Manjari Rai

Ph.D. in Architecture and

Planning (part Time) Jan
Enrolment number :
A20183421004









Neighborhoods are often meaningful places to live in when spaces within them are lively, multi-dimensional and
provide opportunities for residents of all age group.
It is this people- centric approach in a neighborhood design which inspires residents to develop social networks
within people from various cultural, social and ethnic backgrounds.

The Urban morphology of any residential area evolves and gradually takes shape over years following all the
temporal and causal changes in the society. The spatial organization and layout of these residential spaces
is thus a strong indicator of the region and varied social structures.

The spatial arrangement is therefore one of the foremost striking element through which we recognize the presence of
the social contrasts between one social formation and another. These Socio-cultural differences are however apparent through the
typologies of residential quarters and annexed spaces of diverse orders. This is the reason why the house layouts in traditional
architecture was evolved as a response to the social framework and related user behavior. Hence any change done in the urban
form and spatial order of a residential setup may cause huge changes in our social environment as well.
‘Cultures and climate differ all over the world, but people are the same. They will gather in public if you give them a good
place to do it.’ (Gehl, 2010, cited in Matan & Newman, 2016, p.40)

Cohesion can be understood as an indicator of a well - connected , resilient and satisfied society
A socially cohesive society can be achieved only when we learn to share our lives with each other. When we start
connecting naturally, without any compulsion or hidden intentions. Policy makers and researchers have given five
parameters to measure and map cohesion, namely
1. Belongingness 2. participation 3. recognition 4. inclusion 5. legal.
A very significant observation here is the opportunity provided by such harmonious form, space and layout towards creating an
environment that gives birth to an intimate and personal human relations, contributing to this are social interactions, a sense of
community belonging, and strong social ties and bonds.
It is therefore important to map the linkage between urban morphology and human interface and its significance towards
achieving a cohesive society.
A sustainable community is one in which not only are Domains of social cohesion Descriptions
people able to live successfully, but they also have a strong Common values and civic Connected lives, visibility, permeability,
sense of belongingness towards the place. Many culture
philosophers have taken this subject and formulated ideas
and aspects to map this. They have given outputs that are Social order control Absence or reduced general conflict and
multidimensional in nature. However, aspects of cohesion threats to existing order, feeling of safety
which are directly linked to the spatial layouts Some of the and security
indicators of social cohesion are listed below Social networks High degree of social interaction within
(Source: (More, no date)(Kearns and Forrest, 2000)) communities and families; feeling of
safety and security ; civic engagement
and associational activity of celebration
and mourning ; easy resolution of
collective action problems,
Attachment and identity Feeling of belongingness , community
identity
 Domains of social Urban Form
cohesion
Open spatial - it is the network of public open spaces (spaces
Some of the Elements of Urban Form which arrangement or un for outdoor sports and recreation, everyday
directly correspond to the theme are listed built spaces- network spaces such as streets, community
down. They are captured directly from the squares and open markets)
context.

Land-use different functions and related uses of the built

environment, mix of uses

Open spatial it is the network of public open spaces (spaces

arrangement or un for outdoor sports and recreation, everyday
built spaces network spaces such as streets, community
squares and open markets)

Residential Blocks The smallest area defined by spatial network

In present times, majorly after 1990”s, borrowed western ideas and rapid urbanization gave birth to prototypical high
rise developments as part of mass housing which lack identity and therefore are unsuccessful in creating unique
spatial organization.
In this process, one has ignored the significance of human scale and the people who are the actual end users. ideas
have been replaced by modernist spaces that eventually lead to a development which had no connection with the
environment and the people around. Neighbourhoods are opportunities for people living from various cultures,
social and ethnic backgrounds to socially interact. Yet in contemporary urban neighbourhoods, such interactions
are vanishing.

Gradually, traditional residential areas having intense connection with man and surrounding and possess
strong connections have been replaced by fragmented and introvert setups.
The social structure of a community or network is disappearing as urban developments are witnessed at a larger
and larger scale.
A community which lacks social cohesiveness can generate division and isolation.
This is a time of globalization and hyper-urbanization. cities are quickly rising as drivers of
social, social and financial alter. They are guzzling the values of urbanism without a pinch of space for human
relations and intimacy. The concept of community and society in urban living is steadily vanishing. All these are
eventually leading us towards an unequal, materialistic world full of false competition among citizens, which
eventually is eroding all social ties and mutual support.
Studies of these typologies are essential subjects in present times, to induce and regulate a flow of positive life
experiences and emotions. This would eventually contribute towards a high level of mental and physical well-
being of human race. The outcome will also be valuable in the design process to safeguard the social fabric of
the community.

This study would intent to focuses on human behavior w.r.t the spaces designed for them. The behavior of a
human beings in a society is governed by space organization and vice-versa. The design ideology and spatial
matrix of residential blocks and units may differ from w.r.t place, climate and culture, still the indicators
of social cohesion remain same in a broader arena. it is therefore an important aspect to study social
relevance of the built/unbuilt form.


Objectives of the study

 To review, assess and analyse theories and research undertaken in the areas of urban social sustainability

 To assess and analyse the relationship between physical planning, layout and design and social cohesion
indicators in certain selected neighbourhood of study area.

 To assess and analyse the role of physical planning, layout and design through comparative analysis of
selected neighbourhoods of certain selected study area.

 To assess and evaluate contemporary approaches undertaken by urban planners, designers and key
stakeholders towards building socially cohesive neighbourhoods in newly formed residential societies.

Area of research would thus be to evolve a contemporary neighborhood design approach inspired by traditional
neighborhood designs to emphasize the essence of community living.
This research would focus on the concept of urban social sustainability, which addresses contemporary urban
living.
 Defining social
cohesion w.r.t urban
form

prominent reasons or understanding and To what extent do layout and design and
conceptualizing the frame
parameters of social
cohesion w.r.t. urban work of built and un built common spaces impact upon socio-cultural
form spaces in a residential
neighbourhood aspects of residents in neighbourhoods of
varied cultural and economical
backgrounds of contemporary times.
literature study questionnaire
of philosophies survey of some case studies of
and theories on selected selected areas to map
cohesion due to neighborhoods to the above statement
urban built and map the
unbuilt spaces hypothesis

Through above research , try to

comprehend that physical planning is an
opportunity to form a connect in the
society.
Is there a connect between the spatial organization of a residential area and the social behavior of its inhabitants.

Representative layouts of mohallas of Jaipur, as samples are analysed to study the social relevance of the
spatial organisation. Visual and Literature survey is carried out for identified plan forms. The social
significance of each day to day activity space and its placement in the overall organisation is studied.
These day to day activity usage pattern and circulation within the spatial organisation is studied through
Survey Questionnaire method.
 Survey Questionnaire to understand the life inside a mohalla of Walled City of Jaipur

 Section A: Demographic Data of Participant

1. Name of the Respondent:
2. Gender: Male ☐ b. Female ☐ c. Transgender ☐
3. Age group:
a. 18 - 35 ☐ b. 35 - 40 ☐ c . 40 - 45 ☐ d. 45 - 50 ☐ e. 50 -5 5 ☐ f. 55 - 60 ☐ i . 60 - 65 ☐ j. >65 ☐ e. Under 18 ☐
4. Mobile Number: _____________________________
5. Marital Status: a. Single ☐ b. Married ☐ c. divorced ☐
6. Are you still a resident of walled city of Jaipur________________?
7. Address : ___________________________________________________________
8. Size of your family in numbers (including yourself):
9. You live in a joint family ☐ nuclear family ☐ family is nuclear, but house is shared ☐
10. If your family is nuclear, but house is shared, then how many families live in the same house _________________________

11. Present Job/Occupation; Employed (Service/Government/Semi-government/private) ☐ Business person ☐ Self

Employed (thathera / manihaar / etc.) ☐ Household/ Home-makers ☐ if else, please specify ___________
12. What is the type of house you reside in at present? Haveli ☐ Independent house ☐ Mixed Use (commercial cum
residential) ☐ others ☐
 Survey Questionnaire to understand the life inside a mohalla of Walled City of Jaipur

13. Years of residence in Walled city of Jaipur:

a. 0-1 Years ☐ b. 1-5 Years ☐ c. 5-10 Years ☐ d. 10-15 Years ☐ e. 15-20 Years ☐
b. f. 20-25 Years ☐ g. 25-30 Years ☐ h. >30 Years ☐
14. Years of residence in ‘current neighborhood’
a. 0-1 Years ☐ b. 1-5 Years ☐ c. 5-10 Years ☐ d. 10-15 Years ☐ e. 15-20 Years ☐
f. 20-25 Years ☐ g. 25-30 Years ☐ h. >30 Years ☐

Section B: Social Sustainability with respect to Spaces in a Residential Block

1. On working days, how much of time (in hours) do you spend in socially interacting with your fellow residents
inside your haveli / house?
0-1 hr. ☐ 1-2 hrs. ☐ 2-3 hrs. ☐ 3-4 hrs. ☐ More than 4 hrs. ☐
2. Which is your most favourable place for such interactions. (you can tick on multiple options)
chowk ☐ tibara/osari ☐ jharokhas ☐ otla ☐ if else, please specify __________
3. On week-ends how much of time (in hours) do you spend in socially interacting with your fellow residents inside
your haveli / house? 0-1 hr. ☐ 1-2 hrs ☐ 2-3 hrs ☐ 3-4 hrs ☐ More than 4 hrs ☐
4. Which is your most favourable place for such interactions. (you can tick on multiple options)
chowk ☐ tibara/osari ☐ jharokhas ☐ otla ☐ if else, please specify __________
 Survey Questionnaire to understand the life inside a mohalla of Walled City of Jaipur

5. On working days, how much of time (in hours) do you spend in socially interacting with your fellow residents of
your community / neighborhood?
0-1 hr. ☐ 1-2 hrs. ☐ 2-3 hrs. ☐ 3-4 hrs. ☐ More than 4 hrs. ☐
6. Which is your most favourable place for such interactions. (you can tick on multiple options)
otla ☐ galli ☐ bazaar ☐ park/playground ☐ if else, please specify ___________
7. On week-ends how much of time (in hours) do you spend in socially interacting with your fellow residents of your
community / neighborhood?
0-1 hr. ☐ 1-2 hrs ☐ 2-3 hrs ☐ 3-4 hrs ☐ More than 4 hrs ☐
8. Which is your most favourable place for such interactions. (you can tick on multiple options)
otla ☐ galli ☐ bazaar ☐ park/playground ☐ if else, please specify ___________
9. How often do you use the ‘chat’ of your residence? Never ☐ Rarely ☐ Occasionally ☐ Frequently ☐ Very Frequently ☐
10. For what type of activity do you use the ‘chat’ of your residence? (you can tick on multiple options)
Drying food article ☐ House hold activities ☐ Daily chit chat with neighbours’ ☐ Flying kite etc. ☐ Of no use at all ☐ if
else, please specify ___________
11. For what type of activity do you use the ‘chowk’ (courtyard) inside residence? (you can tick on multiple options)
Drying food article ☐ House hold activities ☐ Daily chit chat with neighbours’ ☐ Flying kite etc. ☐ Of no use at all ☐ if else,
please specify ___________
 Survey Questionnaire to understand the life inside a mohalla of Walled City of Jaipur

Section B: Social Sustainability with respect to Safety and Security

13. At what time of the day are the streets of your neighborhood, quite empty or silent? (you can tick on multiple
options)

5.00 AM – 8. 00A.M ☐ 8.00 AM-12.00 AM ☐ 12.00 AM TO 3.00 PM ☐ 3.00 PM TO 6.00 PM ☐ 6.00 PM TO 10.00 PM
if else, please specify ___________

14. How many residences in your neighborhood has cctv surveillance system installed for safety and security?
All ☐ quite few ☐ very rare ☐ none ☐

15. How ‘secure’ you feel within your community neighborhood?

Not secured at all ☐ Secured ☐ neutral ☐ not concerned ☐ if else, please specify ___________
 Survey Questionnaire to understand the life inside a mohalla of Walled City of Jaipur

Section C: Social Sustainability with respect to Active Community Life / Shared Spaces

16. When do you and your family ‘meet and interact’ with your neighbour(s)?
During festivals ☐ weekends / holidays ☐ almost daily ☐ very Frequently ☐

17. Where do you generally meet with your neighbours’’? (you can tick on multiple options)
Common indoor spaces / otla ☐ galli ☐ chowk / bazaar ☐ Chaugan stadium ☐ any other common spaces

18. What is the level of ‘social interaction’ in your community neighborhood?

Poor ☐ Satisfactory ☐ Neutral ☐ Very Good ☐ Excellent ☐

19. Where do you celebrate your festivals like Gangaur, Bansoda, Teej, Sankranti, else? (you can tick on multiple
options)
Indoors with family ☐ courtyard of the house with immediate neighbours’ ☐
collectively with mohalla in common outdoor space ☐ if else, please specify ___________

Aelbrecht, P., Stevens, Q. and Nisha, B. (2011) ‘From Mixing with Strangers to Collective Placemaking : Existing
Theories , Policies and Practices around Social Cohesion in Public Space Design’, (April 2021), pp. 1–33.
Can, I. and Heath, T. (2016) ‘In-between spaces and social interaction: a morphological analysis of Izmir using
space syntax’, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(1), pp. 31–49. doi: 10.1007/s10901-015-9442-9.
Creutzig, F. et al. (2016) ‘Urban infrastructure choices structure climate solutions’, Nature Climate Change,
6(12), pp. 1054–1056. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3169.
Dehghanmongabadi, A. (2014) ‘Introduction to Achieve Sustainable Neighborhoods’, International Journal of
Arts and Commerce, 3(1929-7106Dehghanmongabadi, A. (2014). Introduction to Achieve Sustainable
Neighborhoods. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 3(1929–7106), 16–26.), pp. 16–26.
Delhey, J. et al. (2018) ‘Social cohesion and its correlates: A comparison of western and asian societies’,
Comparative Sociology, 17(3–4), pp. 426–455. doi: 10.1163/15691330-12341468.
Fallis, A. . (2013) ‘The art of place and the science of space’, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling,
53(9), pp. 1689–1699.
Funo, S., Yamamoto, N. and Pant, M. (2002) ‘Space Formation of Jaipur City , Rajastan , India An Analysis on City
Maps ( 1925-28 ) made by Survey of India so called grid iron city . Jaipur City , designed by Jai Singh II is
thought to have been constructed according to’, (March), pp. 261–269.
Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for People.Washington D.C. Island Press.
Hemani, S., Das, A. K. and Chowdhury, A. (2017) ‘Influence of urban forms on social sustainability: A case of
Guwahati, Assam’, Urban Design International, 22(2), pp. 168–194. doi: 10.1057/s41289-016-0012-x.

Jawaid, M. F., Pipralia, S. and Kumar, A. (2016) ‘Exploring the Imageability of Urban Form in Walled City Jaipur’,
(May). doi: 10.5176/2301-394x_ace16.43.
Jenson, J. (1998) Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research, Canadian Policy Research Networks
Inc. Available at: http://cprn.org/documents/15723_en.pdf.
Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (2000) ‘Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance’, Urban Studies, 37(5–6), pp.
995–1017. doi: 10.1080/00420980050011208.
Lambe, N. and Dongre, A. (2016) ‘Analysing social relevance of spatial organisation: A case study of traditional
Pol houses, Ahmedabad, India’, Asian Social Science, 12(9), pp. 35–43. doi: 10.5539/ass.v12n9p35.
León, J. and March, A. (2016) ‘An urban form response to disaster vulnerability: Improving tsunami evacuation
in Iquique, Chile’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(5), pp. 826–847. doi:
10.1177/0265813515597229.
Liu, Yuqi et al. (2017) ‘Changing neighbourhood cohesion under the impact of urban redevelopment: a case
study of Guangzhou, China’, Urban Geography, 38(2), pp. 266–290. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1152842.
Low, S. M. (1996) ‘THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF CITIES: Imagining and theorizing the city’, Annual Review of
Anthropology, 25(1), pp. 383–409. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.383.
More, B. (no date) ‘Urban planning , neighbourhoods and social cohesiveness : A socio-cultural study of
expatriate residents in Dubai’.
Singh, R. (2016) ‘Factors Affecting Walkability of Neighborhoods’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
216(October 2015), pp. 643–654. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.048.