What the Design of Public Space Teaches Us About a Society
Public space is both the backbone and the soul of our cities. It is where you can find sports facilities, open fields, nature preserves, barbecue pits and everything in between. Public space is commonly described as the outdoor living room of a city; something that enables the transformation of a group of neighbours into a community. Given this importance, examining public space design can be a very useful way to reveal the value systems that underpin city building in different societies.
To illustrate this point, this article will compare public space design in Canada and Botswana. As a Canadian urbanist who has researched urbanism in Botswana extensively, this pairing seemed natural. They also have very different cultural contexts which, when compared, reveal the impact that value systems have on urban planning in an obvious way. Both the physical elements of public spaces as well as their impacts on community development will be examined. We will then be able to see the huge effects that different designs can have on the functioning of social networks and community building in neighbourhoods.
In this article we will focus on what could be considered 'gathering' type public spaces (parks, etc.), rather than 'movement' type public spaces (roads, etc.).
The examples that will be explored are from the Greater Toronto area (Canada) and the Greater Gaborone region (Botswana). As a brief background, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, with a regional population of about 7 million people. Toronto as we know it today was established as a colonial outpost of the British in the late 1700s as the new administrative capital of Upper Canada. At present, it is a typical North American city in terms of layout and arrangements. The central business district is hyper-dense, with a relatively small, mid-density urban core surrounding it, and vast swaths of low-density suburban sprawl radiating further out.
Gaborone, with a regional population of roughly 430,000, is a typical British-African colonial city which was originally master planned from scratch as the new capital of the country during the push towards independence in 1966. There were villages that existed in the area already that could have acted as starting points for the new capital, but the government officials and urban planning experts of the day decided that the best choice would be to plan a new city that followed a euro-modernist doctrine. This translates into the layout that we see today, where a cohesive modernist city is at the centre of the urban region. The city centre is surrounded by villages with traditional roots that themselves are now going through modernization processes.
Design Differences
Let's start by looking at a typical piece of public space in a typical grid neighbourhood in Toronto:
Fairbank Memorial Park. Source: Google Earth
Fairbank Memorial Park is a typical park in terms of how it fits into the street and lot pattern of the city. Access to the park is provided through its frontage onto the streets that frame it. The park is a discrete plot within the overall pattern, fitting in seamlessly amongst the houses, apartments and schools. There are clear borders and entrances, visually and physically distinguishing the park from its surroundings.
Fairbank Park Entrance. Source: Google Streetview, Author
In the post colonial parts of Gaborone, the design of most public space is much the same. The highlighted (unnamed) public space is in the Block 8 neighbourhood of the city, established in the late 1990s.
Gaborone Public Space. Source: Google Earth, Author
However, when we take a look at public spaces that were created in pre-colonial Tswana villages, we can see a different method for providing public space within a neighbourhood. The below image shows a traditional style development pattern in the village of Gabane, which is approximately 10km from the city centre of Gaborone.
Village Public Space. Source: Google Earth
At first glance, it appears that the layout of the village is haphazard, with homes being located at random and streets snaking through the neighbourhoods to connect them. However, there was indeed a design logic that dictated the layout and development patterns of the traditional Tswana villages. This design logic started at the homestead scale and spanned all the way to villages and regions (Larsson, 1984). Before we discuss the urban design of the traditional villages, we need to understand the atomic components that were found in each village.
Tswana village components. Source: Author
The homestead was a relatively large plot, with an average size of 1200m2. Most of the space was taken up by the yard which would be used for agriculture, domestic activities, or as a kraal for animal husbandry. Rather than having one large dwelling in the homestead, multiple small huts were favoured. The huts were constructed with mud and cow dung walls and thatched roofs held up by timber columns and beams. Each hut would either serve a unique function for the family, such as storage or sleeping quarters, or be dedicated as a space for an individual family member.
The most important feature of the homestead was the lolwapa. This was essentially a courtyard that connected the huts together. At its core, it was a multi-purpose space where the majority of people's time was spent. Most domestic activities took place here; cooking, cleaning, eating, receiving guests etc. The lolwapa was seen as a very important part of the household and was always kept clean and orderly. One's standing and respect within the tribe was partially dependent on the care and maintenance of the lolwapa.
Lolwapa. Source: Author
The patlelo was a large public space at the centre of each neighbourhood. Most homesteads would front onto the patlelo, creating a direct relationship between the private and public spaces. This public space was used constantly for a wide variety of uses. On a day-to-day basis, it was used as a regular public space, where children would run around and play, and adults could chit chat with their neighbours. On a regular basis this space was also used to host any and all major events, such as weddings, funerals, or spiritual gatherings.
Patlelo. Source: Author
The kgotla was seen as the town square, meeting hall, seat of government and public forum all at the same time. This was the beating heart of Tswana horseshoe neighbourhoods (called a horseshoe due to its shape) and villages, and is perhaps the most unique feature of traditional Tswana societies. A sense of peace and harmony amongst the community was seen as the ultimate goal in society.
Tswana peoples' adhered to what we now know as an Ubuntu philosophy of being (the words kagiso (societal harmony) and botho (individual strength of character) are the Setswana translations). This meant that the ultimate aspiration of one's life was the advancement of the community and the maintenance of societal harmony (Gulbrandsen, 2012), (Gulbrandsen, 2007).
As such, meetings were held at the kgotla frequently (up to multiple times per week) to discuss all sorts of matters of interest to the community. It was very common for neighbours to bring issues to the kgotla to be discussed by the community and ultimately resolved by the chief. The important takeaway of this with respect to urban design is that the underlying philosophy of Tswana society heavily emphasized the importance of community and societal harmony. Decisions at the individual, neighbourhood and societal levels were all taken with these concepts at the forefront of the mind.
Kgotla. Source: Author
It is clear that public space was a very important element in Tswana villages. Each horseshoe neighbourhood had its own patlelo and kgotla for every 10 - 20 households (Mosha, 2020). Not only was there a significant amount of public space, but the design of the space itself was organized to maximize community development.
One way that this is clear is the location of the public space within the context of the horseshoe. The patlelo and kgotla are the origin points of a neighbourhood, with all other built features being oriented around them. Homes front onto the patlelo and roads snake through villages from one patlelo to the next. Because roads in traditional villages are made of earth, there is no distinction as to where the road ends and the public space begins. Roads leading into a horseshoe therefore deposit the traveller into the patlelo with no distinction as to where the road ends and the patlelo begins. The simple act of moving around the neighbourhood brings people into a gathering space. By being located at the centre of the horseshoes and by having a kgotla at their centres, dipatlelo (in Setswana, words are pluralized by adding di- in front of the word) truly acted as centres of gravity within the villages.
The gathering effect of the patlelo is then bolstered further by the relationship between the surrounding homesteads and the patlelo itself. As highlighted above, homesteads had a lolwapa located at the front of each property. Since the lolwapa acted as the living room of a homestead, residents of that homestead would spend significant amounts of time in that space. By being outdoors and directly adjacent to the public space, even while attending to their private lives, members of the neighbourhood were constantly visible to each other. This made interactions amongst community members simple and frequent—by simply going out for a walk in the patlelo you could encounter many neighbours in their dilolwapa and strike up conversation.
Village Frontage Locations. Source: Author
We can see that in Tswana societies the design of homesteads, neighbourhoods and villages were all integrated together in a structured manner. The above diagram is a zoom in of Gabane and it shows that even in the modern day, the majority of homesteads located in traditionally laid out villages maintain their traditional design elements. Most homesteads have dilolwapa and most of them have their frontage directly facing into the dipatlelo.
A shared philosophy of being set the foundation for how the Tswana believed space should be designed. Public and private space were/are made to work together to encourage interactions amongst neighbours and to form tight community bonds.
Returning to Toronto, the approach to public space design is clearly different. The primary function of the park is that of organized recreation. It hosts a baseball diamond, basketball court, playground, swimming pool and open field. A large community centre accompanies these outdoor spaces, providing a host of indoor recreational and sporting uses. The space works very well as a host for these recreational activities, acting as a recreational hub for the neighbourhood.
Fairbank Park Elements. Source: Google Earth, Author
As for the urban design, parks are not located in neighbourhood centres at all, but rather are snugly fit into the predetermined lot pattern. Instead of being seen as the essential space that knits a neighbourhood together, parks are given the same priority as any other 'amenity' that is deemed worthy of taking up valuable real estate. Even the homes that are directly adjacent to parks don't face them for the most part.
Fairbank Park Frontage Locations. Source: Author
I do admit that I could have chosen an example where more homes are pointing in the direction of a park, but there are virtually no examples where there isn't a street between the homes and the park anyway. While streets themselves are, of course, public space, they are not intended to act as gathering places. Any interactions that occur between neighbours happen by accident rather than by design.
Streets become even worse at fostering interactions when you consider that most neighbourhoods built from the 1970s until now have been designed so that homes themselves turn inward, rather than pointing to the street. By placing a garage at the front of the house and minimizing the usability of any front yard space, there is almost no relationship between the private space of the home and the street. Some modern neighbourhood development has finally sought to improve this public-private space relationship, but much is left to be desired.
Vibrant Streetscape. Source: Google Streetview
The Point of Public Space
Urban planning discourse in Canada generally points to public space being this aspirational thing that is intended to stitch communities together. Certainly it can serve this purpose, at least in part. There is no denying that having parks is important for community development, regardless of their design, but the way that parks are considered within overall neighbourhoods shows that this concept of community development is a secondary priority.
Gatherings in Canadian parks happen almost exclusively through intentional actions - inviting friends to hang out, organized sports leagues, etc. Contrast that with gatherings in dipatlelo; they do occur through scheduled events such as kgotla meetings, but serendipitous encounters will occur on a daily basis. A true sense of community is difficult to achieve when you constantly have to go out of your way to be with your fellow neighbours.
Ultimately, this all points to the underlying philosophy of city building in these two locations. In Botswana, the foundational goal of villages was the advancement of social harmony through community formation and so designed their spaces accordingly. In Canada, the purpose of cities is centred far more around efficiency - economic, spatial and otherwise. It is simply easier and more efficient to build a park that fits neatly into a master planned grid than it is to carefully organize tight knit communities around public spaces.
Closing Thoughts
A lot of urban planning in Canada feels like it is done through the checking of boxes. We set targets for a platonic ideal of how much open space should be provided based on how many people live in a given area, then pat ourselves on the back when we achieve our numerical target. Many parks look perfectly nice unto themselves, but there is a serious lack of consideration for how their spatial relationships affect the success of our urban spaces.
The way that the Tswana conceive of space and how different types of space interact offers us many lessons. By making the patlelo the focal point of each horseshoe, people were naturally drawn to them. By encouraging the lolwapa to front onto the patlelo, neighbours that were simply going about their daily rituals would run into each other and have the chance to form bonds.
Parks don't have to fit into a neighbourhood lotting pattern like modular pieces. They can, and should, act as centres of gravity that encourage people to get out and see each other.
Sources
Gulbrandsen, Ø. (2007). Town-State Formations on the Edge of the Kalahari: Social-Cultura Dynamics of Centralization in Northern Tswana Kingdoms. Social Analysis, 51(3). https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2007.510303
Gulbrandsen, Ø. (2012). The State and the Social: State Formation in Botswana and its Precolonial and Colonial Genealogies. Berghahn Books.
Larsson, A. (1984). Traditional Tswana housing: A study in four villages in eastern Botswana. Swedish Council for Building Research.
Mosha, A. C. (2020). A Reappraisal of Spatial Planning in Botswana. In R. Thakur, A. Dutt, S. Thakur, & G. Pomeroy (Eds.), Urban and Regional Planning and Development. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31776-8