identified two types of neighbourliness; ‘manifest neighbourliness’ defined as the observable social interaction and exchange of help and goods; and ‘latent neighbourliness’ defined as the feelings or inclination towards neighbourliness which turns into actions during times of great need. In their view, latent neighbourliness is more appropriate in the modern world where society is focused on the individual. Closely connected with neighbourliness is sense of belonging, however, the Foundation argues that a sense of belonging to a neighbourhood does not necessarily lead to neighbourly behaviour and increased civic engagement. At the same time, a lack of belonging and feelings of isolation do not necessarily lead to anti-social behaviour. Nonetheless, people can instinctively sense acceptance from groups such as family, colleagues, the neighbourhood and society.

The public realm also plays an important role to support neighbourliness. For example, real or perceived levels of safety will have an impact, as do poorly designed and maintained public spaces. The key is that public spaces need to function as places that encourage social interaction, create memories and meaning, and are welcoming and safe.

In spatial terms, sense of place, or the meanings and attachment to a place held by the collective in defining its identity, has been commonly referred to as place attachment. It combines the physical setting, human activities, and human social and psychological processes associated with the setting. A place is a centre of meaning based on human experience, social relationships, emotions, and thoughts. According to Tuan the sense of place is based on the length and depth of experience within the place, whereas Relph argues social relationships in the place is the basis of attachment rather than the physical landscape itself. Therefore, place attachment is the nature of the bond between people and the place where they settle. For new settlers, these bonds take time and are built through extensive interaction with a place. People may begin to define themselves in terms of that place. They cannot really express who they are without inevitably taking into account the setting that surrounds them.

For groups from different cultural backgrounds, their identity is closely associated with a psychological attachment to familiar symbols. Spatial features are important, such as a temple or uses of the space such as cultural celebrations. The question, is how can a collective identity be created where there are diverse cultures?

Some commentators argue that a communal identity can only be created when there is an overarching collective identity. Collective identity nurtures diversity but does not privilege difference. In other words, an approach that encompasses a set of values rather than giving primacy to a single value. Collective identity develops through a shared experience, a common culture, or lifestyle. All places are imbued with multiple meanings. Lynch noted that the identity of a place distinguishes it from other places but that this identity may vary between people. Some suggest individualistic place meanings; a given place will contain as many different meanings as there are people using the place. This suggests that inclusive place identities will accommodate multiple identities without singling one out, and become accessible to all social groups. There is often a symbiotic relationship between people’s attachments to their area and their experience of public spaces.

Places like markets tend to attract people from all backgrounds because they offer opportunities for casual social encounters, lingering, and buying. For many people, local social networks are a principal source of attachment to place. Other factors such as continuity in place and people’s perception and response to demographic and physical changes in their neighbourhood also lead to place attachment. A strong sense of belonging is created by use of local facilities and distinctiveness. Layouts of housing, the nearby presence of public buildings or the cultural diversity of the area could distinguish, either favourably or unfavourably, the area from other places.

The big question is how to begin creating a strong sense of belonging and place attachment? What process can be used to build places where people want to hang out? PPS suggest implementing bottom-up strategies that recognize citizens as the experts. They believe places guided by the wisdom of the community build a strong partnership between the public, private and third sectors. PPS identify a number of key actions to foster a sense of shared community:

• Create places where people can stop to sit and chat with each other, such as putting a bench out in front of your house
• Tame traffic in neighborhoods by making streets so interesting that people naturally slow down to see what is going on.
• Develop new activities for teens that make them want to get involved in the future of their neighborhood instead of feeling excluded and alienated from the community.
• Introduce new kinds of park activities, such as gardens catering to certain groups — for example, children, seniors, or various ethnic groups — or a bread oven that is used to cook community dinners.
• Improve safety and security in a neighborhood by encouraging people to do things like saying hello to everyone they see. This can change the spirit of a community faster and more effectively than a police presence will ever do.
• Bring new kinds of people to the local neighbourhood centre with creative campaigns that deliver social and economic benefits for the place.
• Promote new opportunities for social interaction and community pride by introducing activities from different cultures, such as bocce ball courts, casitas, or an evening promenade.
• Make kids healthier by developing innovative programs so they can safely walk or bike to school.
• Establish more effective community-based planning processes that result in less arguing, more public input, and a general level of agreement on what to do to make the community better.
• Foster new types of businesses that not only make money but also have more far reaching impacts — for example, rent fun and unique bikes to people who don’t ordinarily ride bikes, like seniors, disabled people, and young children.
• Champion your local hangout by making it a ‘Third Place’ such as a coffee shop, café or other spot where everyone feels welcome and can strike up a conversation with their neighbours.
• Provide clean public restrooms through enterprising programs that grow out of partnerships between businesses and the neighbourhood association.

 

The importance of place attachment and sense of belonging is what binds people together no matter what their cultural background. If we are to achieve the benefits of cultural diversity in our cities we need to create the opportunities to get to know each other. In my opinion, it’s the public spaces of the neighbourhood where social encounters happen and where there is the greatest opportunity for building social capital and neighbourliness.

Noha is author of the book ‘Bridging Cultures: the guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’ available on Amazon at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bridging-Cultures-Social-Innovation-Cosmopolitan/dp/1517157188

 

Public spaces are a fundamental feature of cities and urban culture. In cities around the world, urban spaces such as plazas, markets, streets, town halls temples and urban parks have long been centres of civic life where people encounter each other, socialize, exchange goods and have face-to-face interactions. In these key public spaces there are opportunities for gathering, recreation, festivals, and trading as well as protests and demonstrations. The quality, functionality and accessibility of public spaces in a city are commonly perceived to be a measure of the quality of urban life. They can be both outdoor and indoor. Civic buildings are also key public spaces because it is in these internal spaces where the community meet, socialise and share experiences, making the buildings a part of the public realm. Key public spaces are therefore at the heart of bridging cultures as an arena for cross-cultural mixing and shared understanding. They are the vital arena for differences to be encountered and negotiated. The value of public space is in the everyday sociability that takes place. They are the spaces in which we can learn to live with others through seeing different norms and ways of behaving.

An important and commonly held view of what makes good public spaces is the degree of accessibility and freedom of expression that truly democratic, open and inclusive public spaces provide. From the days of the Greek Agora, the democratic nature of public space has shaped society and has been the site for the conduction of politics. Commonly perceived as the unit of measure for assessing the health of our democracy, it is in public spaces that we negotiate our common interests and express our differences, where we celebrate creativity and display our dissent. The term ‘public space’ refers to a place that is open and accessible to everyone, regardless of gender, culture, or socio-economic background.

There is no single definition of inclusive public space, however, commentators define four dimensions of accessibility:

• Physical access allows people to be physically present with no barriers to getting in to the space and moving in and through it regardless of age and ability
• Social access (or ‘symbolic access’) involves the presence of cues, in the form of people, design and management elements, suggesting who is and who is not welcome in the space
• ‘Visual access’ or ‘visibility’ of public spaces use symbols, or landmarks, within these spaces and provide a feeling of safety and comfort, as well as belonging
• Access to activities where public space provides a diverse and multifunctional range of activities that meets the needs of diverse cultures, genders, abilities and ages

More accessible public spaces promote sociability and the ‘circumstances’ for social encounters that bridge between cultures. The well-established Project for Public Spaces (PPS) describes good places as places that offer people many different reasons to go there. They are places where we want to ‘hangout’ for some time because the place offers us a variety of activities, experiences, and comfort. These places are clearly identifiable from a distance, easy to enter when you get closer, and simple to use. Taking this idea of ‘hangouts’ one step further, Ray Oldenburg, in his seminal book The Great Good Place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of the community, defines the core qualities of those ‘hangouts’. He calls them ‘third spaces’, or public spaces that host the regular, voluntary, informal and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work. He describes their qualities as:

• Being ‘neutral ground’, where individuals can come and go as they please
• Being highly inclusive, accessible and without formal criteria of membership
• Their ‘taken-for-granted-ness’ and low profile
• Being open during and outside office hours
• Being characterised by a ‘playful mood’
• Providing psychological comfort and support
• With conversation their ‘cardinal and sustaining’ activity, providing ‘political fora of great importance’

These are the types of spaces where people can enjoy the social vibrancy of urban life and seeing other people. They can also be places of retreat and relief from dense urban districts and structured everyday life. Places of retreat, such as parks, a cemetery, or footpaths that are close to water, provided opportunities for reflection. Markets and neighbourhood spaces provide the spaces for meeting friends and support networks. Both types of third places support well-being and have therapeutic functions.

But public spaces are more than just containers of human activity. They are also collective expressions of a city, as well as depositories of personal memories. Recollections of using a space when growing up, for example, could promote a sense of belonging, or prompt fond family memories. As places where important historical events tend to unfold, public spaces are imbued with important, collective meanings – both official and unofficial. People need a variety of public open spaces within a local area to meet a range of everyday needs: spaces to linger as well as spaces of transit; spaces that bring people together as well as spaces of retreat; green spaces as well as hard spaces such as streets or markets.

For Melissa Mean and Charlie Tims, authors of the report People Make Places: Growing the Public Life of Cities, public spaces act as self-organizing public services because they form ’a shared spatial resource from which experiences and value are created in ways that are not possible in our private lives alone.’ What this means is that public space is better understood not as a predetermined physical place, but as an experience created by the interaction between people and places. People need a variety of public spaces within a local area to meet. A range of places for everyday needs that reflect their lifestyle choices, value systems, and local traditions. These experiences together form the collective identity of a community. The report emphasises that the design of a public space to the highest standards providing top-quality facilities is not the most important factor in the creation of public space. In fact, it is the social benefits including the potential for well-being to be experienced that is ultimately the successful factor; it is what goes on within a space that is important. Here the value is placed on spaces that provide opportunities for different types of encounters – both casual and organised, routine or serendipitous. For Mean and Tims, they observe that public space in neighbourhoods, towns and cities is not in decline but is instead expanding. What they have found is that there are non-traditional spaces that create opportunities for association and exchange. Gatherings at the school gate, activities in community facilities, shopping malls, cafés and car boot sales are some non-traditional spaces. Mean and Tims re-define public space as any space where there are shared uses for a diverse range of activities by a range of different people regardless of appearance, or whether it is in public ownership.

In my book Bridging Cultures: the guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities, public space provides the panacea for improved cross-cultural sociability. However, there are commentators who believe we are asking too much of public space. Richard Sennett, for example, discerns three dominant modes in which different groups live together, each of which is deficient: conflict, assimilation and indifference. He argues that in present day cities we are sliding towards indifference as a way to cope with the presence of ‘others’ where public spaces might be shared by groups. They don’t really bring people together. He observes that public spaces are increasingly segmented spaces. They are based on self-selection and focusing on a narrow range of activities. At the same time there are concerns that open and uncontrolled public spaces, sites of ‘unpredictable encounter’, have been increasingly privatised. Public spaces have become subject to controls and surveillance, particularly in a post 9/11 world and the post-riots context. Some question the desire to live together in the first place and oppose the ‘thrown togetherness’ that characterizes cosmopolitan cities. As Jane Jacobs points out: ‘Cities are full of people with whom, from your viewpoint, or mine, or any other individual’s, a certain degree of contact is useful or enjoyable; but you do not want them in your hair.’ The challenge is how to encourage sociability whilst maintaining privacy and anonymity. Are there ways in which diverse neighbourhoods can create a shared sense of place where proximity can be negotiated? In my opinion, public spaces hold the seeds for a true sharing of society’s diversity and can nurture greater tolerance. The key is to provide functional and accessible public spaces that with light-touch choreography can provide the ideal context for transforming prejudice and indifference into trust and neighbourliness.

 

The concept of the ‘Cosmopolis’ is one in which cultural diversity is embraced as a force for good; socially, politically, economically, and in the built and open spaces of the city. There is a great deal of evidence supporting the negative effects of social, economic and cultural polarization. Uneven distribution of power between different cultural groups in the city to access resources and assets is common. Cosmopolis, however, is a goal for social and spatial justice. It is the ongoing process towards a socially cohesive city. It is the city, and its neighbourhoods, where people from different cultural backgrounds live their everyday lives. Where they make claims to their rights to the city and its spaces, as citizens. In my book ‘Bridging Cultures’, I stress citizenship and the practice of open democracy is an important and fundamental factor. For a truly democratic city, its citizens, no matter what their cultural backgrounds should feel they belong; their histories are recognized and their cultural demands are respected and met. According to the philosopher Iris Marion Young, she states: ‘In the ideal of city life, freedom leads to group differentiation; to the formation of affinity groups, but this social and spatial differentiation of groups is without exclusion. . . . The interfusion of groups in the city occurs partly because of the multiuse differentiation of social space. What makes urban spaces interesting, draws people out in public to them, gives people pleasure and excitement, is the diversity of activities they support.’

 

The case for diversity is strong; mixing cultural groups is the ultimate basis of a better and more attractive place. It fosters creativity, it encourages tolerance, and it leads to city officials appreciating the cross-fertilization potential of different lifestyles. Innovative economic opportunities arise. The engineering of social mixing is not a new concept. In the 19^th century, idealists like The Settlement Houses and Co-Partnerships of Samuel and Henrietta Barnett, Octavia Hill, Jane Addams and others were aimed at educating and socializing the poor. They also sensitized the rich through deliberate social mixing in urban places. In planning history, the utopian communities of the Garden City Movement at the turn of the twentieth century sought to house different social groups in varying degrees of physical closeness and encouraged the use of shared community facilities. What Garden City neighbourhoods demonstrated was communities can be bound together with strong shared moral and social values. The predominantly Quaker principles for social justice was the basis for these values. These values were important a hundred years ago when mainly social and economic class disparities existed. Today, however, cultural diversity adds a further level of complexity in relation to values. In fact, some critics argue that diversity and tolerance of the ‘Other’ is challenging in contexts where lifestyles are incompatible or irreconcilable. In this case, it is not group identities but a collective identity that should prevail. I don’t disagree, however, I assert that collective identity needs to be robust enough to allow for socialization process in which everyday contact and tolerance can be learned.

 

The neighbourhood as a physical boundary is the arena where tolerance can be learned. A series of overlapping social networks in which the quality and strength of ties between neighbours is a measure. Several studies have shown the importance of unpretentious everyday casual social contact, or ‘weak ties’, that happen in neighbourhoods. They are a source of feeling at home, security, and practical as well as social support. The theory of weak ties suggests that acquaintances generated by such everyday interactions, like borrowing tools or simply a casual hello in the street, lead to people being better connected to the wider world. Weak ties also are more likely to provide people with information about ideas, threats and opportunities, stimulating creativity and innovation. Therefore, the differences between neighbourhoods is best understood as the differences between the form and content of social networks, the quality and frequency of weak ties, that arguably are the building blocks of social cohesion. In this context, access to learning tolerance, co-operation, and a sense of belonging is fundamental.

 

The aim of my book ‘Bridging Cultures’ is to provide the key values that will support people in learning to live together regardless of their cultural background, inspired by what we have in common rather than what divides us. It is a society based on solidarity and a common vision for equality for all sections of the community. It is a place based on interaction between different cultural groups and participation by all sections of the community in civic engagement. Key to civic engagement and participation is the role of shared spaces to re-build strong community ties and networks of social support and reciprocity. Hence the focus of the book is to demonstrate how social networks can be strengthened in the use and re-use of public spaces and the factors that support people of different cultural backgrounds to participate, engage and interact with others. Fundamentally, it is about the practices and processes of social innovation that bring people together to do things together. To achieve the goal of social and spatial justice is to be consistently innovating, testing and creating the collective sense of belonging in pursuit of the idealism of the Cosmopolitan city.

Noha is author of the book ‘Bridging Cultures: the guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’ available on Amazon at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bridging-Cultures-Social-Innovation-Cosmopolitan/dp/1517157188

 

   

The benefits of bonding capital to provide solidarity, greater levels of trust, and emotional support are well known. There are disadvantages, however, when cultural groups become inward-looking and spatially segregated. There is a great deal of research on the unequal spatial and economic distribution of cultural groups in so-called ‘ghettoes’ and ‘ethnic enclaves’ in the city. This piece explores the advantages and disadvantages of spatial separation between cultural groups.

Some commentators focus on these spatial concentrations as self-defined territories. They protect and enhance a cultural group’s economic, social and cultural development. Particular cases are representative of this type of spatial concentration. Culture is used as a commodity to attract business and people. Places like Chinatowns worldwide, Brick Lane in East London, The Curry Mile in Manchester and The Balti Triangle in Birmingham are ‘commodified’. They have developed their brand from the Place’s predominant cultural identity. In many cases, the way in which culture is symbolised undermines the authenticity of the predominant culture. It is modified in ways that is ‘acceptable’ and ‘palatable’ to the wider public. Those in favour of this type of enclave, argue that migrants are successfully creating an economic niche to enhance their status and maintain their cultures. At the same time, the attraction of these enclaves to the wider public enhances familiarity and greater tolerance.

Those not in favour of spatial cultural concentrations consider that cultural groups are forced to surrender their authentic cultural identity as means of acceptance into the mainstream. In effect, they are being required to change their cultural identity to fit in. The wider society is attracted to these places for ‘the exotic experience’. There is little interest in socially and culturally engaging with these cultures. Whilst these ethnic enclaves may be successful in their own right, they perpetuate the separation between groups. Richard Sennett so aptly describes this ‘dissociation as a version of civility. Fragmentation as a form of freedom. A social compromise which works against shared citizenship’.

In contrast to these ethnic economic spatial concentrations, more deprived spatial concentrations have been commonly called ghettoes. The term has a historical association with distinctly separate Jewish neighbourhoods. The ghettoes were closed off from the remainder of the city during the night. It was a means of forced physical, cultural and economic separation. The term is popular in Chicago’s School of Sociology urban ecology model. Neighbourhoods in the city are identified as natural arrival points for migrants. In some cases migrants became trapped in these areas. In other cases, over a period of time, migrants begin to disperse and assimilate into more cosmopolitan neighbourhoods in the wider city. What later emerged was that many of the ghettoes and slums identified by the urban ecology model were ‘racially institutionalised spatial discrimination’. This took the form of housing policy and ‘red lining’. The latter was first used in the United States to deny services in certain neighbourhoods to people of particular cultures. A red line was drawn around some parts of the cities where there was institutionalised dis-investment. It denied certain cultural groups of mobility from one neighbourhood to another. This form of social engineering was common in the UK too. Cultural mobility was also constrained through controls in property deeds such as White-only clauses and restrictions of Jews and people of colour in many US cities.

More recently, since the 1980s with the rise of new liberal capitalism and increased globalisation, the privatisation of large tracts of land for urban regeneration has led to a new form of spatial inequality. Urban developers have built housing for the new wealthy and mobile creative classes. Concentrated pockets in city centres, are located along revived canal sides and in new suburbs on the edge of cities. Many of these new housing developments are protected by gates and CCTV cameras. They enclose themselves in ‘enclaves for the rich’. In her book Ground Control, Anna Minton, describes these prison-like outposts of the rich. They are obsessed with security. She argues that the obsession with eliminating chance through heavy surveillance helps create insidious fear. She notes that the fear of crime rising is in direct correlation with a fall in the crime rate.

At the same time, the enclaves of the poor are being issued with antisocial behaviour orders. In these neighbourhoods poverty is criminalised. They become a social problem; a pervasive threat to the moral order and the social cohesion of cities. The assumption is that deprived neighbourhoods lack the necessary ingredients which foster social cohesion. However, there is evidence to the contrary.

In the report on ‘Our Shared Future’ by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, several factors that influence social cohesion in neighbourhoods were identified. Deprivation remains a key influencer. The fact that some areas with high deprivation also have high cohesion shows that local action can build resilience to its effects. Other influencers include crime and anti-social behaviour, discrimination, diversity, immigration and the unfair allocation of resources. The international connections in places also add complexity. Overall, the report found a ‘pattern’ or ‘process’ as neighbourhoods become increasingly diverse; initially there are tensions, then adaptation, increasing acceptance and finally positive espousal of diversity. Based on these complex influencers and patterns, the report introduces integration and cohesion as two interlinked processes; ‘cohesion is principally the process that must happen in all communities to ensure different groups of people get on well together; and integration is principally the process that ensures new residents and existing residents adapt to one another’. In their new definition of a cohesive community they state:

• There is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities
• The diversity of people’s backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued
• Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities
• Strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools, and within neighbourhoods

Many of these characteristics of a cohesive community can be fostered at the scale of the neighbourhood and the public spaces that bring people together in cosmopolitan cities. The fundamental factor that remains is to tackle social, economic and spatial inequalities. With segregating practices, whether self-selected or forced, cosmopolitan cities will find their energies focused on tackling increased crime and rioting, rather than fostering inter-cultural relationships that can build local economies and provide jobs. In the book ‘Bridging Cultures: a guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’, ways of focusing on defining a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities is discussed through a series of case studies. Although spatial inequality is a structural issue, the book argues that enhancing social relations across different cultures opens up more economic opportunities and life chances for those groups primarily focused on bonding capital.

Noha is author of the book ‘Bridging Cultures: the guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’ available on Amazon at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bridging-Cultures-Social-Innovation-Cosmopolitan/dp/1517157188

 

I have just published a short video on youtube about ‘Bridging Cultures’ to give a flavour of the aims of the book. The commitment is to bring people together in different types of public spaces, to have fun in the process, and to dispel myths we have about others so we can build trust and neighbourliness.

The relationship between people from different cultures trusting each other and co-operating has a positive health impact. Strong networks, good levels of support and positive relationships help integrate individuals and communities. They are important factors for good health and well-being. The benefits of increased bridging social capital include increased confidence and self-esteem. A sense of connectedness and belonging, and the ability to bring about change in a person’s own life or in the community, all contribute.

In a study by the Young Foundation, they found that neighbourliness is a crucial factor in creating a shared sense of belonging. The study defines neighbourliness as ‘the observable social interaction and exchange of help and goods’. In neighbourhoods where there is a high concentration of one cultural group, the study warns neighbourliness can lead to segregation. The study offers four factors to encourage neighbourliness. The first factor is that neighbourliness improves well-being and happiness when there is a shared sense of belonging in the community. The second is that neighbourliness facilitates mutual aid and support between people through daily social interactions. Interactions help build a comfortable atmosphere of substantial relationships and emotional support. The third factor is informal social control and cutting crime. More neighbours knowing each other and looking out for each other creates an atmosphere of safety. And lastly, the fourth factor is improving life chances. Children growing up in neighbourhoods with high levels of trust and strong local networks can significantly help with career progression and employment. Having the right kind of contacts for various purposes that provides access to new information and resources, enhances people’s ability to solve their problems. In relation to health issues, bridging capital has been proven to facilitate faster and wider diffusion of information. In turn this promotes healthier behaviours and controls unhealthy behaviours.

There are many benefits to health and well-being that bridging social capital provides in diverse neighbourhoods. The challenge remains in building bridges between cultures. In research by the UK Home Office, it is not surprising that more ethnically diverse areas have lower levels of trust. Similarly, the Commission for Racial Equality found that people are happier with people like themselves. In a World Bank study on the different relationship between bonding and bridging social capital on individual life satisfaction they found that those with more balanced attitudes towards family and friends and towards work and leisure are happier. What remains a determining factor in the levels of well-being and life satisfaction, as well as the degree of bridging capital in areas that are culturally diverse, is deprivation. This factor has a significant impact on how places are perceived and in turn how insiders perceive their place. However, not all deprived neighbourhoods are segregated. In the report on ‘Our Shared Future’ by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, it was claimed that some areas with high deprivation also have high cohesion. This shows that local action can build resilience to its effects.

Emerging evidence suggests that bridging social capital is more economically competitive than bonding social capital because of the breadth and range of social networks. What this piece has argued is that happiness, health and well-being is determined by the strength and quality of these social networks. By bridging cultures to build trust, cooperation, and reciprocity, we are also building a healthy, happy neighbourhoods.

 

Noha is author of the book ‘Bridging Cultures: the guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’ available on Amazon at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bridging-Cultures-Social-Innovation-Cosmopolitan/dp/1517157188

On Friday 13^th November, 2015 six public spaces across Paris were the site of a series of co-ordinated attacks resulting in the loss of 128 innocent lives and 180 people injured. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attacks. These events of anger and violence are still taking place despite the high levels of security, surveillance and border controls in European nations. It is becoming clear that these are not external attacks. They are a symptom of deep dissatisfaction with the way European societies are failing to accept other cultures within their own borders. Inflamed by European foreign policy that is still deeply entrenched in a neo-imperialist narrative of superiority, land, resources, and power, these attacks are a response to injustice, inequality, and deep prejudices in European cosmopolitan cities.

There is already a great deal of evidence on the unequal spatial and economic distribution of cultural groups in so-called ‘ghettoes’ and ‘ethnic enclaves’ in the European city. In Paris alone, the outer suburbs, banlieue, and the two Chinatowns in Quartier Chinois in the 13^th arrondissment, and the other in Belleville, are just some examples of ‘ethnic enclaves’. In October and November 2005 the banlieue were the site of riots driven by high youth unemployment and police harassment. It is in these segregated spaces where discontent breeds.

In my book ‘Bridging Cultures: the guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’ I discuss the impact of these inequalities and prejudices on the low levels of trust, good will, reciprocity, fellowship and sympathy that binds a society together. I highlight the importance of public spaces as an arena for building these values and bridging between cultures. The public spaces used for the Paris attacks cannot be inclusive spaces, otherwise they would not have been targeted. The Stade de France, four restaurants, a bar, and the Bataclan concert hall are located in areas of affluence, reinforce perceptions of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and/or cost money to be there. They are the types of public spaces that some cultures don’t feel they can engage.

There is no single definition of inclusive public space, however, commentators define four dimensions of accessibility:

• Physical access allows people to be physically present with no barriers to getting in to the space and moving in and through it regardless of age and ability
• Social access (or ‘symbolic access’) involves the presence of cues, in the form of people, design and management elements, suggesting who is and who is not welcome in the space
• ‘Visual access’ or ‘visibility’ of public spaces use symbols, or landmarks, within these spaces and provide a feeling of safety and comfort, as well as belonging
• Access to activities where public space provides a diverse and multifunctional range of activities that meets the needs of diverse cultures, genders, abilities and ages

More accessible public spaces promote sociability and the ‘circumstances’ for social encounters that bridge between cultures. The well-established Project for Public Spaces (PPS) describes good places as places that offer people many different reasons to go there. They are places where we want to ‘hangout’ for some time because the place offers us a variety of activities, experiences, and comfort. These places are clearly identifiable from a distance, easy to enter when you get closer, and simple to use. Taking this idea of ‘hangouts’ one step further, Ray Oldenburg, in his seminal book The Great Good Place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of the community, defines the core qualities of those ‘hangouts’. He calls them ‘third spaces’, or public spaces that host the regular, voluntary, informal and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work. He describes their qualities as:

• Being ‘neutral ground’, where individuals can come and go as they please
• Being highly inclusive, accessible and without formal criteria of membership
• Their ‘taken-for-granted-ness’ and low profile
• Being open during and outside office hours
• Being characterised by a ‘playful mood’
• Providing psychological comfort and support
• With conversation their ‘cardinal and sustaining’ activity, providing ‘political fora of great importance’

 

These are the types of spaces where people can enjoy the social vibrancy of urban life and seeing other people. They can also be places of retreat and relief from dense urban districts and structured everyday life. Places of retreat, such as parks, a cemetery, or footpaths that are close to water, provide opportunities for reflection. Markets and neighbourhood spaces provide the spaces for meeting friends and support networks. Both types of third places support well-being and have therapeutic functions.

But public spaces are more than just containers of human activity. They are also collective expressions of a city, as well as depositories of personal memories. Recollections of using a space when growing up, for example, could promote a sense of belonging, or prompt fond family memories. As places where important historical events tend to unfold, public spaces are imbued with important, collective meanings – both official and unofficial. People need a variety of public open spaces within a local area to meet a range of everyday needs: spaces to linger as well as spaces of transit; spaces that bring people together as well as spaces of retreat; green spaces as well as hard spaces such as streets or markets.

To what extent does Paris, and other European cosmopolitan cities, provide the number and range of public spaces that truly encourage social mixing and better cross-cultural understanding? And you may ask why is social mixing necessary? The case for social mixing is set out in Landry and Wood’s The Intercultural City. They mention a number of benefits for social mixing:

• Social mixing nurtures a spirit of emulation, motivates those less affluent, and provides greater opportunity for people to exercise choice to climb the social and economic ladder
• Livng in close proximity with those of different social and economic backgrounds stimulates a more competitive aesthetic standard
• Socially mixed residential neigbourhoods promote intellectual and cultural cross-fertilisation leading to greater tolerance
• Mixing promotes social harmony by reducing social and racial tensions as a result of greater communication through interaction and raising levels of trust and greater understanding
• Mixing promotes social conflict considered important to individual psychological growth where disharmony can be reconciled
• Mixed residential areas improve the physical functioning of the city because different income groups support civic infrastructure
• A high degree of diverse facilities and housing types in a neighbourhood supports social stability

In my view, what European cosmopolitan cities can learn from the Paris attacks, is to tackle the social, economic and spatial inequalities in the city, starting with bridging cultures and raising intercultural awareness. One of the basic rationales is that prejudice may be reduced as one learns more about different cultures. Placing people into contexts where they become more empathetic to members of other cultural groups is one method that has shown considerable success in reversing prejudice. By imagining themselves in the same situation, people are able to think about how they would react and gain a greater understanding of other people’s actions.

Several commentators have suggested that it is the horizontal relationship between citizens, residents and local people with each other at the scale of the neighbourhood which creates a wider sense of common interest. People need to share things in common in order to live together. Several factors, in particular, are critical:

• Trust: people must trust one another to comply with the rules
• Solidarity: people must still recognise the value of contributing to the common good even when they don’t directly benefit as a result
• Empowerment: People feel they have a voice which is listened to and are involved in processes that affect them. They have the power to take actions and initiate change themselves
• Participation: people take part in social and community activities
• Associational activity and Common purpose: people co-operate with each other through the formation of formal and informal groups to further their interests
• Supporting networks and reciprocity: People and organisations co-operate to support one another for either mutual or one-sided gain. An expectation that help would be given to or received from others when needed
• Collective norms and values: people share common norms and values. They tolerate and respect other people’s norms and values.
• Safety: people feel safe in their neighbourhood and are not restricted in their use of public space by fear
• Belonging: people feel connected to their neighbours and place

We know that public spaces are vitally important for nurturing tolerance because they are where people often encounter one another. These values, such as trust and solidarity, are often built partly through familiarity. The gradual breaking down of the barriers of ‘otherness’, and the recognition of shared interests and a common humanity between strangers builds familiarity over time. For the same reason, the places where people interact with the state plays an essential part in building people’s trust in the state. When it comes to diversity and change, particularly in communities which are experiencing tensions and rapid rates of mobility, trust becomes an essential element for building relationships. I would assert that in Paris, as in other European cosmopolitan cities, too much attention has been focused on defining who belongs and who doesn’t, rather than finding creative ways to build a tolerant and cohesive society.

 

Noha is author of ‘Bridging Cultures: A guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’.

Bridging Cultures is available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bridging-Cultures-Social-Innovation-Cosmopolitan/dp/1517157188