Hans Monderman was a Dutch engineer in the 1980’s whose idea of the ‘naked street’ highly influenced street design and planning in the early twenty first century (Silva, 2009). His principle was based around the idea of ‘shared space’, meaning that both people and traffic were of equal rights and responsibility in regards to cohabiting to obtain social order on the streets. This is both similar and different to the view of Buchanan. It is similar in the way that the safety of all road users was essential to improve lives through design and order. However the approach was built upon a very different strategy.
A social theorist named Erving Goffman believed that people perform roles in varying situations. Like Monderman, his view was also that, “People continuously coordinate their actions and interactions with one another in the performance of their roles, and this produces social order” (Staples et al., 2009, p. 52). For there to be social order between people and traffic, both Goffman and Monderman assume that a person’s eye contact and cooperation is critical in order to determine the safety of others. Monderman claimed that, “The road user must be able to tell from the space, i.e. the road and its surroundings, which behaviour is appropriate and required” (Shared Space, 2005, p. 37 cited in Silva, 2009, p.339).
Buchanan investigated social order in a very similar way as another social theorist named Michel Foucault, as he too, “Investigated the past through the history of institutions and historical documents to produce a genealogy of discourses” (Staples et al., 2009, p. 52). Each of them analysed documents to create evidence to build upon new and old ways of thinking and understanding. Buchanan used evidence of growing numbers of cars in statistical form to support his model of segregating cars from people.
Another similarity between the two is that they both took a scientific rational approach. They had knowledge and through this became the authority in working towards greater social order through their work on traffic and space planning. This was achieved, “through the application of materials, aimed to enforce conduct” (Silva, 2009, p. 345). Being significant and fair enabled them to work towards safer areas for individuals.
The ideas of the respective theorists involved zoning areas to a specific context in which appropriate street furniture was designed in order to fit the particular setting. The Buchanan Report had, “prescribed the development of standardised uniform spaces commanding uniform behaviour, leaving no room for individual interpretation, explaining everything with signs and texts” (Silva, 2009, p. 339). This could be seen throughout Buchanan’s road designs where ‘calming measures’ such as warning signs, speed bumps and road markings were incorporated as ‘street furniture’ to act as authority and create social order by setting rules about the use of the space which individuals have to adhere to (Silva, 2009).
Throughout Monderman’s work he often undid what was laid there under the Modernist approach. Monderman stated, “The trouble with traffic engineers is that when there’s a problem with a road, they always try to add something. To my mind, it’s much better to remove things” (Monderman, quoted in McNichol, 2004 cited in Silva, 2009, p. 333). This is exactly what Monderman did. He recreated the road space back into a blank canvas where there would be no road markings or warning signs. Monderman’s theory would improve road safety through the idea of ‘psychological traffic calming’ (Silva, 2009). This involved using more aesthetically pleasing ‘street furniture’ such as fountains, trees and sculptures that would psychologically slow drivers down. In contrast to Buchanan’s concept, Monderman’s approach suggested that, “Interaction between the driver and the pedestrian would create a more civilised environment than that achieved by segregating cars and pedestrians” (Silva, 2009, p. 333). Monderman thought that eye contact and recognition would enable streets to be safer and socially ordered without the use of defined rules such as warning signs. The emphasis was put on self management and control.
The Department for Transport guidance document ‘Manual for Streets’ (2007) stated that, “streets are not just there to get people from A to B” (Silva, 2009, p. 337). The idea of shared space has been used for experimentation in many countries and it has been said that streets incorporating ‘shared space’, “have a role in the life of a community and bring opportunities for social interaction” (Silva, 2009, p. 337). The access and use of a street within a community is of great importance to both road users and pedestrians, as it forms part of a social existence where each party can co-exist and be ordered in the way that each is responsible for their own movements and safety. This is done through accepted behaviour such as negotiation of space through an act of social conduct.
Both Buchanan and Monderman were experts in their field of work. Evidence of this can be seen in towns where their strategies have been incorporated. Monderman’s ‘Drachten experiment’ took place in Drachten, Netherlands in 1989. The removal of traffic lights and white lines and the application of the ‘shared space’ approach gave positive results. Eye contact caused concentration levels to be higher as each individual had to deliberate the actions of others and the space around them. As Monderman explained, “If you treat drivers like zombies, they’ll behave like zombies” (Glaskin, 2004 cited in Silva, 2009, p. 334). Buchanan has influenced town planning through his theory of segregation and was incorporated in the plans of both Milton Keynes and Brasilia, the capital of Brazil (Silva, 2009). The ‘environmental units’ contained small villages that were kept isolated from the fast moving traffic routes that had been designed specifically for vehicle users (Silva, 2009). This provides evidence that they were both fitting to the needs of the time when vehicle numbers were rising and created a solution that would alter the perception of drivers at the time.
In conclusion it is clear that both theorists had views and ideas that were fitting to the requirements of social life at the time. Each took a varied approach in tackling the matter at hand; however the core value around safety of individuals in each theory was the same. After comparing and contrasting the two theories, there are a number of similarities however the flexible and modernist approaches would appear to be delivered in very different contexts. Buchanan and Monderman each received positive results from their work and gained authority through the techniques chosen to order traffic and people. Whether or not one of the approaches would be deemed more effective is essentially down to an individual’s personal preference in regards to how safety and order can be retained between both people and traffic.
Word Count - 1411
References
Silva, E.B. (2009) ‘Making social order’ in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. And Bromley, S. (eds) Makin Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Staples, M., Meegan, J., Jeffries, E. And Bromley, S. (2009) Learning Companion 2, Introducing the social sciences, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Self Reflection
Looking at two very varied views has been interesting and once I had started I knew what I wanted to write. The difficult part was sometimes in the phrasing. The subject matter and content has also been interesting as psychology was included within some of the material.
