Theories of Architecture and Urbanism

1. ARC61303 Theories of Architecture and Urbanism
Project Part II: Comparative Analysis Essay
OOI WEN YEAW
TUTOR: MR PRINCE FAVIS ISIP

2. INTRODUCTION
For centuries, international commercial relations via trading were conducted in SoutheastAsia. Together
with the urban planning strategies of the colonial powers that imposed dominance over these areas,
numerous towns were established and developed. Among these urban areas are Manila, Philippines and
Klang, Malaysia.
Calle de la Escolta, also known as Escolta or Binondo, is situated in Manila, the capital city ofthe Philippines.
It was the place Chinese merchants come to make a living through the galleon trade. It then became known
as a shopping meccacatering to Manila’s exponentially growing population.Soonafterthe Spanish-American
War, Escolta’s commercial identity is strengthened with flourishing new establishments. Being atthe heartof
the capital city, Escolta is very dense with people all around flocking in to search for opportunities and make
a living.
Similar to Escolta, Jalan Stesen 1 in Klang, Malaysia was also a gathering place for Chinese traders. In the
18th Century, the Sultanate of Selangor developed Klang from a sleepy village as a consequent of the
booming tin mining industry. Klang became the Capitol for the British when the eventual capital city of
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur was barely established. The Central administrative governmentmoved from Klang
Figure 1: Image of Escolta Street in the core of Manila City
(Source: )
Figure 2: Image of shophouses along Jalan Stesen 1 in
Klang (Source:)

3. to Kuala Lumpur in 1896, shifting developmentfocus away from Klang. Therefore, the density of both the
population and the buildings along Jalan Stesen 1 stayed relatively stagnant for a long period oftime even
until recently, as most developmentare focused around Kuala Lumpur. Buildings there remained the way
they are as heritage structures were preserved.
To begin, the comparison between Escolta Streetand Jalan Stesen 1 is the comparison between a bustling
streetin the middle ofa dense administrative capital that is focused on the economy sector and an old street
in the middle ofa relatively neglected townwhichputs more value on heritage authenticity. These two ‘spaces
between buildings are to be scrutinized in this paper.

4. ANALYSIS
The analysis conducted for this essay is based on the following:
 Patterns ofsocial activities
 Types of‘contact points’
 Varying degrees ofcontactintensity
According to Jan Gehl’s “Life Between Buildings”, outdoor social activities can be categorized into necessary
activities, optional activities and social activities. Necessary activities include those that are compulsory and
routine such as running errands and going to work, which occur in both Escolta and Jalan Stesen 1. Optional
activities are activities conducted whenoutdoorconditions are favourable,catalyzing public participationeven
if such actions are merely recreational and unnecessary. Examples of optional activities in both sites are
taking pictures and loitering. Lastly, social activities are created from previous instances, relying on the
presence of others within public spaces. Referencing Gehl’s text (1996, p.14), “Social activities include
children at play, greetings and conversations, communal activities of various kinds and finally – as the most
widespread social activity – passive contacts, that is, simply seeing and hearing other people.”
Jan Gehl (1996, p.13) also theorized that physical environments with good quality offer great varieties of
optional activities for pedestrians to participate, and as a result, the occurrence ofsocial activities increases
eventually.
Figure 3: Diagram showing relationship
between quality of physical environment
and occurrence of outdoor activities
(Source: Jan Gehl’s Life Between
Buildings, p.13)

5. Contact points are possible moments or opportunities for interaction between people in a public scenario,
such as modest“see and hear contacts” and communication between acquaintances. These contact points
can be classified into varying degrees from the lowestto highestintensities (Figure 5)
As mentioned, optional activities and necessary activities done are somewhat similar in both sites, but the
intensity ofthese activities is the factor that makes these two sites different.
Figure 4: Diagram showing contact points from lowest to highest
intensities (Source: Jan Gehl’s Life Between Buildings, p.17)
Figure 5: Images of optional activities done in both streets

6. BUILT ENVIRONMENT
It is evident that the built environment surrounding both Escolta Street and Jalan Stesen 1 influence the
movementofpeople and their interactions with one another. As the population density ofEscolta is higher,
the buildings are builthigher to cater more people.
As shown in the diagrams, the buildings in Escolta Street are much taller than Jalan Stesen 1. This creates
a profound impacton the experiences ofpeople via passive contact. Building heightin Escolta Streetis not
uniformed with plenty of different forms and varieties, each with its own unique character whereas building
height in Jalan Stesen 1 is rather uniformed with all buildings not exceeding two stories. Pedestrians feel
more overwhelmed by the presence ofthe builtenvironmentin Escolta than in Jalan Stesen 1. Together with
the street being lively and full of activity, the ambience of Escolta is more stimulating than Jalan Stesen 1,
which on the other hand is more tranquil and relaxing.
Figure 6: Diagrams showing the building scale to street ratio in both
Escolta Street and Jalan Stesen 1
Figure 7: Images of Escolta Street and Jalan Stesen 1, which
evidently shows the former having stronger presence of human
activity.

7. PATTERN OF SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
Both sites compared are similar in the sense that they are linear and street-oriented. Their interior space
typologies are determined by edges segregating spaces into districts, each with their own distinct function
such as restaurants and hair salons (both presentin both streets). These districts have the linear street as a
main line ofreference and people identify each shop by looking attheir façade and signboard from the street.
To move from district to district, the street is inevitable. Therefore, passive and chance contacts occur
frequently on both streets.
In both sites, buildings with traditional ornaments are placed rightnext to buildings with modern minimalistic
design, invigorating the senses of pedestrians as it stimulates the optional activity of people gazing upon
the stark contrast, heightening the chance of passive contact. Restaurants are present in both streets,
attracting people to their premises during lunch and dinner hours. Sharing of tables can occur and people
have the opportunity to initiate contact and conversations.
Figure 8: Diagrams highlighting the importance of the street in both sites.
Figure 9: Images of contrasting old and new architecture in both streets.

8. In comparison to Jalan Stesen 1, Escolta Street has a higher occurrence of necessary activities. White
collar employees such as accountants and bank receptionists spend most of their time in their offices. In
conjunction with that, the interactions between people running their errands and these workers occur
frequently. The pace of people are fast, a common phenomenon in a busy city. The street is bustling with
vehicles and walking humans during daytime due to its commercial typology. Streetvendors are found along
the street, attracted by the amount ofhumans present.
For the case of Jalan Stesen 1, people usually proceed away from the site to conduct their necessary
activities. Commuters park their cars there and take the railway to work in other urban areas. Human activity
at Jalan Stesen 1 is highest only when these workers leave the train station for dinner. The street, albeit
occupied by cars parked by the roadside, is dormant and sleepy during working hours, the time where shop
owners conduct the optional activity of conversing among themselves. Optional activity with higher
intensity between humans such as conversations between shop owners or between customers occur with
low frequency. The width of Jalan Stesen 1 is narrower, but the chance of contact and their intensities are
different of that in Escolta due to the difference in human flow tendencies.
The main similarity ofbothsites have to be the high occurrence of optionalactivities such as taking pictures.
However in general, there is a higher occurrence of passive and chance contacts in Escolta due to greater
human traffic flow.
Figure 10: Escolta Street during working hours
when human activity is most active.
Figure 11: Jalan Stesen 1 during the evening
when human activity is most active.

9. TYPE OF CONTACT POINTS & VARYING DEGREES OF CONTACT INTENSITY
Contact Point 1: Pavement/Walkway
As shown in the diagrams above, shops along Escolta Streethave wider walkways than Jalan Stesen 1. Five
footwalkways in Jalan Stesen1 tend to be filled with goods and products suchas cardboard boxes and shirts.
These objects correspond to each shop, indicating each shop typology to viewers in the form of passive
contact. Despite that Escolta Street has more human flow and has higher occurrence of chance contact
such as short-term eye contact, contact intensity is usually lower than Jalan Stesen 1. People, albeitfewer,
walk at closer proximities to one another in Jalan Stesen 1 as influenced by the narrower shaded walkway.
A high intensity of contactcan be observed along the walkway in Jalan Stesen 1 in reference to proxemics –
the spatial bubble by Edward T.Hall despite lower pedestrian flow.
Figure 14: Image of pavement in Escolta Street Figure 15: Image of pavement in Jalan Stesen 1
Figure 12: Diagram of pavement in Escolta
Street
Figure 13: Diagram of pavement in Jalan Stesen 1

10. Jalan Stesen 1 offers a walking experience where pedestrians are at an intimate distance to the shops while
walking along the five-foot walkway. This increases the potential for optional activities to happen as
pedestrians become moreengaged to the activities and objects ofthe shops inbothvisual and tactile senses.
The possibility of spontaneous interaction and communication is also higher in Jalan Stesen 1 while
pedestrians in Escolta Streettend to be more focused on their individual tasks (usually necessary activities)
and destinations.
In Escolta, shops are clearly segregated from the pedestrian walkway. The shop façades and entrances
(usually made ofglass) form a strong impermeable edge between these two elements. Activities done within
the shop interior do notinterfere with the walkway. On the other hand in Jalan Stesen 1, the walkway seems
to be conjoined with the shop, forming a realm where shops invite pedestrians into their premises
unassertively. The boundary between walkway and shop is blurred, contributing to higher chances of
interaction that go high beyond the levels ofpassive and chance contact.
Figure 16: Diagram of Proxemics – Human Spatial Bubble by Edward T.Hall
Figure 17: Image of shops in Escolta Street Figure 18: Image of shops in Jalan Stesen 1

11. Contact Point 2: Overlapping of Pedestrian and Vehicular Path
As observed in the diagrams and pictures, the street in Jalan Stesen 1 is narrower than Escolta Street.
Therefore, pedestrians in Jalan Stesen 1 can cross the vehicular road easier while pedestrians atboth sides
of the street in Escolta are seemingly disconnected from one another as the vehicular paths become a
stronger segregation factor. Escolta Street pedestrians cross the street only when necessary while narrow
walkways push Jalan Stesen 1 pedestrians out into the street or to the opposite shop fronts. Visual
engagementis stronger in Jalan Stesen 1 as pedestrians are more involved in their surroundings. It can be
said that the vehicular street in Jalan Stesen 1 is more permeable than Escolta Street.
Figure 21: Image of street in Escolta Street Figure 22: Image of street in Jalan Stesen 1
Figure 19: Diagram of street in Escolta Street Figure 20: Diagram of street in Jalan Stesen 1

12. Contact Point 3: Seating
In Escolta, primary seating are commonly situated indoors, almostentirely absent in the spaces between
buildings. In its organized typology, the space between buildings are more specifically for walking and for
vehicular traffic. People in Escolta rarely use supplementary seating as there is barely anything for them to
sit on. Pedestrians tend to not stay at the same location for a long period oftime. Everything is fast paced.
Hence, chance contacts and passive contacts frequently occur but they usually do not develop into
contacts ofhigher intensity.
On the other hand in Jalan Stesen 1, primary seating of shops spill onto the walkways, creating a more
versatile and arbitrary public realm. Districts of spaces dedicated to designated functions overlap with the
vital public realm – the street and walkway. People tend to stay longer in a same location. This allows
interaction with higher intensities such as friendly conversations to be conducted more frequently.
Figure 23: Image of seating in Escolta Street Figure 24: Image of seating in Jalan Stesen 1

13. CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, both Escolta Street and Jalan Stesen 1 spark human contact in different ways. Escolta Street
has higher occurrence ofpassive and chance contacts due to greater human circulation flow butthe chances
ofthese contacts developinginto higherintensities is low as people behave more individualistically influenced
by the built environment.
Jalan Stesen 1 on the other hand generates human contact unassumingly. The streethas lesser people than
Escolta but the contact between these people have higher chances of being within the ‘high intensity’
category thanks to the various elements the street possesses.It is proven that the built environment is an
essential key towards the occurrence of activities and their intensities, giving a profound impact on how
humans experience streets.
ESCOLTA STREET JALAN STESEN 1
SIMILARITIES
PATTERN OF SOCIAL
ACTIVITIES
 Linear
 Street oriented
 District zoning
DISSIMILARITIES
TYPE OF CONTACT POINTS  High occurrence oflow
intensity passive and
chance contacts
 Low occurrence oflow
intensity passive and
chance contacts
VARYING DEGREES OF
CONTACT INTENSITY
 Lower frequency ofhigh
intensity contact
 Higher frequency ofhigh
intensity contact

14. REFERENCES
Books
Gehl, J. (1996) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Arkitektens Forlag.