We undertake projects for different reasons. As an architecture studio, what we stand to gain is new experiences stemming from taking on new challenges, but also partners we can work with again in the future. A look at our past partners speaks to the wide spectrum of our work: from NGOs and international organisations, to private corporations and universities, and most importantly communities all around the country. 

This blog post deals is the design of the public space of a Baan Mankong (BMK) community in late 2017. At first glance, it might look similar to some of our past projects, but that is only because the format is traditional: we used a participatory process to design the public space of an urban community. However, our partner in this endeavour was a class of 4th-year landscape architecture students from Kasetsart University in Bangkok, as part of their “Contemporary Issues in Landscape Architecture” module. In line with their course, they focused on ensuring that Physical Activity was incorporated in the project, even for spaces that are not exclusively meant for working out. This, of course, is very much in line with the work of Openspace and Tar-Saeng Studio, coupled with our efforts to promote Universal Design in Thailand. 

At the project’s inception, there are two main aspects we need to draw attention to: 

1. The selection process, for both partners and community

2. The dual concepts of Physical Activity and Universal Design

You are the company you keep: The selection process

Selecting potential partners is as exciting, as it is daunting. On the one hand, it opens us up to new possibilities, uncharted territory, and the likelihood to further our collective skills. On the other hand, working with new people or organisations is associated with a higher risk of failure, either from a clash of personalities or a clash of values. This is especially true when the work involves communities, as each and every project truly reflects on our studio. This brings to mind the proverb “you are the company you keep”: we are not only judged by our work and behaviour, but also by that of the people that we bring in contact with any given community. 

Interestingly, the opposite is also true: should we bring our partners into a community that is either not ready, or not willing, to collaborate with us, it would amount to a waste of time for all those involved; and, in this specific case, the loss of an invaluable teaching opportunity for these students. 

We were therefore proactive on both fronts. On the students side, we made sure the objectives of the project were clear: we detailed what we wished to achieve, we briefed them on the specificities of this community, and we instructed them on acceptable behaviours for the two-day workshop. We also ensured that the workshop would not only benefit the students: the outcomes should be beneficial to the community, amounting to much more than just a learning exercise. 

On the community side, we were diligent when choosing our site. We contacted our network to find a community that was already acquainted with the participation process through the Baan Mankong programme, was willing to work both with us and the students, and was willing to improve their community space both during the design process, but also in the later stages of finding funding and implementing the project. The Mahadthai community in Lat Prao 101, a recent BMK community, met all these criteria and was selected as the ground for this project so we got to work on the two sites in this community.  

Naturally, since there are countless communities across Bangkok and Thailand in a similar position, we were aware for a need for replication, should this project be successful. We were therefore mindful of the workshop serving as a pilot project for other communities in Thailand. 

A space for all: Physical Activity in a public space

Bearing in mind the need to promote Physical Activity and Universal Design into the project ensures that the space will be beneficial and useable for all residents. 

Physical Activity is not to be confused with exercise. In fact, exercise is one form of physical activity; other examples are dancing, walking, gardening, building, biking, farming, going up a flight of stairs, or simply swinging one’s legs. According to the World Health Organisation, inactivity has been linked to numerous diseases, and is the 4th leading contributing factor of global deaths. Incorporating physical activity is therefore essential, when creating sustainable, healthy communities.

Universal Design, on the other hand, is a term coined by the architect Ronald L. Mace, and evolves around 7 main principles, with accessibility for all irrespective of age and ability at its core. 

The workshop

The workshop took place on the weekend of the 21st and 22nd October 2017. We provided a short introduction of the teams, the participants, and introduced the main principles of PA and UD. Once this was done, the participants were split into two groups—one per site—consisting of students, community leaders and members, and children. The groups then walked around the community guided by children. The aim of the transect walk was to determine any tangible assets in the community—including any leftover building materials that could be used in the public spaces—and to start discussing what the community members wanted. 

Each group then relocated to the site they would be working on. Community members of all ages were then asked to write down three things they would like to see in the space they were working on, and we then assisted them in streamlining the ideas to best utilise the space. 

At the end of Day 1, the groups presented their plans for the two Sites. The presentations were followed by discussions with the community.

The feedback was used on the second day to hone the initial plans for each area. After a presentation of the revised plans, the community members were left alone with the maps and five colour stickers: 

• I want that

• I don’t want that

• I want that but it needs changes

• This should go in Site 1

• This should go in Site 2

The community had a meeting to decide what sticker to put on each proposed plan. This allowed the community to get into the details of what they wanted and where.  

The final plans

The previous steps allowed the students to have a clear direction for the two Sites. 

Site 1 was fitted with a covered market complete with dining tables, the beautification of an existing shrine and the beautification of the area by using flowers. 

Site 2 was fitted with a children’s playground, an exercise area, a garden with cooking herbs, a multi-use area with an amenable stage, and a relaxation area for social interaction.

The students are currently creating a booklet with the proposed plan, while Openspace is completing the cost estimation for this project. The community together with Openspace will proceed to look for funding to complete the project. 

Conclusions

This project highlights the importance of discussion and flexibility in all participatory projects. What is more, it emphasises the reason why this process is so lengthy. As Sigit Arifwidodo, the professor from Kasetsart University pointed out “as architects, we could have finished the design for these areas in two days in a studio. But this would be our ideas, not the community’s. And ultimately, they are the ones who will be using the space”. This sentiment is at the heart of participatory design: yes, this process is lengthier, and harder. But the end result is worth it. It allows us to materialise the wishes of a community—or end user—in a way that we could never achieve on our own. It allows us to use our skills to the benefit of others, rather than do what you already know. It also prioritises ease of use rather than appearance.