George Square Park

The main goal of the redeveloped design is to create a democratic public space that will attract people to the site. As it stands, the square is just another typical square with a typical layout. I opted to break the old stereotype and focus on the things that would be good for people. Instead of a monument to the past, they will get a progressive monument of now and for the future. Instead of a barren and outmoded square, an ambitious template for public space will be birthed in its place.

The main aspects of the design are the following: enhanced walkability, integrated green spaces, increased activities, and a proper platform for exposition.

Walkability

          The issue I found with the current square design is the fact that there was too much open space, to the point where the experience felt mundane and dull. My proposed walkways still maintain direct pathways to the main nodes of the site, albeit with a lot less concrete and more greeneries. This aims to uplift the experience of walking around or through the site.

Greeneries

          Another issue I found with the current design is its severe lack of greeneries. As stated in the brief, the greeneries were the latest addition to the design. This confused me a bit because there was more space (in my opinion) to place greeneries on. The sheer lack of green spaces, to begin with, was astounding but combining it with the fact that the small patches of greeneries were newly placed is confounding. The space needed more than small patches of green spaces. On top of that, the green spaces needed to be integrated into the program of the square. The square would still have wide-open spaces, but now, those wide-open spaces are paired with greeneries that will make the space breathe.

Activity & Exposition

          While it is interesting that the space can be used for mass gatherings, there was still the issue of monuments all around the site. Don’t get me wrong, I value the importance of the monuments in the setting, but I would like to highlight the people first and the monuments second. In my proposal, I included several ponds and water features around the site. My idea is that the monuments around the site can be relocated to these areas, thereby creating an aura of reverence around them whilst still integrating them into the new square’s program.

          With the statues out of the way, I began appropriating the square’s program into a planning theory that I have: introverted/extroverted/ambivert space programming. Creating a space that is truly democratic demands that the user’s personalities be considered as well, hence, the theory. In my research, I’ve found that the area is in desperate need of contextualized public space and would be a suitable testing ground for this idea.

          I split the areas to highlight introverts/extroverts/ambiverts which partitioned the site into three. The introvert personification is the one filled with rich vegetation and sunken areas, the extrovert personification is the large open fields with the regulation futsal field and sparse vegetation, and finally, the ambivert personification is the Iris (the piece de resistance).

          The main feature of the introvert zone is the sunken areas. As we all know, it’s difficult to partition space in a wide-open square, these sunken areas are the solution to that problem. These spaces were designed to be as flexible as the Iris. In these intimate spaces, exercise activities like yoga, tai chi, and the like can be conducted in a designated space that will not intrude on the activities of other people. On top of that, these spaces can also be used as a reading nook, a waiting space, or a simple relaxation space. These spaces can also be rented out (for lack of a better term) for park birthdays or special activities. The areas can also house temporary children’s playgrounds so that the children would be excited to come back to the square every so often. The space is intimate (to promote the introverted inclination of the activity), designated (so as not the be disturbed or vice versa), and rich with vegetation.

          In contrast, the extroverted zone is open, communal, and active. This vibrant open space is a compromise between the old function of squares to its new progressive ideals. It’s open but inviting and it starkly contrasts the barren concrete visual with an energized space filled with activity. There are two open fields in the area, one is a futsal field, and the other is multipurpose. The treebanks on either side are complemented by the smaller sitting fields and the ponds (with the monuments on them). The fields, when unused for play, can be used for other activities, like night markets and the like. The beauty of the space is that it can be used for a plethora of activities while still enticing people with its wide green spaces.

          The Iris is the culmination of the design. It’s the solution to the challenge of the brief (apart from the entire redeveloped design) and the focus of my proposal. The Iris is the space that allows for temporary activity. Its function can vary from week to week or month to month, perhaps even year to year. In any case, the Iris is there to attract people back to the square regularly. It can be a restaurant for a few months, then it can become a library, then a temporary museum space, and so on. I patterned this idea to the Serpentine Pavilion, but instead of having something come out of nothing, there is already a base to build upon. It’s a blank canvas in the middle of the square that can be used for essentially anything. Instead of having a wide-open space in the middle of the square that creates a heat island, why not have a structure occupy that space that will attract visitors to it. Since the main goal of any square is to have the people congregate in the middle, this structure does that specific purpose with the added benefit of it becoming anything that we wish. I believe that a truly democratic space means that people can oversee what activity gets integrated into our space, and this design is a personification of that belief. The perspectives I presented with the large architectural features atop the Iris are conceptual designs for what it can look like should a temporary architecture be added to it.

          Much like the Serpentine Pavilion, it can be an honor to design atop the Iris at George Square. It can, by extension, become a place for mini architecture manifestos and experiments which is advantageous given the foot traffic in the area.

Conclusion

          In my opinion, the current model of public space design is outdated. While some may classify my design as a park and not a square, I would like to reinforce the idea that my design isn’t a square or park. It’s both and neither at the same time. In the current age, we need the best of both spaces and combine them into a place with greeneries where people can congregate. A space that melds nature with urban living and activity with relaxation. I believe that the school of thought that espoused choosing one over the other is detrimental to good public space. In an age where everything is multifunctional and multipurpose, we should apply this philosophy to our spaces. Nature and urban living should not be separated but melded together. It is this meld, this combination, that would enrich our lives, create new and better living dynamics, and it will promote a redefinition of public space not as a sum of the parts but as pieces of a better whole.