Analysing Public Spaces in a Neighbourhood: on
the basis of Social Interaction
Tanvee Khurana
Amity School of Architecture and
Planning, Amity University
Noida, U.P., India
tanveekhurana@outlook.com
Abstract—This is an attempt to analyze the public spaces in a
neighborhood and develop a list of factors- physical, social or
psychological that affect the level of social interaction in these
places. Only by understanding the needs of different age
groups can we design public spaces that are inclusive, promote
social interaction and inculcate a sense of community.
Keywords—public place, neighborhood, inclusive design,
people and place, grey and green spaces
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of time, social interactions have played
a significant role for the survival and support to each other
in the society. From sharing personal problems to
commodities, people used to live like a close-knit
community. This might still be true in some parts of India,
but if we look at the metro cities, they seem to have lost this
essence. In the recent years, social media has become a
major part of people’s lives. From inspirations to
interactions- it all happens over online social platforms.
A huge chain of network with applications for everything
that you could possibly ask for- be it shopping to
socializing- everything is available at a click. Of course it is
convenient to have this technology that makes our jobs
easier, but its impacts are a threat to us in many ways.
Have you observed people on the streets lately?
They are just figures walking with bowed heads and eyes
glued to their personal screens. This characteristic has
become so common that now special lanes are being
designed for people who don’t want to look around but only
at their phones. A virtual world seems to have taken over the
real immediate surroundings.
This has resulted in communication gaps between people
living in the same neighborhood, specially of different age
groups. But are personal characteristics of people the only
factor that have led to this gap?
What about the physical design features of a place that are
needed for it to be a successful public place?
With the increasing population, what remains constant is the
availability of ground. Now that spaces are expanding
vertically, how do we design spaces where people from
different verticality come in one plane?
And can socializing be promoted just by providing a huge
public place?
Through the research, the sociable aspect of spaces is
studied to promote interaction in public places.
II. SOCIAL INTERACTION IN NEIGHBORHOODS
A. Neighborhood
A combination of geographical boundaries, ethnic or
cultural characteristics of the inhabitants, psychological
unity, or concentrated use of an area’s facilities (Keller
1968).
B. Social Interaction
It has been defined as ‘any event by which one party
tangibly influences the overt actions or the state of mind of
the other’ (Sorokin, 1928).
Social Interaction is any sort of communication that takes
places among people. It forms an integral character of a
neighbourhood.
C. Relating Social Interaction to Neighborhoods
Concern regarding increasing obesity rates and the
negative impact of little to no physical activity in the society
led to extensive study in the early 21st century (e.g., Frank,
Andresen, & Schmid, 2004; Handy, 2005; SaeIens, SaIIis,
BIack, & Chen, 2003) on the Iink between neighbourhoods
and physical activity. Studies on this topic span the globe
(Oyeyemi, Adegoke, SaIIis, Oyeyemi, & De Bourdeaudhuij,
2012; SaIIis, Tomten, & Bergman, 2009), and walking, as
the primary form of physical activity among adults (e.g., Lee
& Vernez-Moudon, 2004), is the subject of significant study.
Therefore, the correlation of waIking in neighbourhoods with
social interaction brings together these two areas of research.
Years ago, Jane Jacobs recognized the importance of
mixed use, street eyes, population density, short block
lengths, connected street networks, integrated presence of
cultural facilities and parks, and urban neighbourhood
preservation.
Reviewing Jacobs' early observations (1961/1992) and
data from a collection of this study on social interactions, a
list of key parameters can be concluded with research-
validated results.
III. CASE STUDY : PREET VIHAR, EAST DELHI
Introduction Preet Vihar is an upscale residential
neighbourhood in East Delhi District of Delhi. The area is
known for Shiv Mandir, the shops and educational institutes
located here. Preet Vihar includes Block A-G, Nirman Vihar,
Bharti Artists' Colony and Madhuban Enclave. But for the
purpose of this study, the A-G blocks of Preet Vihar have
been taken into the boundaries.
 Open Public Spaces: In Preet Vihar, there are various
public spaces spread throughout in the neighbourhood-parks,
community centres, public plazas, etc. In community centres,
spaces have been developed on the periphery. These spaces
are mostly underused, fenced and without clear access. The
edges have heavy informal activities and parking, making it
even harder to approach these spaces.
IV. CASE STUDY : KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, SOUTH DELHI
Introduction: The village Kotla Mubarakpur has been
classified as an Urban Village by the Delhi Development
Authority (D.D.A.). It is situated within touch of South
Extension-I. Its main road connected opposite with Defence
Colony. Nearest Delhi Metro station is South Extension, INA
metro station and Lajpat Nagar. Its history can be traced to
the prominent tomb of Muizud Din Mubarak Shah, son of
Khizr Khan of the Sayyid dynasty of the fifteenth century
Delhi Sultanate rule in India, and its adjoining mosque.
Open Public Spaces: As architects and planners, we
design public places and designate functions for them but at
times, public spaces are formed out of the resultant
activities due to functions in buildings along them.
Through data collection and on-site observations, I realised
the role played by the ‘streets’ of the neighbourhood. The
streets are their most important public place. Not only a
circulation loop, but for some people, streets are also their
source of income. Everything is happening on the streets-
from vendors selling books to old people sitting and kids
playing.
A. Survey
A survey (sample size 30 respondents) was conducted to
survey the residents of the neighbourhood.
 Part A of the questionnaire enquired the
personal background of people. In a
neighbourhood, there are people from diverse
age groups that have various cultural and
religious experiences so it is important to
include diversity.
 Part B investigated the relationship between
people and the place. It had questions about
familiarity between people, number of
interactions and activities performed in public
spaces, etc.
 Part C was intended to summarise the problems
and potentials of the public places in the
neighbourhood. This segment consisted of
questions about people’s personal views and
their suggestions on how to promote social
interaction in the public places.
B. On-field observations
On- field, I observed things that made me really
recognize the potential of public spaces. Through one-on-one
interaction with the residents, a broader understanding was
developed about their ideas and needs from a public place.
The on-field observations have been noteworthy in the
analysis of this research.
 For children
Hygiene- The community parks are dead spaces. Solid
waste is being dumped at the periphery which has led to the
poor quality of the space. Dingy environments are a threat to
children’s health. Clean well-maintained safe spaces should
be designed to enhance sociability of places.
Lighting- Children find the green spaces dull and unsafe
after dark. Efficient lighting would make these spaces
accessible even at night.
Infrastructure- Swings provided need to be maintained.
Most of the swings were not working and left abandoned on
the edges of the greens.
 For teenagers
Landscaping- It is an important factor that has the
potential to promote interaction. Providing contours, OAT,
etc. would encourage the developing hobbies in children-
like dance, music, etc.
 For senior citizens
Movement- Provision of ramps, wide entrances, etc. for
easy access to places.
Infrastructure- Shaded and enough quality sitting
spaces for senior citizens to be comfortable in the
environment which would eventually increase the amount of
time spent in the open.
Surveillance- Providing spaces such that they are under
surveillance through the surroundings. Visual connections to
all public spaces would definitely promote sociability of
public places.
Access- The access should be easily visible for people to
use them. For example, in a park, the gates should be wide
enough for easy access.
V. CONCLUSION
The factors that contribute to the sociability of a place are
as follows:
A. Social factors
a) Activities: A public place becomes active when
there are activities designated to that place. Just providing a
green patch would not ensure the engagement of people
until some activities are designed there.
b) Background: In a diverse and secular country like
India, there are multiple cultures and religions. Through the
survey, it is observed that people of different castes or
religious beliefs have varying lifestyles and concepts of
spending their time in the open. It is the responsibility of the
designer to ensure inclusion by being sensitive to the
different needs and traditions and provide ample spaces as
per their requirements.
c) Age groups- In a neighbourhood, people of
different ages have different requirements. Old and middle
aged people Like to spend most of their time in social
engagements to keep themselves occupied. Even the kids
Like spending their time out in the open- playing, swinging,
socialising, etc. However, as per survey, teenagers and
young adults are mostly by themselves and like to spend
their maximum time indoors and in the privacy of their
houses.
1 : An old lady walking in a park, Preet Vihar
2: Absence of ramps to access the sitting spaces
To encourage social interaction in the public places,
designers need to incorporate interests and requisites of
everyone. For example, if a garden is designed and benches
are the only infrastructure provided on a huge soft-scape
area (no footpaths, swings, etc.) then the only activity that
would take place would be sitting. So the only age group
that might use this domain would be the older people and in
case of rains, no one.
d) Safety- Safety is an important character of a public
place. Spaces designed should have a sense of safety to
ensure relaxation in the minds of people so that they can
have discussions without worrying about their personal
safety.
e) Maintenance- Keeping the place clean is
important in order to maintain good hygiene and promote
interaction in and around public places.
B. Physical factors
a) Planning- Public places need to be strategically
planned in a manner that they invite public. The location of
different activities should be allocated as per the patterns of
user behaviour.
b) Access- A place could be unsuccessful if the access
is restricted. If the access points don’t connect to the eyes on
the street, it decreases the potential of the space The access
points should also be friendly to age groups. In this case,
the space can’t be accessed by disabled or elderly people
through this gate.
c) Focus- The focus should be such that it attracts
people and makes the place inviting.
d) Aesthetics- An aesthetic places enhances the
chances of social interaction as it increases the number of
people that visit such places.
e) Circulation- There should be distinguished
circulations for vehicular and pedestrian movement to
provide safe and comfortable spaces.
f) Infrastructure- A public domain should not just be
an empty space or a void. They need to be planned in a
manner that makes people want to utilise them. A
combination of physical and social infrastructure is what
makes a public place usable. For example, providing
enough furniture for different activities designed for that
place- benches for sitting, landscaping to encourage
different activities, etc.
g) Landscape- Landscaping features help promote
social interaction levels by providing spaces for different
activities.
3: Central water feature
C. Psychological factors
a) Comfort: People need to feel comfortable in their
immediate environment that they socialise in- both
physically and psychologically. When people feel
comfortable, they tend to spend longer durations in such
places.
 b) Emotional response: The success of a place is also
determined by the impact it has on the emotional state of a
human. A place that makes people feel low might have a life
short-lived. The study of factors that affect the psychology of
spaces can help in designing sociable public places.
c) Climate: Public spaces are for the people, and
nobody wants to go out and interact in a hot and humid or
an extremely cold place. A micro- climate can be created to
keep the open spaces as pleasant as possible. In Indian
context, a well shaded place invites more users as compared
to a huge central hardscaped plaza with no shade.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am thankful to Amity School of Architecture and
Planning, Noida for giving me the opportunity to do this
research. I express my sincere gratitude to the Head of
Department Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh, my faculty guides-
Ar. Neha Prakash and Ar. Susan George for their supervision
and encouragement throughout.
REFERENCES
[1] DUAC (Delhi Urban Art Commission) “NEW
APPROACHES TOWARDS OPEN SPACES: Preet Vihar
Community Centre”
[2] Glanz, T., “Walkability, Social Interaction and
Neighborhood Design”, May, 2011.
[3] Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., and Peace, S., “Social
Interaction in Urban Public Spaces”, 2007.
[4] Miglani, A., Kapoor, A., Khurana, C., Gupta, M.,
Dahiya, S., “Kotla Mubarakpur at a glance”.
[5] Williams, J., “Designing Neighbourhoods for Social
Interaction: The Case of Cohousing”, Journal of Urban
Design, June 2005.