LOST SPACE IN URBAN CORE AREAS OF KUALA LUMPUR IN RELATIONS TO PHYSICAL URBAN ENVIRONMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v16i7.508Keywords:
lost space, environmental settings, local perceptions, vitalityAbstract
The process of urban development today treats buildings as isolated objects, not as part of the larger fabric of streets, squares, parks and viable open space, and without an understanding of human behaviour. What emerges in most environmental settings is unshaped antispace. The essence of this research seeks to establish a better understanding towards the local perception of lost space in the urban core areas of Kuala Lumpur and identify the appropriate tools to improve the usability of the space. The research has been designed with the aim of seeking effective ways of designing a space in the urban core to minimize the undermanaged space. For this reason, the research focuses on the definitions and characteristics of lost space before the process of designing the space. A qualitative analysis is made on selected parameters in the theory of lost space by Trancik (1986); activities, accessibility, connectivity, maintenance and design aspect. Through a qualitative approach, the result indicates that there were various new perceptions of descriptive lost space includes economic and social activity, connectivity, and accessibility as these are an important strategy for maintaining the vitality and robustness of urban space. It is proposed in this paper that more attention should be given to urban areas to continue to give cities’ life and vitality, and the most significant result is to achieve holistic sustainable planning andmanagement of urban space.
Downloads
References
Azhar, J., & Gjerde, M. (2016). Re-thinking the role of urban in-between spaces. In J. Zuo, L. Daniel, & V. Soebarto (Eds.), Fifty years later: Revisiting the role of architectural science in design and practice: 50th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2016 (pp. 279–288). Adelaide: The Architectural Science Association and the University of Adelaide.
Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary public space: Critique and classification, Part one: Critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 123-148.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Public places - urban spaces: The dimension of urban design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Franck, K., & Stevens, Q. (2006). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. London: Routledge.
Hajer, M., & Reijnorp, A. (2001). In search of new public domain. Rotterdam: NAi. Krier, R., Ibelings, H., Meuser, P., & Bodenschatz, H. (2006). Town spaces: Contemporary interpretations in traditional urbanism: Krier-Kohl-Architects. Basel: Birkhauser.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1996). Cracks in the city: Addressing the constraints and potentials of urban design. Journal ofs Urban Design, 1(1), 91-103.
Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93-116.
Sommer, R. (1974). Tight spaces: Hard architecture and how to humanize it. Old Tappan: Prentice-Hall.
Tibbalds, F. (2001). Making people-friendly towns: improving the public environment in towns and cities. London: Spoon Press.
Trancik, R. (1986). Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright & Creative Commons Licence
eISSN: 0128-0945 © Year. The Authors. Published for Malaysia Institute of Planners. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
The authors hold the copyright without restrictions and also retain publishing rights without restrictions.
