La Relación Beneficio/Costo (B/C)

The use people make of space is inherently related to the legibility of that space, and for this reason the arguments which follow may appear to overlap or at

Figure 5.5 The Internal Structure of Claremont

0

I i:

least expand upon the contents of the preceding section.

Movement within the Padbury estate is guided by a rabbit warren of footpaths which connect the roadways to the front doors of the 'inner' dwellings on the estate. Each pathway which runs perpendicular to the road is bounded (each side) by two metre close boarded fencing to the rear gardens of the dwellings (see Figure 5.6). Aside from providing virtually nil surveillance, 'muggers alleys' such as these do little to reduce fear of crime and also give the pedestrian little to remember or orientate themselves from.

Figure 5.4 provides an indication of the degree of separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic throughout the estate. Pedestrian movement flows are also separated from the primary arterial route, by way of a subway and footpaths (see Figure 5.7). All these factors make the urban space more difficult to comprehend for users on foot.

Figure 5.6 (a)

Pedestrian Access via Alleyways to Front Doors

( C )

4

Figure 5.7 Segregation of Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic

Levels of surveillance on this estate, are worsened by the architectural devices used to set front doors in recessed alcoves, with garages projecting forwards to further restrict lines of sight (see Figure 5.8). Public open space on the estate suffers a similar fate, being faced by predominantly blank walls and two metre fencing (see Figure 5.9), rendering the areas underused and misused at once. However, the local authority is currently investing substantial resources to revamp the area with new hard and soft landscaping, and improved lighting.

Turning to the Claremont estate, it is immediately evident from Figure 5.5 that the number of footpaths which are segregated from the road system is minimal compared to the Padbury estate. The predominant form of movement is via common routes which are shared by pedestrian and vehicle alike. For the user on foot,

in a car, or on a bus (public transport serves the interior of this estate), the area is legible. A stranger would quickly be able to orientate his/herself by utilising the vast lines of sight towards the town centre and across the valley which is

Figure 5.8 Recessed Front Doors and Projecting Garages

Figure 5.9 Low Surveillance over Public Open Spaces

possible from each of the roads. Figure 5.10 illustrates this point, with a view taken from the top of one of the estate roads.

The footpaths which do exist, running principally in a parallel fashion to the roads, serve the rear gardens of the dwellings on the estate. Surprisingly, they give the stranger a sense of intrusion as if you are trespassing in someone's back garden. This sensation is probably attributable to the low open fences which demarcate the small rear gardens (affording little privacy for the occupants) and the close proximity of a large number of windows which provide an impressive form of surveillance as illustrated in Figure 5.11. On the front elevations, and despite the orientation of the dwelling towards the town centre (ie. 'downhill'), natural surveillance is maintained in both directions by virtue of the front doors facing 'uphill'.

It is interesting to note how the deliberate attempts to demarcate private from public space in the Padbury estate have resulted in a network of unsuccessful and undesirable back alleys, whereas the 'open' policy in

Figure 5.10 Line of Sight to the Town Centre

E.

Figure 5.11 Effective Surveillance over Rear Access Paths

the Claremont estate appears to more have been successful in achieving surveillance, but at the expense of occupants privacy.

The examination of these two estates has illustrated the manner in which residential estate development can generate quite different consequences, dependent upon the physical structure with which it is endowed. The urban spaces which have been produced in both instances are strikingly different, and thus the use which is made of them is also contrasting.

To summarise thus far, the Padbury estate fails to integrate successfully into the surrounding area, thus effectively cutting it off from the 'outside world' and creating an island. This larger island is essentially composed of many identical atolls, effectively producing a confusing and repetitive space. Padbury is also characterised by almost complete segregation of pedestrian and vehicular flows, with limited natural surveillance over the pedestrian routes and public open spaces.

within the surrounding urban forms, enabling it to more readily host the passage of throügh traffic. The intelligibility of the area is (aside from the repetitive road format at the base of the estate), simple to comprehend, aided in no small way by the topographical benefits of the site, which has successfully utilised a major disbenefit to its advantage. Furthermore, the patterns of movement through the estate are co-ordinated such that cars, buses and people on foot can (and do) co-exist in a

largely harmonious manner, with optimum surveillance being achieved for its users.