LIVED REALITY, PERCEPTION AND ARCHITECTURE:

TWO COMMUNITY CENTRES INTERROGATED THROUGH THE

LENS OF LEFEBVRE’S SPATIAL TRIAD

Madelein Stoffberg

Submitted to meet the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Ph.D. in the
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at the University of the Free State

2015

Supervisor: Prof. Walter Peters

Co-Supervisor: Dr Diaan van der Westhuizen

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
“There is no loss in architecture becoming less and

life becoming more”

Willie Meyer
THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to Conrad for his continuous support through all my endeavours.

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.

Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

Samuel Beckett

Declaration

I declare that the thesis hereby submitted by me for the Doctor of Philosophy in
Architecture degree at the University of the Free State is my own independent work and
has not previously been submitted by me at another university/faculty. I further more
cede copyright of the thesis in favour of the University of the Free State.

Date: 2 February 2015 Signed:

All images and drawings are that of the author unless stated otherwise.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to my supervisor, Prof. Peters and co-supervisor Dr Van der Westhuizen
for their continuous support. Appreciation is extended to all those who guided me on the
way: Prof. Robert Schall and Dr Cay van der Merwe for statistical assistance, Top
Transcriptions assisting with the transcriptions of the interviews and Mrs. Janet Whelan
for editing the thesis document.

Special thanks go to those who participated in the interviews and provided information
on the case studies: Prof. Albrecht Heroldt and Miles Hollins of The Matrix Urban
Designers and Architects, Stan Field of Field Architects as well as the staff of Ubuntu
and Helenvale.

The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this
research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are
those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF.

This thesis was made possible by support from the Social Science Research Council‟s
Next Generation Social Sciences in Africa Fellowship, with funds provided by Carnegie
Corporation of New York.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Contents

Dedication....................................................................................................................... iii

Declaration ..................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iv

Contents ..........................................................................................................................v

Glossary ....................................................................................................................... viii

Acronyms.........................................................................................................................x

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... xi

Abstrak ......................................................................................................................... xii

Chapter 1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Thesis topic ....................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Literary investigation: Identifying themes and gaps ........................................... 3

1.3 Problem statement: Urban and architectural infrastructure in developing

areas ................................................................................................................. 6

1.4 Research objectives and questions: Community centres investigated as

lived reality, perception and architecture ........................................................... 7

1.5 Outline of this study........................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 Theoretical explanation of Lefebvre’s spatial triad ................................. 11

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Extracts of Lefebvre‟s life and work ................................................................. 14

2.3 Lefebvre in context .......................................................................................... 20

2.4 Lefebvre‟s spatial triad .................................................................................... 23

2.5 Themes from The production of space ............................................................ 28

2.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 35

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 3 Research methodology ............................................................................. 37

3.1 Introduction: Research approach in relation to theoretical framework.............. 38

3.2 Literature study on investigated methodology ................................................. 38

3.3 Two pilot studies conducted ............................................................................ 44

3.4 Selection of participants .................................................................................. 51

3.5 Selection of chosen case studies .................................................................... 53

3.6 Description of the two case studies: the Helenvale multi-purpose

resources centre and the Ubuntu community centre ....................................... 56

3.7 Discussion of three chosen methods: Semi-structured interviews, mapping

and sort-charts ................................................................................................ 75

3.8 Conclusion: Methodology answering the research questions .......................... 80

Chapter 4 An overview of gathering spaces: From global to local ......................... 83

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 84

4.2 Development of gathering spaces ................................................................... 84

4.3 Public infrastructure in developing areas ......................................................... 96

4.4 Typological development of community centres ............................................ 105

4.5 Conclusion: The reciprocal relationship between historic events and the
development of public infrastructure. ............................................................. 118

Chapter 5 Analyses of the two case studies: Open-ended interviews with the
respective architects of Helenvale and Ubuntu ........................................ 119

5.1 Narrative of quotations on thematic categories of conceived space .............. 120

5.2 Findings elicited from the narratives of the respective architects ................... 148

Chapter 6 Analyses of the two case studies: Mapping .......................................... 151

6.1 Introduction: Analyses of completed maps .................................................... 152

6.2 Perception for immediate macro-environment: Condensation,

displacement and centrality ........................................................................... 155

6.3 Findings drawn from the mapping process and narratives ............................. 179
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 7 Analyses of the two case studies: Sort-charts ...................................... 181

7.1 Description and interpretation of data and findings ........................................ 182

7.2 Perceptions on community centres................................................................ 194

7.3 Findings read from the sort-process .............................................................. 213

Chapter 8 Corroborating the three research questions: Findings and

discussion ................................................................................................... 217

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 218

8.2 Findings of the three research questions considered .................................... 218

8.3 Three research questions: Patterns and themes identified ............................ 224

8.4 Conclusion on research questions ................................................................ 227

Chapter 9 Spatial Production of public architecture: Conclusions and

implications ................................................................................................. 229

9.1 Introduction: Lived reality of community centres and public architecture ....... 230

9.2 Findings from themes and patterns in relation to other relevant research ...... 231

9.3 Philosophical implications on Lefebvre‟s Production of Space....................... 233

9.4 Influence on educational discourse and practice ........................................... 234

9.5 Implications for theory and practice, nationally and internationally ................ 235

9.6 Direction for future research and limitations .................................................. 237

9.7 Conclusion: The importance of the relationship between lived reality,

perception and architecture ........................................................................... 239

Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 241

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 251

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Glossary

Architecture: Refers to the formal built environment and construction of habitable

structures for human activity through an architectural design process.

Civic space: An area with public or municipal structures for public or administrative use.

Community: The multiple-public, consisting of diverse cultures and races, residing in

the same urban area or settlement.

Community centre: A structure that is built as a node within a settlement with the aim of
providing social needs and consists of a covered gathering space and other services
such as a kitchen and toilets. Other facilities might also be provided such as office
spaces, class rooms, a clinic, library, or community gardens although they are not
required. These centres differ from traditional city halls as they do not provide
administrative municipal services or offices. Facilities are rather on the wellbeing of
community members.

Gathering space: A space, either publicly or privately owned, available for social
interaction between community members.

Institutional architecture: Public funded architecture used for administrative or social

requirements. Structures include municipalities, hospitals, schools and other related
public facilities that are relatively accessible by the community.

Public space: A space that is relatively accessible to community members for diverse
activities being either social or political. Within these spaces freedom of speech is
allowed and political rights can be enacted. These spaces are regulated to provide a
safe space for all community members.

Q-set: This is a tool utilised in the sort-process. A q-set consists of a singular image or
word that represents a value or object in the form of an object or card.

Sort-chart process: This method determines participants‟ perception through

categorization. Q-sets, (mentioned above), are organised into free or direct sort groups.
Free-sort allows participants to organise q-sets into self-determined groups. Direct-sort,
on the other hand, consists of pre-determined groups formulated by the researcher. The
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

choice of sort is determined by the research question. Data collected are cross tabulated
and then analyzed statistically.

Spatial Production: Refers to the spatial triad theorised by Henri Lefebvre as spatial
practice (SP), representations of space (RoS) and representational space (RS) in his
written work The production of space (1991). These three terms are explained below:

- Spatial Practice/ Lived Space (SP) as lived reality: This is the actual place of
performance in which community members actualise space.

- Representations of Space/ Conceived Space (RoS) as architecture: Refers to

knowledge and symbolism. Applied to architecture it refers to the two-dimensional
design of a building on paper representing certain codes.

- Representational Space / Perceived Space (RS) as perception: Meaning embodied by

a space as experienced through the appropriation of a structure.

Township: A suburb predominantly designated for one racial group as stipulated in the
Group Areas Act of 1950.

Typology: Existing architectural structures classified according to function and type

such as hospital or school.

Ubuntu: Generally, Ubuntu refers to human kindness or humanness. In South Africa this
has become an ideology to describe communities‟ interdependence. Below is a
quotation describing the concept in the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

“One of the sayings in our country is Ubuntu – the essence of being

human. Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you cannot
exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our
interconnectedness. You cannot be human all by yourself, and when
you have this quality – Ubuntu – you are known for your generosity.

We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated

from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do
affects the whole World. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the
whole of humanity (1999).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Acronyms

AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ANC: African National Congress

BRT: Bus Rapid Transit

CCTV: Closed-Circuit Television

CSIR: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

DA: Democratic Alliance

FAMSA: Family and Marriage Society of South Africa

HURP: Helenvale Urban Renewal Programme

IT: Information Technology

MBDA: Mandela Bay Development Agency

NCSS: National Council of Social Service

NGO: Non-Government Organisation

NMBM: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

PARA: Physical Activity Research Assessment Instrument

RDP: Reconstruction and Development Programme

RoS: Representations of Space

RS: Representational Space

SAIA: South African Institute of Architects

SASSA: South African Social Security Agency

SMME: Small Medium Macro Enterprises

SP: Spatial Practice

TPoS: The Production of Space

UNDO: Understanding Neighborhood Determinants of Obesity

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Abstract

Community centres are ideally at the heart of society as a platform for social interaction.
Moreover, these centres often provide direly needed services such as basic health care
and educational or family guidance that sustain and improve human life. Spatially,
community centres form nodes from which other informal commercial or institutional
facilities can branch providing a civic presence in a relative homogeneous residential
area. These catalytic structures help create new networks bridging the barriers of spatial
segregation that is still remnant of apartheids legacy. Consequently, the central research
question investigates the spatial production of community centres built after 1994. This
inquiry is further interrogated through three research questions. First, what is the
relationship between lived reality of community members (Spatial Practice) and the two-
dimensional representation thereof as designed by architects (Representations of
Space)? Second, what is the relationship between user‟s perception (Representational
Space) and architects intent (Representations of Space) of symbolism, images and
signs? Third, how do community centres, in the macro-context, reconfigure boundaries,
form and function (Spatial Practice), as well as areas of centralization, condensation and
displacement (Representational Space)? Through Henri Lefebvre‟s‟ spatial triad, the
lived reality, the representational and inherent embedded codes are inspected. The three
spatial concepts of the two respective case studies, the Helenvale multi-purpose
resources centre and the Ubuntu community centre in the Nelson Mandela Bay
Municipal area are investigated through semi-structured interviews which are supported
by a mapping and sort-chart process. A cross-case analysis interrogates the current
public space as perceived by the users and designed by the architects. It is the thesis of
a reciprocal relationship between lived reality, perception and architecture that
investigates the impact of community centres on spatial transformation to inform future
development.

Key words: Spatial Production, community centres, lived reality, perception and
architecture.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Abstrak

Gemeenskapsentrums, in ideale omstandighede, is die hart van gemeenskappe vir

sosiale interaksie. Hierdie sentrums bied ook noodsaaklike dienste soos basiese
gesondheidsorg sowel as opvoedkundige en familie voorligting wat menslike lewe
ondersteun en volhou. Ruimtelik vorm gemeenskapsentrums nodusse waarvolgens
ander kommersiële of institusionele fasiliteite kan vertak om stedelike teenwoordigheid
te skep in „n relatiewe homogene residensiële omgewing. Hierdie katalitiese strukture
help om nuwe netwerke te vorm wat grense en ruimtelike segregasie kan oorbrug wat
oorblywend is van apartheid se nalatenskap. Maar, wat is die werklike karakter van
hierdie ruimtes? Hoe word dit deur gemeenskappe waargeneem? Gevolglik gaan die
sentrale navorsingsvraag die ruimtelike produksie van gemeenskapsentrums gebou na
1994 nagaan. Hierdie ondersoek word gevolg deur drie navorsingsvrae. Eerstens, wat is
die verhouding tussen geleefde realiteit van gemeenskaplede (ruimtelike praktyk) en die
verteenwoordiging daarvan soos ontwerp deur argitekte (verteenwoordiging van ruimte).
Tweedens, wat is die verhouding tussen die gebruiker se persepsie (verteenwoordigde
ruimte) en die argitek se intensie (verteenwoordiging van ruimte) interme van simboliek,
beelde en tekens. Derdens, hoe herkonfigureer gemeenskapsentrums, in hul makro-
konteks, grense, vorm en funksie (ruimtelike praktyk), sowel as sentralisasie,
kondensasie en verplasing (verteenwoordigde ruimte)? Deur Henri Lefebvre se
ruimtelike triade word die geleefde realiteit, die verteenwoordiging en inherente kodes
daarvan ondersoek. Die drie ruimtelike konsepte van die twee gevalle studies, die
Helenvale meerdoelige hulpbronne sentrum en die Ubuntu gemeenskapsentrum in die
Nelson Mandela Baai Munisipale area, word oondersoek deur semi-gestruktureerde
onderhoude wat ondersteun word deer kartering en soort-grafieke. „n Kruis-geval
analiese ontleed die huidige publieke ruimtes soos waargeneem deer gebruikers en
ontwerp deer die argitekte daarvan. Dit is die tesis van „n wedersydse verhouding tussen
geleefde ruimte, waarneming en argitektuur wat die impak van gemeenskapsentrums op
ruimtelike transformasie toelig vir toekomstige ontwikkeling.

Sleutelwoorde: Ruimtelike produksie, gemeenskapsentrums, geleefde realiteit,

persepsie en argitektuur.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Thesis topic 2

1.2 Literary investigation: Framing the research question 3

1.3 Problem statement: Urban and architectural infrastructure in developing areas 6

1.4 Research objectives and questions: Community centres investigated as lived-------

reality, perception and architecture 7

1.5 Outline of this study 8

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

1.1 Thesis topic

A critical study of public spaces is endeavoured with a philosophical approach. This study
investigates the influence of community centres on developing areas such as townships.
Research in architecture often only considers the physical realm or the architect‟s
perspective. In addition to this one-sided analysis of architecture, the study aims to add
community members‟ perceptions of public gathering spaces to understand space from
multiple perspectives.

In a report on housing and development by the Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR), it was noted that more research was needed on the impact and
perception of newly built structures, such as community centres, to guide future
development (CSIR.: 2005). If approached in consultation with the community,
infrastructural development in townships could have the ability to instigate spatial change.
Gradual adjustments to the remnants of apartheid‟s spatial planning and insufficient
Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) housing could be made through
changes in the experience of lived reality and representation.

Two case studies in Port Elizabeth were investigated, the Helenvale multi-purpose
resources centre and the Ubuntu community centre, both chosen for their geographic
proximity to each other. As a typology of public space, community centres were chosen
for their accessibility by a diverse group of community members and their functional
adaptability. Community centres, furthermore, contain characteristics that can be
compared to other public facilities such as clinics, libraries and schools. In many
developing areas, these facilities are direly needed, but are often considered without
concern for the impact on communities.

The spatial triad of the French philosopher Henri Lefebvre, as discussed in The production
of space (1991) (TPoS), forms the theoretical lens for this study. This triad consists of
three aspects of Spatial Practice (SP), Representations of Space (RoS) and
Representational Space (RS), also interpreted as lived reality, perception and
architecture. From the literature, themes were derived to investigate the three aspects
mentioned above. For SP, these include function, form and structure. Themes for RoS
include fragmentation, subdivision, context and texture as well as the construction of the
structure. RS, on the other hand, focuses on displacement, condensation and effective
centrality.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

From the theory, the three research questions investigate the spatial relationship of
community centres. The first question investigates the relationship between the lived
reality of community members (SP) and the two-dimensional representation thereof as
designed by architects (RoS). Secondly, the relationship between the user‟s perception
(RS) and architect‟s intent (RoS) of symbolism, images and signs. Thirdly, how community
centres, in the macro-context, reconfigure boundaries, form and function (SP), as well as
areas of centralization, condensation and displacement (RS).

To investigate the two case studies, three methods were utilised for cross triangulation;
semi-structured and open-ended interviews, mapping and sort-charts. In each case study,
twenty interviews with primary users were conducted. In turn, the architects of each centre
were interviewed. Data from maps were superimposed and compared with interviews.
Information from the sort-charts was cross-tabulated and was statistically computed with a
correspondence analysis.

In this study, the theoretical approach and methods consider the perspective and
experience of both community members and the architects. Through this approach a
reciprocal relationship could be established to inform future development in communities.

1.2 Literary investigation: Identifying themes and gaps

The literature section is organised into two sections. The first part explains the different
concepts and their development, while the second part explores the two areas under
investigation, namely public space and urban development.

Different discourses have been developed around the concepts of the public, public space
and democracy. The general concept of the public refers to the public man in a
community. Habermas (2011) describes the public as the bourgeois society of the 18th
century. However, he limits the bourgeois society to a select group of the community, that
of the male property owner, excluding women, children and the less fortunate. Critique on
this notion of the public is noted by Fraser (1993). She argued that a singular public does
not exist, but rather a multiple-public situated in many locations. The multiple-public, can
therefore, represent diverse groups of people, even within one cultural group, but with
different representational space. By comparison, South Africa also consists of a multiple-
public, requiring a study of space to be investigated from multiple angles.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

A historic overview of the development of the public and public space must be given. The
term „public‟ developed with the printing of newspapers and the spreading of information
(Habermas: 2011). More recently, the publication of information has changed drastically
with the development of technology and the World Wide Web thereby altering the concept
and perception of the public (Parkinson: 2012). This research will not explore the other
domain of „public‟ introduced by technological development, but only the actual space of
public action where to be public, one must be seen (Arendt: 1998). Historically, the
typology of public space already existed in Greek and Roman cities. The Roman forum
consisted of the marketplace, the stoas and the bouletarion for political debates (Roth:
1993, 195). Only Roman citizens, a select group of males born in Rome, were part of
these public activities, making this a partial democracy (Fraser, 1993). Although this forum
only represented a partial democracy, the typology thereof proved to be an excellent
example to compare with more recent case studies. Community centres as a
contemporary public forum, not for political deliberation, but for social interaction, can be
investigated in relation to concepts of public space.

For the public sphere to exist there must be a contrast to private space (Arendt: 1998).
Actual public and private spaces must be differentiated as well as the perception of what
is accessible and permissible as public space to different groups of the community. The
following questions should be asked regarding public and private space: What is the
perception of public space? What spaces are perceived as public? What are the different
boundaries defining public and private spaces? Who is allowed access to these spaces,
or who is allowed access according to the perception of the community?

Democracy has diverse meanings to different people. The actual definition and spatial
implication thereof must be defined. Furthermore, the concept of democracy and its
comprehension differs amongst citizens. Therefore, the community‟s perception of
democratic public space must be noted.

Within the discourse of public space there are diverse debates. These include the
disappearance or the „end‟ of public space (Mitchell: 2003, 35), the change of public space
to a public domain (Hajer & Reijndorp: 2001, 12) and the gradual change of public space
to privately owned property such as shopping malls (Kohn: 2004, 70). A brief enquiry
should be made into these different discourses noting the gradual changes in the public
sphere, but still identifying the need and existence of public space in South Africa.
Furthermore, the different terms for public space discourse must be clarified: domain,
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

sphere, public space and the emergence of non-place (Augé: 2008, 63) in certain
architectural typologies.

Physical characteristics of the urban environment have been studied by Lynch (1960) and
Madanipour (2007). Madanipour focussed on the physical characteristics of the urban
environment and Lynch on the experience of the urbanite. Both these studies will be used
to explore the physical boundaries within settlements. Gehl (1987) investigated life
between buildings, focusing on the spaces created in-between. In conjunction with Lynch,
Gehl noted that there is a difference between an edge and a boundary. This contributes to
the different qualities of boundaries as perceived by community members. Applied to the
South African context, Bremner (2010) investigated boundaries in relation to post-
apartheid urban environments. Bremner noted a change in boundaries; from segregated
spaces during apartheid to gated communities thereafter. In Madanipour, Gehl and
Lynch‟s research, physical boundaries were considered; therefore this thesis attempts to
address the gap by investigating the constantly shifting boundaries and their
representational value.

Spatial development in South Arica has been explored on a large scale especially
regarding demographic changes (Prinsloo, Jansen-Verbeke & Vanneste: 1999), as well as
on a micro scale, exploring certain areas such as Bloemfontein, Botshabelo and Thaba
Nchu (De Wit: 1994; Krige: 1989). Research still needs to be conducted in certain
geographical areas and on a micro scale, exploring the spatial changes activated through
architecture.

In post-apartheid South Africa, spatial transformation has been investigated from a

historic, residential, institutional and urban approach. Murray (2007) investigated the
persistent presence of modernism in South Africa which was used for spatial control in the
form of segregation. Due to these spatial restrictions, she argues that marginal or centre-
peripheral relationships still persist in post-apartheid urban environments. In conjunction
with spatial segregation, the community and public have not yet been merged, as the
community is still only seen as a racial categorisation with few „public‟ rights. Architectural
interventions as transformational instruments ought to be explored, investigating changing
boundaries between centre and periphery, and between concepts of public and
community. In Hostels, homes, museums: Memorialising migrant labour pasts in Lwandle,
South Africa (2014) Murray investigated the museum typology through the themes of the
image and narrative, contributing to the debate on architecture‟s transformational ability.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Representational images have been investigated by Jonathan Noble in African identity in

post-apartheid public architecture: White skin, black mask (2011). Through the lens of
Fanon‟s Black skin, white masks (2008), Noble investigated prevailing western
architectural notions in South African public buildings such as legislatures, the
constitutional court, a public square and park. Through the mask, a symbolization of
identity, architecture is explored as hybridized space, identifying the need for a multi-
faceted approach to architectural analysis in South Africa. However, the multiple-public,
as noted earlier by Fraser (1993), should still be addressed in the search for a post-
apartheid South African identity of public infrastructure. This reciprocal relationship has
been investigated by Bremner (2010) by incorporating Lefebvre‟s concept of Spatial
Production (1991) to investigate representational space of professionals in relation to the
lived reality of urban dwellers. Low (2003) similarly identified the need for a meditational
relationship between community members and government that is traditionally dominated
by architects and planners.

1.3 Problem statement: Urban and architectural infrastructure in developing areas

After democratisation all South Africans were allowed property rights and residence in
urban areas. However, marginalisation shifted from racial segregation to economic
supremacy of the elite. Only those who can afford high rent and property prices can move
from „segregated‟ townships. The spatial legacy of apartheid still remains, although
gradual change on a micro level is being instigated. Interventions such as the Red
Location Precinct (Port Elizabeth) (Findley: 2005; Morejele: 2006) and the development of
community infrastructure in Cato Manor (Durban) (Peters: 2002; McClenaghan: 2003;
Peters: 2009), allow catalytic growth. These interventions cannot remove barriers, visible
or imaginary. They can, however, become a hybrid between the past and the present,
providing bridges towards reconciliation.

One such catalytic intervention is community centres constructed in townships. As

townships were built on the detached periphery of the urban core during apartheid,
community centres play a critical role in bridging this physical divide on a macro level. On
a micro level, community centres act as a vehicle for future formal and informal
development where few other amenities were previously provided other than RDP
housing or dormitories. These structures accommodate multiple-functions such as health,
education and social facilities allowing for adaptation and transformation. Apart from this
functional realization, these structures can promote a public space for social interaction
becoming a central node in the community.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Although these structures are built for the community, neither consultation nor
participation of members in the design process occurs adequately. Architects, often
unfamiliar with the complex context, design these structures from a superficial stance.
Foreign public spaces such as squares or piazzas are conceived by architects. These
unfamiliar spaces subsequently become lived experiences through appropriation, forming
new images of the perceived. Thus, in one place different configurations of a single space
exist, the representation of space designed by the architect and the lived space of the
user. But, what is the actual existing space when these layers are superimposed? What
is the actual character of community centres and public space in developing areas?
Therefore, the central research question explores the spatial production of community
centres in developing settlements in South Africa after democratisation.

1.4 Research objectives and questions: Community centres investigated as lived

reality, perception and architecture

Questions:
1. What is the relationship between lived reality of community members (Spatial
Practice) and the two-dimensional representation thereof as designed by architects
(Representations of Space)?
2. What is the relationship between users‟ perceptions (Representational Space) and
architects‟ intent (Representations of Space) of symbolism, images and signs?
3. How do community centres, in the macro-context, reconfigure boundaries, form
and function (Spatial Practice), as well as areas of centralization, condensation
and displacement (Representational Space)?

Objectives:

 To understand how public spaces such as community centres, the surrounding

space and the structure themselves, in developing areas such as townships and
rural areas, are spatially produced after 1994.
 To investigate the relationship between lived reality (form, function and structure)
experienced by community members and the Representation of Space
(fragmentation, subdivision, spatial context and texture) as designed by the
architect.
 To investigate the relationship between Representational Space (displacement,
condensation and effective centrality) as perceived by community members and
imagined by the architect.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

 To investigate what spatial impact the community centre‟s lived space has on the
macro context of the township through community participatory methods such as
mapping, identifying categories of identity, enclosure, community, symbol and
welcome.

1.5 Outline of this study

Chapter1: Introduction

The field of study is introduced with a summary of the topic, the problem statement as well
as objectives. These are further substantiated by a literature review corroborating the
research questions being investigated. the section is concluded with an outline of the
chapters to guide the reader.

Chapter 2: Theoretical explanation of Lefebvre‟s spatial triad applied.

In this chapter the background to Lefebvre‟s theory on spatiality is provided; thereafter its
relevance to this research is explained. Influences that possibly shaped his spatial triad,
its contextualisation as well as an explanation of each aspect of Spatial Practice (SP),
Representations of Space (RoS) and Representational Space (RS) are discussed. The
application of the theoretical analysis is explained and themes introduced.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology: Semi-structured and open-ended interviews, mapping

and sort-charts

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the methods used to investigate the chosen case
studies. Selected methodologies are discussed in relation to existing research. These
were tested during two sequential pilot studies. The first pilot study tested spatial use at
the Red Location museum in New Brighton and the Ubuntu community centre in Zwide,
both situated in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan (NMBM), and the Belhar community
hall in the Cape. The second pilot study tested the methods of sort-charts and mapping at
Lourierpark community centre situated in Bloemfontein. Thereafter, the selection of
participants and case studies is corroborated. The three methods applied to the respective
case studies are further explained as processes and tasks conducted as well as the
documentation and analysis.

Chapter 4: An overview of gathering spaces: From global to local

This historical analysis moves between international and local development of gathering
spaces as well as their typological advancement. Development of public gathering spaces
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

from city halls to civic and community centres is discussed on a global and local level.
Thereafter, the focus shifts to developing communities, and specifically to the case study
area of Port Elizabeth, in which two community centres in close proximity could be
identified. Public gathering spaces in these areas are then further analysed for typological
development.

Chapter 5: Analyses of the two case studies: Open-ended interviews with the respective
architects of Helenvale and Ubuntu

Open-ended interviews, coded and analysed, are discussed to elucidate the two case
studies. The analyses include themes corroborating aspects of RoS. Data collected
explain the buildings as designed by the architects with reference to meaning and context
(RS) as well as aspects of function, form and structure (SP).

Chapter 6: Analyses of the two case studies: Mapping

In this chapter, maps completed by participants at the two case studies are investigated.
Completed maps were superimposed after which data were compared with the relating
semi-structured interviews. Through this process, the relationship between aspects of SP
and RS are investigated.

Chapter 7: Analyses of two case studies: Sort-charts

Apart from the maps, participants also completed a sort-chart process to determine their
perception. This involved the categorisation of images while participants explained their
reasoning through semi-structured interviews. Data collected were cross-tabulated after
which a correspondence analyses were completed to visualise the information.

Chapter 8: Corroborating the three research questions: Findings and discussions

In this chapter findings from the respective methods are combined to investigate the three
research questions. From these, further themes and patterns are discussed.

Chapter 9: Spatial Production of public architecture: Conclusions and implications

The conclusion contextualises the themes and patterns in relation to convergent and
divergent research. Findings are then interpreted in comparison to philosophical
implications, impact on educational discourse, the pragmatic implication for the
architectural profession and future possibilities.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 2 Theoretical explanation of Lefebvre’s

spatial triad

2.1 Introduction 12

2.2 Extracts of Lefebvre‟s life and work 14

2.3 Lefebvre in context 20

2.4 Lefebvre‟s spatial triad 23

2.5 Themes from The production of space 28

2.6 Conclusion 35
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

2.1 Introduction

The objective of this theoretical approach is to investigate spatiality as conceived by

architects and perceived by users. With this approach I, have endeavoured to move
beyond an analysis of the physical, built environment. The aim is, firstly, to understand
spatial perception from different positions and, secondly, the contextual integration of the
structure within the urban fabric. Thirdly, the research questions investigate the
relationship between SP, RoS and RS in relation the respective community centres.

Henri Lefebvre (1901 - 91) was a French philosopher who focused on the social reality of
urbanization (Stanek: 2011). His spatial theory, as developed in TPoS, was considered
most appropriate to investigate the three research questions mentioned above. It was
deemed appropriate as his spatial triad addresses concrete space (SP), the architectural
design process (RoS) and symbolic or meaning laden space (RS). These three terms are
discussed in depth under the section Lefebvre‟s spatial triad (see 2.4).

Other spatial theories that were considered initially, include Jürgen Habermas‟ The spatial
transformation of the public sphere (2011) and Homi Bhaba‟s The location of culture
(1994). Habermas‟ text investigates the initial development of the public, which originated
through some of the first newspaper publications. Within The spatial transformation of the
public sphere, Habermas delineated in broad terms the shift of the public from court to the
bourgeois society. It was described by Habermas as: “...the sphere of private people
[coming] together as a public; they soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above
against the public authorities themselves, to engage them in a debate over the general
rules governing relations in the basically privatised but publicly relevant sphere of
commodity exchange and social labour” (2011, 27). Although Habermas made several
spatial and architectural references, he aimed to investigate the structure of the newly
termed public sphere. Some of these architectural references included residential
typological changes (2011, 44–45; Trevelyan: 1946), the initiation of the coffee house as a
public sphere for men associated with the bourgeoisie and the salon as a space for
women (2011, 33). This theoretical notion required an investigation into who the public is,
what defines them (referring to media e.g. social media such as social networks), the
culture of this society (as defined by Fraser (1993) as multiple societies), and then lastly,
the architectural space of this multiple-public. Furthermore, this leads to additional
inquiries investigating the definition of a true public space (Fraser: 1993) as defined by a
democracy (Mitchell: 1995; Kohn: 2004). The theory focuses more on sociological and
political aspects defining who the public is and does not interrogate the spatial aspects of
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

public architecture. The benefit of this theory might be to investigate the development of
public space in conjunction with changing media sources.

In Bhabha‟s own words, the approach to The location of culture (1994) can be described
as “to focus on those moments [architectural interventions] or processes that are
produced in the articulation of cultural differences. These „in-between‟ spaces provide the
terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood ̶ singular or communal ̶ that initiate new
signs of identity, and innovative sites of collaboration and contestation, in the art of
defining the idea of society itself” (1994, 1). Bhabha established the concept of cultural
hybridity mainly on the work of Franz Fanon. In Black skin, white mask (2008) Fanon
explores the effect of colonialism and the prevalence of Western culture on identity
formation. Within this difference, Bhabha locates historical transformation in which cultural
hybrids are produced. This notion of hybridity is elaborated on by Van Rensburg and Da
Costa (2008), who attempted to redefine spatial representation in post-colonial Africa. For
them, African urban spaces must be able to accommodate cultural differences in a
constantly changing society. The spatial aspects of the African city have been further
explored by Mbembe (2001) and Morojele (2003), investigating identity formation. As a
possible theoretical approach to this study, it might focus on the relationship between
cultural difference and spatial perception as a guide to what the character of public space
should be in South Africa. Defining the effect of cultural differences between African and
Western spatial perceptions became problematic early in the investigation due to limited
available literature. I, therefore, decided to focus on one aspect of spatial perception and
the representational value thereof, regardless of cultural difference.

The theoretical chapter focuses on Lefebvre‟s background and published work to sketch a
framework of his seminal work on Spatial Production (2.2). This is further contextualised
by investigating its relationship to Marxism and Lefebvre‟s application to architecture to
describe the relevance to the study (2.3). Thereafter, the meaning of space as intended by
Lefebvre and applied to this research is investigated (2.3). After contextualisation,
Lefebvre‟s spatial triad is investigated. First, the notion of „triad‟ as discussed in Triads
and Dyads (Lefebvre: 2003c) is elucidated. Second, the spatial triad of SP, RoS and RS is
corroborated. From this spatial triad, theoretical constructs (2.5) are composed for content
analysis of case studies (discussed in Chapter 3). This investigation explains the
applicability of Lefebvre‟s spatial triad to architecture as a guide to methodology and to the
research questions.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

2.2 Extracts of Lefebvre’s life and work

Henri Lefebvre (1901 - 91) was born in at Hegetmau, Landes in France. Although part of
his childhood was spent in Paris, the geographic nature and characteristics of the
Pyranees region remained influential in his later work. He studied philosophy under
Maurice Blondel at Aix-en-Provence after discontinuing his studies in engineering. In
1919, he continued his studies at the University of Paris, Sorbonne, under Leon
Brunschvicg researching Jansen and Pascal. Here, along with fellow students, the journal
Philosophies were published mainly to critique on Bergson‟s intuitionism (Elden: 2004b).

Some of the most influential books written by Lefebvre include The sociology of Marx
(1968) (Sociologie de Marx, 1966), Hegel, Marx and Nietzshe (Elden, Lebas & Kofman:
2003) (Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche ou le royaume des ombres, 1975), The urban revolution
(2003b) (La Revolution urbaine, 1970) and The critique on everyday life (2002) (Critique
de la vie quotidienne, 1961, volume 1-3). However, the most influential proved to be TPoS
(Production de L‟espace, 1974) especially once translated from French to English in 1991
by Donald Nicholson-Smith, which introduced Lefebvre to the Anglo-American world.

Lefebvre‟s‟ development of spatial concepts

Lefebvre‟s development of spatial concepts in TPoS and interest in architecture can

possibly be attributed to three aspects. First, his continued interest in the countryside,
especially the area of the Pyrenees, which later led to his doctorate, as well as work on
„The Rural and Urban‟ (untranslated) (Du rural à l‟urbain, 1970) and The critique on
everyday life (2002) (Critique de la vie quotidienne, 1961, volume 1-3). Second, his essay
on the cubist artist Edouard Pignon in which his ideas on space were mentioned for the
first time (Pignon: 1956). Third, the preface written for Pavillon (Elden: 2003) (L‟Habitat
Pavillonnaire, 1966), in which his thoughts on space and dwelling as applied to
architecture were developed.

Interest in the Pyrenees

In Lefebvre‟s work on the Pyrenees region in 1965, he focuses on cultural aspects to

indicate symbols and values of place. These can be related to SP although some mention
is made of RS. The focus here is more on SP as the symbols are not perceived as they
would be by the community but rather as read by Lefebvre.

The difference between place and space must be defined here. As the focus of the
Pyrénées (Lefebvre: 1965) is on defining the place, but later in TPoS (Lefebvre: 1991),
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

reference is made to space and not place. When referring to Lefebvre‟s notions of
abstract and absolute space, a link can be made to clarify these two terms. Abstract refers
to the notion of space and an object‟s symbolic qualities, focusing on the inherent
meaning and not the physical object itself. Absolute space, on the other hand, focuses on
natural space, manipulated by political factors, economics and daily life. When Lefebvre
refers to the Pyrenees, the focus is mostly on the physical environment, thus referring to
place. One could thus draw the conclusion that SP is place and RS and RoS are space,
but if read correctly, this construct cannot be read separately, thus place and space will
always be present in such a triad. Lefebvre, however, prefers to think of it as space, rather
than place as he links his theoretical thought to the global and universal, rather than to the
local sphere.

In Lefebvre‟s doctorate1 (1963), his first written work on the Pyrenees, he focused on the
small town of Vallee de Campan, in the Midi Pyrenees region in France. In a later
publication in 1965, he refocused it to define place and cultural aspects of the Pyrenees.
By defining the Pyrenees as „place‟, Lefebvre wanted to narrate the cultural aspects of the
area in relation to political and economic development (Entrikin & Berdoulay: 2005). In
both these texts Lefebvre situated himself between the “centre and periphery” and the
“local and global” (Entrikin: 2005), the rural and urban, by moving between Paris and the
Pyrenees. This transition is also seen in later work of Lefebvre where he prefers
generalized conditions over local specificities.

Although little reference is made to the Pyrenees in his later work, Lefebvre‟s initial
exploration of the area is pivotal in establishing the foundation for SP and to a lesser
extent RS. In the cultural exploration of the region, Lefebvre drew a relationship between
the topographical, social practice and economic and political development. This later
developed into SP, which explored the relationship between lived space, topography,
typology and the perception thereof.

A colleague of Lefebvre‟s, Charles Struys, had already measured and catalogued some of
the traditional houses in the Vallee de Campan. Although documented in 1940 it was first
published in 1980 in Pays aquitains (Stanek: 2011, 8). Although Lefebvre did not
investigate the architectural development in isolation, its cultural symbolism and

1
Published as La valleé de Campan: Étude de sociologie rurale. Paris: Presses universitaires de
France.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

architectural representation became an important area of investigation for Lefebvre in later

years. In his Les contradictions de l‟État moderne: La dialectique et / de l‟État (1978, 146
in Stanek 2011), Lefebvre referred to the Bauhaus movement and that their work
“demonstrated that objects in space cannot be produced in isolation...rather, all objects at
all scales should be grasped as related to one another by the same perceived, conceived,
and produced space”. In the initial study on the Pyrenees, architecture became apparent
to Lefebvre as a means of cultural symbolisms which later developed into diverse means
of representation.

Years after writing the Pyrenees (Lefebvre: 1965), upon travelling through the area again,
Lefebvre noted how it had been affected by urbanisation, which lead to the writing of
Urban revolution (2003b). Although Lefebvre does not refer to his spatial triad in this text,
the relationship between topological conditions, political and economic development is
recognised once again. The initial notion of lived space is revived, and although not as
influential as TPoS, it probably led to developing a spatial understanding of production.

Influence from artist Edouard Pignon

In 1956, Lefebvre wrote an essay on the work of Edouard Pignon (1905-1993), a French
artist whose work developed from Paul Cézanne‟s (1839-1906) impressionism in line with
Pablo Picasso‟s (1881-1973) cubism. Pignon‟s work ranges from sketches, paintings and
book illustrations to ceramics. Themes in his oeuvre include natural landscapes and later
industrial spaces. Attention to the human figure is also apparent in The miner (1949, Oil
on canvas, 92.1 x 73cm) indicating an interest in the work of Picasso who depicted figures
as distorted, abstract conceptions, opposed to the realistic work of the classicists.
Pignon‟s work can thus be categorised as cubist, along with the work of Picasso. Later, in
TPoS (1991) Lefebvre described the work of Picasso as the forerunner of the shift from
the observed object to the emancipation of the subject. However, these ideas on space
had already been seen in the essay on Pignon, although his work was not mentioned
again in TPoS.

Cubist artists were influenced by the exhibition of Cézanne‟s work held in Paris in 1907.
On a quotation describing one his own works in a letter, Cézanne reduced the natural
forms to the cylinder, sphere and cone (Marien & Fleming: 2005, 560)
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Right before Lefebvre wrote the essay on the work of Pignon, the artist completed „Men
installing electric lines at Vallouris (1954, pen on ink, 58 x 78 cm)2, in which he drew a
parallel between the human body and technological development (Elden: 2004b, 183).
Lefebvre noted how the workers have been represented as anonymous. They functioned
as organic physiological beings, abstracted against the backdrop of industrialisation.
Lefebvre presented Pignon‟s work as an “organic whole against the fragmented world of
solitary humans, alienated both from nature and other people”, (1956 cited in Elden,
2004b: 183) thus representing the middle class as living beings, and not necessarily as
emotional beings, within the abstract background of the urban environment.

In the essay on Pignon, Lefebvre described Mont Sainte-Victoire by Cezanne as an

influence or fore-runner of the work of Pignon. Lefebvre described this work as a depiction
of “„pictorial space” and as a combination of “continuity and discontinuity, local
correspondences and raptures” (1956 cited in Stanek, 2011: 146 ), as a two-dimensional
representation of an abstract reality. This duality of space relates to the work of both
Picasso and Pignon, creating fractured space on canvas. In Cezanne‟s Mont Sainte-
Victoire Lefebvre observed that the classical tradition of perspective had been abandoned.
The mountain “looms toward us, enormous and disproportionate”, thus portrayed as a
different spatial understanding as observed by the artist. Lefebvre further described the
artist‟s goal as to “[challenge] the geometric representation of space” (1956 cited in Elden,
2004b: 183). Stanek (2011) noted that it is from this concept of pictorial space that
Lefebvre derived his understanding of social space as „seen‟, „known‟, and „conceived‟.

In TPoS (1991, 301 –4), Lefebvre described the new conceptual understanding visible in
the spatial exploration of work by Picasso. According to Lefebvre, Picasso devised a new
way of painting by covering the entire canvas with the subject, thus leaving no background
or horizon, the “surface was simply divided between the space of the painted figures and
the space that surrounded them” (1991, 301). Lefebvre noted that in his cubistic work Paul
Klee (1879-1940) developed this spatial understanding even further by apprehending the
object as “perceptible ̶ and hence readable and visible ̶ relationship to what surrounded
it, to the whole space of the picture” (1991, 304). The relationship between the object and

2
According to the record held by the Tate Modern Museum, this was one of three drawings in the
same theme of electric lines. Pignon drew studies of this topic with notes to later develop into
paintings. This painting was, however, not completed and, according to exhibition records, was
never exhibited as it was rendered inappropriate by Pignon. Only one of the three sketches was
exhibited. Due to the unframed state of the illustrated image, it is suggested that this was not the
exhibited image (Alley: 1981).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

surrounding space thus becomes the expressed; in this case the represented thus
becomes meaningful. This relationship is described by Lefebvre as “the surroundings of
the object [that] become visible. And the object-in-space is bound up with a presentation
of space itself”.

It is interesting to note that Lefebvre‟s initial spatial concepts and developments thereof
were inspired by the work of cubist artists such as Picasso and Pignon. These artists‟
work are characterised by subjective abstractions of line and geometry rather than
representation. For cubists, abstraction was not connected to naturalistic representation,
but rather investigated geometric shapes, patterns, lines, angles and patches of colour
(Marien: 2005, 560). In Lefebvre‟s later development of his triad, representational space
contradicted this spatial understanding as it is connected to the experience of space.
Representations of space, on the other hand, can be directly linked to the work of cubist
artists when designed by professionals such as architects and urban planners. In this
case the object becomes a geometric interplay of solids and voids constructed by lines.
Furthermore, these spaces are often bereft of meaning or experiential quality, focusing
more on functionality. A direct correlation with cubism is the ability to draw an object from
multiple perspectives. Within Lefebvre‟s triad, social space as lived object is considered
from three different angles. As with cubism, these views should be considered
simultaneously to form a spatial understanding.

Furthermore, pictorial space was differentiated from the naturalistic depictions portrayed in
the Renaissance, as two-dimensional geometries. Lefebvre makes a similar distinction by
referring to abstract space and absolute space. Abstract space refers to codes and the
signified, whereas absolute space refers to naturalistic space manipulated by politics. He
thus also moved away from the naturalistic understanding of space by creating these two
constructs. Here abstract space refers to the pictorial, whereas absolute space refers to
the meaning embedded within architectural space, created in nature. Within Lefebvre‟s
spatial triad, the relationship between the physical object as perceived and the
surrounding space as the receptacle thereof becomes lucid.

Writing on architecture: Pavillon

The Pavillon, a preface written by Lefebvre for the book L‟Habitat Pavillonnaire (Lefebvre:
2003a), explores two notions of human habitation and the creation of these spaces. In the
Pavillon, Lefebvre investigated the residential unit as „object‟ or product consumed by the
French public. Lefebvre‟s initial ideas on habitation developed from Bachelard‟s The
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

poetic of space (1994) and Heidegger‟s Being and time (1967). From both these texts the
notion of spatial experience opposed to functionality, connected with time and space,
influenced Lefebvre‟s argument in the Pavillon.

Lefebvre further developed habitation into three influential aspects of appropriation, the
social imaginary and ideology (Stanek: 2011). According to Lefebvre, the Pavillon allows
its inhabitant to be creative, to change and adapt its environment. Lefebvre further states
that “they can alter, add or subtract, superimpose their own ideas (symbols, organizations)
on what is provided. Their environment thus acquires meaning for them” (Lefebvre:
2003a). As an example, Lefebvre describes the street as a space of appropriation in
which the multiple-public (Fraser: 1993) can arrange itself. Within the Pavillon, space is
appropriated through „marking, enclosure and arrangement‟ (Lefebvre: 2003a) which
refers to Lefebvre‟s later ideas on SP. Lefebvre further refers to these three aspects as
„symbols, contrast and order‟ which indicates the relationship between SP and RS as
written in TPoS (Lefebvre: 1991). Furthermore, symbolism also refers to the notion of RS
as constructs formed from lived experience.

RS was possibly further influenced by Lefebvre‟s initial ideas on „utopia‟. The pavillon was
seen as a representation of happiness, embodying utopian images, moving between the
real-and-imagined. Within the pavillon inhabitants established their own meaning
becoming a „personalized microcosm and their own happiness‟ (Lefebvre: 2003a). These
pavillons or products were produced as RoS in TPoS (Lefebvre: 1991). Pavillons were re-
produced in other areas of France, becoming representations of other spaces, losing their
initial contextual reference, minimizing appropriation. Lefebvre describes this spatial
production as “everything is real and everything is utopian, without a clear difference;
everything is nearby and everything is far away; everything is „lived‟ and everything is
imaginary” (Lefebvre: 2003a). Within this quotation, Lefebvre describes the relationship
between his spatial triad, which he developed in TPoS, confirming the co-existence of
each concept. Lefebvre, lastly, connected ideology with SP by linking appropriation with
time and space (Lefebvre: 2003a). Suburbanites (inhabitants of pavillons) form a
collective denominator, influenced by city patterns and, in turn, influenced by ideologies.

The three major influences on Lefebvre‟s TPoS can thus be summarised as lived
experience, art and architecture. As lived experience, Lefebvre‟s observations of the
Vallee de Campan influenced constructs such as place and space which led to SP. The
analysis of cubist art works led to two spatial understandings of absolute and abstract
space with the latter developing into RoS. Although Lefebvre made several references to
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

architecture in TPoS, the first direct reference was in the foreword Pavillon to L‟Habitat
Pavillonnaire (Lefebvre: 2003a). When describing the dwellings, Lefebvre touches on the
interrelationship of lived, conceived and perceived space although not as clearly defined
as in TPoS. The focus is, however, on RoS (perceived), describing how lived experience
has become devoid of meaning. The following section aims to place Lefebvre‟s work in
context by briefly referring to his initial position as a Marxist and how he defined space.
This contextual understanding aims to highlight the framework of Lefebvre‟s spatial triad.

2.3 Lefebvre in context

On Marxism and production

Lefebvre was not only known as a Marxist, but as a Marxist philosopher (Elden: 2004a).
He later recognised himself as a French Marxist, who rejected the Soviet model of
socialism. This shift was influenced by several wars in Central and Eastern Europe.
Furthermore, the publication of Solzhenitsyn‟s The Gulag archipelago (1974), first in
French in 1973 and translated into English in 1974, opened several problems associated
with Marxist Socialism (Elden: 2004b). In Lefebvre‟s work, this shift is first seen in
Marksizm i myśl francuska (Marxism and French thought, 1957), his first written protest
against some of the Parti Communiste Français/ French Communist Party‟s (PCF) actions
(Stanek: 2011). The Sociology of Marx written by Lefebvre in 1968 and the original French
text of La production de l‟espace in 1974 was written after the release of The Gulag
archipelago, thus portraying a great influence of French Marxism.

Lefebvre explored three concepts of praxis3, politics and the state in The Sociology of
Marx (1968). Praxis was further developed in TPoS in which Lefebvre describes space as
a „social relationship‟. He described this relationship as

“...inherent to property relationships (especially the ownership of the

earth, of land) and also closely bound up with the forces of production
(which impose a form on that earth or land); here we see the
polyvalence of social space, its „reality‟ at once formal and material.
Though a product to be used, to be consumed, it is also a means of
production; networks of exchange and flows of raw materials and

3
Praxis, stand in contrast with philosophy as it focuses on the practical and applied aspects of
sociology. This term considers human activity as the ability to create “the unity of the sensuous and
[the] intellectual, of nature and culture” (Lefebvre: 1968, 39).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

energy fashion space and are determined by it. Thus this means of
production, produced as such, cannot be separated either from the
productive forces, including technology and knowledge, or from the
social division of labour which shapes it, or from the state and the
structures of society.” (1991, 85)

Lefebvre describes Marx‟s key concern as to explore the relationship between human
activity and the product thereof. Within this relationship the philosophical problem of the
subject-object relationship emerges (Lefebvre: 1968, 8). Within this subject-object problem
the subject remains social man, whereas the object can be social space, the architectural
object or the re-production of the specific space.

Form is the product of praxis. Lefebvre describes this as “every society is creative of
forms” (1968, 45–46). Form refers to both abstract, concrete and aesthetic concepts,
products all created and consumed by social man. Marx described form in Capital (1983)
as:

“Man‟s reflection on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his
scientific analysis of these forms, take a course directly opposite to
that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with
the results of the process of development ready to hand before him.
The characters that stamp products as commodities, and whose
establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of
commodities, have already taken on the stability of natural, self-
understood forms of social life, before man sets out to decipher ̶ not
their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable ̶ but their
meaning. In other words the form is deceptive. It induces false
impressions, erroneous thinking: namely, impression of fixity,
confusion between the natural (immobile) thing, and the social thing
(abstract, hence formed historically).”

From this quote by Marx, several ideas were developed further by Lefebvre. Primarily,
spatial practice is visible in Marx‟s notion of „the results of the process of development‟
and the „circulation of commodities‟, noting the concept of constant development through
lived experience and how products are consumed to be reproduced again. The idea of
representation is further visible in the „reflection on the forms of social life‟, although there
is no clear distinction yet between perceived (RS) and embedded meaning (RoS). Marx
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

describes this product of consumption as „”...form is deceptive. It induces false

impressions, erroneous thinking: namely, impression of fixity, confusion between the
natural (immobile) thing, and the social thing”. Thus investigating the relationship between
the object, subject and how the product is consumed (SP). Lefebvre proposes that Marx‟s
concept of commodity production represents a model by which the multiple dualisms of a
Marxist analysis of space can best be accommodated and the philosophical dualism of a
static analysis overcome (Shields: 1999, 159).

On space

To fully grasp the Lefebvre‟s spatial reference in TPoS one must understand „space‟
within the context of the text. Elden describes Lefebvre‟s spatial production in the
following two ways: “as a social formation (mode of production), and as a mental
construction (conception)” (2004b, 185). As a mode of production, reference is made to all
three aspects of Lefebvre's spatial triad. SP is the relationship between the lived and
conceived, thus daily routine enacted within physical space. These spaces are measured
by bodily experience, as conceptual constructs forming RS and on a Cartesian grid as
measured space. RoS as geometric forms designed by professionals are measured
spaces. Spaces designed on paper, represent actual space through lines with appropriate
dimensions. A typology is further assigned according to the intended use. This typological
form is then plotted on the represented site, again representing reality with coordinates.
Space is thus constructed on another spatial field, that of the two dimensional,
representing space through codes and co-ordinate systems on a Cartesian grid. As
conceived space, reference is made to RoS and RS. RoS is often formed as a mental
construct before it is developed on paper, which remains a conceptual idea. RS is a
conceived space derived from the lived experience, thus relying on the historic experience
throughout different time aspects.

The term space, as used by Lefebvre, can be defined after applying „modes of production‟
and „conception‟ of space to his spatial triad. He situates space between the mathematical
Cartesian concept and the lived experience as defined by Kant with the added dimension
of history and time. Space can thus be defined as: the measurable and incalculable,
conceived and perceived of lived reality, both in the past, present and imagined future,
thus situated between all the dimensions of time.

Semantic differences between place and space have already been described under
section 2.2 with place as absolute and space as abstract, as understood by the author.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Although multiple definitions of place and space exist, it has been defined through the
notion of absolute and abstract space as described by Lefebvre in TPoS. In the following
section Lefebvre‟s spatial triad, SP, RoS and RS are explained as applied to architecture.
Its aim is to clarify the different spatial constructs while stating their inter-dependability.

2.4 Lefebvre’s spatial triad

In TPoS (1991) Lefebvre developed a spatial triad to unify the physical, mental (ideal),
and social (real space). The triad included SP, RS and RoS. This relates to Lynch‟s
analyses of environmental images. He investigated the urban environment by considering
identity, structure and meaning (Lynch: 1960). For Lynch, each of these components is
interrelated and cannot be considered without the other. This interrelationship, also
presented in Lefebvre‟s triad, was described by Stanek (2011) as

“Each aspect of this three-part dialectic is in a relationship with the

other two. Altogether they make up „space‟. All these aspects are
latent, ideological or expressed in practice in a historical spatialisation,
and may either reinforce or contradict each other in any given
moment.”

In the following three sections each construct is discussed individually for clarity although
they cannot be viewed separately. In each section, the term is clarified after which
architectural aspects are highlighted. Lastly, the construct is discussed in relation to the
three research questions being investigated.

Lived reality: Spatial practice (SP)

Lefebvre‟s concept of SP refers to the relationship between the physical environment and
how people‟s daily lives are enacted therein. However, one should not confuse spatial
practice with lived space, as the latter does not consider the reciprocal relationship
between the user and the space inhabited (Shields: 1999, 161). Lefebvre provided the
following description of spatial practice:

“Spatial practice: the spatial practice of a society secretes that society‟s space; it
propounds and presupposes it, in a dialectical interaction; it produces it slowly and
surely as it masters and appropriates it. From the analytic standpoint, the spatial
practice of a society is revealed through the deciphering of its space.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

What is spatial practice under neo-capitalism? It embodies a close association,

within perceived space, between daily reality (daily routine) and urban reality (the
routes and networks which link up the places set aside for work, „private‟ life and
leisure). This association is a paradoxical one, because it includes the most extreme
separation between the places it links together. The specific spatial competence and
performance of every society member can only be evaluated empirically. „Modern‟
spatial practice might thus be defined ̶ to take an extreme but significant case ̶ by
the daily life of a tenant in a government-subsidized high-rise housing project. Which
should not be taken to mean that motorways or the politics of air transport can be
left out of the picture. A spatial practice must have a certain cohesiveness, but this
does not imply that it is coherent (in the sense of intellectually worked out or logically
conceived).” (Lefebvre, 1991: 38)

Space can thus not be viewed separately from history. Lived space should, therefore, be
analysed in conjunction with its use, becoming spatial practice. However, time is ongoing,
progressive and therefore requires a continuous production process between the lived
and the re-construction of the perceived environment. Edward Soja describes this
relationship “as the process of producing the material form of social spatiality, [thus
presented] as both medium and outcome of human activity, behavior [sic], and
experience” (1996, 66)

The three research questions investigate the relationship between SP, RoS and RS
regarding the respective community centres. The focus is on the formation of networks
and nodal points, the relationship between them and their hierarchical patterning.
Lefebvre stated that every social space “duly demarcated and oriented, implies a
superimposition of certain relations upon networks of named places, of lieuxdits” (1991,
193). These superimpositions are formed by different boundaries and restrictions, which
Lefebvre categorized into four spaces of „accessible space‟, „boundaries and forbidden
territories‟, „places of abode‟ and „junction points‟. With reference to this study, accessible
space refers to routes, vehicular or pedestrian, regulated by designated authorities,
connecting various places. Boundaries and territories refer to physical or intangible
restrictions located in space. Physical boundaries refer to fences, walls, partitioning and
glass and often even roads or railway tracks. These restrictions prohibit physical access
although visual contact is sometimes still possible. Intangible boundaries, on the other
hand, are not formed by physical attributes, but by social inclusion or exclusion, cultural
categorization or class divisions. Places of abode refer to private residences where
access is restricted. Lastly, junction points are described by Lefebvre as “places of
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

passage and encounter” (Lefebvre: 1991, 193). These spaces do not refer to accessible
space of circulation routes, but rather to ritual space restricted by events and time. These
are thus not only physical spaces, but are formed by the prescribed programme,
constantly changing. One such an example would be a church, allowing access for
members on a Sunday, a space for mourning during funerals and of celebration for
selected guests during a marriage ceremony.

Architecture: Representations of space (RoS)

RoS as an opposing concept to SP and RS, is described by Lefebvre as „conceived‟

space, whereas RS area is the „perceived‟ of „lived experience‟ (SP) (1991). RoS thus
belongs to abstract space and SP to concrete space, to which RS also relates. A definition
of RoS is given by Lefebvre as:

“the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social

engineers, as of a certain type of artist with a scientific bent ̶ all of whom identify
what is lived and what is perceived with what is conceived. This is the dominant
space in any society (or mode of production). Conceptions of space tend, with
certain exceptions...towards a system of verbal (and therefore intellectually worked
out) signs.” (1991, 38–39)

From the quotation, four seminal aspects will be discussed in the following paragraphs:
The role of the professional, codes of space, RoS as dominant space and as mode of
production. Spatial organisation and design of our cities rely on architects and urban
planners. These professionals are the mediators between the required structure and the
end-user. Often the end-users4 are not even the clients, but they are represented by the
local municipal development board or economic investors. The client has a specific design
objective and the architect a certain design intent which leaves the user5 with imposed
representations. However, within the process of spatial practice, other modes of
representational space might be perceived, changing the architects intended meaning.

5
Lefebvre notes that the use of „user‟ ad „inhabitant‟ does not describe people activating the lived
space of concrete space. When referring to RoS the writer find the term „user‟ appropriate as it
excludes them from the design process and are often without identity. When referring to RS or SP,
especially in reference to the specific case studies, the term „community members‟ is used to
describe specific actors in the production of space.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

These representations are embedded within certain ideological constructs, shaping the
urban environment. Lefebvre argues that due to the presence of ideology, these
representations are objective (1991, 41). Even though the design process might be guided
by underlying ideologies, the architect remains a subjective artist, interpreting the
environment and design brief from personal perspectives, resulting in a more subjective
projection. Although RoS remains an abstract construct, Lefebvre described it as an
important factor in social practice. He states that this abstract RoS “established relations
between objects and people in represented space” (1991, 41), thus confirming the
relationship between RoS and RS investigated through one of the research questions.

Architects present RoS two-dimensionally as geometric representations on paper, on a

different scale, removed from the context. This mode of construction only developed
during the Renaissance through geometric representation. Previously, the architect was
an on-site builder, designing the structure as it progresses. One contemporary example is
the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona designed by Antonio Gaudi. During the construction
process he was present on site whilst still working on the structural composition of the
church. Geometric representation started during the Renaissance with the work of artists
such as Michelangelo (1475-1564). He configured the public space in front of St. Peters
basilica in Rome in a geometric grid. This square radiates from a central Egyptian obelisk
to the portico surrounding the area. This marked the start of geometric codes representing
architectural spaces on paper. Vidler noted that these codes became even more
abstracted by Modernists, only understood by the codifier, thus “abstractions of
abstractions” (2000, 7). This phenomenon has become even more severe with computer
generated drawings and modelling. In some cases the structure is even designed through
computer programs using parameters (points on a Cartesian plain). Through this process
the architect is removed from reality, creating digital representations. Vidler describes this
process as “an image as architecture and architecture as image” (2000, 17).

These abstractions have a contextual implication. Each drawing can be interpreted on its
own, regardless of the context, described by Alberto Pérez-Gómez and Louise Pelletier
as “each piece only a part of a dissected whole” (1992, 17). RoS should thus be
investigated in conjunction with SP and RS to ensure that structures are not imposed on
communities.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Perception: Representational space‟s (RS)

RS can be described as „symbolic works‟ (Lefebvre: 1991, 42). Although the origin of
these works is situated in reality, symbols are transformed into abstract constructs through
perception. Abstract construction is described by Lefebvre as:

“Space is directly lived through its associated images and symbols,

and hence the space of „inhabitants‟ and „users‟, but also of some
artists and perhaps of those, such as a few writers and philosophers,
who describe and aspire to do more than describe. This is the
dominated ̶ and hence passively experienced ̶ space which the
imagination seeks to change and appropriate. It overlays physical
space, making symbolic use of its objects. Thus representational
spaces may be said, though again with certain exceptions, to tend
towards more or less coherent systems of non-verbal symbols and
signs.” (1991, 39)

Rob Shield in his written work, Lefebvre, love and struggle: Spatial dialectics, described
Lefebvre‟s notion of RS as “monuments of presence” referring both to the historical and
utopian at once (1999, 159). By referring to the work of Bruno Zevi (1918-2000), Lefebvre
made two references to architecture: First, to the relationship between the interior and
exterior. Second, to architectural space as „strictly visual‟, read through bodily experience.
Architecture as a „visual‟ element thus refers to its symbolic or coded character. RS is,
therefore, a direct outcome of SP being the perception of lived experience.

In TPoS, RS is also referred to as perception. The notion of perception is often linked to

phenomenology as the world around us is experienced through the senses. Architecture,
as physical object, “can be experienced through reflective and silent analysis” (Holl,
Pallasmaa & Pérez-Gómez: 2006, 40). These physical objects are described by Donal
Preziosi as an “architectonic analysis” or “architectural code” (1979, 2). Preziosi further
describes this language as not only consisting of archetypes, but it is also formed by the
landscape and “bodies in space”. However, the perception of the built and urban
environment as perceived by architects and the community differ significantly (Appleyard:
1980, 160).

SP and RoS combined form the „lived‟ physical realm to inform perception. Maurice
Merleau-Ponty stated that perception can only be experienced “in action” rather being
imposed or known (1964, 12); lived reality in the physical realm, as the experienced, forms
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

perception. Again, for perception to be formed, Lefebvre‟s spatial triad cannot be viewed
in isolation.

Notions of RS described by Lefebvre continuously relate the physical realm with its
contextual relations. Perception is thus influenced by the landscape and bodily relations
thereto. Robert Venturi also stated the importance of context as architectural element, to
acknowledge place, to create harmony, dissonance and complexity (2004, 10).

RS as perceived by the community is thus the meaning and symbols found in lived reality,
derived from RoS. Perceptions formed are from a multi-sensory origin and are therefore
subjective. RS, as perceived by community members is of utmost importance as it can
reconfigure spatial connections or disjunctions.

2.5 Themes from The production of space

Through a literary analysis of TPoS, themes for the spatial triad of Lefebvre have been
explored to guide the methodology and analysis of data. The three spatial categories of
„lived experience‟, „conceived‟ and „perceived‟ have been investigated individually whilst
still considering their interdependence. Each spatial category has an influence on the
other, and in some cases the themes coincide due to the inseparability of the three
categories. Each category of „lived‟, „conceived‟ and „perceived‟ space is investigated in
terms of spatial aspects located either in or between „absolute‟ or „abstract‟ space, the
reference thereof to materiality and sub-themes investigating the category.

Spatial Practice (SP)

For Lefebvre SP (also referred to as social space) consisted of three fundamental

concepts, that of form, structure and function (1991, 147), of which the triad in its totality
describes objects (1991, 113). Within this concept of SP, another triad is thus found, again
each aspect dependent on the other. These aspects can be observed in daily reality, thus
simultaneously referring to the materialization of conceived and perceived space. As
Lefebvre noted, SP can be “observed, described and analyzed on a wide range of levels”
(1991, 413), here referring to the built environment and people‟s perception of it. Form as
a theme can be further subdivided into geometric space and area, direction and
orientation, urban and classical form, and aesthetic or plastic qualities. Structure can be
subdivided into geometric space, bodily reference and volume, but mostly defined by
technological character (Lefebvre: 1991, 369). Function can be subdivided into categories
of accessibility, boundaries and networks, and inclusion or exclusion.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Lefebvre described the concept of form as “aesthetic, plastic, [and] abstract (logico-
mathematical)” (1991, 148) thus referring to it as a concrete visual object. According to
Lefebvre, for form to exist, bodily reference must configure through direction, orientation
and axis (1991, 169). Bodily reference can be found in Lefebvre‟s classification of urban
and classical form in which the urban can be found in the classical. Urban form is
described by “assembly, encounter and simultaneity”, whereas the classical is defined by
“centrality, difference, recurrence, [and] reciprocity” (Lefebvre: 1991, 149). With these two
terms Lefebvre thus combines the social aspects of gathering with classical form,
reaffirming SP as the relationship between lived space and the physical realm. Lefebvre
describes bodily reference as:

“an immediate relationship between the body and its space, between
the body‟s deployment in space and its occupation of space. Before
producing effects in the material realm (tools and objects), before
producing itself by drawing nourishment from the realm, and before
reproducing itself by generating other bodies, each living body is space
and has its space: it produces itself in space and it also produces that
space.” (1991, 170)

Form as a central geometric space can be seen as an „empty vessel‟, thus “becoming a
locus of action, of a sequence of operations whereby the form acquires functional
appropriation” (Lefebvre: 1991, 399). This functional aspect includes the notion of „within
or without‟ and „open or closed‟ (Lefebvre: 1991, 163), describing the porosity thereof and
the „centre-periphery relationship‟ (Lefebvre: 1991, 149). The human body is in direct
relation to the centre. The body is seen as the „subjective‟ central point from which all
space, physical and metaphysical is measured. Lefebvre describes this central position as
“one places oneself at the centre, designates oneself, measures oneself, and uses
oneself as a measure. One is, in short, a „subject” (1991, 180).

Structure for Lefebvre is the “object that we make use of and use up” (1991, 369). The
structure, furthermore, organises “elementary units within a whole” thus combining the
form and environment within the textured context through scale, proportion, dimension
and level (Lefebvre: 1991, 158). Through a structural analysis, the “material relationships
obtaining between those forces ̶ relationships which give rise to equally clearly
determined spatial structures: columns, vaults, arches, pillars, and so on” (Lefebvre: 1991,
159).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Function can foremost be evaluated to the most essential aspects of circulation routes,
private or public spaces, how these are used and by whom. These aspects can also relate
to RoS applied under „conceived‟ space. Applied to SP, function is read from „lived
experience‟, thus the concrete reality defined by the body. Function is, therefore,
determined by each individual‟s perception of public and private, or could either be
defined by management of facilities, thus formed by the restriction of boundaries. Space
can further be defined by the function or permissible activities of the user or approved
participant. This aspect of analysis might seem redundant, but proves to be of utmost
importance as the architectural plan and final spatial appropriation often differ. Lefebvre
identified this through the fact that “the space of the objects and the space of institutions
are radically divergent in „modern‟ society” (1991, 149); which might be ascribed to
buildings being designed with often too rigid programmes.

The relationship between boundaries and named places (which refers to RS) is central in
Lefebvre‟s inquiry (1991, 193). Lefebvre further divides boundaries into four categories of
accessible space, boundaries and forbidden territories, places of abode and junction
points. In TPoS, accessible space refers to routes, such as pedestrian walkways, which
are controlled by prescription that refer to rules and daily reality. These spaces and routes
are relatively accessible to the general public if one ascribe to principles, which in some
cases are socially constructed. Boundaries and forbidden territories are controlled by
social groups or individuals who manage access according to their own standards and
rules. These boundaries can be visible (physical) or invisible (thus referring to RS). Places
of abode refer to residential units being either permanent or temporary (Lefebvre: 1991,
193). Junction points are associated with occasion, like certain events and rituals, often
connected to culture or religion, only allowing access in particular circumstances. Lefebvre
presents social space “not as things, which have limiting boundaries and which collide
because of their contours or as a result of inertia” but can rather be described to
“interpenetrate one another and/or superimpose themselves upon one another” (1991,
86–7). These spaces are thus not separated by physical boundaries formed through
architects‟ spatial conceptions, but can exist through restrictions of the physical or private
property. Functional restrictions and boundaries can be connected through networks.
Networks are described in more detail by Lefebvre as the ”various movements, rhythms
and frequencies” which exists between networks and locations (1991, 87).

Function and lived space are further linked through the use of space with aspects such as
“inclusion and exclusion”, “movable or fixed”, “private or public”, and “implication or
explication” (Lefebvre: 1991, 163). Again, these aspects can be found either in the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

physical realm of daily use or as perceived, thus the metaphysical. Lefebvre makes a
connection to private and public space by referring to the connection between external
and internal spaces. The external spaces are dominated by the public whereas internal
spaces are appropriated by family members (1991, 166). This domination and
appropriation of space refers directly to SP as typological aspects often informed by
spatial use. Functional aspects are further informed by appropriation, often contradicting
initial spatial conception (1991, 149). Daily reality thus influences function (again referring
to plan and typology), altering it on a continuous basis.

Representation of Space (RoS)

Conceived space for Lefebvre is to be found in representational graphic elements drawn

by architects and planners (1991, 361–362). These elements include site plans, plans,
elevations, sections and perspectives, all two-dimensional representations referring to
material qualities of objects. Themes are explored by investigating all two-dimensional
drawings as they are often represented on several levels. Identified themes include spatial
context and texture, hierarchy, construction technique, boundaries, spatial fragmentation
and subdivision.

As Lefebvre described, conceived spaces are two-dimensional representations with

parameters, points set as limitations in boundless space. Space is thus represented by
focusing either on form, structure or function. This mode of representation becomes
problematic as it fragments and sub-divides space (Lefebvre: 1991, 365). Each mode of
representation focuses on a separated aspect of spatiality and often even on different
scales. Fragmented spaces are thus disjunctive, divided into “specificities”. These spaces
are then further subdivided on an urban scale into spaces of pleasure (non-work) and
labour (work). Plans can be further analyzed by what Lefebvre describes as a grid, which
defines space according to private or public use, circulation and “their use and user”
(1991, 366). These aspects can also refer to SP, depending on information retrieved, thus
two-dimensional abstract RoS or lived reality. On plan, space can initially be subdivided
into sections identifying circulation routes and private or public demarcated areas. From
there, the use of each space is defined, which is often further determined by the user, thus
the public (community members) or more private use (staff and other authorised people).
Hierarchical subdivision of space further occurs through which economic, social and class
distinctions are made (Lefebvre: 1991, 282; 318).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Construction technique entails the manufacturing of the object, thus referring to the
material and materiel qualities, production thereof and the relationship to nature (Lefebvre:
1991, 113) and technological development (Lefebvre: 1991, 164). Linking labour and
construction technique to architecture, Lefebvre urges that the process should be made
visible, even after completion of the product.

Geometric space, also referred to by Lefebvre as Euclidean space (1991, 285), is RoS in
its most abstract form. These geometrical abstractions are described by Lefebvre as “a
medium for objects, an object itself, and a locus of the objectification of plans” (1991, 361).
With reference to architecture, geometric space thus refers to lines and planes on paper
(or in some cases digital data of points in space). That becomes a RoS which is then
projected onto a site. The problem of this „site‟ is its being fragmented, subdivided and
socially secluded, described by Lefebvre as “planners (thus) impose the constraints of
exchangeability on everyday life, while presenting them as both natural (or normal) and
technical requirements ̶ and often also as moral necessities (requirements of public
morality)” (1991, 338). In turn, these fragmented spaces are subdivided into spaces of
labour and leisure (Lefebvre: 1991, 64).

In South Africa, subdivision was further marked by different racial groups and more
recently by social and economic classes. These divisions are formed through architectural
constructs such as the “everyday realm and the urban realm; inside and outside; work and
non-work; the durable and the ephemeral” (Lefebvre: 1991, 64). Boundaries are thus
formed through description on plan or through graphical representations.

Representational Space (RS)

Perceived space, in turn refers to the symbolic and imaginary, including images, signs and
in some cases geometric space. These aspects do not refer to material qualities, but
rather to materiel, linking meaning to „conceived‟ space. Here, five themes have been
identified as displacement, condensation, archetypes, centring and objectification to
define images and signs.

Themes of displacement and condensation were derived by Lefebvre from

psychoanalytical and linguistic fields to describe monumental space. Displacement refers
to “metonymy, the shift from the part to the whole, and contiguity” (Lefebvre: 1991, 225).
Condensation on the other hand, refers to “substitution, metaphor and similarity”
(Lefebvre: 1991, 225). Applying these two terms to habitable buildings, displacement
refers to the relationship between structural elements, the Gestalt and the relationship to
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

the site and greater community. A relationship between building elements and the
contextual integration of the site to its surroundings might thus exist. Lefebvre further
proposes two approaches to the conception of space. The first is to “enumerate parts of
space” and the second is to “describe space as a whole” (Lefebvre: 1991, 295). When
considering both of these aspects simultaneously, “active elements within space and the
genesis of space as an ensemble that is at once social and mental, abstract and concrete”
are arrived at (Lefebvre: 1991, 295). Condensation on the other hand refers to the
meaning ascribed to these building elements through the process of substitution, to create
metaphors and similarities.

Archetypal meanings are portrayed through the material qualities of physical objects
(Lefebvre: 1991, 137). Lefebvre makes a distinction between material and materiel.
Material refers to “words, images, symbols [and] concepts” whereas materiel refers to
“collection procedures and tools for cutting-up and re-assembling”. These materiel
representations refer to technology which includes the instruments, instructions, labour
and the “directions for use” (Lefebvre: 1991, 105). Material thus refers directly to
perceived space whereas materiel mostly refers to conceived space. Materiel, however,
can also influence perceived space as meaning can be attached to the construction and
use of the material created.

Representational space for Lefebvre has an “effective centre” such as “house, church,
square”, which are “directional, relational, situational-qualitative, fluid and dynamic” with its
connection to time (1991, 42). Central space can thus be connected to architectural
typologies of named places. Within the urban grid these typologies form centres;
depending on the social group or boundaries for a particular religious group the church
may be a centre, and a house will only be a central point for the inhabitants of that
particular residence. These centres are connected to time for social groups and users
change along with power relations, thus altering the centre. Due to the changing nature of
centres, the relationship between the centre and periphery is complex with constantly
changing boundaries (Lefebvre: 1991, 332). For a centre to exist it must simultaneously
“include and exclude” and form an attraction and “distance” (Lefebvre: 1991, 386)
between other centres and social groups. These centres of inclusion form points of
accumulation as spaces of “gathering-together and meeting of whatever coexists in a
given space” with “coexist” meaning everything that can be “named and enumerated”
(1991, 331). This accumulation could be either social or metaphysical “to concentrate
wealth, means of action, knowledge, information and „culture” (Lefebvre: 1991, 332).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

With particular reference to the study, community centres are seen as gathering spaces
for diverse social groups within the community, concentrating related activities. Although
these centres are seen as publicly accessible, restrictions might still persist, formed by
social, economic or other issues. Considering the relationship of community centres to the
immediate environment, Lefebvre describes centres as a point of accumulation with
possible infinite points surrounding the core (1991, 331). With these points being
measured from the centre, surrounding space could either be “full or empty” and “infinite
or finite” (Lefebvre: 1991, 331). Within the macro-context of the community, other points
can be evaluated according to their “compactness and density” along with other
“constraints and a bearer of norms and values‟” (Lefebvre: 1991, 356).

Considering the apartheid city model, the city centre was cleared of all non-Europeans
with the Group Areas Act of 1950. Lefebvre described this notion as “to organize the
centre as locus of decision, wealth, power and information; to find allies for the hegemonic
class within the middle strata and within the „elite‟; to plan production and flows from the
spatial point of view" (1991, 378). In the concluding chapter of TPoS, Lefebvre describes
the form of centrality:

“as a form, is empty, calls for content and attracts and concentrates
particular objects. By becoming a locus of action, of a sequence of
operations, this form acquires a functional reality. Around the centre a
structure of (mental and/ or social) space is now organized, a structure
that is always of the moment, contributing, along with form and
function, to a practice. ... Any centrality, once established, is destined
to suffer dispersal, to dissolve or to explode from the effects of
saturation, attrition, outside aggressions, and so on. This means that
the „real‟ can never become completely fixed, that it is constantly in a
state of mobilization”. (Lefebvre: 1991, 399)

Lefebvre describes objects as “markers for rhythm, as reference points, [and] as centres”
(1991, 211). As RoS, these objects are perceived through sensory experience, thus being
subjective and relating to bodily experience, the perceptions of objects are marked by
“relationships of opposition and contrast”. These contradictions include “right and left, high
and low, central and peripheral, demarcated and oriented space, near and far,
symmetrical and asymmetrical, and auspicious and inauspicious” as well as “paternity and
maternity” (Lefebvre: 1991, 211).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“Objects touch one another, feel, smell and hear one another. Then
they contemplate one another with eye and gaze. One truly gets the
impression that every shape in space, every single plane, constitutes a
mirror and produces a mirage effect; that within each body the rest of
the world is reflected, and referred back to, in an ever-renewed to-and-
fro of reciprocal reflection, an interplay of shifting colours, lights and
forms. A mere change of position, or a change in a place‟s
surroundings, is enough to precipitate an object‟s passage into the
light: what was covert becomes overt, what was cryptic becomes
limpidly clear (Lefebvre: 1991, 183).”

In the above quote Lefebvre makes three important points regarding objects. He
personifies objects as reflective, and when referring to objects in the context of RoS,
reference is no longer made to space but to place. As a personified object, sensory
experience is ascribed to physical elements, thus being able to perceive „their‟ own
environment. Through this sensory experience, reflexivity is possible, thus objects can
portray multiple meanings on the other. Furthermore, mirage also refers to the “shifting
colours, lights and forms”, thus how the objects are capable of altering the context within a
specific relationship. A contextual relationship is thus very important hence the use of
„place‟. Through this personification and projections of the particular objects, meaning and
change are ascribed to the context. This meaning is specific to environmental and
seasonal changes, thus to the place.

2.6 Conclusion

Lefebvre‟s spatial triad was thus utilized to investigate the central research question that
explores the spatial production of community centres. Furthermore, each of Lefebvre‟s
spatial constructs was investigated to consider the secondary research questions. First,
the relationship between the use of space by community members (SP) and the two-
dimensional representation thereof as designed by architects (RoS). Second, the
relationship between users‟ perception (RS) and architects‟ intent (RoS) of symbolism,
images and signs. Third, how community centres, in the macro context, reconfigure
boundaries, form and function (SP), as well as areas of centralization, condensation and
displacement (RS).

SP investigates the use of space in the community centre and the surrounding macro-
context. This utilization of space explores the direct lived reality and how it is perceived by
community members. Through this exploration the focus is on peripheries, social aspects
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

and what constitutes a community. RoS corresponds to the design and intent of the
architect. These representations were explored through the aspects of displacement,
condensation, archetypes and centrality. Lastly, RS focuses on the perception of
meaning. These terms refer to community members‟ constructs of identity formation. To
answer the third question, the reconfiguration of SP (the relationship between SP, RoS
and RS) is explored in the community‟s immediate vicinity.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 3 Research methodology

3.1 Introduction: Research approach in relation to theoretical framework 38

3.2 Literature study on investigated methodology 38

3.3 Two pilot studies conducted 44

3.4 Selection of participants 51

3.5 Selection of chosen case studies 53

3.6 Description of the two case studies: The Helenvale multi-purpose ----
resources centre and the Ubuntu community centre 56

3.7 Discussion of the three chosen methods: Semi-structured inter---------

views, mapping and sort-charts. 75

3.8 Conclusion: Methodology answering the research question 80

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

3.1 Introduction: Research approach in relation to theoretical framework

Architectural structures are created and reproduced in acknowledgement of the spatial

framework of communities. This spatial production is explored through the following three
questions. First, what is the relationship between lived reality of community members (SP)
and the two-dimensional representation thereof as designed by architects (RoS)? Second,
what is the relationship between users‟ perception (RS) and architects‟ intent (RoS) of
symbolism, images and signs? Third, how do community centres, in the macro-context,
reconfigure boundaries, form and function (SP), as well as areas of centralization,
condensation and displacement (RS)? The purpose of the chosen research methods that
will be discussed, is to visually represent data of continuous spatial transformation through
Lefebvre‟s (1991) triad. The methodology needs to consider the community and
architects‟ perception of the relevant contexts, to note users‟ activities, and to identify
social areas and networks linked to the structure. Furthermore, the rationale behind these
perceptions and structural formations should be determined. The research method should
thus focus on the relationships between lived space, the perception thereof and social
formations formed therein.

The methodology chapter is divided into three sections. Section 1 presents an analysis of
key studies that form the basis of the chosen methods (3.2). Section 2 describes two pilot
studies which tested the chosen tools as outlined in section 3.3. Section 3 explains the
final methodology applied, tools, sample selection, the ethical process and protocol (3.4)
followed by the selection of participants (3.4) and case studies (3.5).

3.2 Literature study on investigated methodology

This section interrogates literature that has used relevant methods of sort-charts,
mapping, historic analyses and different observation techniques. The purpose of this
investigation is to identify a possible methodology, investigate other multi-method
approaches and explore the limitations. Chosen studies include published work in public
domain and Ph.D. dissertations. The selected authors incorporated multiple methods,
focused on spatial or urban aspects, and explored perception or meaning.

Literature on environmental studies that focused on the perception and use of public
space in urban environments began with the study of Kevin Lynch. In The image of the
city (1960) Lynch explored the relationship between orientation, visual elements, memory
and meaning to establish a correlation between elements and movement within the urban
environment. Three cities were investigated: Boston, Jersey City and Los Angeles. Boston
was chosen as Lynch was situated within the city, Jersey for being perceived as devoid of
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

character and Los Angeles for being a motorised city. Methods included observation and
interviews. Interviews were mostly conducted with middle-class employed professionals.
In Boston 30 interviews were conducted, and in Jersey City and Los Angeles 15 each.
Interviews varied, some included sketching of cognitive maps, narrative descriptions of a
specific environment and photographic recognition of visual elements. Information was
analyzed and plotted onto area maps, translating data into legible codes on location plans.

These methods have been widely used (Tang & Ding: 2013), but have also been criticised
for the small sample size, selection of the sample and sketching of cognitive maps (Lynch:
1995). Although the sample size might be too small, in-depth data was collected from 30
participants in Boston. The problem with the sample is not the size, but the fact that
participants comprised mainly of middle aged professionals. For the purposes of this study
on the production of space, the demarcated area of the case study can be reduced to suit
a smaller sample size. A diverse sample can possibly be identified to ensure that an array
of age and social groups is incorporated. Cognitive maps provide two problems, one being
participants‟ ability to sketch and the other being the translation of the mental image into
two-dimensional lines (Lynch: 1995). This limitation is addressed through methods used
by Anne Lusk (2002) who incorporated visual aids into the interview protocol. Lynch‟s
research is most applicable for the themes identified from data collected and the
application thereof on area maps. These maps provide a visual analysis of a city‟s
legibility through the use of codes. It is this representation of data that can be used to
indicate identified themes and network formation as visual codes.

Since Lynch‟s research on the city‟s image more research has been carried out that
focuses on user‟s perception on the environment. Methods that have been used that can
contribute to this particular study include sort-chart, maps and historical analyses. After
Lynch, the most significant author is Tridib Kumar Banerjee with his thesis titled Urban
experience and the development of city image: A study in environmental perception and
learning (1971). Banerjee completed the thesis under Kevin Lynch, then a professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, a
decade after the first publication of The image of the city in 1960. Banerjee used sort-
charts to organise images of different elements into self-determined (direct-sort)
categories. Sort-charts can be categorised into two different groups, direct or free-sort.
With direct-sort the categories are pre-determined by the author according to themes or
the particular research question. Free-sort, on the other hand, allows participants to form
their own categories. By forming their own categories, concept formation can be tested or
determined (Canter: 1996). The purpose of this method was to evaluate the interviewees‟
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

urban knowledge and to determine themes. Banerjee noted that fifty photographs
provided sufficient information without becoming a tedious process. By adopting this
method, predetermined themes can be formulated to gather data on perception and
meaning of a certain space. These categories can be refined further to determine
preferred aspects as opposed to negative experiences.

Through the process of identification on existing maps, Banerjee was able to locate areas
of familiarity and to test knowledge of the environment and to identify different social
groups. This method can also be used to indicate social structures such as connectivity to
communal groups, circulation routes, opposing collective groups, areas to be avoided and
influential nodes impacting the urban environment.

Two more recent studies that investigated perception and the use of space were done by
Anirban Adhya (2008) and Lusk (2002). Both these theses were submitted to the
University of Michigan under the supervision of Prof. Linda Groat. In accordance with
Canter and Brown (1985), Groat developed sort-charts as a method to gather data on
perception of architecture and the urban environment. Groat‟s initial research
methodology, which incorporated sort-charts investigated perception on post-modern
architecture (Groat & Canter: 1979; Groat: 1982). Participants were required to group
images of different architectural styles to determine how non-architects perceive
architectural styles.

Adhya‟s (2008) empirical study on public space investigated multiple-forms understanding

the perception and use of such spaces. The study aimed to measure form, meaning and
function of public spaces with a multi-method approach. Four North American cities were
used as case studies, Ann Arbor, Athens, Tallahassee and Lansing. In turn, the four most
popular public spaces in the category of a street, park, book store or shopping mall were
chosen. Eight interviews were conducted at each chosen location. The multi-methods
included an historical background analysis, space syntax study, sorting-tasks supported
by open-ended interviews and observations. Information on the historical background was
gathered through historic maps and former master plans. The latter indicated land use,
infrastructural development, open space and built mass. Through this analysis the
morphological, temporal, topological, geometrical, geographic and spatial properties were
investigated. Demographic information provided additional insight into the understanding
of the four case studies. The geographic location, city population, city area, ethnic groups,
gender, age and relation to the city described the case studies in depth. For the analysis
of data, demographic information can assist in finding correlations or anomalous sections
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

between case studies. Space syntax studies were used to document the physical
attributes of the case studies. Software was used to process data of the urban
environment.

Sort-charts were used during the interview process. The first round consisted of free-sort
allowing for own categorisation. The second round consisted of a direct-sort with
predetermined themes. This method allowed Adhya to gather information on participants‟
perceptions and determine their views on public spaces. The sorting process was followed
by open-ended questions. From these interviews sufficient data was gathered providing
information on participants‟ cognitive processes. This combination of sort-charts and
interviews is useful in this study to add qualitative data to what would otherwise be purely
quantitative.

Sort-charts have been selected to establish participants‟ spatial perception of the chosen
community centre. Due to interviewees‟ lack of spatial understanding, these concepts
should be elucidated with visual material. According to Canter, Brown and Groat (1985)
“an understanding of the categories people use and how they assign concepts to those
categories is one of the central clues to the understanding of human behaviour”. This
process determines participants‟ perception on a specific area, within and surrounding the
community centre by grouping images thereof into predetermined groups.

Categories formed can differ from predetermined groups to free-sort. Canter (1996)
suggested the use of both methods allowing participants to form several categories to
ascribe different concepts each time. It is within participants‟ own categorisation that the
authors can begin to comprehend human behaviour and perception. Research has been
done on the multiple sorting process and image categorisation to determine whether
images are sorted by content or by the experience of space (Scott & Canter: 1997). In the
first sort-process, participants were asked to group images taken of their residential
environment and group them into own categories referring to content of the photograph.
For the second sort-process, participants were asked to group images into their own
categories of experience and meaning of the particular place. Through the latter, it was
found that the description given by the author is crucial for the appropriate group
formation. The emphasis should, therefore, be placed on the spatial perception and not
the content of the image. This can be done by describing the purpose of the study and
explaining the meaning of each predetermined category or concept of spatial perception.
Through this descriptive process the distinction between content and perception can be
made, gathering qualitative instead of quantitative data.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Michael Brenner, Jennifer Brown and David Canter (1985) noted that open-ended
interviews yield results, but that the analyses tend to be complex. They, therefore,
suggested the use of sort-charts to provide structure to interviews. Interviews and sort-
charts were combined by Groat (1982) to determine participants‟ perception and
preference on post-modern architecture. However, questions should remain open-ended
for thorough explanations of concepts formed through self-determined categories and to
test their validity. An adaptation of this method has, therefore, been chosen to determine
participants‟ perception of spatial qualities of community centres and immediate context
through a sorting process.

The study of greenways by Lusk (2002) identified the qualities and nature of elements and
nodes along corridors utilised for physical activity. Six case studies were identified and
grouped into three themes of rural, urban and rail trails or greenways. For each case
study a minimum of 20 surveys was completed. The sample consisted of an equal gender
ratio that was using the routes for diverse recreational activities. After considering several
methods, Lusk used stickers, which participants applied to base maps to indicate the
starting point of the route, destinations, directional views and non-preferred places.
Written notes on maps were encouraged. These maps were supported by additional
sheets requesting preferred nodes along with the features thereof.

The method is interactive, allowing the participant to choose certain codes and apply them
to the relevant area on the base map. This process had two limitations, the first being the
lack of comprehensive data due to its quantitative nature. The second question relates to
the participant‟s interpretation skills to orientate him/ her on a large scale map and to
identify familiar areas. The latter might result in an incorrect application of codes to the
base map.

By way of this mapping process with codes (stickers), one might possibly be able to
investigate participant‟s representation of space. For this research, mapping was
investigated by conducting a pilot study to determine the relevance to spatial production of
community centres. Pilot study 1 is discussed further in section 3.3.

Identifying connections and determining knowledge or preferred qualities of the physical

environment have been used for research on spatial experience, perception and planning
settlement patterns. Spatial experience and the use of space have been investigated by
Zeisel and Griffin (1975). They used base maps to identify social spaces in retirement
homes. Participants were asked to indicate routes and social spaces most often used.
Questionnaires supplemented the maps to gather information regarding reasons for their
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

spatial preference. Kaplan (1976) incorporated games played on base maps to investigate
way-finding in a natural environment. Twelve year old learners were familiarised with the
map through several questions, after which they had to identify missing routes. Both
above-mentioned participatory methods engaged participants through a mapping process
without gathering data on the map itself. The use of predetermined codes or coloured
renderings could assist with direct data recording. Research on communities, mainly by
NGOs involved in community development, has incorporated coding strategies (NOAA
Coastal Services Center.: 2009). Cognitive maps have been used by Amsden and van
Wynsberge (2005) to gather data on youths‟ spatial value of health care facilities and by
Vajjhala (2005) to determine objective and subjective characteristics of residents in
communities. The first relied on participants‟ ability to draw while the latter provided codes
or images to be drawn representing nodes on the route. These representational codes
helped participants to communicate visually without being restricted by their drawing
abilities.

Vajjhala (2005) used indicators (stickers) to indicate positive and negative spaces or
areas where change was suggested with colour codes. Data gathered provided
information guiding future development in Wilkinsburg, PA. Indicators could be replaced
by notes, providing supplementary descriptions (Pathways through Participation: 2010).
Mapping proved to be beneficial whilst conducting research where children were involved
(Amsden: 2005). The quantity of codes or indicators should however, be limited for
communicative legibility. In this precedent, maps could be replaced when information of
codes becomes too layered or vague. Furthermore, open-ended questions were
incorporated in most of the above-mentioned mapping processes. Participants explained
their reasoning whilst applying stickers or drawing their mental maps.

Space syntax, described by Bafna (2003) as “...strategies of description for configured,

inhabited spaces (of buildings, settlements, or building complexes) in such a way that their
underlying social logic can be enunciated”, is another research programme that
investigates lived reality.

The benefit of this method for the proposed research is the correlation between the
physical environment and data collected. Spatial aspects of the connections made can be
identified and discussed with interviewees. This method is also highly interactive and
visually orientated, allowing children from the age of thirteen to participate. Furthermore,
drawing of mental maps can be reduced with the application of codes. Additional
information can be added with diagrammatical lines.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The historical analysis is based on spatial aspects such as topography, scale movement
patterns, organisational composition, the relationship of geometric form to the context and
a Nolli diagram (compiled by Giambattista Nolli 1701-1756) illustrating the ground
representation of built space. Spatial aspects are organised according to the work of
Geoffrey Baker (1989) to move beyond a formalistic analysis towards lived contextual
integration. Traditional architectural analysis focuses on form and function (Clark, R.H. &
Pause, M., 1996; White, 1983) disregarding the effect of lived space and contextual
relationships on a three dimensional level.

3.3 Two pilot studies conducted

Two pilot studies were conducted to determine the time required for interviews and
surveys, test the quality of data collected, refine the protocol for clarity and investigate
whether the chosen methods and the type of case study correlated. Apart from the last
mentioned purposes, the pilot studies also tested whether the chosen methods answer
posed research questions. The first pilot study was conducted June 2013 at three public
facilities: the Ubuntu community centre in Zwide, NMBM; the Red Location Museum in
New Brighton, NMBM; and the Belhar community centre in the Cape Town Metro. The
second pilot study was conducted in January 2014 at the Lourierpark community centre in
Bloemfontein.

Pilot study 1: Ubuntu community centre, Zwide, Port Elizabeth; Red Location
museum, New Brighton, Port Elizabeth; and Belhar community centre, Cape
Town Metro.

The purpose of the first pilot study was to determine and locate users‟ physical activities,
investigate preferred and less favoured spaces, and determine the quality of these
spaces. Two methods were tested, surveys of the structure and mapping of activities. The
survey was written on the framework of a Physical Activity Research Assessment
Instrument (PARA) compiled by Understanding Neighborhood Determinants of Obesity
(UNDO) projects (Lee, Booth, Reese-Smith, Regan & Howard: 2005). The PARA
assessment gathered data on accessibility, physical features and amenities provided and
„incivilities‟. These aspects were rated on a scale of not present (0), poor (1), mediocre (2)
or satisfactory (3). „Incivilities‟ were rated as poor, bad or horrendous. Ratings for the
survey were predetermined by the UNDO group, describing the positive or negative
qualities of each amenity or facility (Appendix VI). One PARA survey per site was
completed by the author during fieldwork (Appendix V).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The second method applied during the first pilot study gathered data of community
members‟ use of space, determining their spatial preferences. Each participant was given
a base map to complete. Demographic information such as age, gender, occupation and
language were requested. Participants each received a set of indicators (stickers) to apply
to the site plan. Base maps were supplemented by written instructions. The first sticker
identified the location of the participant in relation to the base map (Figure1). The following
indicators numbered from 1-27 identified the participants‟ appropriation of space. The
arrow was applied to indicate the participants‟ direction of approach. The last star shaped
indicators were applied to the most preferred spaces (1/ gold), preferred space (2/silver),
space disliked (-1/red), and space most disliked (-2/ green). Participants were then probed
as to why these spaces were perceived as such.

At the Ubuntu community centre eight base maps were completed, and six each at the
Belhar community centre and Red Location museum. Each base map took between 15-20
minutes to complete. Respondents found the process interactive and were willing to
participate in the research. At first they found it difficult to familiarise themselves with the
map, but the placement of the sticker to identify their current location bridged this problem.

Figure 1. Pilot study 1: An example of a completed document of Ubuntu community

centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Several limitations became apparent, the first being that the survey on the quality of
spaces analysed the physical environment and not the spatial perception of it. This
method provided quantitative information, which could be used for suggestions on site
improvements or development of prospective infrastructure. The current state of facilities
was given without providing insight into reasons for neglect or use of space. To gather
appropriate data on spatial perception, community members needed to provide their
viewpoints of these facilities. Community participation was crucial to gather data on
perspectives of lived experience and not from subjective observations of the author.

Completed base maps of sites provided sufficient information on utilisation of space within
a limited time frame opposed to the observation thereof. However, the identified spaces
and related activities therein provided little data on spatial perception. Indicators
representing more or less preferred spaces, accompanied by verbal descriptions proved
more valuable.

From this study changes and recommendations were made to be tested in the second
pilot study. Meaning allocated to each code needed to describe a perception of the
participant as was done with the emotive codes (stars). Perceptions needed to be further
investigated through interviews.

Pilot study 2: Lourierpark community centre, Bloemfontein .

The purpose of the second pilot study served, foremost, to improve data collection on
spatial perception. Problems identified in the first study were addressed by focusing less
on physical attributes and more on spatial representation. The pilot study was conducted
at a community centre in Lourierpark, a low-income residential area on the southern
periphery of Bloemfontein (Figure 2). This particular community centre was chosen for
ease of accessibility and the possibility of recurring site visits. Although the community
centre has been published (Phaidon.: 2008), it was not submitted for award consideration
and was, therefore, not included in the final selected cases. Methods tested included free
and direct sorting, mapping of lived space and observation of activities as perceived by
users and envisioned by the architect.

Before commencing with surveys at the chosen pilot centre, the architect of the facility,
Anton Roodt principle of Roodt Architects, was interviewed. This process included free
and direct photograph-sorting and mapping of initial spatial intent. First, the architect
categorised images into his own identified groups known as free-sort (enclosure or
security, gathering, non-place, place and symbolism or identification); thereafter the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

interviewer provided the interviewees with predetermined groups known as direct-sort

(public or open space, private or enclosed space, power and hierarchy, periphery or edge
and social areas). These themes overlapped and resulted in a duality. Interviews with
community members were thus limited to a direct-sort with predetermined categories.
Determining spatial influences during the design process was more successful with an
interview process. Aspects such as design constraints, client requirements and site
restrictions became apparent.

Participants were selected randomly during field work and included primary users such as
staff, students and community members occasionally utilising the facility. The first three

Figure 2. Map of Bloemfontein indicating the location of the Lourierpark community centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

participants were asked to sort images into self-determined categories after which they
were asked to organise them into predetermined groups of public or open space, private
or enclosed space, power and hierarchy, periphery or edge and social areas. During the
free-sort process it became apparent that participants lacked sufficient spatial sensitivity
to structure their own groups, as categorisation mainly consisted of functional
classification (groups formed included inside, outside, building, community and electricity).
Predetermined categories for the direct-sort helped participants comprehend the concept
of spatial perception. However, each category required thorough explanation and
clarification. This method proved useful to set a foundation where knowledge of field-
specific terms was insufficient to conduct an interview. This process was further
supplemented with an open-ended interview to investigate participants‟ thoughts
underlying the processes behind categorisation. After completing the two sort-processes,
participants completed the area maps on which social areas or networks were identified.
Codes to indicators were applied according to participants‟ own preferences.

The sorting and mapping process was further refined before being tested on three more
participants. Initial participants only completed a direct-sort process to eliminate functional
categorisation. After completing the sort-process with the first three participants,
photographs were reduced to 28 to avoid repetition of images and expedite the process.
For the identification of social areas on the site plan, stickers were allocated by
predetermined codes. These codes allowed for more accurate data collection and further
comparison.

Figure 3. Lourierpark community centre, Bloemfontein. A: The circular reading room. B:

Covered walkway leading to the library entrance. C: A courtyard formed by covered
walkways.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Lessons deducted from 2 pilot studies

1. Allow 25-30 minutes per interview for users of the facility and 60 minutes for the
interview with the relevant architect.
2. Include a maximum of 20 images for the photograph-sort process.
3. Formulate direct-sort categories for users from text of TPoS (thus excluding direct-
sort for primary users).
4. Compile open-ended questions to investigate spatial perceptions associated with
each category.
5. Conduct an open-ended interview with the architect to determine constraints, client
requirements and site restrictions. Data can be mapped by the author on the site
plan for comparison with maps completed by users.
6. Allocate predetermined codes to indicators for mapping process. Codes should
address social or gathering spaces, areas of preference, hierarchy, identity
formation, ascribed meaning and change.
7. Conduct open-ended interviews with the users of facilities to investigate the spatial
impact of the community centre on networks and social areas.
8. Select sample equally distributed across age, gender and occupation (users and
staff members of the chosen facility).
9. Complete between 15-20 interviews per case study. Visualise sort-charts on base
maps to form an overlay of social areas, networks, perception and spatial use
(Figure 5).
10. Form multiple layers of visual data to compare the architect and users‟ perception
(Figure 6).
11. The number of base maps completed should be increased to ensure a more varied
sample selection.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 4. Pilot study 2: Participants indicating spaces of preference. Lourierpark

community centre, Bloemfontein.

Figure 5. Mapping process indicating spatial perception with codes. Lourierpark

community centre pilot study 2.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 6. Free and direct sort map overlay of own and prescribed categories of one
participant. Lourierpark community centre pilot study 2.

3.4 Selection of participants

Participants at the relevant centres were selected from a convenient sample of primary
users, which included staff and community members (Also explained in Figure 7).
Although the selection process had occurred ad-hoc on site due to the informal nature of
the context, the sample had to include an extensive representation of the community.
Before commencing with the interviews, participants were asked whether they reside in
the community and if they are familiar with the particular community centre by visiting it on
a regular basis. Twenty interviews were conducted at the Ubuntu community centre, and
21 at the Helenvale resources centre. Participants at Ubuntu community centre included 9
males and 11 females of which 4 were clients and 16 staff members. People within a 7km
radius of the Ubuntu centre, applied to become part of the Ubuntu programme and were
henceforth clients. Through this application process the use of the facility was screened
and controlled. Staff members of the facility were mostly from Zwide or the immediate
surrounds. Interviews with clinic patients were prohibited. Of the 20 participants, one was
aged 13-18, eight 18-30, six 30-40, four 40-50, and one 50-60. Participants at the
Helenvale resources centre included 10 males and 10 females of which 15 were
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

community members and 5 staff members. All staff members were residents of Helenvale.
Community members using the facility depended on the programmes presented, or the
availability of the counsellor for consultation. Of the 20 participants none were aged 13-18,
seven 18-30, six 30-40, four 40-50 and three 50-60. The two case study samples differed
substantially due to services provided. The Ubuntu community centre focuses on
education and health (especially HIV infected people) with the help of a Non-profit
Government Organisations (NGO), the Ubuntu Education Fund. The Helenvale resources
centre only provides space for different community activities. Staff members manage the
facility and do not facilitate any programmes. Furthermore, this centre is government
funded with fewer resources than the Ubuntu community centre which is privately funded
by a NGO. Several services which were intended with the initial brief, such as social
services, computer access and after school programmes for learners, are still not being
provided.

Figure 7. Participant ratios: community involvement, gender and age.

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Ethics

Ethical consent was received from the University of the Free State to conduct semi-
structured interviews with community members. Participation in the study was voluntary
without compensation. Prior to the interview, the purpose of the research, the interview
process and the reason why the participants were chosen were explained. The interview,
time required, as well as mapping and sort-process was discussed. Participants were
further informed that the interview was going to be recorded. Consent forms were signed
by all participants on accepting to participate in the study.

3.5 Selection of chosen case studies

The selection of case studies was done according to the following criteria namely:
architectural awards received, geographic location, typology and time of construction.
The following Table (1) indicates the list of possible structures:
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Table 1. List of case studies which received National or Regional Awards.

SAIA Award of
Province

SAIA Merit Awards Regional Community Awards

Excellence

Helenvale multi-purpose Nelson Mandela youth & heritage

Ubuntu centre
community centre centre [BKIA]

The Matrix cc... Urban Designers

Field Architecture Stauch Voster
and Architects

2011 2014 2007

Zwide, Port Elizabeth Port Elizabeth Qunu

Eastern Cape

[management by NGO’s]

Tricircle pavilion [BKIA]

Smale & Partners

2010

East London

[Located in residential estate]

Westridge civic hall Tsoga environmental centre [CIFA]

Graham Parker Collis and Associates

1979 2007

Cape Town Langa

Khayelitsha multipurpose
Belhar community hall
community centre [CIFA]

Uytenbogaardt & Rozendal Makeka Design laboratory

Western Cape

1987 2009

Belhar Khayelitsha

Paternoster community centre Ikhaya trust centre [CIFA]

Jaco Visser kr2 Architects

1999 2011

Paternoster Stellenbosch

[private ownership/ management]

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Bopitikelo community & cultural

centre

Peter Rich Architects

North West

2001

Molatedi

[dysfunctional]

Steinkopf community centre

Uytenbogaardt & Macaskill

Northern Cape

1985

Steinkopf

[in disuse]

Architectural awards: To be considered for inclusion in this study, selected projects

should have received at least one peer acknowledged architectural award, either on a
regional or national level. This ensures that all buildings have been peer acknowledged or
the design has been commissioned by a panel of members as is done in the case of
design competitions. Information on the projects will also have been published in industry
publications.

Architectural honours awarded include regional or national acknowledgments. Regional

awards are also peer acknowledged on a provincial level such as the Border-Kei Institute
for Architecture (BKIA) and the Eastern Cape Institute for Architects (ECIA), both in the
Eastern Cape Province, and the Cape Institute for Architecture (CIfA), in the Western
Cape Province. National recognition is made by the South African Institute of Architects
(SAIA). Recognition granted is by national award of Merit or Excellence. Both regional and
national awards have been considered to ensure a wider selection of projects
representing a diverse group of the community.

Geographic location of case studies: Community centres are situated in developing

areas or townships lacking infrastructure. Developing areas were chosen to investigate
the spatial impact of infrastructure on settlements. Furthermore, research can guide
possible future development in other rural areas and townships. Selected case studies are
limited to a geographic area to lessen cultural differences. By choosing a geographic area,
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

case studies can also be conducted within the limited time frame. The two chosen case
studies are located in the NMBM area, in the Eastern Cape.

Chosen typology: Gathering spaces, with specific reference to community centres, have
been chosen as they represent a wide spectrum of the public in terms of age and are
relatively accessible. Schools, libraries, clinics and sports facilities are restricted for
certain members of the public for task-related activities and are, therefore, excluded. The
case studies used for this study are limited to community centres. Their structure and
management could be funded by either the public or private sector to include a diverse
selection. Although the case studies are limited to community centres, the methodology
could be applied to other institutional buildings for further research.
The selected community centres have slight functional differences such as one being
more focused on education and the other on community functions. Case studies are
selected for their differences rather than similarities to test spatial perception amongst
different functional types.

Time of construction: Construction of facilities should have commenced after 1994. All
facilities are thus built after democratisation and thus within a similar ideological
framework. Community centres built earlier are excluded as they were built with other
ideological intentions. However, structures built prior to 1994 are included in the historic
and typological study of public gathering spaces.

Selection criteria not considered: Factors that are immaterial to the selection criteria
are functional differences, size of facilities, style and construction methods of the
structure, managerial factors or ownership of the facilities as well as private or public
funding bodies.

3.6 Description of the two case studies: the Helenvale multi-purpose resources
centre and the Ubuntu community centre

To investigate the relationship between SP, RoS and RS two case studies were chosen,
the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre and the Ubuntu community centre. Both
these centres are located within the boundaries of the NMBM (Figure 8). The Helenvale
centre is situated in the previous Coloured Group Area and Ubuntu in the Black Group
Area. As described in section 3.5, these case studies were chosen from an extensive list
of public buildings according to their geographic proximity.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The Helenvale centre is described as a multi-purpose resources centre were as Ubuntu‟s

as a community centre. Public funded projects, especially in the NMBM area, have
functional distinctions. Community centres are referred to as multi-purpose resources
centres as functions and services provided differ between health, social and sports
activities. Functionally, these spaces ought to be appropriated for multiple uses. On the
other hand, the Zwide community hall, discussed in section 4.4, only has a small
gathering space and makes no provision for service delivery (resources). Ubuntu‟s
community centre has several resources such as the clinic and educational programs.
However, the gathering space is only utilised for related activities and cannot be rented for
private functions, as is the case with Helenvale.

Figure 8. Location of the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre and the Ubuntu
community centre in relation to Port Elizabeth.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Description of the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre

Site discussion

The construction of the community centre formed part of the Helenvale Urban Renewal
Program (HURP) for the NMBM, focusing on infrastructural development. Later the
developing agent changed from HURP to the Mandela Bay Developing Agency (MBDA)
(Williams: 2011). The HURP framework proposed the upgrade of roads and pedestrian
walkways, which included lighting and adjacent public spaces (De Jager: 2012). New
public buildings were further proposed, which included the resources centre and an Early
Learning Development Centre at the Helenvale Primary School. Research on this
development include that of Emely Lundahl and Nina Södergren who suggested the
reconsideration of housing, street networks and the provision of public spaces (2008).

The initial brief provided by the NMBM stipulated the location of the site. The proposed
resources centre was to be constructed on the corner of Leith and Baadjies Roads, also
the location of the existing community hall. This hall was deemed inappropriate as it was
considered to be too small for the community‟s needs. Initially the architects, The Matrix
Urban Designers and Architects, considered retaining the existing hall, but after thorough
consultation with the community, proposed that it should be demolished.

Figure 9. Coloured Group areas by 1971 highlighting Helenvale. Redrawn from Phillips
(1971) p.17.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

In the aerial photo of Helenvale (Figure 11), the existing community hall (now demolished)
is visible adjacent to Leith Road. No other infrastructure was provided on site apart from a
park with barbeque facilities. Although the community centre was fenced (Figure 12), the
remaining public spaces, including the park, had no boundaries resulting in security
issues.

As the site had no restrictions, two main pedestrian routes developed across the site.
These were later utilised as the main „community street‟ as organisational element for
functions (Herholdt: 2013).

Figure 10. Roads and networks surrounding the Helenvale multi-purpose resources
centre.

Figure 11. Site of the previous Helenvale resources centre. Google Earth image: 2004.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 12. The previous Helenvale resources centre which was demolished to make way
for the new structure. Google Earth image: 2009.

Figure 13. Corner of Baadjies Road prior to the construction of the new facilities. Note the
power station that was integrated into the design of the public space. Google Earth
image: 2009.

Figure 14. Leith Road prior to the urban renewal project. Google Earth image: 2009.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Footprint/ Nolli diagram

Initially, Helenvale consisted of duplex housing with two bedrooms each. However, these
units have been enlarged, either through additions or by adding temporary structures on
site (Figure 15). Between 10 and 15 people now reside on one plot due to overpopulation
and the lack of housing. As some houses have 15 occupants with a densely built up site,
little open space is provided for outdoor activities. Streets and sidewalks are consequently
used for physical and social activities, regardless of vehicles. Children playing in streets
unattended are a major security and safety issue.

The scale of the Helenvale centre, located between the school and commercial centre, is
in stark contrast with residential units (Figure 16).

Figure 15. Boundaries, scale and footprint of residential units, Helenvale.

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 16. Nolli diagram indicating the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre (red
circle) and the residential units (orange ellipse) investigated.

Figure 17. Helenvale resources centre during construction. Google Earth image: 2013.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Functional programme (plan)

The centre is divided into three main areas of circulation, gathering and public space
(Figure 18). Circulation space, in the form of the community street (2), is the
organisational element with adjacent functions such as the offices, community hall and
multi-functional space. Waiting pods in the „street‟, opposite the offices, facilitates
activities in the street, while services (10), accessible from a secondary circulation route,
also flows from the community street. A concrete column and beam structure further
extends from the street to form a link with the secondary entrance (16) accessible from
Baadjies Road.

From the community street, two enclosed gathering spaces are provided, the community
(6) and multi-purpose hall (7). The community hall consists of a sub-dividable space that
can open to a semi-enclosed outdoor space. This hall is used as a training facility by
government organisations or could be rented for private functions. In turn, the multi-
purpose hall is used for larger community gatherings or for sport activities. Currently,
activities or gatherings are only organised by external organisations, with no programmes
facilitated by staff members.

In front of the entrance, relatively accessible public space is provided in the form of a
community plaza (1). Terraced levels with newly planted trees provide pedestrian access
and informal seating. This space is connected to the urban park by a pedestrian crossing,
thus extending the public space across the road. The urban park is connected with
walkways to the pedestrian network, forming a strong connection between the community
and the centre. Parking is provided parallel to the road, with an access controlled gate
adjacent to the tower (4). The tower, an important landmark in the community, also
doubles as the security checkpoint.

A caretaker apartment (11) is provided toward the eastern, more secluded section of the
site. The small apartment consists of a living space, two bedrooms, a bathroom and
storage space. Although the unit is not fenced, a semi-private space for outdoor activities
toward the southern side is provided.

Client requirements stipulated that the centre and surrounds should be fenced. The
architect, however, convinced the client to have no boundaries around the community
plaza.

As the building has only been occupied since 2013, little functional or structural changes
has been made.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 18. Ground floor plan of Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre indicating
functional organisation.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 19. A: Closed entrance from Baadjies Road. B: The secondary entrance accessible
from Baadjies Road, which is used instead of the main entrance.

Figure 20. A: Doors of the hall opening onto the sport field. B: The multi-purpose hall with
a stage and tiered viewing area.

Figure 21. The market tower as security point with adjacent vehicle access also used as
pedestrian entrance. B: The community street with waiting pods in front of the offices.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 22. Main entrance to the community centre accessible from the public plaza. B:
The axis from the entrance connecting with the sculpture.

Figure 23. A. Sculpture forming part of the Helenvale precinct plan. Image obtained from
http://www.thematrixcc.co.za/. B: Mural at the entrance of the Helenvale centre forming
part of RS. Image obtained from http://www.thematrixcc.co.za/.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Description of the Ubuntu community centre

Site discussion

Although the Ubuntu Education Fund was established in 1999, a purpose built structure
was only constructed in 2009. Prior to the construction of the Ubuntu centre, an existing
hall was used. To commemorate the growth of Ubuntu, the new structure was built
opposite the existing hall.

Initially, the existing hall was chosen as it is adjacent to a public school and library,
allowing close interaction between these institutions. The hall, consisting of storage and
smaller gathering spaces, is positioned on the southern corner of the site. No sport
facilities or library were built as it was envisaged utilising the existing facilities. Currently,
the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system is also constructed in close proximity in Spondo
Street, for better connectivity with Port Elizabeth.

Figure 24. Development of Zwide between 1967-1975. Edited by author from Davies
(1996) p.156.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Previously, there was a post office on the site, which was burnt down by the community
during political unrest. From the original structure, only the foundation and a delivery post
remained on site, visible on the northern boundary of Figure 26. The delivery post was
incorporated into the design, positioned across the entrance of the new community centre.
The vacant land on the other side of Qeqe Street is privately owned and used as an
informal dumping site for residents‟ refuse.

The public library is positioned north of Qeqe Street with the primary school on the
southern side. Comparing Figure 26 and Figure 27, commercial development can be
noted on the corner of Qeqe and Spondo Street. Business related activities include a fuel
station, tavern and cafe.

Figure 25. Roads and networks surrounding the Ubuntu centre.

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 26. Site of the Ubuntu community centre. Google Earth image: 2004.

Figure 27. The Ubuntu community centre after completion. Google Earth image: 2013.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Footprint/ Nolli diagram

Similar to Helenvale, the housing in this area of Zwide consists of two bedroom duet units
(Figure 29). However, as seen in Figure 30, the additions to housing units in Zwide are of
a more permanent nature and with fewer corrugated iron shacks.

The footprint of the Ubuntu centre, in comparison with residential units, is denser
(Figure 29). However, the fragmented nature of the structure does somewhat minimize its
scale in relation to the context of the residential units.

Figure 28. Boundaries, scale and footprint of residential units, Zwide.

Figure 29. Nolli diagram of the Ubuntu centre (red circle) and the residential units (orange
ellipse) investigated.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Functional program (plan)

The functions of the centre are organised around the provided health and educational
facilities. From the entrance, different functions can be accessed from the corridor. A
clinic, with an open waiting area (11) flows into consultation (12) and counselling rooms
(9). Other related health services provided include blood testing, a pharmacy and doctors
consultation room.

Educational facilities include crèches (6) with a play area and a computer room. General
gathering spaces utilised for educational, health or community gatherings include the
multi-functional hall (7), the flexible meeting space (2) on ground floor and another sub-
dividable multifunctional space (19) on first floor. In the rooftop garden (21) vegetables are
in planter boxes for educational purposes and to supply the kitchen (8).

Figure 30. Houses adjacent to Qeqe Street as seen from Ubuntu‟s rooftop. Note the
additions to the original duet units.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

For the staff, a lounge (4) is provided on the ground floor with offices (23) on the first floor.
Due to the large amount of employees, currently more than 60, sections of the multi-
functional space (19) has been organised into more offices (20). Adjacent to the offices
(23) is a boardroom (22) for Skype conferences and staff meetings.

As the building has been occupied since 2010, several functional changes have been
made. These changes are indicated on plan in light grey. As there was a need for a
second crèche (6), general meeting rooms in the resource centre have been adapted. In
the multi-functional hall (7), also called the theatre, a sound booth has been installed. For
the clinic, two changes were made. Underneath the stair (17), at the entrance of the clinic,
a gate was installed to provide an enclosed space for children to play while their parents
receive treatment at the clinic. In the courtyard (16), initially designed as a garden, more
seating was provided with overhead coverage as the waiting area for the clinic became
too small.

Figure 31. Pedestrian routes as design generator and figure ground drawing of context.
Image obtained from http://issuu.com/ubuntueducationfund/docs/designing-ubuntu.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 32. Ground floor plan of Ubuntu community centre indicating functional
organisation.

Figure 33. First floor plan of Ubuntu community centre indicating functional organisation.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 34. A: Entrance to the community centre emphasizing the existing post delivery
point. B: The Ubuntu centre as seen from the corner.

Figure 35. A: The dumping site as seen from the Ubuntu centre. B: The public library as
seen from the rooftop garden.

Figure 36. Waiting area of the clinic. B: Clinic reception with abstract mural.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 37.A: Reception of the main entrance. B: The multi-functional space referred to as
the theatre.

Figure 38. A: Space in the courtyard converted to waiting areas. B: Adjacent to the clinic,
the space under the stair has been converted into a play area for children whose
guardians visit the clinic.

3.7 Discussion of three chosen methods: Semi-structured interviews, mapping

and sort-charts

From the five studies investigated in section 3.2, three methods have been identified.
These include semi-structured interviews, mapping and sort-charts. Each method is
discussed to explain the procedure followed, the response of participants and how data
was analysed. Lastly, the ability to answer the posed research questions is discussed.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Semi-structured interviews with the primary users of the two community

centres

Process and tasks conducted at the two case study communities

Whilst completing both the sort process and indicating codes on base maps, participants
were requested to explain their thought processes. Interview questions are included in the
protocol in

Appendix XIV. Both mapping and sort-charts were thus used to structure the interviews
and focus them on architectural issues.

Interviews at the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre

Interviews at Helenvale were conducted in Afrikaans as 93% of the residents are

Afrikaans speaking (Appendix XIX). Quotes were then transcribed in Afrikaans and
translated to English. For clarity, both English and Afrikaans (Appendix XXI) transcriptions
are provided. Specific local Afrikaans words have a rich description that should be taken
into consideration for spatial explanations . One such example is the word „onse‟, directly
translated as „our‟. „Onse‟ describes ownership and is not just to indicate a group or
collection.

Interviews conducted at Ubuntu community centre

The language in which the interviews were conducted was a key consideration.
According to the 2011 Census most of Zwide‟s community members‟ first language is
isiXhosa (Appendix XX). As the author is not isiXhosa speaking, an interpreter had to be
considered. However, as semi-structured interviews were conducted, investigating
participants‟ reasoning behind choices, the author felt that important information would be
lost. Interviews were thus conducted in English. Participants were all able to convey their
spatial interpretation of the images and maps. Again, the visual aids of mapping and sort-
charts aided the interview process.

Documenting and analyzing the data

With the permission of participants, interviews were recorded after, which they were
transcribed and translated. Transcriptions were then coded with the aid of ATLAS.ti, a
computer programme that aids with digital codification of data. Coding was carried out
deductively through predetermined themes from the theoretical investigation of RS and
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

SP. Themes were defined as SP (lived reality), RoS (conceived space created by
architects) and RS (perceived). Categories for SP include form, function and structure.
RoS categories include fragmentation, subdivision spatial context and texture, and
construction technique. Categories for RS include archetypes, effective centres,
condensation and displacement. Each of these categories was then further sub-divided
into more detailed descriptions. Distinctions between themes as primary constructs and
categories as secondary subjects was implemented from the literature of Miles and
Huberman (1994). Qualitative content analysis of data was then structured as narrative
through verbatim quotes (Silverman: 2011).

Figure 39. Diagram indicating levels used for coding the interviews.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Semi-structured interviews with the architects of the two community centres

Process and tasks conducted during the semi-structured interviews

Two interviews were conducted with the respective architects of the community centres.
First was an interview with The Matrix Urban Designers and Architects. The interview was
conducted with the principal architect, Albrecht Herholdt and the project architect Miles
Hollins at their offices in Port Elizabeth. The second interview was with Stan Field, the
principal architect of Field Architects based in Palo Alto, California. Due to logistical
problems, a Skype interview was conducted. Both interviews were unstructured, allowing
the architects to elaborate on the design, function and contextual integration of these
centres with the respective community. Interviews were also recorded to allow for
accurate transcription.

Documenting and analyzing the data

Interviews were recorded digitally and in the case of the Skype interview, with appropriate
software. Recorded interviews were then transcribed through a professional transcription
service. Transcriptions of the architects were then coded with ATLAS.ti, allowing
comparisons between data of participants. Codes have been determined deductively
through the theoretical investigation of Lefebvre as discussed in section 2.5. These codes
(all forming part of RoS) include fragmentation, subdivision, spatial context and texture,
and construction technique. In some cases reference has also been made to themes
categorised under RS and SP such as function and structure.

Mapping

Process and tasks conducted at the two case study communities

After completing the sort process, each participant was requested to indicate areas of
significance on a base map. Base maps consisted of Google Earth maps which indicated
the community centre and surrounds in a radius of 2 kilometres. Areas of significance
were then indicated with codes (stickers). Each code was numbered and further consisted
of text and a visual description or image. Codes included positive (1), negative (2),
important (3), change (4), identity (5), meaning (6) and social (7). Participants thus
indicated which areas in and around the community centre were perceived as such.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Through the semi-structured interviews, participants were probed to explain why specific
spaces were identified and what it was in these areas that made it to be perceived as
such.

Documenting and analyzing map overlays

The 20 data sets from each case study were documented on a transparency in order to
superimpose information. Numerical values of each code were documented, indicating the
significant areas and connotative meaning. The superimposed data were then colour
coded to indicate density and distribution. Qualitative data from the semi-structured
interviews were further connected to each identified nodal area to describe the spatial
perception. With these descriptions a connection was formed between the community
centre and its immediate surrounds.

Superimposed information from data sets was placed on area maps indicating the spatial
perception. From this data, significance was identified according to the density and
distribution of codes. Groups were thus formed around nodes and structures, indicating
the perception. Information from the semi-structured interviews then indicated the
connection to the community centre.

Sort-process

Process and tasks conducted at the two case study communities

A sort-process for each case study consisted of fifteen images that had to be sorted by
each participant into predetermined categories. The fifteen images consisted of
photographs taken by the author prior to conducting field work. Images were chosen to
represent all the different spatial qualities of the structure as well as contextual references.
Images were further numbered for ease of data capturing. Participants were then required
to group these images into categories which were predetermined by theoretical themes.
Categories included identity, enclosed, community, symbolism and inclusion. This five
categories were chosen to investigate aspects of SP and RoS. Identity and symbolism
investigates displacement and condensation, and community effective centrality, all
aspects of RoS. Enclosed and inclusion focuses on SP in relation to the form, function
and structure. Only predetermined categories were used as direct-sort. For the sort-
process, groups referred to the categories formed by participants, into which q-sets were
organised. Q-sets, in this case, consisted of images taken by the author of different
characteristics of the community centre. Two sort-processes were initially used, free and
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

direct-sort. Free-sort allowed participants to form their own groups with specific
classification, whereas with direct-sort the author presented predetermined categories.

During the pilot study it was found that when participants were required to complete free-
sort (forming their own groups to categorize cards) groups consisted mainly of functional
aspects. Groups were formed organizing q-sets into internal or external spaces,
infrastructural elements such as roads or walls and uses of space. Participants could thus
not form their own categories according to spatial experiences or perceptions. Therefore,
the sort-process for the final study consisted of a direct-sort. Each category of identity,
community, symbolism and inclusion was explained to participants so that they would
clearly understand the intent.

During the process participants categorized the q-sets into the different categories. Whilst
completing the process, they were required to explain their reasoning behind choices
through a semi-structured interview. Participants were mainly probed to explain why a
certain category was chosen and then to explain what aspects in the image informed the
decision. Participants were only required to sort the q-sets they were familiar with or could
identify. Q-sets that had not been used were categorized separately as „not-used‟.

Documenting and analyzing data of sort-charts

After completing the sort-process the author tabulated the code of each q-set (Table 4 and
Table 5). Codes were thus directly linked to a specific q-set, spatial aspect of the structure
as well as a group. Codes were further linked to quotations collected in the interview
process that explained categorization.

Data from different participants were recorded on output charts noting the degree each q-
set was categorised into each group, including the category of „not-used‟. Data collected
was analyzed with a correspondence analysis, aided by the STATISTICA programme.
Through the correspondence analysis, data was plotted on a two-dimensional plain
allowing further associations and comparison to be made.

3.8 Conclusion: Methodology answering the research questions

Aspects considered in the research methodology chapter include a literature review, two
pilot studies conducted, the selection of participants and case studies as well as the
methodologies applied. The literature review investigated related research conducted on
perception and the functioning of public space. Literature discussed engaged community
participation methods through visual aids. Methods considered in the review were then
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

tested through two pilot studies. The first pilot study was conducted at public spaces and
infrastructure in the NMBM and Cape Town Metro. Aspects investigated included physical
activity through a PARA analysis, and spatial use through an interactive mapping process.
The second pilot study was conducted at a community centre in Bloemfontein. Methods
investigated included semi-structured interviews supported by two visual aids. The first
visual aid consisted of base maps on which participants indicated spatial preferences; the
second of sort-charts which were grouped into categories. Throughout both these
activities participants were probed to explain their thought processes through the semi-
structured interviews.

Final field work was conducted at the two chosen case studies, the Helenvale multi-
purpose resources centre and Ubuntu community centre, situated in the NMBM. Methods
used at each case site included semi-structure interviews, a sort-process and mapping. In
the methodology chapter each of these methods was discussed in terms of processes and
tasks conducted, as well as documenting and analyzing the information collected.

Methods were chosen to substantiate the three research questions simultaneously, and
not each question individually. The first two questions were explored through data from
both participants and the two respective architects. Information from the sort-process
combined with the semi-structured interviews was compared with the architects‟
interviews. The third research question was answered by all three methods with the focus
on constructed maps.

To conclude, the methodology chapter highlighted background information of the

methodologies chosen and outlined the specific approach followed. With the selected
methodology, it was important that the focus is on community members‟ perception and
the architects‟ design intent. The significance lies in the spatial perception of community
members and not the author‟s observation.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 4 An overview of gathering spaces: From

global to local

4.1 Introduction 84

4.2 Development of gathering spaces 84

4.3 Public infrastructure in developing areas 96

4.4 Typological development in community centres 105

4.5 Conclusion: The reciprocal relationship between historic events and -----
the development of public infrastructure 118
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

4.1 Introduction

The first section of the chapter describes the development of public spaces from city halls
and civic centres to community halls or centres. Each section briefly discusses this
development in England, America and South Africa. The South African section elaborates
on specific examples that have received either a peer acknowledged architectural award
or has been selected through a design competition. The second section focuses more on
public infrastructural development in townships with reference to Port Elizabeth. The
discussion aims to highlight the spatial distribution of public infrastructure and typological
diversity. The third section compares typological, structural and aesthetic aspects of
gathering spaces such as community, cultural and heritage centres. Through the
comparison, the two chosen case studies can be contextualised with South African
precedents.

4.2 Development of gathering spaces

Public gathering spaces developed according to various needs in settlements. Some of

the initial gathering spaces developed along the market space in medieval cities. The
Palazzo del Broletto at Como (1215) is one such example used as a government building.
Consisting of two levels, the ground floor served as a covered extension of the adjacent
market and the first floor as town hall or law court (Pevsner: 1976, 27). Later in England
and Germany town halls were used for governance. In the late 19th century, city halls were
gradually used for community gatherings or educational purposes. In the 20th century two
other public gathering spaces developed; civic and community centres. Community
centres were built around the time of World War I and II, while civic centres began to
appear in newly developed settlements. Both these typologies made provision for the
growth of public space.

In the following paragraphs the development of gathering spaces is discussed. First city
halls are discussed to identify characteristics, use and contextual reference. Thereafter a
description of civic and community centres follows. Each description focuses briefly on
international examples after which the development in South Africa is explained. The
purpose of this section is to understand public gathering spaces and to contextualise
community centres.

From the city hall to civic and community centre

Cities adapt and mutate to political and economic changes. As cities transform, typological
changes can be observed in public infrastructure. The rate of transformation, either on the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

scale of the city or on individual buildings, depends on the local circumstances. In some
cases the transformation is minor so that change cannot be clearly observed. However, in
history some events provoked major spatial changes. These events are usually marked by
turmoil such as World Wars I and II, or dominating political power. Parallel to unrest and
politics is the economy, often directly influenced by the latter.

Prior to the dramatic changes instigated by World Wars I and II, city halls were utilised as
primary public gathering spaces and administrative centres. In England, the St Goerge‟s
hall (1851) in Liverpool by H.L. Elmes is an example of combined facilities. It comprises a
large hall, a smaller concert hall, a civil and crown court (Pevsner: 1976, 54). In parts of
Europe such as Germany, these administrative structures were known as the Stadshalle,
centrally located in each town for municipal purposes. In America, the town hall was often
used as a municipal administrative centre. In general, the town hall complex consisted of
offices and a central gathering space for council meetings or other related events. This
gathering space was often utilised for cultural and civic activities although the main
purpose remained administrative.

In South Africa these structures were part of a colonial tradition established in several new
towns established after 1652. When comparing South African examples to their British
and European equivalents, they contain similar typological and morphological
characteristics. Structures are contextually dominating forming nodal points often erected
on a raised plinth. Furthermore, these structures were built as individual objects without
being contextually integrated. In some cases they were even surrounded by a structured
park, creating a green barrier between the street and public infrastructure. These halls
were often built in neo-classical styles like the Cape Town city hall (1905), designed by
Henry Austin Reid and Frederick George Green in an Edwardian style. Other Victorian
structures include the city hall in East London built in 1987. The Bloemfontein city hall was
also designed in a neo-classical style, by Gordon Leith and construction was completed in
1936. This city hall had an administrative wing to the east and west for municipal
functions. Its predecessor, the first town hall, was located in Charlotte Maxeke Street
(formerly Maitland Street), completed in 1883 and designed by Richard Carl George
Theodor Wocke, which was later demolished (Figure 40). The new town hall was built to
form part of the historic President Brand Street which housed other political structures and
the seat of the Orange Free State Republic. In 1992, the town hall was no longer suitable
for municipal administration due to the lack of space, and a new civic centre was planned.
The centre was launched through an architectural design competition. Although this
building‟s aesthetic quality has been criticised it does provide a public space in front of the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

entrance which is often used for public demonstrations. This public area forms a spatial
relationship with the historic town hall, although the architectural language does not
correspond.

From the 1940s onward, especially after the founding of the Republic of South Africa in
1961, several new towns and urban areas were developed. Along with this development
came the need for new municipal structures. The neo-classical typology of the city hall
was no longer appropriate and structures addressing changing times were required. The
civic centre was now deemed appropriate to create a focal point in the urban fabric. These
centres where mostly built in Brutalistic style influenced by the geometric structures of
Louis Kahn. They were further influenced by the Bauhaus and International style shaped
by architects such as Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.

Four structures are examples of this development, the Welkom town hall, Sasolburg,
Johannesburg and Westridge civic centres. The typological development of the buildings,
their contextual integration and the contribution to later development of community centres
is discussed. They were chosen as each has received either a peer acknowledged award
of Merit, project award or has been chosen by way of a design competition. These
structures are published and information about them is obtained.

Figure 40. Bloemfontein town hall constructed in 1883 (status: demolished).

http://www.artefacts.co.za/main/Buildings/image_slide.php?type=9&bldgid=7300&rank=1.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Welkom, a town in the central Free State, had a civic centre built along the main road. The
structure was designed by Kantorovich & Barnett architects and construction was
completed in 1955. The project was awarded to the architects by winning the design
competition. Although this complex is referred to as a town hall, it marks the typological
transition from the city hall to the civic centre. Situated along the main road and parallel to
the park opposite the street, a public space was created in front of the complex. It is
further organised by a clock tower placed centrally, which forms a landmark when viewed
from the road. Traditionally, the tower (or in some cases two towers) would be placed over
the entrance of the town hall or in the case of a second tower, over the secondary
entrance. At the Welkom town hall, the tower was dissociated from the main structure to
form a nodal point, changing the typical use of the archetype. Currently this tower is used
as an information kiosk, an appropriate function for of this landmark.

Figure 41. Welkom city hall, Welkom. A: The tower as axis. B: The tower as reference
point in relation to its context. C: Image of town hall‟s structure.

Figure 42. Johannesburg civic centre, Johannesburg. A: The administrative section of the
civic centre. B: The civic centre positioned in a park environment. C: Public space is
provided although the scale remains inhuman.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The complex is further divided into three separate structures of the civic hall, theatre and
the administrative wing. Both the civic and theatre hall flank the public space to form a
public promenade toward the street. The administrative block is set toward the back of the
public area which is accessible from the secondary street and northern entrance.
Materials used include brick and Clip-lock roofs. Originally the roof sheeting consisted of
copper panels, but after extensive problems had to be replaced with galvanised sheeting.
To match the original roof, sheets were painted green. Stylistically, neo-classical elements
associated with town halls, were limited. The complex is somewhat reminiscent of Paul
Rudolph‟s brutalistic style, especially with reference to the use of bricks. The significance
of this structure thus lies in the break from the traditional typology of a town hall into
separate structures forming a complex. With the design of this complex, public space was
created to integrate the structure into the urban fabric, although most civic centres were
still being built with little contextual reference.

The Johannesburg civic centre, designed by Monte Bryer & Rodd, Watson, Peiser &
Grobbelaar and P.L. Schwellnus in 1969, resembles the civic centre typology most.
Compared to the Welkom town hall, this complex is not contextually integrated, but
becomes an object in an extensive park. The urban landscape is dominated by brutalistic
geometries, again following a certain stylistic approach. This assemblage of geometries
forms the civic complex raised on a plinth to give it stature. The building seems
inaccessible due to the scale and elevated structure (Figure 42, B). From Joubert Street, a
terraced public space was created to form a threshold between the street and actual
structure (Figure 42, C). Typologically, little reference to a city hall remains as spaces are
functionally dislocated and classical references are limited.

In 1951 Sasolburg, a newly planned town was developed along with the chemical
extractions from coal. Municipal services along with other public structures were required.
In 1965, Förs architects designed a civic centre for Sasolburg consisting of an
administrative section and a gathering space or hall. The centre received a project award
during the construction phase. Even though public infrastructure was transformed after
democratization, the signage in front of the entrance still reads „stadskouburg‟ or as
translated, civic centre (Figure 43, C). This signage is reminiscent of the apartheid legacy
as access for some racial groups were prohibited. The structure, built on a plinth which is
connected with a ramp, consists of strict geometrical cubes. Horizontal concrete elements
and the brise-soleil show the strong influence of modernism. Adjacent to the civic centre,
on a lower level, a public library and hall were built later. The ramps connecting these
structures with the civic centre are significant as they refer to Le Corbusier‟s Carpenter
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Centre for Visual Arts completed in 1963, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, connecting the
different spaces with the concept of man as a machine (Figure 43, A).

Although these three civic structures were not built simultaneously or by the same
architects, a civic complex was formed. In comparison with the Welkom town hall, there is
little relationship between the different structures or significant public space but rather a
modernistic approach of the object in the landscape, in this case a tree filled park. An
attempt was made to form a connection with the street through the raised veranda directly
parallel to the street, but with no direct access. One has to follow the barricaded route
twenty meters from this point .Furthermore, the initial entrance was from this veranda, but
later on was moved to the (western) façade, creating wasted space and removing the
connection with the street.

Figure 43. Sasolburg civic centre, Sasolburg. A: The ramp connecting the centre with the
public library. B: Access to the centre provided by a ramp which is isolated from the street.

Figure 44. Westridge civic centre, Mitchell's plain. A: Lowered central gathering space with
surrounding circulation. B: Possible public space utilised as parking space. C: Entrance to
the centre accessible from the parking area.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

A transitional structure from civic to community centre is the Westridge civic hall, built in
Mitchell‟s plain, in the Cape Town Metro, designed by Graham Parker and completed in
1979. This structure won an ISAA award of Merit (now SAIA). The structure was initially
built to provide space for municipal services, although little administrative office space was
provided. The building is flanked by a library constructed after the civic centre, forming a
complex. In front of the centre is a parking lot, which can double as public gathering space
although little street furniture is provided apart from trees (Figure 44, B). What is
significant in this case is the gradual shift from a civic to a community centre. There are
two administrative offices with the focus on the central gathering space. This space allows
for multi-functional utilization, being connected to the foyer and surrounding circulation
(Figure 44, A). Furthermore, a stage and kitchen facility is provided allowing for
community functions. The gathering space is the heart of the design connecting all the
other spaces. Currently, the centre functions as a community centre rather than a civic
centre with permanent staff managing community projects. These projects include after-
school care and holiday programmes for children as well as developing programmes such
as arts and crafts for the elderly.

This typology of civic centres was critical in providing public gathering spaces and
municipal services in newly built human settlements. Civic centres can be associated with
urban development and were rare after the construction of new cities or town centres
since the 1970s. These centres differed in scale, and as with the case of Westridge, also
in function. The significance lies in the combination of municipal and public functions to
provide a complex for educational and cultural development as well as service delivery.
Cultural and public activities have moved from these central spaces of the city centre to
occasional festivals. These spaces should be revived once more to restore the civic
presence of the structures.

The community centre

On an international level, literature is available on the development of community centres

in America and Britain. These publications on community centres were investigated to
determine how and where the typology originated, what the functional intentions and the
initial motivation were.

In America, the development of community centres from 1907 in Rochester, New York
was well documented by Stubblefield and Keane (1994). According to them, the 1911
conference on social centres, sponsored by the Wisconsin Bureau of Civic and Social
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Development, organized by the Extension Department at the University of Wisconsin,

played a significant role in the development of community centres. During this conference
social activity as a means of transformation was discussed. One aspect of the conference
focused on facilities for these activities, which were held in schools or other available
spaces. Although the subject was contested, centres for these activities were approved.
Between 1918 and 1919, community centres were built in 107 American cities and
increased to 240 cities in 1930 (Fisher: 1994). In 1916, the National Community Centre
Association was established, after which many centres have changed from social to
community centres (Fisher: 1981).

After World War I, the need for accessible structures designed for social gatherings and
further education, unrestricted by other activities, was growing. Community centres thus
increased rapidly providing space for educational, social and welfare activities (Smith:
n.d.).

In Britain, community centres developed due to large suburban developments where few
services were provided, and which had high unemployment rates. Centres thus provided
further education, job opportunities and search facilities for vacancies. The New Estates
Community Committee (NCSS) published a definition defining the role of community
centres in the New Estates and Community Councils Paper 1, as follows:

“A Community Centre may be defined as a building which (1) serves a

community organized in an association which is responsible for the
management of the building; and (2) provides facilities for the
development of the recreational, cultural and personal welfare of
members of that community; and (3) constitutes a meeting place for
voluntary organizations or other groups in the community which need
accommodation.

A Community Association may be defined as a voluntary association of

neighbours democratically organized within a geographical area which
constitutes a natural community, who have come together either as
members of existing organizations or as individuals, or in both
capacities, to provide for themselves and their community the services
which the neighbourhood requires.” (Mess & King: 1947, 73)

The space could thus either be an existing structure such as a school utilised at different
times for different functions, or a privately managed facility like a church or a purpose built
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

community centre. These centres were managed by the community and did not rely on
the local government for support. Mess and King further identified two important factors
that determined the success of community centres in Britain. First was the quality of the
structure and second the management of the centre. They established the importance of a
large meeting hall along with secondary spaces available for recreational activities. These
facilities had to be well managed to maintain the structure, but, more importantly, to
provide recreation and education programs for community members.

Community centres were seen as a method of solving some of the post-war social
problems and were defined by a Ministry of Education publication (1944) as:

“A community centre should be regarded as an essential amenity of

normal community living in normal circumstances; the provision of
communal facilities for the rational and enjoyable use of leisure is a
necessary part of the country‟s education system; and voluntary effort,
unaided, is quite incapable of meeting the needs for social and
recreational facilities.”

In Britian, the number of community centres grew to 300 in 1947 and to 929 in 1960
(Smith: n.d.). Along with this growth the focus of centres shifted from social to educational
development. Furthermore the maintenance of these structures became more important,
as Twelvetrees (1976) indicated in a study of four community centres, in that the „growth
of identification‟ depended on how events are organised by staff.

In South Africa, the concept of community centres began with the initial development of
townships in the 1940s, although the design focus of these centres shifted in the 1980‟s6.
During apartheid‟s decline, the focus of infrastructural development gradually shifted to
townships which often had little infrastructure. This development included educational and
social structures such as schools and community centres. Similar to the American and
European reaction to social problems, community centres were seen as a possible
architectural typology to provide public social spaces in South African townships. From the
1980s onward there were two architects mostly involved in public township architecture
that won several peer acknowledged architecture awards. Jo Noero designed structures

6
This was determined by drafting a diagram of gathering space including city halls, civic centres
and community centres. Unfortunately little published information exists and is often only of
buildings awarded through a competition or which obtained either a project, commendation or merit
award on a regional or national level.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

for educational purposes such as the Katlehong resources centre (Ramakonopi,

Katlehong, 1989), the Duduza resources centre (1993, Duduza, Nigel), and the Soweto
career centre (1993, Soweto). Roelof Uytenbogaardt, on the other hand, designed several
community centres in the Western Cape Province. These structures include the Steinkopf,
Belhar and Salt River community centres (see Table 1 for location, dates and architectural
reward received). Due to the nature of this study, only the community centres are
discussed in more detail.

The Belhar community hall forms part of the greater development of the Belhar district
which includes residential units, public parks and nodes situated in the proposed urban
framework. Unfortunately, only sections of the proposed urban development were built
due to economic constraints. The community centre built adjacent to a school and
opposite a public park, form part of the urban precinct. Initially the design consisted of a
walled public courtyard flanked by a hierarchical entrance. From this hierarchical element
the structure would have been entered through the main western entrance and from two
secondary gatehouses accessible from the street. From the main entrance, access is
provided to the major hall, two minor gathering spaces, ablution facilities as well as a
kitchen. The major hall opens onto two smaller courtyards on the eastern and western
sides. Shaded parking was provided on the eastern side of the centre. Unfortunately, the
programmatic use of the structure changed drastically mainly due to security reasons. The
two secondary entrances are no longer used and are barricaded with barbed wire.

Furthermore, the central entrance has been opened to provide vehicular access to the
courtyard, now used as a parking area. One of the secondary gathering spaces is now
utilised as the caretaker‟s office and the other is used as a social space for the elderly.
From the kitchen, meals are provided daily for elderly citizens. As part of a community

Figure 45. Belhar community hall, Belhar. A: The entrance to the centre altered for vehicle
access. B: The boundary wall surrounding the community hall restricting visual access. C:
The more open public play area opposite the Belhar hall.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

programme, the elderly have started a community garden in one of the secondary
courtyards adjacent to the main hall. The centre is managed by the local municipality and
is mostly rented to public organisations and for private use of the community. The central
courtyard along with the secondary walled spaces creates severe security problems and
is often vandalised. The spaces are too inclusive restricting visibility. Furthermore, due to
it being managed by the local municipality, maintenance is neglected and structural
repairs are needed. Regardless of security issues and the alteration of the courtyard, the
centre was a precedent for other community centres to follow. The significance lies in the
scale of the structure, provision of the public courtyard, as well as the entrance connecting
different functions. Even more significant is the integration of the centre into the greater
community along with the creation of other public spaces such as the play area opposite
the Belhar community centre (Figure 45, C).

The Salt River community centre, in the Cape Town Metro, also designed by
Uytenbogaardt was built in 1988 through private funding of the Blackpool sport club (no
author 2.: 1988). Although the main function was for soccer training and tournaments,
other public facilities where designed for community development. The centre was built in
the middle of the site with a soccer field to each side (Figure 46, B). A covered veranda on
the northern side provides shelter for spectators. Initially the design included a linear
entrance connecting a library, ticket office, a courtyard and ablution facility with the
caretaker‟s residence on the first floor. From this entrance the main hall is reached, which
has also been designed to accommodate other sport types with tiered pavilions for
spectators. Unfortunately the library and courtyard have not been built, resulting in an
architecturally undefined entrance. Furthermore, due to the private ownership of the
centre, no community development other than soccer is provided, thus nullifying it as a
true community centre accessible for social and educational purposes. As a community
centre, the structure is not integrated into the urban fabric as the entire site is fenced off
with no visual access. The ineffectiveness of this centre does not rest on the architectural
design, but rather on managerial issues. However, the structure could have contributed to
the urban fabric of Salt River allowing network formation.

The Paternoster community centre, completed in 1999 by Jaco Visser, is a good example
of a catalytic structure, whilst addressing the local vernacular architecture. The site is
located between the low-income residential area, commercial activity and middle-class
residential area. Being so centrally located, it is also situated along the main vehicular
route providing access to the town from Saldanha. Because of its locality, the centre
provides a central nodal point for reference and orientation. A taxi or bus terminus on site
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

also reinforces the centre as a nodal point. All along the west coast, from Langebaan to
St. Helena Bay, small fishing towns developed. These towns developed according to the
local vernacular, built with available materials and unskilled labour. Settlements were built
to follow the topography and were not planned developments. Residential units consist of
low scale dwellings with two to three rooms and an adjacent veranda, often facing the
shore. The architectural language reflects the local vernacular, with white plastered walls
(originally white washed with lime), flat roofs and sculptural geometries (no author 4.:
2000). The structure was subdivided into two separate sections with library and main
gathering spaces, which are connected by the hall, entrance and ablution. The height of
these structures was kept to a minimum to correspond with the existing scale. Pure
geometries such as rectangles where further used with circular domes. Plastic vitality,
typical of this area, was enhanced with the two domed structures, in which the stage and

Figure 46. Salt River community centre, Cape Town. A: Adjacent to the sports field is the
covered veranda for spectators. B: The entrance with a rentable unit for the care taker in a
run-down state. C: The entrance to the central multi-purpose gathering space.

Figure 47. Paternoster community centre, Paternoster. A: facilities provided include the
library on the left and the gathering space on the right. B: Low walls create public space or
seating whilst defining the entrance. C: The gathering space opens into the public
amphitheatre shaped by low retaining walls and rocks.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

services were housed. No fences or boundaries were built except low walls that double as
seating and shape the amphitheatre. Due to the geometrical nature and use of white
washed walls, these structures respect the vernacular in scale and form. By restricting
wall heights, the sculptural quality of the community centre is enhanced. Furthermore,
access to the centre and to the external public spaces is unrestricted, allowing informal
use. Unfortunately little urban street furniture or landscaping is provided in these external
spaces other than barren earth. Due to the harsh environmental conditions, landscaping is
difficult and would in some cases, arguably, be impossible.

Community centres found in developing areas in South Africa, structurally address some
critical issues on both an urban and infrastructural level. The appropriateness of the
suggested solutions is still questionable but at least there is an inquiry to provide possible
answers. Although there are still some vague concepts to resolve, the typology of
community centres is significant as a social gathering point and space of contestation
where little public space is provided. Developing on from the city hall and civic centre, a
typology based on the community, and not on the municipality or authorities, is aimed at.

In the following section public infrastructure is investigated in developing areas. This

section is followed by an in-depth discussion on the typology of community centres.

4.3 Public infrastructure in developing areas

With the initial planning of townships, provision was made for public infrastructure such as
administrative and social buildings. Prior to the enforcement of the Group Areas Act, these
facilities were mostly for the white administration to control the residents. Structures
included a post office, a residential unit for the officer, and in some cases space for
commercial activity. Later planning included other recreational facilities such as parks or
open spaces and community centres. Three types of community centres were
recommended; social, recreational and educational (Mathewson: 1956, 152). The major
problem with these structures was financing, as is the case with most developments.
Davies noted that residential units, schools and commercial structures are of the utmost
importance and should be included in the first construction phase. He further stated that
other structures such as community centres and parks are often not financially possible,
but that pace should be allocated for these facilities (Davies: 1971).

Two thesis publications, that of Calderwood (1953) and Connell, Irvine-Smith, Jonas,
Kantorowich and Wepener (1939) investigated early township development. Calderwood‟s
doctoral thesis Native housing in South Africa (1953), explores non-European residential
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

development before and after 1947, when the National Party was elected. The focus was
on the spatial planning and typological variation of residential units with specific reference
to Witbank‟s township, then newly completed, in 1951. The Witbank case study is
significant as it incorporates the natural topography, a civic centre, residential areas, and
open space for future developments such as schools and parks. In these open spaces
green areas or parks were suggested. By providing amenities the monotony of identical
housing could be broken and structures for recreation and social interaction built. In the
Witbank Township, the civic centre was located adjacent to the three residential blocks.
Each of the three blocks was then further grouped around a public space on which the
school, crèche and churches could be built.

Calderwood states that the following should be included in a community centre: “club
rooms, offices, [a] library, restaurants and a hall; space should also be provided for certain
open-air functions associated with the main hall” (1953, 72). To acquire funds for the
construction of these structures, Calderwood suggested that funds should be raised from
„beer profits‟ (1953, 173). The suggested programme and fund raising seem elaborate
considering the conditions and need for more residential units due to over-populated
townships. In a later discussion of the Kwa-Thema scheme, at Springs, Ekurhuleni
municipality, a more realistic structure was proposed and built. The initial structure
consisted only of a rectangular hall 66x167m which could be extended at a later stage.
The extensions included two wings, a covered veranda and service wing. Both these
additions flanked a paved courtyard as public space (Figure 48). The service wing
included the caretaker‟s flat, storage space, toilet facilities and a ticket office that in turn
formed an entrance to the hall. This proposal is modest and seems more viable to
manage and finance. Considering the layout of the civic centre (Figure 49), the hall
positioned adjacent to the market and opposite the cinema and entertainment section,
contributes to the social sphere of Kwa-Thema. Unfortunately the aesthetic qualities and
scale of the structure does not provide a civic presence or a definite identity for the Kwa-
Thema community. This is perhaps on par with the apartheid ideology were structures and
residential units were seen as temporary. Although different typological structures were
proposed, the elevations remained visually monotonous.

In the Witbank Township, the community hall was planned adjacent to the social and
administrative functions, thus becoming the link between the two sections. Social facilities
included a park, sport facilities and a church, whereas the administrative section included
administration offices, a clinic and police station. Again, as was the case with Kwa-Thema,
the town hall was positioned around a public space flanked by a covered veranda,
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

services and the hall. Again, the market was situated opposite the town hall to form a civic
centre. Note that the civic centre was not planned along the main road although centrally
located, but the majority of the road was flanked by row houses and single residential
units. The superintendent was situated at the entrance of the township, at the beginning of
this main road, thus exhibiting control.

Figure 48. Plan and elevations of the town hall proposed for townships.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 49. Position of the town hall in relation to Kwa-Thema.

As with the residential units, community centres were also built on basic guidelines with
small variations. The town hall described by Connell et al. (1939), also proposed public
space flanked by three wings, although initially three halls were suggested. A strong
reference was made to the urban planning of Le Corbusier, such as his Ville Radieuse
(1935). This is visible in the vast parks with dissociated high density structures.
Furthermore, the residential units, especially the „flats‟, also portrayed the stripped
elevation associated with the work of Le Corbusier. These planned townships are based
on modernistic planning principles, radical for the time. Unfortunately this left residents
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

with vast undeveloped spaces, modular units (often not providing for an expanding
family), and little contextual reference.

In their thesis, a centre as the cultural precinct, was described. The cultural centre
consisted of three spaces connected by an enclosed corridor on the first floor, which could
be accessed by a double volume foyer (Figure 50, Figure 51 and Figure 52). Adjacent to
the foyer was a double volume theatre space with adjacent change rooms. Two other
smaller spaces were provided as cinemas and a third as a restaurant, serving separately
to the public and theatre or bioscope. These spaces formed part of an axis which
connected with other public functions such as the commercial piazza, technical college,
hotel, sport facilities and stadium.

From the literature, it can be concluded that public infrastructure were planned along with
the initial development of low-income settlements. However, due to economic constraints
these facilities were often not constructed. Apart from financial constraints, structures
were often designed in an inhumane modernistic fashion. The scale, construction
methods and local tradition or culture were furthermore disregarded with the aim of
creating a machine for living. It is thus apparent, that even though public infrastructure
was considered, the proposals were not suitable.

Figure 50. Ground floor providing access to the raised facilities of the proposed town hall
in Kwa-Thema.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 51. First floor of the proposed town hall with theatre spaces.

Figure 52. Elevations of the proposed town hall indicating the raised theatres.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Public infrastructure in Port Elizabeth

Literature on township development in previous Group Areas investigates the quality and
requirements of public infrastructure. These facilities included educational, social and
recreational, commercial and health related structures. Although these structural
developments were described in detail and sites were allocated, most were never
constructed. Limited available funds were allocated for residential units and service
delivery such as water and electricity connections. Although funds were allocated for basic
needs, most residents lived in undesirable circumstances in over populated units with
shared ablution facilities. In Port Elizabeth infrastructural development in the Coloured and
Black Group Areas included hospitals, churches, community centres and halls, schools,
swimming facilities and sport stadium complexes. Two of the first gathering spaces were
built in Korsten and New Brighton.

One of the first public buildings used by all racial groups in Port Elizabeth was the Korsten
town hall, opened in 1923 (Figure 54). Plans for the structure were drawn by R.N.
Pennacchini, the Chairman of the Management Board of Korsten (Heraldine: 1996). The
hall made provision for a gathering space accommodating 450 people, as well as
administrative offices for the board. By 1934, Korsten was incorporated into the Port
Elizabeth municipality, after which the hall was sold (Heraldine: 1996).

Figure 53. Map indicating the location of the Korsten area in relation to Port Elizabeth.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

In New Brighton public infrastructure was built between 1926 and 1930, that included a
post office, public ablutions, electricity connections and administrative offices from which
municipal control was exercised (Robinson: 1996, 103). In 1937, the T.C. White Hall was
built, with library services in one room (Davies: 1971, 190). Later, in 1962, the Centenary
hall was built with separate facilities for the library, which then moved from the T.C. White
hall. The Centenary hall, now known as the Nangoza Jebe Hall, provides a gathering
space seating 2090 people with another three multi-functional spaces seating 200 each
(Figure 55). The Nogoza Jebe hall was built in a post-modernistic style with little
contextual reference and fenced in, restricting the formation of informal public space.

Figure 54. Location of Korsten town hall built in 1923. Edited by author from Robinson:
1996, 121.

Figure 55. Centenary hall, also known as the Nangoza Jebe Hall, New Brighton, Port
Elizabeth.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

By 1969, there were ten community halls or clubs (Figure 56) built in Port Elizabeth‟s
Group Areas. In the area allocated for the Coloured community four centres were
constructed, of which two were located at Gelvandale and two at Shauderville. In the
Black community there were six by 1969, of which one is on the border between
Kwathamela and Zwide, then a newly established township. According to Standard Space
Allocation Requirements in Non-White (Non-European) Urban Townships (Davies: 1971,
189), 2000m²/10 000 people should be provided for community centres in Coloured and
Black townships (as different areas were allocated for racial groups, they also had
different spatial allocations for public infrastructure, for Coloured townships additional
spaces were allocated for libraries whereas with Black townships this should be included
in the 2000m²/10 000 people allocated for community centres) (Davies: 1971, 189).
Although space was allocated for libraries, these facilities were not provided for in most
townships. Space assigned for recreational activities differed further in that 5260m²/1000
were provided in Coloured communities as opposed to the 13152m²/1000 people in Black
townships for sports fields.

Figure 56. Recreational and social facilities allocated in Black and Coloured Group Areas,
1969, Port Elizabeth. Edited by the author, from Davies: 1971, 192.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

4.4 Typological development of community centres

In this section, public gathering spaces are investigated typologically. Information on

community centre typologies highlights contextual solutions, spatial organization in
relation to the functional programs which in turn frames the two case studies in relation to
other projects. Precedents for the analysis include relevant projects that have been
published and designed by professional architects. Project descriptions are not limited to
community centres as semantic differences occur between named places. For the
purpose of the analysis, projects should be in developing communities and have a
gathering space, regardless of their size, scale, management or funding. Structures thus
include community centres and halls along with educational and administrative functions.

The analysis examined the typology, structure and architectural language of the gathering
spaces similar to the grid proposed by Lefebvre (1991, 366). With reference to themes
identified in TPoS, typology and structure refer to aspects of conceived and lived space,
whereas architectural language refers to perceived space. Typologically, the plans were
studied to determine the spatial relationship between different functions and geometries.
Spatial relationships further include the circulation patterns in relation to gathering spaces.
Through the analysis, categories were formed to group plans with similar spatial
organizations that indicate a possible outline for the design of community centres. In the
process, it became apparent that there are no two identical structures, and therefore it
should be stressed that the design of these facilities should remain contextual as was the
case with each precedent. The intent of categorizing the typologies is to determine if there
is a possible contextual solution. Typologically, city halls were designed with less variation
and these gathering spaces are commendable for their site specific solutions. Structurally,
the relationship between tectonic and stereotomic elements was explored in relation to the
facility‟s function. Again the circulation, functional and gathering spaces were examined in
relation to their tectonic and stereotomic structure. This part of the analysis indicated the
relationship of the interior to the exterior as well as aspects of inclusion and exclusion
(often also referred to as solid and void). The architectural languages of the gathering
spaces were investigated briefly to establish contextual references, material use and
identify formation. All of the chosen structures have been built in existing communities
with established identities. This analysis therefore investigated how insertions impose on
or mimic the context to form nodal spaces for public gatherings.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Typology

Through the analysis five categories have been identified that classify different typologies
of gathering spaces. Note, however, that in some cases the gathering space can be
grouped into two of these categories, again exemplifying the diverse possibilities of this
specific typology. The five categories include fragmented (1), central circulation with a
courtyard (2), central circulation with adjacent functions (3), central circulation (4) and
lastly a linear plan (5) (Refer to Figure 57 for a diagrammatic illustration). Categories for
this classification have been determined by the relationship of the central gathering space
to circulation through the building or spaces. First, the fragmented organisation has no
clear circulation route and the different functions are scattered on the site. Although the
circulation space is not the main organisational element, as is the case with the other four
categories, structural elements are organised into a cohesive composition. This approach
relies on space created between the building elements as it is designed as a Gestalt.
Second, the gathering space and services are organised along the central circulation
space from which the facility can be entered. All spaces, either public or private, can be
accessed from this one central space. These spaces are further organised to form a
courtyard, or in some cases multiple courtyards. Third, gathering spaces and services are
organised adjacent to a central circulation space. Generally, the circulation space can be
accessed from both ends with one side designed as the main entrance. Fourth, the
gathering spaces and other functions are grouped around a central linear „spine‟. Often,
this linear space differs in porosity, being enclosed in some places and in others only
consists of a covered or exposed walkway. This layout is in some cases more accessible
and dispersed across the site. Fifth, a linear plan with adjacent functions, but in this case it
forms the central gathering space and not the circulation through the facility. Services are
organised adjacent to the gathering space with circulation restricted at each end of the
gathering space. This spatial organisation limits circulation routes and is often used where
space is restricted.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 57. Analysis of public gathering spaces: Five identified typologies.

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

These five categories can be applied to South African examples, with some aspects
overlapping. The Bopitikelo community and cultural centre in Molatedi by Peter Rich
architects completed in 2001 and the Paternoster community centre in Paternoster by
Jaco Visser completed in 1999 are examples of fragmented organisation. At Bopitikelo,
spaces are organised into different geometries with the entrance and services being
circular and the gathering space, the covered and uncovered, rectangular. These define
external spaces, forming additional areas for public gatherings (no author 3.: 1999, 157).
An „African spatial tradition‟ is applied that considers form, scale and context (no author 5.:
2002, 21). On the initial plans, access to the facility ought to have been from the parking
area through the circular entrance. From the entrance a walkway leads to the stage area,
a raised terrace, which connects the basketball court and covered gathering space. The
kitchen and traditional narration court are positioned adjacent to the covered gathering
space with the ablution facilities as a separate structure. Spatially the buildings are
scattered across the site, with no clear circulation area that connects different functions.
Although this spatial organisation may seem peculiar, it is particular to the site. Distanced
from other developments or established residential areas, the building becomes part of
nature rather than part of the settlement. The Paternoster centre consists of two main
structures, the hall and an adjacent library. These two facilities are not connected but
function as separate facilities. The library has its own entrance that connects to
administrative offices and the hall has its own centre with adjacent toilets. Apart from each
structure having its own entrance, there is a walkway that connects both entrances.
Although this structure is not as fragmented as the spaces at the Bopitikelo centre, they
still function separately and also pose clear geometrical solutions. These two examples
are appropriate in less dense and safer environments where access to the premises does
not need not to be restricted as in other urban environments.

In the second category are the three examples of facilities with central circulation and
courtyards. The examples include the Belhar community hall in Belhar by Uytenbogaardt
and Macaskill completed in 1987, the Katlehong resources centre in Katlehong completed
in 1989 and the Duduza resources centre in Nigel completed in 1990 , both by Jo Noero.
At the Belhar community hall, space is organised along the central circulation area that
connects the services, the main gathering hall parallel to the circulation and at both ends a
secondary multi-purpose hall (no author 1.: 1986). In front of the circulation space is a
covered veranda that connects the main entrance and the two secondary entrances in the
eastern and western walls. Three courtyards were created, the first in front of the main
entrance formed by walls and two secondary courtyards that flow from the main gathering
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

space enclosed by boundary walls. In turn, at the Duduza resources centre a central
circulation space has been used to organise services and gathering spaces parallel to it. A
major difference in comparison to Belhar is the courtyard formed by the structure and not
by boundary walls. The main gathering space is not connected to the circulation area, but
is rather linked with covered walkways, thus forming the courtyard. With the courtyard only
accessible from the central circulation area it is protected to form a semi-public space.
Belhar‟s main courtyard is too accessible and leaves users, who are most often elderly,
vulnerable. Due to the courtyards being insecure, they have recently been utilised as
parking areas. Staff and users have no visual access beyond the boundary walls and
prefer cars to be parked in the unused courtyard. The Khatlego career centre is similar to
the Duduza resources centre in that services are grouped along the central circulation
area but the courtyard and gathering spaces differ. Smaller gathering spaces are provided
to the left and right side of the central circulation area. These spaces can be accessed by
secondary corridors which flow from the central circulation area. Between the spaces, an
uncovered courtyard is provided with an amphitheatre framing it to the northern side.
Again the space is framed by the structure itself and not boundaries. Furthermore, as is
the case with Duduza, the space is only accessible through the central circulation area,
creating a more protected semi-public area. This example thus highlights the use of a
central circulation area to form, along with other functions, a courtyard as uncovered
gathering space.

In the third category are examples of public gathering spaces organised adjacent to a
central circulation area. These examples include the Dawid Klaaste multipurpose centre in
Laingsburg by Carin Smuts completed in 2005 and the Ubuntu community centre in
Zwide, NMBM, by Field architects completed in 2009. To form a category, both these
centres have a central entrance from which services and the gathering space can be
accessed. However, there are slight differences. The Dawid Klaaste centre‟s circulation
space is more defined than that of the Ubuntu centre. At the Dawid Klaaste centre the
circulation space divides the gathering space from administrative functions, whereas at
Ubuntu the circulation space divides the smaller multi-functional space and clinic from the
hall and other educational facilities. Ubuntu‟s circulation space also moves from the
central entrance to a more linear organisation as is found in category four. Although there
are similarities between the Ubuntu centre and category four, it is not placed there as the
circulation space is only internal with no contextual reference. The internal corridor further
defines informal meeting spaces as is the case in front of the class rooms and IT centre
on the ground floor. The corridors remain compact with services extending from them. At
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

the Ubuntu centre there is no clear definition of what is serviced, educational or

administrative space. This is mainly due to the limited office space for staff, resulting in
areas such as the multi-functional room on the first floor being refurbished to provide more
space. In both these examples circulation spaces provide a central point from which users
can be navigated. Security is also a priority as one central access is provided. At the
Ubuntu centre, the second entrance, accessible from the parking area, is only open to
staff members through electronic control, thus strengthening security. This control
however alters the initial design intent where access is provided on that route (Figure 31).

The fourth category that describes elongated circulation areas has for its three examples
the Steinkopf community centre in Steinkopf by Uytenbogaardt and Macaskill completed
in 1985, the Nelson Mandela youth and heritage centre in Qunu by Stauch Vorster
Architects completed in 2007 and the Helenvale multi-purpose community centre in
Helenvale by the Matrix...cc Urban designers and Architects completed in 2013. These
three examples all have a linear circulation element with functions parallel to it. As
opposed to the third category‟s shortened circulation area, the fourth‟s areas are
decidedly elongated. Furthermore, these circulation areas form external spaces to
emphasize the entrance as was the case with Steinkopf and Helenvale. These
promenades organise the external space and form a relationship with other public places
as was done in front of the Helenvale centres entrance. These circulation spaces further
become other informal gathering spaces allowing for social interaction. At the Nelson
Madela centre the circulation area starts with a covered public space which is formed by a
workshop, community hall and restaurant. This courtyard space hints on the second
category, but in this case the courtyard is part of the actual circulation route opposed to an
individually defined space. From this central space the route either extends to historic
ruins on the left or administrative and accommodation units to the right. The extended
route is curved, following the natural topography. The Nelson Mandela centre can further
be compared to the category of fragmentation. Each function is considered as a separate
structure, but in this case is either connected, by the large roof covering the courtyard or
the curved walkway (Figure 57).

The fifth category of linearity is similar to that of elongated circulation areas, but is
considered as a functional space. An example of such a linear space is the Alexandra
heritage centre in Alexandra by Peter Rich completed in 2008. The centre is built on two
sites with a road running in-between which is connected by a linear bridge element
(Fitchet: 2009). This element does not function as the entrance, but rather as the
connection between the two functional areas located opposite each other. The linear
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

element in this case is not of circulation but rather connection. This space is utilised as
museum or gallery space, ideal in cases where a great deal of circulation can be
expected. In this category there are limited examples as it is determined by particular site-
specific solution. Although a specific solution was suggested, it is relevant to consider as
vacant land is becoming limited and more restricted requiring these types of innovative
solutions (Figure 57).

Structural analysis

With the structural analysis the tectonic and stereotomic character of buildings was
investigated to determine the spatial relationship of the interior to the exterior and of
inclusion to exclusion. These aspects are connected to the thematic investigation of
conceived space as users‟ perception on all the precedents could not have been gathered
to associate it to RS. For the structural analysis each centre‟s or facility's gathering and
circulation space was grouped into either tectonic or stereotomic solutions. After this
categorization, structural elements were investigated for contextual relationships. The
tectonic or stereotomic elements were thus compared to the site to determine
contextualization through aerial photographs.

The Bopitikelo community and cultural centre can be categorized as a tectonic structure
due to the gumpole framework of the gathering space‟s roof. Screens were built as non-
load bearing elements with no clear indication of a circulation route. With the site being in
a natural landscape on the edge of the river, the tectonic structure allows integration of
interior and exterior spaces. As there is no clear circulation route, spaces between
structures are further utilised as informal gathering spaces, avoiding barriers that would
usually be created. Generally the structure only creates space of inclusion, formed by
services such as the ablution and a kitchen. More contrast between inclusion and
exclusion can be created to heighten spatial experience. The unbuilt arrival centre could
have contributed to spatial exclusion, creating a threshold to the gathering space.
Contextually, the tectonic structure relates to the bushveld although the scale of the
surrounding trees is much less imposing than the gum pole structure. Opposed to
Bopitikelo‟s tectonic structure, the centre at Paternoster is stereotomic due to its
mimicking of the vernacular construction techniques. In the village, most structures consist
of small scale residential units with no more than two or three rooms. The centre is built
with this scale and reduced footprint in mind. This structure is thus divided into smaller
sections, with the library and gathering space functioning as two separate units. Although
it is inclusive with little reference to the exterior spaces, external spaces were created.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The first is in the relationship of the library with the taxi stop, and the second is the
external amphitheatre formed by natural rocks. These two public spaces enable the
structure to relate to the environment. The position of the site is also important, situated
between the low-income and more developed area, thus forming a transitional space
between the two areas divided economically (previously racially). From these two
examples, contextual integration is important, but even more relevant is the choice of site,
allowing integration into the residential fabric.

The gathering and circulation spaces of the Belhar community hall can both be
categorized as stereotomic as the walls are structural. However, the covered veranda, in
front, provides a tectonic transitional space into the enclosed interior. As opposed to the
heavy stereotomic structure, circulation spaces in both the Duduza resources centre and
Katlehong career centre are tectonic. The gathering space of the Duduza centre is also
tectonic with the Katlehong centre‟s smaller gathering space being more stereotomic. This
distinction between the more stereotomic and tectonic structure is mainly due to
contextual references. At the Belhar centre, walls are of brick, relating to the plastered
residential units in the area. In contrast, the structures by Jo Noero are mostly steel
structures with corrugated iron panels, relating to „shacks‟ in the vicinity. Through these
contextual references the structural elements are determined, although more clues might
be derived from the context. Considering the Belhar centre, most residential units were
not usually built with boundary walls, but when provided, they were lower allowing visual
contact. Along with the boundary wall, the centre is thus too inclusive. From the outside,
the wall creates a strong boundary with no further contextual integration. On the other
hand, the tectonic circulation spaces of the Katlehong and Duduza centres create
inclusive transitional spaces between different functions, although still acting as a buffer
between the internal and external spaces.

The Dawid Klaaste multi-purpose centre and the Ubuntu community centre are both
organised around a central circulation space. At the Dawid Klaaste centre the central
circulation and gathering spaces are both tectonic due to the steel structure clad with
corrugated iron, but could be considered as a more inclusive space. To the southern side
of the building tectonic circulation spaces were created which incorporate a windmill and
re-used train trucks. This becomes a sculptural element, in contrast with the more
enclosed functional spaces. At the Ubuntu centre, the whole structure was built as a
heavy stereotomic mass, constructed with off-shutter concrete. Large openings with
glazing were in turn covered with gum pole laths, which double as sunscreen and burglar
bars. These provide a tectonic element to the dominant stereotomic structure. Both these
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

centres are relatively inclusive, with little transitional spaces to the exterior. Considering
the harsh environments in which community centres are often built more robust structures
are often needed. However, the key to contextual integration lies in the placement on site.
The Dawid Klaaste centre is situated on a large piece of barren land, previously a sports
field, far removed from other infrastructure. Furthermore, the edge of the site is fenced,
creating another barrier apart from isolation from other activity. The problem here is not
structural inclusion, but rather the contextual relationship. Similarly, the Ubuntu centre is
an inclusive structure, but has a different contextual relationship. Here, the building was
built adjacent to an existing structure that housed the original facilities of the Ubuntu
Education Fund. Furthermore, the site is much smaller and situated within a dense
residential area. External spaces are thus designed to form publicly accessible areas
connected with the street. These spaces have no boundary walls as it was one of the
design requirements. Both these structures are more compact solutions with limited
circulation spaces. These circulation spaces are both used to divide functions such as the
administrative and gathering spaces at the Dawid Klaaste centre, and the clinic and
educational section at the Ubuntu centre. As both of these structures are more inclusive,
the finding here is that they does not lie in structural solutions but rather in the contextual
relationship of the structures.

With the structural analysis of elongated circulation spaces, the circulation spaces of all
three precedents‟ can be considered tectonic, and the gathering spaces stereotomic. The
tectonic circulation spaces are categorized as structurally lighter and connect with the
parallel stereotomic functions. The Steinkopf centre was constructed with stereotomic
walls with slender steel posts connecting with the roof, thus a combination of structural
elements. At the Nelson Mandela centre, the roof covering the courtyard as well as
covered areas over walkways, are tectonic. These structures act as binding elements
connecting the fragmented structures on site. The Helenvale centre combines steel,
timber and plastered elements to form the circulation space. At the entrance a galvanised
steel structure forms a pergola to emphasize the entrance. Internal circulation is formed
by timber columns and roof trusses. The internal circulation ends with a glazed section in
front of the hall, forming a connection with the external space. This circulation route is
extended with plastered columns that extend towards the other entrance toward Baadjies
Road, on the Western side. All three examples use tectonic circulation routes with
contrasting stereotomic structures. These community centres use their circulation routes
as a design principle to organize the site and form a nodal point.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The Alexandra heritage centre with its linear plan consists of a tectonic steel structure with
brick and corrugated iron infill. This construction method allowed for a solid structure
whilst integrating local craftsmanship and material with corrugated iron panels. The
tectonic structure further allowed for the construction of the bridge that connects the two
elements built on each side of the street. The bridge element further creates a gateway, or
threshold as transitional space.

Architectural language

Each of the chosen precedents as well as the two case studies has a unique architectural
language and could therefore not form sub-groups. Due to this unique character, each
building is discussed individually for contextual references and identity formation.
Contextual characteristics refer to historical or cultural practices portrayed in the structure
either through symbolism or material use. Identity as a social construct investigates how
the structure is incorporated into the existing settlement and how new perceptions are
formed around it.

At the Bopitikelo centre traditional construction methods are incorporated into

conceptualising the new typology. Thatch roof and gumpole construction was previously
used in small scale residential units, but not in public structures, thus applied in a different
manner. Furthermore, the use of compacted earth bricks (CEB) is a new variation of the
traditional wattle and daub construction. Functionally traditional cooking methods and the
oral tradition of narration were captured in use of spaces. The use of materials and
traditional functional spaces helps with identity formation. Traditional construction
methods are often replaced by more cost-effective Western techniques. At the
Paternoster centre, traditional construction techniques of pure geometry, reduced scale
and a small footprint with white washed walls create a plastic vitality, also used in local
vernacular craftsmanship. Traditionally these walls were white washed with a lime mixture
but, commercial paints are used recently. As opposed to Bopitikelo, the Paternoster
centre is much more integrated as the local construction techniques have been preserved.
The construction method thus does not celebrate bygone days only, but rather an ongoing
tradition. As the Paternoster centre was constructed at the entrance of the small fishing
town it is crucial as a nodal structure to strengthen identity formation. Identity and
contextual reference as traditional narrative is important; here one is portraying historic
values and the other an ongoing vernacular. The questions unfolding here are whether
this is still the appropriate language and how communities portray their identities in an
ever changing society.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Four of the structures used steel portal frames with corrugated iron infill panels. These
structures include the Katlehong career centre, the Duduza resources centre, the Dawid
Klaaste multi-purpose centre and the Alexandra heritage centre. All four examples are
built in townships where housing consists predominantly of RDP units or self-constructed
corrugated iron structures (shacks). These shacks provide the opportunity for community
members to extend their RDP units, providing rentable space or in some cases temporary
or permanent homes. The use of corrugated iron in these centres immediately creates a
contextual reference. The steel structure further simplifies construction within a limited
time frame. The use of colour is significant in all three examples to either highlight the
structure or to create visual variation on the façades but still limiting decorative elements.

The remaining buildings are mostly constructed of bricks, either plastered or face brick,
with the exception of Ubuntu‟s concrete structure. Steel column and beam systems have
been used in some cases for covered walkways. In general these structures are not very
sensitive to the local vernacular or traditional construction methods. In the desert-like
landscape, the Steinkopf centre became a beacon, organizing the landscape. This centre
contrasts with the existing vernacular architecture, creating a new language which was
possibly rejected by the local community. The Ubuntu centre also contrasts the immediate
contexts with the intent of providing „hope‟ to the community. Here the management of the
structure is crucial to create an atmosphere of inclusivity as the image of the building
could possibly oppose these ideals. The Belhar centre should be considered on individual
merit as it is part of a newly planned residential area. Its identity thus corresponds with the
designed environment, but here one must ask the question of whether it was not imposed
on the community and how distinct characteristics have formed around these newly built
structures. The Nelson Mandela and Helenvale centres are both contrasting, but have
elements that incorporate the context. The Nelson Mandela centre is not built as one
structure, but is rather broken down into smaller masses, thus considering the scale of the
residential area. With the Helenvale centre, the scale of the context is not considered, but
rather becomes a lived reality by the introduction of a street. This street corresponds with
the lived space as most children and community members are found to socialize and play
there. Streets thus become the living rooms of these community members and a
playground for children.

With the typological, structural and aesthetic analysis the two case studies could be
contextualised by investigating other relevant typologies. Budgetary constraints have,
however, been excluded from the analysis although it has a significant impact on the
construction of the projects under discussion. With the exception of the Bopitikelo
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

community and cultural centre and the Ubuntu centre, other facilities were funded either
by Local or National Government. Although these projects were privately funded,
resources were still limited with the Ubuntu centre an exception with its R70 million
budget. The Helenvale multi-functional community centre, on the other hand, had a
budget of R38 million, which included sculptures for both public spaces.

Comparing the two case studies with the precedents, functional aspects can be
categorised along with the other geometric and circulation solutions. A significant
difference lies with the architectural language. Each project proves to be unique relating to
the relevant context. Projects that are in the same city even differ considerably when
comparing the Helenvale multi-purpose community centre, the Govan Mbeki multi-
purpose sports and community centre, the Zwide community hall and the Ubuntu
community centre (see Figure 58 for location of the four centres in Port Elizabeth).

The designs of both the Helenvale and Govan Mbeki centres were guided by the NMBM‟s
guidelines for community centres which require a market tower. The Zwide community
hall, whose client is also NMBM, was designed with different guidelines as the structure is
of a much smaller scale. Similarities between these centres include the use of face brick
with plastered elements and sheet metal wall finishes. The layout plans differ
considerably ̶ Helenvale is organised along linear circulation whereas the Govan Mbeki
centre is more fragmented. The Zwide centre on the other hand is a clustered unit with a
central circulation space.

Findings for the precedents can however not be generalised as their locations within
communities differ. The suitability lies in the application of the theoretical constructs
investigating each building within its unique community.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 58. Location of the four public gathering spaces in the NMBM area.

Figure 59. Zwide community hall, Port Elizabeth. A: The entrance of the Zwide hall as
seen from the street. B: The small gathering space provided. C: Access to the centre is
provided from a secondary street.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

4.5 Conclusion: The reciprocal relationship between historic events and the
development of public infrastructure.

To conclude, a relationship has been identified between political and economic events
and the development of public gathering spaces. This relationship, however, differs
between countries, such as America, Britain and some parts of Europe, where change
was instigated by the ending of World War II. Spatial change of suburban and urban
sprawl resulted in little infrastructural development for educational and social purposes,
prompting the development of community centres.

In South Africa, the impact of World War II did not have a marked influence on urban
planning, which was influenced by political events. With the establishment of new
settlements, civic centres were constructed for municipal and social services. Community
centres, compared to civic centres, were built or planned in low-income areas such as
townships. Initially these centres were built as standardized structures, or in most cases
planned but never constructed due to the lack of funding.

With the construction of the Belhar community hall, the first public gathering space to
receive an architectural peer acknowledged Award, the impact of these centres shifted. In
the analysis of community centres, typological differences, structural implications and
identity formation has been investigated to determine the influence of these centres on
communities. These structures are significant as catalysts of gradual change and spatial
integration. Centres provide public spaces in areas where little infrastructure has been
provided, forming central social nodes. Even more significant though, is continuous
identity formation, providing meaning in areas with few reference points.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 5 Analyses of the two case studies: Open-

ended interviews with the respective architects of
Helenvale and Ubuntu

5.1 Narrative of quotations on thematic categories of conceived space 120

5.2 Findings elicited from the narratives of the respective architects 148
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

5.1 Narrative of quotations on thematic categories of conceived space

To understand SP and RS, interviews were conducted with community members to

determine their spatial perception of the completed structures. RoS on the other hand,
involves the architects‟ perception and actions during the design process and construction
of the projects. Aspects investigated through the open-ended interviews with the
respective architects consider RoS features such as design intent and contextual
references. These include the client brief, design and construction process, context and
texture, subdivision and fragmentation.

The open-ended interviews are discussed in the form of a narrative to explain their
relevance to the study. Each architect‟s interview is discussed individually after which a
comparison between the two is made in the findings and conclusion section 5.2.

Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre: RoS as perceived by The Matrix

Urban Planners and Architects

In 2005, President Thabo Mbeki visited Helenvale as it was one of the most impoverished
communities in the NMBM. During this visit several issues were raised of which one was
the need for a larger community centre, as the existing hall was deemed insufficient
(Masondo: 2009). From the document, Environment and Neighbourhoods (August 2012),
it was found that community centres evolved either from a thriving community, or as was
the case in Helenvale, from violent disturbances (Matavire: 2007).

According to the principal architect of the project at The Matrix Urban Planners and
Architects, Miles Hollins, planning commenced as early as 2008, as a community
participation project. The initial brief provided by the client that was drafted by
representative, Ms Debbie Hendricks from HURP and ward committee members, required
three different spaces. These included a large gathering space, a smaller sub-dividable
hall and offices. As it was a community participation project, ward committee members
were involved throughout the process. The architect, however, commented that during
one meeting community members asked “why aren‟t they designing the building?” (See
quotation below, 13-2:47). Although several meetings with different community members
were held, some still felt that they were not consulted enough. As an aspect of RoS, this
can lead to fragmentation, creating a contextual disconnect and troublesome
actualisation.

“...generally our primary response is to respond to a brief. We were

involved in the community participation programme which started
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

many years ago. I think this project started in 2008 if not slightly before
that, indeed before I joined this practice. When I was here we had
quite a few community participation meetings, some of them quite
heated, in fact in one we all got uneasy and thought we had better
leave because we were getting questions like why aren‟t they
designing the building, which was quite heavy. Fortunately the
counsellor had sufficient composure to calm them down. First, it was a
response to a brief where they ask for a thousand-seater or a seven
hundred and fifty-seater hall space that they could use for sport as well
as other functions. A secondary hall space they will use for smaller
community-based functions and they wanted that to be sub-dividable
so that they could have two smaller spaces, and then also community
offices was the third element. Therefore there are three elements.
There are the two halls and the offices (13-2:47).”

Although the brief stipulated the three main components, the architects felt that some
aspects of the brief were not clearly defined.

“...has never been totally nailed down by the brief, was to provide
flexible low occupancy time office space (13-13:72).”

Two other requirements were stipulated by the NMBM, a tower element and a fence
around the space should have been provided. These two elements had an influence on
the form and final design.

“So you know the space, and obviously for functional reasons you
have to enclose it otherwise it would have been just an open space,
but imagine it like a mall. We made that quite open and light so that
there was a feeling of out sidedness while you are inside, and the
glass wall which is another item we came up against quite a bit of, not
opposition, but concern about its survival in this area in terms of
vandalism (13-11:68).”

Not only were there functional requirements but also a predetermined site and footprint
size. These two aspects had an impact on the allocated budget as the site was rocky and
had a steep slope. The site location was determined by the location of the existing
community hall.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“The size is predetermined and we didn‟t know that. The choice of the
site ̶ that was the site that was allocated (13-3:48).”

“An expensive site because it is very rocky (13-5:50).”

Another influential factor was the client changing in the midst of the process. Initially the
representative was Ms Debbie Hendricks, which changed to the NMBM. The NMBM,
stipulates that all community centres should have a directional tower element.

“Well first of all the tower, initially I was against it because I saw it,
primarily I needed it to have a function. Whether it is a clock or
whatever, a bell tower or someone blasts a trumpet out there in
medieval times, I needed it, but it did not have it. I kept trying to find
ways, can we not put water tanks in there for water pressure. Is there a
water pressure problem here? Can we, maybe, help by putting water
tanks up there? Nothing came out. The water pressure was fine and
they had no other needs, but the fact is that the part of the brief for a
community centre by the NMBM, which I imagine is related to a larger
requirement by national government. I don‟t know how the process
came by but we got the brief, and it has to have a market tower. It has
to have a tower, so I tried to give function to it, but when I looked at it
again, I kind of knew you would see it in the community but it is quite
cool now. Even when you are turning in down at the bottom here, it
helps you find the centre.

I 2: It is a real marker.

I 1: Especially at night because it glows.

I 2: Yes, usually in townships in P.E. they are flat. This one is different
and that would have broken the monotony in any pancake township,
but here maybe the priority is different.

I: The road network here is quite a view. Once I turn down the wrong
narrow road, „gees‟ I am going to get lynched in here, how am I going
to find my way out of here? Oh there is the tower and I knew where to
go. From that point of view, the tower I think turned out, besides not
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

having some kind of function that require height, it turned out well as a
marker (13-30:134-138).”

“Unfortunately we never had the support of the original visionary,

leader of hope, because she had moved on now to something else.
We worked well with her and her vision for Helenvale, but alas,
anyway (13-20:86).”

After thorough consideration the architects felt that it was not feasible to restore the
existing structure, and that it should rather be demolished.

“The community hall itself, honestly, the first few schemes we

attempted, we retained that building. Then we sort of worked around it
but it had a few spatial issues in that it was in a funny position on the
site. It was really oddly placed so it was wasting space. That building
there is maybe three times its size and it would have had to, because
of its placement, it would have had to have been pushed down here
somewhere, where the site is sloping most. First of all the cost of
building, either cutting in so much, and or filling up so much, plus if you
are at street level, the scale you would have created would have made
it an inappropriate challenge to try and pursue. It is not that we didn‟t
try and retain that building but it just wasn‟t worth it. It wasn‟t an
architectural jewel.

It wasn‟t built in 1900 and some famous social icon from Helenvale
wasn‟t born there, and a treaty wasn‟t signed there. It didn‟t have any
cultural significance. The community didn‟t like it, I think largely they
didn‟t like it because of the counsellor, but it wasn‟t considered. Then
the rest of the site quite honestly was quite barren. It was a shocking
place for children to play. Kite flying was very big there. It is very
strange. That telephone wire had quite a few kites attached to it. That
telephone wire wasn‟t working and it was moved. It had no function.
There were once braai facilities on the site but they were never used.
We found no reason to retain them, although we did, obviously when
you are first faced with the challenge of the site in this context, you
obviously look at retaining things, or you look at what is there. It was
worse maybe shifting some and improving others (13-23:94-96).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

After the decision had been made to demolish the existing structure, the first design was
proposed. As described by the architects, the design was much more compact and
consisted of two stories. The client, however, felt that the installation of a lift and its
maintenance could be problematic. Part of the initial scheme included high density
housing but was opposed by community members. This opposition is significant as it
indicates the symbolic importance of spaces.

“Well, the initial scheme, it is unfortunate I cannot show that to you

now, the initial scheme was much bolder than this. If one had to look at
the overall urban plan initially for this scheme, which I imagine
somewhere along the way got opposition from the locals, this would all
become high density housing, along here. This would all be
demolished for high density, this space, in fact this road went straight
through here, and this whole area here was given over to community
precinct, but you had people saying their father‟s father‟s father lived in
that house and they are not moving. You have to drive over me with a
bulldozer, so I think that was a compromise. As for elements on the
site to work with, I am not necessarily going to say we didn‟t consider
them, but you are maybe clutching onto of bit a straw to say that that is
worth saving as an element, but its function would be replaced by for
instance that football field (13-22:92).”

Following the client‟s concern on the structure‟s multiple levels, a different design
approach was followed. The architect then considered the concept of a community street
that linked existing pedestrian routes.

“Well and don‟t accuse me of post rationalising, look here the fact is,
the one thing is, one of my earlier schemes actually also had two
flaws. I was trying to compact the building so that I didn‟t have to deal
with the slope. Client said no, we don‟t want to service a lift, because
you need a lift for wheelchair accessibility to the upper floor. You
obviously have to take some parts of that scheme that you liked and
rework into something else and I came up with this idea of this
community street. Partly as harking back to this route that went across
the site to the original community centre, but also the fact is, these are
separate functions that somehow need to be linked (13-24:98).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The final design of the structure was explained by the architect as follows:

“We have this community street that links to the primary public space
and also across the site to a secondary space. You can come in from
both sides so it draws you in from everywhere. Historically there was a
footpath that they kind of developed up the site, so we kind of harked
to that. You can connect from the top and the bottom to the site, which
I think is a great thing, then the community spaces feed off it, so the
smaller hall which has got the suspended wooden floor and the sub-
dividable acoustic wall, so you can either have one larger space, or
two smaller spaces. Somewhere along the way they want to provide
aftercare for students, for school. I don‟t know if that has ever really
happened, but when HURP was still a part of it, it was kind of part of
their agenda. They wanted to be able to halve that so that one half
could still be used for primary function and the other could be used for
after school. Then obviously as you ferried through the space, you
have got the other community function which is the big hole. Actually if
you look at the requirement for sport, the minimum say five a side
indoor pitch, street football is very big in Helenvale, so we kind of
responded to that, or the community required that. You are not going
to do a seven hundred and fifty seater hall. It is going to be more like a
one thousand two hundred seater hall to actually fit the sport in;
otherwise the sport court is not going to be big enough. It also has a
stage and some seating area, tiered seating for either watching the
sport or if there is a function on, you have created extra seating and as
part of that, because the footprint is so big, we needed to start sloping
down the side otherwise you would have this thing sticking up there in
the sky. We saw the opportunity to start tiering the building down so
we have this level, then we have the ablutions on that level. The
showers on that level and server room and kitchenettes and so on, on
that level, and then it steps down, the seating inside the hall forming
that first tier. Then you have the platform and then you have got
another outside breakout area from that hall. The views there are
absolutely amazing, of the city, and then it tiers down to an outdoor
pitch as well, which is also a requirement. Then further sort of
architectural landscaping tiers to get us breakdown scale towards the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

bottom corner. We then decided to articulate those buildings in the

same way, those components because they have a similar function
and we chose the dark metal roof that wraps over it. It is kind of
explained in this diagram, it shows you that those two buildings there
belong to the same formal group. Face brick walls, metal roof that
wraps around, and the other function which is on this side, which is, I
will be honest, has never been totally nailed down by the brief, was to
provide flexible low occupancy time office space. Small offices that
would be used for an infrequent period a week for social services, so
from social development to FAMSA, cannot remember there are a
whole lot of them.

Correctional services, parole, all of them would have a stake in that

office space and it was never really fully nailed down but it became
part of the business plan for this centre which went to National
Treasury for funding. We had to do interviews with all the different
potential user departments and see what their interest was along with
Rory Redden from Dojon Financial services. He compiled the business
plan for the building and that was quite a lengthy process too but it
became part of the funding model. I think since then really what has
happened is the MBDA are using the office space (13-14:72).”

Contractual obligations of the project required the construction company to appoint Small
Medium Macro Enterprises (SMME), opposed to appointing staff from the community.

“The other interesting thing about this project was the construction
process. Now that is a layer of integration that you don‟t see as you
see it in the end product, but part of the application to National
Treasury was a decision to facilitate the experience for small to
medium enterprises. By that they really mean small enterprises. In the
building industry you get different grades of contractor, 1GB, 2GB. The
main one had to be 7GB so that said what level of building it was, but
we had to allocate I think two and a half million rand (13-20:86).”

This SMME appointment process created several problems as community members were
not as involved as they had hoped to be, and construction workers were generally
unskilled.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“I have a feeling it was two and a half million rand for the contractor.
He had to lie for that in his tender, to employ, not people but
companies to do packages. Not a brick layer, come here and lay some
bricks for me, you as a business of brick layers, you must come here
and do these walls. It became quite a challenge for him because a lot
of them didn‟t really understand the programme. They definitely didn‟t
understand retention, so your money is retained until the project, or ten
percent or whatever it was sliding scale down. They definitely didn‟t
understand that. There were a couple of issues and I think somewhere
along the way that is where the stone throwing incident happened
because a SMME had been chosen over another one. There was
obviously hostility towards that, but it was quite an interesting process
for the main contractor to have local people who had some skill but not
much. We know the building industry in South Africa is lacking in skill
now, to work on this project, so that it became their bricks, their
plastering, their plumbing became an integral part of this building, and
they are part of the community. That added a level of pride to the
actual process of creating this building. I think it was a great way to do
it, we just struggled with, and it was expected, struggling with them in
terms of their skill, their understanding of the programme, and their
understanding of payment in terms of contractual requirements
(13-21:88).”

After completion of the project, some feedback was given regarding the functioning of the
building. The main concern was the maintenance of the structure‟s painted surfaces.

“The other guy said they are having a challenge, they haven‟t been
able to lease out space for functions because no one from the greater
area wants to travel through this volatile gangland to get there. Now I
honestly believe that is beyond an architect‟s scope to change. We just
build this and hope that it will make a difference (13-27:103).”

References made to context and textures as features of RoS include the location of the
site and its connectivity to other areas, as well as the meaning of architectural elements.
Contextual integration was made with adjacent public spaces. Connections created were
made through the public space opposite the centre‟s entrance, which was part of the
urban framework. The framework, also designed by The Matrix Urban Planners and
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Architects, was part of another project to upgrade the public interface of Helenvale
through pedestrian walkways, public gathering spaces and street lights.

“Also this kind of is, one can argue and I will get onto maybe a broader
point now that it is kind of central to the Helenvale area. It is a fairly
settled site; there is an existing, slightly ad hoc, commercial centre. I
mean I don‟t know how they work out their rental income. It is privately
owned but it is where all the shops are and it is a gathering space.
Behind it was a kind of disused green space. It was in bad condition
and this is the broader point I am talking about, the office I work for,
Matrix architects, we are also involved in the Helenvale urban upgrade
of which this was one of the projects that was highlighted long ago.
There are a number of new parks created, new sidewalks, main nodal
interchanges identified in the area, that has been extended to like a
phase three of that project and the subsequent virus prevention
through urban upgrading funded by the German National Foreign
Bank, or whatever it is, I am not sure. It is one project out of many that
might happen and probably the most significant one in terms of scale
so we tried to latch onto that and be part of that language. The park
across the road is no longer an isolated incident, it is kind of part of our
scheme, so we latched onto that. You have seen that arch work, that
lovely arch work. That was actually part of our budget… (13-6:53).”

Apart from the centre being integrated with other public spaces and pedestrian routes, the
site is also located adjacent to the planned primary BRT route.

“It is central to the area on what we identified to become the primary

transport route through Helenvale. It hasn‟t happened yet as you know
the system of transport that they are looking at for the bus rapid
transport, or whatever it is called now, what is it called now? Is it called
BRT or it is called something else but they are actually doing it in
Stanford Road already (13-9:59).”

Spatially, the two different spaces had to be connected, the public space opposite the
road with that of the centre. As described by the architect, different pavement patterns
were used to create similar textures across these spaces to suggest the idea of flowing
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

movement. This texture was described by the architect as a „carpet‟ for leading community
members into the building.

“It is one space and within that space you need to then subtly mark the
route to entrance. That is all leading to entrance of the building, but
then just by changing the paving pattern in the one bay. I then said this
is kind of a formal carpet that leads you from this space, across the
road, into that space. Indeed if your taxi or bus stops here, that is kind
of your formal welcoming carpet into the building. You can see what
we did then is this floor finish here, the concrete, that is a slightly more
luxurious finish, then when you go inside the building, this community
street from outside to inside has the same floor finish (13-32:144).”

Functionally, services were separated with social activities adjacent to the road and public
spaces parallel thereto. With the limited budget, aesthetic qualities had to be achieved
with a proportional system for indicating functional differentiation.

“The social services if you like on that side of the building, on the street
side, more public function, so put it on that side and articulate it in a
different way. It is a flat roofed structure, crisp white walls, different
window portions etcetera to just obviously add variety to the
architectural language, but also to separate them (13-17:82).”

Functions and spaces were differentiated by the use of textures. The intent was not to
create isolated fragmented spaces, but rather to indicate spatial hierarchy.

“It changes slightly just for wearing and cleaning on the inside. It has
got an additive to it, but that was the kind of reason, just to concentrate
energy in that portion of the bigger space. That was the reason there.
I think it worked well. You are linking that space with that space across
the road, not only by the pattern but also then by a more concentrated
sub-pattern within the larger scheme. That is the reason (13-32:144).”

The architects further attempted to create contextual integration by placing the building
parallel with the street in the first scheme. Criticising himself, he considers it to be a
„Eurocentric‟ idea. Perhaps this is not a „Eurocentric‟ idea, but is rather inspired through
contextual references. Residential units in Helenvale are in close proximity to the road,
thus creating an intimate relationship with the street. The buildings not only contribute to
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

this relationship, but also to activities of children and adults observed on street. Most
social activities and play occur in the street, thus becoming the stage. Therefore, the
proposed blurred boundary would have been a true reflection of the lived reality of
Helenvale‟s community members.

“I think what we then, or me as an architect conceded is it is just

Eurocentric idea that we kind of have as white people. Everything must
be right on the street you know. I wanted to have that sort of
interaction. You could look into the space. Even at the hall I had glass
on the street so you could see people playing sport from the hall, but
that is when I had the two story scheme (13-35:176).”

The paint colour was another important contextual reference that was made. Initially the
building was painted blue with the client‟s consent. Some community members belonging
to political parties such as the African National Congress (ANC) complained that it
represents the Democratic Alliance (DA). The building thus had to be repainted to a non-
representative colour. It is important to note that the colour of the structure contributes to
perception and identity formation. This notion of identity formation was further evident in
an observation made by the architect.

“Without considering political context I just chose the colour blue

because I like the colour. This sort of central spine element that is an
organising principle for the building and flows from outside, inside
outside and holds the scheme together, I had it in blue. No one had a
problem. The client was happy. They painted the whole wall blue in
fact and then the ANC elements within the community said, this is not
acceptable. This is like a DA building.

Yes, then we chose this green that we are actually using on another
scheme and it is not ANC green fortunately, so you cannot associate it
necessarily with ANC. Well I am sure it would have made those people
slightly happier. There are two ironies there. That cost an extra three
hundred thousand rand I think, to repaint, and if you go there, stand
here, and look somewhere over here, you will see a house that is
miraculously painted exactly the same colour (Figure 60). Guess
where some of that paint went. It is like, look, it is the same colour. I
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

think it is over here. It is either that house there or this one here
(13-16:76-78).”

To diminish subdivision and create visual boundaries of inclusion rather than exclusion, a
public space was designed as the connecting element between the newly developed
urban framework and centre.

Figure 60. In close proximity to the Helenvale centre, some residential units have been
painted a similar green as found at the centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“Ordering for the building itself really started with this space here, so
we saw that potential and sort of seized it in that we gave over part of
our site to not be fenced. It became a little bit of a focal point for
community activity. There is an irony there and we somehow managed
to avoid it. The user organisation or the managing, I don‟t know if they
are the user really, what are they, they are the managing agent right.
They want to fence it off which is like ludicrous. The user client has
changed as it was originally the Helenvale Urban Renewal Programme
that had a director who had bought into the ideas. That has moved on
to someone else who has different ideas. We can only control so much
or attempt to guide so much and we have tried to convince them not to
fence it off. So far so good but we have no control because the MBDA
is now controlling all... (13-8:59).”

To minimize boundaries on site, fences were limited as far as possible. Unfortunately, due
to client requirements, the parking and remainder of the area had to be fenced. The
architects were, however, able to convince the client to create an accessible open area,
connecting the two public spaces on either side of the road. This public space was seen
as more formalised leading onto an enclosed community street (see Figure 18). This
street in-turn provided visual access to the street and parking area.

“What we did was, with this in mind, the park leading into a more
formalised public square, what we called the community plain. We
then, partly because of the challenges of the site in terms of the slope,
and partly because we wanted to respond to the street, so the building
opened on there, we created an element that we called the community
street. It was basically the mall for the community functions that led off
it and that is the timbered space you can see (13-10:66).”

In the first proposal, the glazed façade was on the street edge, removing boundaries even
further with direct contact to the street. Unfortunately, the client required parking space
adjacent to the road, receding the community street.

“...actually [in] my initial scheme, I had this right on the street edge and
I put the parking at the back but they didn‟t want that. They wanted the
parking on the street (13-34:174).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

According to the architects, the success of the public space was the installation of the
sculpture on the opposite side of the street. Although the artwork was part of the project‟s
budget, it was decided to place it in the park, thus outside the site boundaries. The
sculpture thus forms the connecting element, limiting the boundaries of sub-division. The
statue forms an important visual axis or link with the other artwork portraying children
skipping. Through the axes, the external context is linked with the community centre to
install meaning.

“There isn‟t a photo of it in here. As you can see here, this is the
completed scheme, so that arch work, we actually gave it over to the
precinct rather than make it part of our scheme. Because these spaces
are so bound together by their spatial and their architectural patterns
and so on, they formed one, so it didn‟t matter that it was not on our
site (13-7:55-56).”

Meaning is further embedded through commemorative activities. Although the structure

was erected prior to violent events that led to the death of several children, it became a
memorial commemorating the children. Some of these deaths include a 19 year old girl hit
by a stray bullet on 30 May 2011. Two others include a 13 year old girl on 30 December
2012 and a 16 year old boy on 6 July 2014 being under cross fire without being involved
in the activities themselves (Wilson: 2014).

“Tragically a few months ago a little girl was killed here in gang cross
fire and so the day we went there with the SAIA [South African Institute
of Architects] panel, this whole area where that sculpture was, people
had stuck flowers and photographs into the sculpture
(13-29:125-126).”

Apart from the sculpture being appropriated as a monument of commemoration, it is also

used as nodal point to mark joyous occasions. As RS, it is further re-named as the „small
Madiba‟, even though it was modelled on a child from the community.

“P1: On the other hand the guy on the kite and the circle, this is kind of
the photo opportunity in Helenvale. Brides come there for wedding
photographs and it is very popular. They call it the small Madiba.

P2: No, the small Madiba. It is actually, the sculpture is modelled on a

little boy from the community (13-28:110-111).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Three spaces of fragmentation with located specificities were identified as the circulation
space, seating pods therein and the tower element. Lefebvre noted that fragmented
space, which is prescribed to specific functions, forms a disconnection between spaces.
Although the corridor could be such a specified space, it was rather used to connect other
prescribed spaces such as the offices, community hall and multi-functional gathering
space. By considering the materiel of the structures as well as the spatial qualities
created, a space for opportunity was shaped.

“Also in that space then of course we have got the seating pods which
also went through a lot of, I don‟t have a photo of that. Also went
through a lot of upheaval. Initially HURP, Debbie Hendricks, she had
an issue with waiting for, like a lot of people just turn up there, they
don‟t book an appointment at ten o‟clock on Wednesday. They just
turn up and say; well I am here for this. My child was raped, whatever,
so if for instance that service was offered here, she was worried that all
these people might wait together, like you might get a child that was
raped, and her friend is there on parole and they are from the same
community. Imagine the trauma. She wanted to know, how I could
create separation if I so choose and we created these seating pods
which fed off the main space. You and your friends could sit together if
you came for the same thing, or if you felt as if you wanted to be alone,
you go sit in another one. Then we had a system where you would
then obviously announce yourself at the reception, go and sit, and
when it was your turn, you would be told where to go. Furthermore, if
you were say a recovering alcoholic and you were embarrassed about
your condition, no one could really see where you were going. When
you go round the other side, no one can really see he is going into the
AA office. Once again the onus changed, the brief changed, and this
became maybe a bit of a watered down version of what it used to be.
It used to be a lot more formal, bigger, and denser (13-18:82).”

Another space of specificity is the seating pods provided. These spaces act as waiting
areas for community areas, or as planned in the initial brief as Information Technology (IT)
areas with computer and internet access. Unfortunately these IT facilities have not been
provided. Due to the specific function prescribed and the rigid nature of the pods, few
other activities are allowed therein.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“I can either put, and the site didn‟t allow me to put them end to end,
so say community hall, multipurpose hall, and community offices. I
couldn‟t because of the slope, so I had to set them out next to each
other. The fact that they were set out next to each other, provided me
with a challenge. I have got this thing between them, what am I going
to do. I could make it a dingy little corridor, or I could make it a light
filled celebratory space that doesn‟t only link isolated things, so you go
in there and you use that, you go in there to use that. I somehow put
an in between space which became the waiting area, so there was
interaction. There was also a requirement at the time that the building
had full Wi-Fi and that some of these pods, in fact the last one which is
a smaller one, the one at the end which is this one here, it was going
to become an internet station. There would be four or six work stations
there. We had allowed for data connectivity to that particular pod, and
power, but in the end there is no one to provide the computers. It was
once again Debbie Hendricks‟ vision to have this and there is no one
now to provide computers. There would have been that element of
sub-space that belongs to, not the others, but belongs to the central
space. Primary reason is circulation route between the various
elements, and then the way we chose as architects to treat it, is to not
just make a corridor but to make it a more joyful, light filled space
(13-25:98).”

The last element of specificity is the tower. As a prescribed function by the NMDA, a tower
as a landmark had to be provided. The architect, Miles Hollins, was however reluctant to
design a tower if it was not functional. It was thus designed as the security point, to control
access to the parking area. During interviews with community members, participants felt
that it is an important RS as an hierarchical point in the community. If this space was less
dictating, allowing appropriation by the community, it could have provided more
opportunity for interaction and representation.

“Anyway then that market tower obviously marks place of building in

the context, but then also marks entrance to the building, main
entrance to the building on the site. We added a bit of function to it by
putting the security kiosk near it, which they kind of asked for.
Therefore it gave some function to it even though it has got the highest
ceiling in the world, I really see it as one space (13-33:144).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

To conclude, the narratives written on the interview with Albrecht Herolds and Miles
Hollins, RoS aspects of fragmentation and subdivision were discussed. To that, contextual
references and textures were added, contradicting some aspects of fragmentation and
subdivision. The Helenvale centre, mainly designed from a RoS perspective, was primarily
influenced by SP. Focal elements of SP in this case included function and structure.

Ubuntu community centre: RoS as perceived by Field Architects

The Ubuntu Education Fund (UEF), situated at the Ubuntu community centre, was not
established with the construction of the building, but was already founded in 1998. When
Jacob Lief, one of the founders of the NGO, considered the building of a new structure,
the vision of the Ubuntu centre has already been established. Mr. Malizole Banks, the co-
founder of the UEF, described the aim of the Fund as follows: “I don‟t want an
organisation where we actually impose on people ̶ we need to work with
people” (12-4:25). The centre‟s brief thus grew from an already existing programme,
from a strong RoS perspective.

As discussed in the previous section, Helenvale centre‟s instigation was born from the
concerns of a troubled community. In comparison, the Ubuntu centre started from the idea
to provide hope through education and health facilities. Being an existing organisation,
expansion of facilities was required due to the success of the programme. The vision of
the Ubuntu Education Fund was for the structure to be different, thus requiring a specific
architect.

“Okay, you know, let me just tell you, when they first started they were
looking for an architect and the way they framed it, they said that they
wanted a building, whenever they talked to an architect they were
interviewing, they said they wanted a building that had never been
done before. Most of the answers they got was that, could you tell us
what you mean, and they immediately felt that that wasn‟t the architect
that they wanted because the whole point was it had never been done
before, so we cannot tell you what it is and if you are asking us that,
you are not the right architect (42-6:76).”

After Stan Field was chosen as the principal architect, the process began through several
site visits and engagement with the community and staff of Ubuntu.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“Yes, you see, let‟s put it this way that my first act was to go down
there from here. I just left and went down there and I spent quite a long
time just listening. That was really the most important thing and they
were very pleased with that because they couldn‟t believe that that
was what I was doing you know, because nobody ever really listened
to them. You know and it was just not the done thing. They were
always told what to do so here somebody was actually listening and
they said, you know what, that‟s what we do. That‟s what Ubuntu is all
about, actually it is listening, so they were very excited that I was doing
that and I mean, I grew up in Port Elizabeth and I knew, I just had a
good sense of the place and the people and where, how things sort of
had unfolded. For me it was just an amazing sort of architectural
possibility because I believe that architecture has the ability to
transform a mind-set and that it‟s not just a building, it actually is a
living thing (42-8:80).”

Through consultation, the vague programme was formalised into a workable design brief.
The architect, however, felt that it could not be referred to as a process, as each project
ought to be unique and therefore would rather prefer to call it an evolution. For the
architects the design of this project was thus rather about the community than the actual
structure to be designed.

“Yes, so that is what I started to address and they were really excited
about it, about that approach that we followed then. See, what was
wonderful is that the programme, the little bit of programme that they
had and my sort of thinking started to merge. I started to feed them
and they started to feed me, and so together we evolved the
programme, yes, and so the more I designed, the more they thought of
things. It really was a very dynamic, I don‟t like to use the word
„process‟, but I know that these days process is almost everything you
know. I just don‟t like to limit it, because I almost feel like process
implies that it‟s been done before, but I know my son Jess, I don‟t
know if you‟ve met him or heard, he‟s my partner now. He is an
architect too and he said “Dad listen man, just drop that idea that
process is about repeating things”. He says it‟s just the way we work.
Anyway look, maybe that is something that I‟ve got a mental thing
about, but it evolved. Let‟s say it was more about an evolution than
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

sort of a known and tried method. We had to develop a unique method

for this unique situation (42-9:82).”

After the programme had been establish the intent of the structure had to be determined.
According to the architect the aim of the structure was already in the philosophy of Ubuntu
“I am because you are”. The structure thus had to portray the principles of Ubuntu visually
to provide hope.

“Yes, in terms of actually, yes, developing the programme: they did

have some basic programmes that they already were working with you
know, because you can imagine the situation was really serious.
People were dying, AIDS was rampant, you know, and it was
really…so it wasn‟t as if it was some theoretical exercise. We had to
work fast and say listen, you know, we‟ve got to do something, and
together with that was the whole idea of restoring their hope. My big
challenge, I felt, was to uplift the spirits of the people. It was that, and
so it had to be a building that actually spoke, so internally it had to
work for its purpose, but outwardly it also had to emanate this sort of
sense of hope and optimism. That is when I started to realise that the
very sort of philosophy of Ubuntu, “I am because you are”, you know,
became the template for the architecture. I mean it was amazing, you
know what I mean. Imagine just having a template readymade that the
people believe in, but you know, what was interesting is, Ubuntu is
really a lot of the youth and that they would really practice it in the
same way that their parents did, and the older people. They began to
realise that it was actually applicable to them too and it started to
revive that sense of who they were. I realised that that was the most
significant thing and here we had a readymade sort of philosophy. The
architecture just needed to speak of that, and that is why this idea of
sort of helping one another and so the building sort of has different
parts that sort of lean on each other to give that sort of sense of
support and connectedness, you know, interconnectedness
(42-13:86).”

Prior to the initiation of the new centre, the education and Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) programme was already operational from a hall in Zwide (see Figure
26). This site was thus to be developed while retaining the existing. It was further deemed
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

appropriate as it is geographically opposite the school where the co-founder, Mr Banks,

was a teacher. Furthermore, the site is also located across the community library, thus
already forming part of a public precinct.

“So the site, the actual site, you know, my recollection was that Banks
is a teacher, and I think he used to teach at the school just nearby.
There is a school nearby, just diagonally opposite and I think my
recollection was that he managed to acquire that site on the corner.
That was actually a fabulous site we discovered because it was almost
like a cross roads of the way people walked across the township and
so when I went there, I began to notice that that was how the people
walked (42-2:56).”

Movement patterns were investigated on site, which became the first design influence.
Using the pedestrian walkways as the design generator also contributed to the contextual
integration of the structure.

“You know the road system was really laid out for cars, but most
people didn‟t have cars so they used to walk everywhere, so you don‟t
have to follow the streets, you can cut across a site. It is much shorter,
that‟s what I felt was appropriate to use the pedestrian system, and so
that gave rise to the whole idea of using the public walkways as sort of
the generator of the big idea of taking the public through the site
(42-1:56).”

Apart from pedestrian routes influencing the design, time and space were also
considered. As Lefebvre described, these two aspects cannot be separated, as historical
events shape space. Field further commented on the notion of order and situation. He
prefers to think of „situational architecture‟ which recognizes the context, rather than order,
which imposes on the landscape.

“That‟s the form and I know it‟s very close to the shape which
sometimes bothers me but I tell you, I‟ve always felt that if I could
actually, you know I studied with Louis Kahn and he was my teacher. I
sort of differed a little bit from him when I started, because he talked
about that order exists and it‟s really just our uncovering of the latent
order that we think is new. I was studying with him in the ‟60‟-s, it was
a really turbulent time in the world, in America, and people were
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

burning down schools of architecture then. It was troubled times, so I

felt, how could we be talking about order. I started to begin to think
more about situation, that really the dynamics of the situation really
was the force of inspiration. I felt it was much more connected to like,
to the times actually and that the times really needed to be captured in
the architecture because architecture spans time, and so it can begin
to sort of connect the times. They became markers because that is the
one thing you can read and it is public, and everybody can see it, so
those were the things that I felt were what we needed to do. That is
why architecture is such an important discipline because we leave
traces of the times that future generations can read and understand
what happened and why (42-20:140).”

Considering the adaptability of the centre, it was noted that the insertion might change the
existing pedestrian walkways on which the structure was planned. This links to the notion
of spatial specificities, which in this case allows different connotations.

“I think that the pathways going through, I am sure that they

themselves will change. They are probably, because really it‟s about
movement and meeting, and those are the people places, and then
everything happens off of them, so that structure that threads through
the building, it can breathe let‟s say. The light generally comes through
there, and the wind, in Port Elizabeth, you know. They are almost
indoor, outdoor spaces that are part of leaving the street and entering
a site (42-28:158).”

Another aspect that had influenced the design was the material. The structure was seen
by the architect as an effective centre, to provide a sense of permanence and stability.

“Yes, it was actually a physical thing. I believe in material, in fact

sometimes I start with material as my concept. I just knew it had to be
concrete, first of all, because it just seemed to represent something
permanent. Everything was so impermanent there in that place, that
township, the shacks and the corrugated iron and there was nothing
that spoke about lasting. Everything could be torn down, so I just felt
that it needed, and even though concrete was a material that was used
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

for roads, bridges, and things like that, but they were permanent
(42-21:142).”

To enhance this sense of permanence, a historic reference was made, again connecting
time and space. Previously, the local post office had been built on the site, but during a
political uproar in 1999, the structure was burnt down. This act can be seen as
representational as it inscribed meaning onto the burnt structure. The only remnants on
site were the foundation as well as a collection point, which was retained and placed at
the entrance of the Ubuntu centre.

“Yes, the post office, you know, had its place as well but all that was
left of it was the foundation. It was just the slab at the bottom because
it was burned down you know. You know what happened, during the
riots and everybody just wanted to break down, they wanted to get rid
of the past actually, but, I felt it was even important to save something
of that past that they even wanted to get rid of. I noticed the slab itself
didn‟t really have that much meaning you know, it was really just in the
way, but then I noticed this little red post office box, you know that iron
box that they use to have for posting letters. I said you know what, I
didn‟t even tell anybody, I just said to myself, I am going to keep that
and save it, and it turned out that it actually was in a very convenient
place right at the entrance. Even when the opening happened, when I
made my speech, I referred to that, you know, because it was quite
moving in a way because I remember looking into the post box and it
was old, you know, and I saw like a letter still in there you know. I just
created a kind of, what I imagined what was in the letter, and I just said
that that letter probably said what this Ubuntu centre was, that it was a
letter filled with hope. And that Ubuntu was going to deliver that letter.
So everybody embraced that as well you know and even something
that represented that period of the past that wasn‟t good, became
something that actually was part of the reality, and I think that that is so
important that all the reality has to be embraced (42-5:68-72).”

Apart from consultations with staff and community members, community participation was
further facilitated by conducting a traditional ritual before construction commenced.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“You see, just before the construction, you know what was also very
critical for a community centre like this to be successful, because you
know a lot of people have tried this and I don‟t know if you know that
there‟s, I forget her name now, she has got a big radio programme, TV
programme, Oprah I think. Yes Oprah, she tried something
somewhere in South Africa and I don‟t think it was a success, but you
see what was very important was to get the buy in of the people, and
so it was done in a very intelligent way. For example, just before we
started construction there was a big sort of braaivleis, you know what I
mean, that we had on the site and invited the whole community, and
they actually got an ox and slaughtered it right there on the site. It was
amazing, and they even had, I don‟t know if it was these special ladies,
witch doctors and all sorts, and they did their rituals. They kind of
blessed this place and everybody felt that they had a hand in doing it,
so it was just there, and everybody came. It was just a very wonderful
way of getting started and everybody bought into it. You are right, that
was very important because it was not easy to build a building of this
scale and size in the township, you know what I mean, that was mainly
shacks and small little buildings, you know what I mean, and so that it
did not sort of feel that it didn‟t belong. The most important thing was it
had to belong. That was the buy in that I mentioned, and it really gave
us a lot of courage to do the kind of things that we wanted to do
(42-15:90).”

Some aspects that coincide with SP include function, structure and form. Functionally,
spaces were allocated for certain specificities, leading to fragmentation and sub-division.
An attempt was made to minimize this spatial fragmentation by locating contrasting
functions together. However, functions were still prescribed to spaces resulting in
specificity.

“Yes but I know what you mean. Look I think the organising principles
were really the principles of Ubuntu. Strangely enough there was no
need to look further than that somehow, because it‟s really the idea of
caring, and just helping one another basically, so the different
functions of the building, let‟s say there was the clinic, and then there
were the meeting rooms and the public sort of spaces. The computer
centre, library, and then the staff rooms and then the hall and these all,
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

they might have had different functions and normally you don‟t sort of
put the clinic together with a library, or a computer centre, so these
[inaudible 0:32:29] uses, they suddenly started finding new ways of
speaking to one another. So, on the way to the clinic you could be
going to a library or a computer centre and so the whole idea of testing
for AIDS became, because the stigma was always this huge problem.
People didn‟t want to be tested because it had the stigma, so now they
had a sort of a reason to, that maybe they were going to the library on
the way and they could be tested, but they didn‟t, or people didn‟t see
that. They thought, well maybe they are just going there for something
else, so that was very successful actually. It started to break down that
stigma, so it just started to help us to get encouraged to do things that
were not normally seen as sympathetic uses that they really were
because it‟s part of life really. We tend to sort of compartmentalise
uses and programmes, and we bracket them and I think it is a
computer way of thinking actually because that is how computers
supposedly think you know. They like to group things, but really, when
you mix things up it starts to create a richer sort of a biodiversity and I
think that is the whole idea of biodiversity, is this sort of richness, a
new richness, yes. It is healthier (42-18:120).”

Functional qualities were allocated to external public spaces like the internal courtyard
accessible from the clinic. This space was intended as a breakaway area, but has been
adapted for more waiting areas. Part of the alteration included covered areas with
permanent seating. A relatively generic space was altered by the client to suit the users‟
needs. The space was thus adaptable to allow for other activities.

“That little courtyard, it‟s actually interesting that you mentioned

because you know what I had in mind there. It is right next to the clinic
and I made the clinic, I don‟t know whether it‟s used much like that or
not but there are sliding doors that are right there, because I just
imagined when people came to get their results from their AIDS tests
which was almost like a life and death situation. Imagine hearing your
results and they were not good, you needed to just break out and that
is why I felt that there should be a place where someone could just go
outside but still feel contained and secure (42-24:146).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

According to the architect, not all the spaces are adaptable, due to the permanent nature
of the structure.

“There are things that are probably, have some sort of difficulty in
adapting, but I think that the ceilings for example, and the gum poles, I
think that there are spaces that have some sort of flexible play and that
one can sort of find ways of threading technologies through and
expressing it in a way. Adaptability, look, it‟s a very important aspect of
architecture, but I think that there are certain aspects that don‟t
change. Some infrastructure changes even, but you see the building
itself was infrastructural material, you know what I mean, the concrete,
so I felt it‟s robust, you know, it‟s not so precious (42-27:158).”

Upon asking the architect on the utilisation of the facility, he commented on his
perspective of the two terms: function and use. Although he made this distinction, the
study still focuses on use rather than the categorisation of functions. This again suggests
the notion of specificities that could lead to fragmentation and subdivision. By prescribing
certain functions to specific areas, representational appropriation could be limited in
favour of appropriate use.

“Also, I like to also differentiate between use and function, because I

think function is a higher order of use, so I think that if one can, I mean
different rooms or spaces are used differently, but collectively they
have a function and that is the Ubuntu philosophy, let‟s say, and
communicate that is the function of this architecture (42-32:172).”

Apart from defining the difference between function and use, form and shape was also
defined. Whilst designing the Ubuntu centre, one member commented on the shape of the
structure during a design consultation meeting. By defining the shape as “kind of form”, its
strong geometrical nature is apparent. Furthermore, as it was not defined as a specific
shape the unique character is highlighted.

“There was one guy called Tsepo, he is someone I will never forget.
He used to ask me the most amazing questions. He said: “Stan”, we
are in a talk, he puts up his hand and he says, “what were you thinking
when you designed this building? You know what I mean, what kind of
a shape is this? We never saw such a shape you know”, he says, and I
mean it made me think because I‟ve got this idea about form and
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

shape and how the form really is the essence and shape is really the
expression of that, and he is saying “what kind of a shape is this?” And
to me that was a deep understanding for example of form because he
was saying, because form is a certain kind of shape you know, it‟s not
just any shape, you know what I mean. So, in his simple way he was
teaching me about architecture and so I had the sense that I was
learning as much as anybody else was, and it was so fascinating
(42-10:84).”

Considering contextual references, the spatial layout and scale of the structure were
incorporated. During apartheid, most townships were designed on a geometric grid with
elongated streets. With the design of the Ubuntu centre, the architect wanted to transform
this grid as a physical manifestation of change. As the figure ground drawing determined
the plan and form, significant contextual references were made (see Figure 31). This
approach further led to environmental sensitivity as the structure is not dominating a
predominantly residential area.

“The whole township, all the townships were laid out in a grid and that
was the idea. They wanted it to be ordered and it was more part of that
regimented sort of approach, so all the little houses were just all in
lines. My very first inclination was to break that whole organised
structure and I wanted to create a much more free geometry that was
liberating. That was part of that idea of liberating which then allowed
for sort of the structure to somehow well up if you know what I mean.
Yes, so that it didn‟t feel big because it grew out of the other fabric of
the environment so that it felt part of it and my whole sort of philosophy
in architecture, I sometimes call it groundscape. The way you almost
pull the architecture out of the ground, as if it was almost there and all
you needed to do was pull it out and reveal it. It is as if it was like tree
roots, when you pull it up it also pulls up some of the other surrounding
sort of fabric, yes. So, I think that was part of this idea of allowing it to
sort of even have a bigger scale but yet be part of it (42-16:106).”

Although the scale of the structure was considered, spatial differentiation was still needed
to signify its public nature. Hierarchy was thus needed to provide a reference point for
community members. Differing on perspectives, it could either be seen as an aspect of SP
if considered functionally, or RS if seen as a nodal point of change.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“It creates a sort of orientation because I think a community needs sort

of higher points to sort of realise that there are, not everything is the
same. You have sort of points that you look up to, or you recognise
those that are more communal and the rest is more private and
residential. It also became a point of pride of the community and it
gave them something because of the big space opposite and I‟m not
sure what‟s happening to that now, but people could see it at a
distance as well, and it gave a sense of orientation. You knew where
you were (42-17:106).”

After construction was completed, one community member commented on the situational
nature of the structure. To him the structure is contextually integrated, referring to it not as
an insertion in time, but rather as a continuation of time.

“He says, you know, this building feels as if it‟s always been here, and
I tell you that was probably the best thing anybody could have said to
me because what more can an architect want than to have that sort of
sense that it belongs (42-23:146).”

The architect further commented on the signifying capabilities of the structure,

communicating change and hope. One community member further commented on the
structure‟s suggestive nature, as it‟s „walls speak, the building talks‟. Individual
interpretations are thus made, generating significant RS space.

“You know, the exterior, let‟s call it the interface with the community,
it‟s so, you see it‟s not as if it‟s a reflection of who they are or
something like that. It sort of allows, I mean we had one guy, what was
his name, Zukisani. I remember all these people like I‟ve known them.
He used to drive me to work because I used to live at Amsterdam
Hoek when I used to come out there, and Blue Water Bay and then
they used to take me there. I used to talk to him in the car all the time
and so we used to talk about, hell man, now you take me back and I‟m
trying to remember. You see, the difference was, you see I‟m trying to
put my finger on the really significant elements you know what I mean.
It‟s not just reflecting who people are because they change as well, but
I wanted to change a mind-set. Something as significant as that
because people were stuck in a mind-set and they felt that they could
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

only do certain things but if one could break that limiting idea, then
anything was possible. It was important that this almost expressed
that. It was not just ambitious but almost, I wouldn‟t say crazy or
anything like that because I know Frank Gehry and people like that can
do that, but I think his intent, the intent behind what he does is more an
artistic intent rather than a, I mean this is almost a political intent. A
socio-political intent because buildings are the most public things, it is
there for everybody to see and to react to, so you‟ve got a billboard
there waiting to be read and understood. It just seemed that if
something could be communicated, and that is why at the opening
when that young girl read that poem she wrote, Bulale, I think her
name was, and she said: “The walls speak, the building talks”. I mean,
we were all finished because it was like so amazing to just hear her
say this, and beautifully express it, and I know that even president
Clinton was there and I heard that he was really taken by it also
(42-25:146).”

Apart from the structure‟s ability to act as a billboard, there is no other signage,
strengthening its symbolic capabilities.

“Yes, let me say this, that I just feel that the building itself
communicates and what would we achieve by saying Ubuntu centre,
you know what I mean, or „Entrance‟, because there were so many
places. Maybe there are certain fire codes that you have to have, exit
or emergency, but other than that I just don‟t like signage on buildings.
I think that buildings need signage, you know, at least to tell of what‟s
what (42-30:166).”

Considering symbolism as part of RS, the architect felt that meaning should not be
inscribed, but should rather be part of the lived experience. Lefebvre noted that through
the daily reality of SP, RS is shaped (Lefebvre: 1991, 206). The abstract nature of the
Ubuntu centre thus allows for representational space to be formed correspondingly.

“You know let‟s put it this way, symbolism, I don‟t necessarily like to
use symbolism in architecture because it tends to sort of limit it to
certain understandings of what one is seeing. I rather sort of like to let
people interpret it themselves and arrive at some sort of idea. It‟s
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

more abstract than sort of definitive. I think that‟s why those, that‟s
when he asked: “What kind of a shape is this”, you know. It is really a
form and I was so pleased because the form really is more of an
abstraction and you cannot say it looks like this, or it is that, you know
what I mean. It just alludes to that, maybe, but it isn‟t a piano or a, you
know what I mean, something else (42-19:124).”

From the narrative written on the design and structure of the Ubuntu centre, the RoS was
described. Although several aspects of RoS were discussed, the centre was designed
more from the perspective of SP. Upon considering SP aspects of function, structure and
form, decisions were further influenced by RS. In the case of Ubuntu, the structure was
thus not designed only from RoS, but also from SP influenced foremost by RS.

5.2 Findings elicited from the narratives of the respective architects

In the findings and conclusions derived from narratives, aspects of RoS are discussed as
explained by the respective designers of the centres. Themes discussed are those
developed in section 2.5 in the theoretical investigation; fragmentation, subdivision, spatial
differentiation, construction technique and, spatial context and texture. Under each of
these themes, the findings from both narratives are compared to draw conclusions. RoS is
discussed first, thereafter some associations with SP and RS are explained. Although the
architect‟s perspective is considered to be only RoS, some references to other aspects of
Lefebvre‟s triad were also made.

Apart from similarities between case studies, there are also several differences. The
client, design brief, appointed architects, the programme and the site differ significantly.
Regardless of these differences, the two case studies are compared to investigate the
spatial production of community centres as public gathering spaces. This comparison is
made on the design process, the construction of the structure and its contextual
integration in line with the themes from Lefebvre‟s TPoS.

Fragmentation: Specificities and disjunctive

Most areas considered for urban development in South Africa are subdivided and zoned.
In both case studies this was the prerogative; allocated sites have strict boundaries and
regulations to adhere to. It is not only aspects of fragmentation that limit the architect, but
also municipal regulations. The architect, however, has the responsibility to counteract
this predicament through sufficient contextual references.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

At the Ubuntu centre, public spaces surrounding the centre were designed to gradually
erode the site boundary. These public spaces are further connected with a pedestrian
walkway linking with the greater Zwide. Existing boundaries were further demolished to
provide a more accessible facility. Physical boundaries are often criticised, as it is argued
that they restrict public activity. At the Helenvale centre, the majority of the site has been
fenced according to the client‟s requirements, regardless of the architect‟s protest. The
impact and perception of this is further discussed in section Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
Public space adjacent to the road has also been provided, but in this case it is linked with
the urban framework of Helenvale. A link was formed with the centre through artwork and
a public park opposite the building‟s entrance. Considering both these cases, the
connection with other public infrastructure is of the utmost importance to limit
fragmentation.

At both centres, fragmentation further manifested as spaces of specificities. Prescribed

functions, such as the offices at Helenvale and the clinic and staff accommodation at
Ubuntu, restrict impromptu activities. Spaces contradicting specificities include the
external public spaces discussed above as well as gathering spaces, consequently being
areas of „in-between‟.

Subdivision: spaces of work or non-work

Spatial subdivision can occur either through function or form. With the prescribed
programme, spaces were designed with predetermined functions. In both case studies the
services were separated from gathering spaces. This ordering was done through
mediational spaces, and in the case of Ubuntu, a second floor level further distinguished
this space as more private (see Figure 33).

Subdivision on an urban level transpires through hierarchical differentiation. In both cases,

scale, a structural aspect of SP, distinguishes the centre from the residential context. With
little other public infrastructure, the centres‟ hierarchy is in direct contrast with the
immediate environment.

The design approach of both case studies was informed by pedestrian routes. Existing
walkways were used to determine spatial organisation and form. By contextually
integrating these routes, which were translated into form, a localized texture could be
created. These meditational spaces were used to feed into other functional and gathering
spaces as organisational elements. These two elements however differ between the two
cases: at Helenvale the organisational element is visible opposed to the more geometric
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

form of the Ubuntu centre. Here the clustered spaces are defined by slanted concrete
elements with little differentiation made between circulation and function.

Construction technique: Material and materiel

As the clients of the two centres differ, construction thereof has significant different
approaches. Materiel qualities differ. Helenvale was constructed through a SMME
programme, involving some of the community members. Ubuntu on the other hand, used
a local contractor, but with no requirement of local job creation. The approach followed at
Ubuntu was to initialize the project through a social gathering, which included traditional
rituals. One thus involved the materiel and the other RS, one directly related to the
structure and the other to the perception of it. Both these approaches had a different
outcome: At Helenvale unrest was experienced due to the employment process. At the
Ubuntu centre, community members felt that input (through communication during the
design process) was valued and their traditions considered. The effect of both these
approaches should however be considered in relation to SP and RS as perceived by
community members.

Spatial context and texture: Environmental integration

In contrast with fragmentation and subdivision, Lefebvre notes the need for structures to
be contextually integrated, forming a cultural texture. Contextual integration thus bridges
boundaries, forming networks. These networks then form different textures, influenced by
space and time, to form representational references. At the Helenvale centre,
interconnectivity with the urban framework partially prohibits fragmentation. At the Ubuntu
centre, the structure was integrated by considering the formalistic grid of Zwide. By
contrasting the grid formalistically, the architect attempted to instigate change. As the
change is only morphological with no change to the grid itself, one can question if the
fragmented and subdivided nature is in fact transformed.

To summarise the findings, both centres were designed from a RoS perspective, but with
the Helenvale centre SP was regarded more and with the Ubuntu centre, RS. Ordering
principles were used at the Helenvale centre, considering accessibility (boundaries as
functional aspect of SP). The Ubuntu centre, on the other hand, used form (an aspect of
SP) to guide the RS value of the centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 6 Analyses of the two case studies: Mapping

6.1 Introduction: Analyses of completed maps 152

6.2 Perception for immediate macro-environment: Condensation,-------

displacement and centrality 155

6.3 Findings drawn from the mapping process and narratives 179
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

6.1 Introduction: Analyses of completed maps

The first visual aid used during the semi-structured interviews was maps. Each participant
was given a base map of the area indicating the community centre with surrounding
infrastructure and roads. Areas of preference (positive), dislike (negative), significance
(important), change, identity, meaning and social activities were then indicated on these
maps with codes. These codes (stickers) were numbered and had an image to be easily
understood by participants. After completion of maps, data from each case study were
superimposed on a particular base map (Appendix XV and Appendix XV). On these
combined maps groups were formed around areas of significance, thus indicating areas
that have been associated with the most. Groups were then coupled with related quotes in
a narrative to describe the relationship to thematic categories.

Table 2. Frequency of categories used: Helenvale case study.

Mapping: frequency of categories used, Helenvale case study

Categories 1 Positive 2 Negative 3 Important 4 Change 5 Identity 6 Meaning 7 Social
Frequency
36 28 28 18 11 11 27
of use

Table 3. Frequency of categories used: Ubuntu case study.

Mapping: frequency of categories used, Ubuntu case study

Categories Positive Negative Important Change Identity Meaning Social
Frequency
41 20 36 18 18 23 24
of use

Maps completed by participants include aerial photographs (Google images) and

perspectives. After superimposing on these maps, numerical data were colour-coded to
define clusters that had formed. If there were more than two associations made with an
area groups were formed on base maps. Perspectives, on the other hand, were discussed
in terms of associations made with the centre, thus the number of codes for one category.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 61. Mapping of Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre perspective.

Figure 62. Mapping of Ubuntu centre‟s perspective.

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 63. Map overlay of all participants at the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre.

Figure 64. Map overlay of all participants at the Ubuntu community centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

6.2 Perception for immediate macro-environment: Condensation, displacement

and centrality

After groups were formed on the combined maps of each case study, quotes were
connected thereto. These quotes were selected to highlight aspects of theoretical
categories derived from Lefebvre‟s spatial triad. The groups formed, were described in
relation to categories in the form of narratives.

In the analyses, a narrative was written describing content analysis of quotes. These
narratives demonstrated comparisons between q-sets to highlight aspects that could be
associated with each category. After the narrative, quotes were provided to corroborate
the argument. A reference system was used for quotations that are linked to the sort and
mapping process. The system allows for cross reference between the original transcripts
whilst keeping the anonymity of participants. Each quote is followed by the reference in
brackets. The first figure refers to the transcription number, after the dash the page
number follows, succeeded by a colon indicating the line number, as provided by
ATLAS.ti. Lastly, after another dash, the q-set number is provided e.g. U3. The total
reference would thus be (14-5:189-U3). Note that the transcription number does not relate
to the order of participant or a specific case study to ensure anonymity. When a comment
from the interviewer is included it is indicated with a capital „I‟ with the participant‟s
response as „P‟.

Spatial Practice of the Helenvale centre in context

The mapping process allowed participants to investigate the centre within its contextual
reference, thus focusing on its contribution within the Helenvale community. Focus was
placed on three aspects of SP namely, function, form and structure. Functional aspects
included the use of facilities and levels of accessibility. Structure included perception on
architectural elements of technology. Lastly, form included aspects such as assembly and
encounter. Although this section mostly focuses on SP, aspects of RS are included as
Lefebvre‟s spatial triad cannot be separated entirely. The narrative on SP starts with the
functional discussion integrated with other relevant aspects followed by structure and
form. Functional aspects related to the use of the structure, created a positive perception
of the community centre amongst participants.

“The changes brought a lot of opportunities, like for example the things
that they are busy with for the driving school (37-8:68).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Functionally, the centre was perceived as accessible:

“The first point would be the youth who can now freely use the hall
(24-10:92).”

Activities presented at the centre not only provide educational opportunities but also

“Our children come here a lot to play, it keeps them off the street; they play soccer
and netball (23-1:56).”

The centre‟s accessibility is further enhanced by requiring no extra fees for school
activities or courses, thus not forming restrictions with boundaries or junction points with
entrance fees.

“The fact that the hall for schools and courses, when they offer
something here at the hall, then it is free of charge for the schools and
courses that is positive (37-2:42).”

Historic reference to the previous hall includes comments on the scale of the structure not
being able to facilitate community activities and accessibility. Previously the structure was
seen as a forbidden territory with restricted access, possibly due to political differences.
Although restricted access is perhaps related to managerial issues, the structure can
contribute to spatial perception of exclusion due to spaces provided.

“The previous centre? Oh the place that we had before, it was very
small and we could not always use it. Like I said, we could not always
use it. Sometimes it turned into a real fight over who could use it.
Sometimes you‟d get here and be turned away, maybe for birthdays or
something or if the church wanted to hold a big service – it always
ended up in an argument. Sometimes you‟d hear I‟m DA or I‟m ANC
and there would be a lot of arguing, that‟s what used to happen
(19-8:62).”

Spatial inclusion was further highlighted by a participant‟s indication that everyone is

welcome.

“It is not only for man and woman, it is for young to elderly people
(21-4:50).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Although the previous centre was more accessible as there were fewer boundaries, this
centre is perceived as being more accessible.

“Yes the changes that we could see is, the building is more accessible
(24-5:66).”

One participant made an important reference to the previous building as only being there
with the new structure stated as important. This indicated RS qualities attached to the
structure as place:

“The first centre was, the way I see it, it was built purely to be here, but
this one is important because it has an indoor soccer field, people play
netball inside, things like that. The previous one was not like that
(20-5:56).”

The same participant further commented that the previous structure was more vandalized,
thus being a space for negative representation (RS).

“No, and it was, how do you say, vandalized, but this one is a little bit
more important now (20-6:58).”

Graffiti is seen as vandalism and is noted as negative behaviour. This indicates ownership
or positive perception of participants toward the building.

“Yes, everyone knows this building, but now the thing that bothers me
is the children who are not going to school that are making the building
ugly. I noticed when I came up that there is writing on the walls again
(27-5:74).”

Gathering spaces provided by the community centre further contribute to assembly as

urban form of SP. In a community marked by poverty and violence, social spaces such as
the community centre provide an opportunity for assembly.

“For me personally, people can come together and chat about things,
for example the hall and [inaudible 03:26]. I think that is a very positive
thing because if people get to know each other better they have to
understand each other and then maybe the violence will be subsided
and the sport and the environment, that will also be a positive thing, an
important thing (37-5:56).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Apart from being a point of assembly, the community centre also created an improved
contextual relationship. Services provided at the centre allow less travelling to the city
centre, thus creating a better centre-periphery relationship.

“Yes, so far, look the centre has not been standing for long, but yes,
things have changed. Our people do not take taxis to go to town to do
things anymore, the centre is a bit closer for us and to people outside
and there are a lot of things happening in the centre that we can make
use of things. Those are typical things which are important (35-4:57).”

“And the Government wasn‟t close to us in terms of our enquiries and

services from the municipality and the city (24-1:30).”

Functionally, participants commented on the privacy provided at the new centre opposed
to the demolished hall. Additional office space and screened waiting areas allow
community members to discuss personal matters with available staff. Although privacy at
community centres might seem unnecessary, it might be required by the nature of
services provided as is the case with Ubuntu‟s clinic.

“People feel that there is privacy (24-6:68).”

Although the centre is perceived positively, one participant in particular, had several
complaints. The participant is one of the ward members who represented the community
during the planning and construction process. He commented on their own involvement
during the construction process although he felt that they were not included in the
demolition of the previous structure.

“I really wasn‟t involved, no. I first want to tell you a minor piece of
history about our people. During the period when Thabo Mbeki was
still president, he attended at Helenvale and invested money in
Helenvale and this is where he saw the poverty. This is what motivated
him to provide the money to build the hall as it is today. The other part
is that during the time of his involvement we were all ward committee
members. We are ten members and we have been reinstated for a
second term. This is my second term as a ward committee member.
During that time it was not the Mandela Bay Development Agency but
the municipality itself that was involved as they asked the ward
committee if they wanted training. We received training, we attended
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

workshops so in that respect we were definitely involved but with

regard to the demolition of the old building, the community was not
involved (15-14:84).”

Community involvement in construction usually requires mandatory employment of local

labour, whereas in Helenvale‟s case it was done through SMME‟s sub-contractors. In this
case it required the principal contractor to award work to the SMME sub-contractor for
enterprise and skills development. This process caused several problems as community
members felt that job creation was insufficient (Mini: 2012).

“Another problem that we have experienced, related to the person who

was awarded the contract as he did not contribute or plough back in
the community as he ought to have done. For example, we run soup
kitchens in the community which are frequented by children after
school. Even our crèches. We have six crèches in the area and to this
day he did not contribute to any of the crèches or in the community.
He should have seen what needed to be done and offered, for
example, R10 000.00 for the crèches, or R5 000.00 for the soup
kitchens but he did nothing. I have to say that we have been involved
with that. All the ward committee members were involved with the
workshops but we were not involved with the building of the hall. This
is also where job creation failed. He came with his own workers and
rarely used the people of Helenvale. This was a huge problem for us
(15-15:86).”

Another participant was involved in the construction process, which for him, added
significance to the structure.

“P: I did help with building this place.

I: Oh you helped build this place. What section did you help build?

P: We did the boundary walls...

I: The boundary walls?

P: We built this section here and here inside right down and the back
section as well (26-3:79-83).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Reference to structure as an aspect of SP was made by one participant commenting on

the architecture being modern and technologically advanced. This positive perception on
structure could also contribute to the building being perceived as an effective centre (RS).

“P: The architecture.

I: Come let‟s stick it here on the building. What is it about the

architecture?

P: Because it is so modern and technologically.(24-8:86-88).”

Further complaints related to functional aspects that should be addressed by

management and the centre-periphery relationship to service provision. During the
planning phase of the structure it was proposed to accommodate several governmental
services.

“My house, I live in Pienaar Street, there are three storm water pipes
and when it rains we suffer damages as we then have to carry out all
our furniture or my wife and I must carry it to our bedroom. That is not
acceptable. So what I want to say in this regard is that even the
Counsellor did not bother to take the time to have a look at the
damage after the last heavy rainfall. As it was this deep in the house
we had to send the children out the back. Therefore, this building does
not benefit or mean anything to us. It might as well have been empty
rooms. Where is the service delivery? (15-6:62)”

“How do we get FAMSA involved? Or Social Development? Our

children are becoming naughty as they cannot come here to, for
example FAMSA, come talk to the social workers after school despite
the hall being there. It‟s only the Counsellor‟s office and the workers
that are there (15-7:64).”

The intended purpose of the Helenvale centre was to be a central gathering space. As
there is no service delivery, the problem of the centre-periphery relationship is not
resolved. Community members still have to travel to the city centre, thus emphasizing
Helenvale as a peripheral settlement.

“Apart from everything I find positive here, is the fact that it is only the
Counsellor‟s office that is located here and the workers. You must
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

understand that our own people are being referred to other places or
they walk to other places themselves and complain that the Counsellor
was not available so they had to wait and this and that. So for me, if
we have regard to this situation, then the hall is not so positive
(15-2:42).”

Representational space

During field work, community members participating in interviews formed different spatial
perceptions on representational aspects of the structure. Spatial aspects discussed
include the context in relation to the centre-periphery relationship, the centre as reference
point and value of symbols or images. Participants referred to contextual relationship, not
only to Helenvale but also Port Elizabeth, describing the centre-periphery relationship.
Focusing on Helenvale, participants commented on how the structure formed a central
hierarchical point in the community, adding new meaning. Lastly, symbolic elements were
identified with associated meaning. The following section thus contributes to perception of
RS as perceived by community members in comparison with the architect‟s intent of RoS.

One participant commented on the centre giving Helenvale “a new appearance”. The
centre thus became a representation of displacement moving from the part to the Gestalt.

“People talk a lot more about it and it gives a new appearance to

Helenvale and it attracts people. I mean, compared to the old building
that we had, it is beautiful and a better place and more privacy here
inside (26-2:75).”

The centre is further seen as an identifiable image, thus a hierarchical reference point.

“We are 100% satisfied with the building. It is a very, very beautiful
building but still, the promises made with regard to unemployment that
did not transpire. The building is very beautiful, yes. For example it is
clearly identifiable when you travel past it by taxi. If someone should
phone me and ask “Mr X, where should I get off when travelling to the
hall” I can then reply and say “you should get off at the resource
centre; that is the best spot”. Further, with regard to identification the
building is very beautiful and visible to the people (15-12:80).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

For one participant the new structure was seen as effective centre, demonstrating the
municipality‟s presence and concern in the community.

“It gives me the surety that Government is concerned about the

community and that they will always be involved with the types of
offices that we have here, you understand, and that the service offices
are closer to us now (24-9:90).”

The structure as a hierarchical effective centre was noted by a single participant.

“I like... I like Helenvale very much and the main... the centre the
centre point for us in Helenvale (18-2:40).”

The location of the structure further contributes to the centre-periphery relationship by

being in close proximity to commercial activities and public space built adjacent to it. This
relationship is further enhanced by being connected to five vehicular roads of which
several have been upgraded.

“The reason why it is convenient because it is close to people, close to

an access road; it is across the road and it is close to people. People
only have a five minute walk or ten minute walk about to reach the hall.
In my opinion the current location is where it should be (15-1:30).”

Although the structure has enhanced the centre-periphery relationship as an effective

core, the violence in the area negatively affects movement to and from Helenvale.

“Our friends who stay far away and they are scared to come to
Helenvale because they say the shootings are too much and
„gangsterism‟ and all those things (18-3:52).”

Although the „gangsterism‟ has a negative effect, one participant felt that the centre
contributes to others‟ perception of Helenvale. Aesthetic qualities of the centre create the
perception that Helenvale can be included in the NMBM area thus eliminating boundaries
between the centre (Port Elizabeth) and periphery (Helenvale).

“The whole building means a lot to me and as I said before the people
talk about the building and it makes Helenvale look like another area
because a lot of people outside Helenvale look at us as, how can I put
it, they do look at us as if we are not part of Port Elizabeth, the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

„gangsterism‟ that is going on here and everything else. Here is

something here that draws their attention, here in Helenvale, so far
(26-4:93).”

The colour of the structure creates a reference point for community members.

“Then, when a person... should people not know the place you can
direct them here, the green building (40-3:117).”

Apart from the structure being hierarchical, aspects of it were also seen as strong
representational reference. Representation as a form of condensation and displacement
was mostly identified with art works. The two art works include the sculpture and mural.
The sculpture is of a boy flying a kite mounted on an aluminium circle placed in the public
space in front of the entrance. Positioned parallel to the sculpture is the mural forming an
axis between the public space and the community centre‟s entrance. The mural is an
aluminium sheet with perforated letters describing the Helenvale community. From the
sheet, bronze castings of children skipping, protrudes. These two art works were seen as
memories or reference points for participants (De Jager: 2013).

“As you come in, the little girl, the children skipping and the boy with
the kite, the one who was shot, reminds me of... tells me this is
Helenvale, the memories (39-1:42).”

These artworks were also seen as inclusive aspects of the centre, intriguing visitors and
allowing participation even before entering the structure.

“I would not say it has a meaning, but it makes you interested to see
what the inside looks like having seen that and as you approach the
door you see some of the artwork and it makes you more curious to
see the inside (28-5:122).”

One participant proposed that photographs and images of the changes should
be presented. These images should include the former centre, the construction
process and the completed structure. A historic reference can be provided but
could also illustrate the process as metonymy of Helenvale, thus indicating
growth through different perceptions.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“Yes, they have to hang up something about the old building so that
people who are not from here and who don‟t know the town can see
what the old building looked like. And then the A to Z of building this
one, set out the steps it took to get here. Do you understand? I want
them to set it out for visitors and also for myself and our children
(41-1:26).”

Infrastructural references in relation to the Helenvale centre

The mapping process focuses on the perceived spatial perception of participants on a

larger scale. This process not only focuses on the centre, but also on other influential
characteristic or infrastructure. These features are important to determine participants‟
perception of the community, which in turn influences their perception of the centre itself.

On the map, different groups were formed with the Helenvale centre as main contributors.
Apart from the centre, four other infrastructural groups have been identified by participants
as churches, the school, commercial activity, the adjacent public space and streets.
During interviews reference was made to specific streets which are further subdivided in
the discussion. Groups are discussed in relation to influential aspects of the centre.

Church activities have been noted by two participants as important cultural activities.

“The really important places here are the churches (40-2:85).”

“The things I like, I like our church. That‟s how I was brought up
(19-3:41).”

Although there is no direct relationship between churches and the centre, as they are not
in immediate proximity, some activities are shared. Church services as well as other
related religious activities are held in the centre. Note that the existing churches only
consist of formal gathering spaces with no adjacent halls. The community hall thus has an
important role to provide social space for church gatherings.

“This place is a good place in Helenvale. It‟s good because it is

spacious. On Sunday we held a service here and we had lots of room.
It was lovely to see everything in this place... previously we were
cramped and had to keep our children with us all the time because the
hall was so small, but here it‟s different. Now we have this hall and it‟s
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

very comfortable and the area used to be dangerous, but now it‟s
much safer (19-1:26).”

Little reference has been made to schools and commercial activity, apart from their
educational contribution and function. In the discussion on function one participant
commented on the schools being able to use the centre without any financial implication
(37-2:42).

“The schools the children get education, the Shopping Centre we buy
our bread and goods from the shop and the churches are just as
important because we go to church (36-2:28).”

On the other hand, the public space adjacent to the centre contributed more to spatial
relationships. Although this space is integrated with the centre and designed by the same
architects, it is not part of the same project or brief. This separation in programmes hints
on Lefebvre‟s concept of RoS being fragmented and subdivided. The architect, however,
managed to integrate these two separate projects into a cohesive understanding.

A participant noted that there is no longer a park, as was the case with the previous
centre. The public space is rather seen as a social gathering space as there are no longer
play areas provided for the children.

“I: Are there any social areas which you can identify, where all types of
people can maybe get together, socially?

P: As far as I know, in this area, it is in front of the centre most of the

time and…

I: So it is here?

P: Yes.

I: It is there, that is where you congregate?

P: Yes, as far as I know because at the moment there is no longer a

park here which was the place where the people used to gather
(20-10:76-80).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The sculpture, forming an axis between the mural and entrance, was seen as metonymy
(RS) by several participants. It is associated with freedom and has become a symbol of
change.

“If you look at the child alone and the kite and you compare them, it is
the outlook of the future that it is in conjunction to the building that the
children can enjoy more freedom now. You understand. Especially
when it comes to their activities, you understand. They have more
freedom and they see that their future will be much easier (24-7:84).”

Although the sculpture is seen as a metaphor for freedom, it is also associated with tragic
events in the Helenvale area. The sculpture has also become a memorial for some of the
children who have been killed. Note that the meaning was attached after the erection of
the centre, thus becoming RS of displacement.

“To me it means that we want our children to be free here but is so sad
about the last child that was shot and killed here, a four year old, was,
killed while he was playing with a kite, but that was before... after the
thing was erected (22-4:133).”

Other more positive references are a participant‟s evoked memory of his childhood.

“I love things like that and I tried to find out on all these things that are
a symbol, the kite and it comes back to me about things about my
childhood (18-11:102).”

Another public space in Helenvale that is important for social interaction is the street. The
main reason for the utilisation of the street as public space is the lack of other facilities.
Streets in this case thus became an urban form of encounter and assembly.

“Yes, at the soccer field they come together and then they play a
soccer game or sometimes they play in the streets because there are
not that many facilities (27-9:93).”

During the renewal project the street was upgraded to provide better circulation and
infrastructure such as seating and street lights. These upgrades provided positive
perception on RS with Helenvale as an effective centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“Well, if you look at the streets that they upgraded here, in the front to
make the place look more attractive. It is for other people who come in
from outside to see there is something positive happening here at
Helenvale (37-3:46).”

Unfortunately the recurrence of vandalism impacts negatively on the perception (RS) of

Helenvale as a centre of change.

“The streets, I would say in the beginning there were changes but after
a while vandalism brought the streets down and there is no more
lighting in the streets, for example there are no more lights in the
streets and there are big changes, again negative to us, if we see each
other in the evening, anyone can get robbed or stolen from (37-10:78).”

Streets in Helenvale are an integral part of RS, mostly because of strong associations.
One participant commented on the street she resides in as being part of her family. This
familial relationship results in a more secure environment. The participant further
commented on the long linear quality of the street which, for community members, is a
distinct characteristic of Helenvale.

“I think Anita Drive where I was born, the dearest to me. Everybody
here, we are like a family in our house, especially the long street where
everybody knows everybody. Actually I am quite safe on my street
(39-2:46).”

Another participant felt that streets could be a RS by renaming the streets to names of
people who contributed to Helenvale. Renaming of streets thus becomes a form of
substitution for change and memory.

“I would really like road names to be changed for example somebody‟s

name who has done a lot for our surroundings. I would like that to
happen to our street names that type of specific change, let me say for
example and I am just making an example such as Thabo Mbeki, there
is not such a street name. I would like that there be such a change-
somebody who has done a lot for our people who has passed away
(35-5:63).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Another important aspect is violence that is mainly associated with streets. One
participant commented that it is always in “streets”. Streets are thus not only spaces of
encounter but also of differences, including violent activities.

“...„gangsterism‟ [inaudible 0:01:50.5] is always in streets in [inaudible

0:01:53.0] Fisher Street, Epic Street, Cobras Road, Basin Street
(36-3:34).”

Streets, usually seen as public space, are perceived as having boundaries and as
forbidden territory. Access is restricted to residents of certain streets as a result of
territoriality.

“There is nothing good about Leeds Street for me because the people
from Leeds Street do not want anyone from Kobus Road in their street
(20-1:34).”

Quotes connected to Zwide‟s superimposed map

Similar to the process followed at Helenvale, quotes were connected to the superimposed
map of the Zwide area. Again narratives for each identified space refer to SP and RS.
Identified spaces that were categorised in groups include the Ubuntu community centre,
the rooftop garden, the open space opposite the centre, the library and streets as
indicated in Figure 62 and Figure 64.

As with the mapping process conducted at Helenvale, participants in Zwide could form
contextual associations with the community centre. Again the focus was on aspects of SP
that included function, form and structure.

Function relates to the use of space and the contribution to community member‟s spatial
perception. The focus of the Ubuntu Education Fund is on the education and health of its
clients. Although this is its focus, participants‟ perception is on social activities.

“Social activities are obviously happening in the entire building. Our

theatre, the flexi-space, the programme space upstairs… (4-15:92).”

Apart from the centre being perceived as an urban form of assembly, participants also
saw it as being a geometric space of „within‟ with little restriction. Participants found it
functionally accessible, thus allowing them to seek help for numerous problems.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“...the building has a ̶ how do I put it? It contributed a lot to the people
and lots of things that have been done in here and down there. You
see your social workers, you have your centres and all those things
are here to enhance, to make an impact in the community and actually
change the lives of people who are around. So pitching up in such an
area, you‟re normal every day in the townships that has so much
service to the people, it's quite good and interesting in improving the
lives of the people (11-12:110).”

Accessibility to the centre is further enhanced as there are no physical boundaries around
the centre. This participant further commented on other community members‟ positive
perception of the centre. As vandalism and theft are minimal she felt that the community
had taken ownership of the building due to its „importance‟ and contribution.

“You can see there is no fencing or anything like that, but still it is
standing, even today, so obviously they have seen that it is important
to also put some of their resources into the community for the kids
(4-10:66).”

Through servicing the community, the space became an urban form of encounter enabling
new social networks to form.

“In the area, my community, I don‟t have friends, but since I came here
I made loads of friends and then some of them I took them as my own
sisters and family, which [inaudible] as family (9-6:60).”

This change in clients‟ lives also affects the perception on streets, therefore being an
effective centre in Zwide.

“It changed the street because the other child I have got, other child
they are right because but now are changing, changing the life of the
child‟s, so that is why I like this building (30-3:42).”

Structure, another aspect of SP, was mentioned for strength, transparency and its African
reference. The battered concrete walls were mentioned as being „strong‟ and the design
has been commended. Another material mentioned was the glass façade.

“...the structure of the building is, how do I put it? I don't know, it's
amazing, the structure and how it's built. Strong that it's used to build
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

and when you look at this side, mostly because it is glass, I like glass
(11-2:64).”

The transparency of the glass elements was seen as an open element opposed to darker
spaces which led to a positive spatial perception.

“...it is shedding more light. I like that because I am afraid of the dark, I
don't like dark places. I prefer well-lighted places so glass is (inaudible
0:06:29) (11-13:69).”

Two materials were mentioned in reference to African elements. First were some of the
textures used and, second, the timber elements used as security barricade. Textures of
the carpets and carved-doors and furniture provided this cultural reference.

“That's African thing of quality, sort of cultural highlight, the wool and
stuff that they put it here (33-3:85).”

Horizontal gumpoles fixed as burglar bars on the exterior of glass façades were seen as
another African reference. Note that this participant commented on a „mix of cultures‟,
thus the American influence of the architect combined with local techniques and materials.
This combination of elements provides a building that is contextually integrated with
international references, thus the vision of Ubuntu Education Fund.

“I was so impressed. The wood is sort of an African thing... I am

thinking that the building has an African mix of cultures (38-4:5).”

Further reference was made to scale, an aspect of structure and SP. The structure is
perceived as „small‟ by one participant and by another as claustrophobic if fully occupied.

“...these guys do a lot in such a small place (6-7:54).”

“You will see later on because at times this building can get small, I
can tell you, when there are all the kids here. You expect it to be such
a big place but after three it is like ground. You get kids here, you get
kids there, you get some kids in the labs, some downstairs in the
theatre, but I don‟t know for how long you guys are going to be here,
but if you are going to be here for that period. I don‟t know about now
because of holidays and things like that, but normally it is like that
(6-7:54).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

A participant mentioned how the structure is a classic form of centrality (SP) as it is

situated within the community.

“Very far, if it is inside the community then it is very important to be

there. It is where they get clinic services, crèche for children, even the
garden the services. They don‟t even travel by taxi. It is just around the
corner so it is very important (5-6:64).”

Effective centrality (RS) is further effected by service provision that would otherwise be
unreachable.

“I believe that if you can take that building out of this big picture, then
people will go other places far from the community to get the services
they get here (5-5:62).”

The location of the structure further contributes to the classical form of centrality. A
participant commented on its RS qualities being more representative of Summer Strand, a
developed area close to the CBD (Central Business District) of Port Elizabeth. The
technologically advanced and different form thus creates a RS of „care‟.

“I would say the area in which the structure itself, where it is put, for
example if you look at the structure of all the buildings that are within
the community, you don‟t find any structure like this, but if you were to
go to town, Summer Strand, then you will see similar structures in a
way. To me the meaning of this structure being in the middle of the
community, it shows or symbolises that Ubuntu cares about the
community and also Ubuntu, in terms of the quality, it means that
these people can still get the same quality as the people that are
staying in town, in terms of the services (4-13:86).”

Representational Space as perceived by participants

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, participants felt that the location of the centre
contributes to a positive perception of their environment. Development in low-income
areas is often limited due to vandalism and financial constraints. As the Ubuntu centre
became a physical manifestation of this change, community members‟ perception of their
environment was also influenced. This perception resulted in community members taking
ownership of the structure as they are also involved in its functioning.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“I would say it did help in a sense that when whoever decides what
needs to be where, they look at the community in most times as a
place where you cannot put anything that will last because people will
still damage it. Therefore when Ubuntu built this building and people
see it as standing, there is no burglary, nothing that people steal, they
look at this building as their own because they are the ones that are
looking after it (4-11:66).”

One of the staff members mentioned in his interview the structure‟s ability to inspire
community members. The hierarchy of the structure in the community, its spatial
reference and condensation as metaphor for change, contributes to a perception of
change and possibility. For this participant the spatial experience of the building coincides
with the vision of Ubuntu.

“Ja, if you look at the structure, the shape, if your look at the high
ceilings, if you look at the dimension of the walls and everything, we
are trying to inspire some people here, the young people and the youth
people. If you are not inspiring them, they will become bored very
easily but when they come through that door because of what they
experience here, not at their homes and anywhere else, it gives them a
kind of a feeling and experience of being somewhere else in the world.

You know you can be in a house for 12 years. Say in that house the
ceiling is just about two centimetres above your head, but once you
step into a building with the height of the ceiling double of your size,
then you say WOW, you are touched by that experience, you are
inspired. So I believe that the structure of the building, besides the
size, the dimension, the shape of the wall will inspire our kids without
saying any word. Just to be inside here and see something different
and that experience is going to last with you probably for the rest of
your life (10-50:163-165).”

Apart from structural references being RS, security elements further created a feeling of
functional enclosure (SP). Perception of safety contributes to the structure as an effective
centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“...the building makes me feel safe the houses yeah and the windows
having those bolts around because in this society you can never be too
safe (14-5:103).”

The structure as symbolic imagery of condensation was mentioned by a participant as

being „unique‟.

“I love this building, the way the design...it is unique, different. The
person who built it was very creative (38-2:3).”

“It‟s a new thing. I have never seen it before. It was my first time when
I started here so I really like it (38-3:4).”

Upon asking participants about the lack of signage at Ubuntu, one participant responded
by referring to the identity of the structure representing Ubuntu. The structure is thus a
metaphor for the Ubuntu Education Fund.

“I don‟t need to see the name; I can just say the building. It is different
from other buildings (5-11:116).”

Another participant explained that the building itself portrays the concept of Ubuntu
through the inclusive environment.

“Yes, then also the name of Ubuntu says it all, the building. Just when
you are looking outside when you are coming in, the environment is
friendly (14-2:71).”

Lefebvre noted that time and space cannot be separated, which is portrayed in the centre
through appropriation. One of the spaces has been named after a staff member who
passed away, thus connecting time and space through displacement and condensation.
By this reference, continuity and substitution were created spatially.

“Also here in the clinic there is a counselling room. We called

Nolothando, our colleague. She passed away and we named the
counselling room after her (43-3:142-144).”

Apart from the metaphor being created through named places, another metaphor was
described. The central gathering space (q-set 3 or gathering space adjacent to the
crèche) was also described as a tree representing past social spaces.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“Yes, and they taught us a lot about that tree. Like we used to call that
space a library, so that tree is should present like the umbrella, or the
shade. Like we used to say... like we were outside and there is
nothing over us and then they built that pillar, like a sort of pillar, but it
represents a tree (43-2:134).”

Bodily reference was made by one of the staff members through a metaphor describing
the human body as container. To him the body is similar to the structure of Ubuntu as it is
the vessel that gives the programme meaning.

“Out of the basic needs for food, medicine, water, electricity then the
shelter is one of those basic needs and I believe Ubuntu Centre is
bringing a meaning to all the programmes that we have at Ubuntu. We
can have a plan to expand our programme with everything, but if we
don't have a shelter or a centre we won't be able to contain them. So
this is a container.

And maybe I can expand a bit to put it this way. If our bodies, our
bodies, this is not me, this is just the container but without this
container, myself, which is on the inside, won't be able to be accepted
in this world without this body. So our programmes the reason we are
successful at Ubuntu is because of this container, so it gives us
meaning (10-49:157-159).”

To conclude, the section focusing on RS investigated the building‟s contextual relationship

as an effective centre through elements of displacement and condensation. Imagery of the
structure further contributed to the meaning attached to it. The significance of the above
mentioned quotes lies in the connection that participants made between the structure and
Ubuntu Education Fund‟s purpose. The intention of the architect, as mentioned in the
interview with Stan Field, was to conceptually communicate the community supporting
each other. Structurally the walls support each other, each wall thus relying on the other.
Although the structure is not directly understood as such, the supportive environment is
experienced. The quote listed below summarises this notion of interdependence.

“Some of belonging, because they made to know that I belong here in

this community in South Africa, to know my roots and all that stuff
(9-5:54).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Infrastructural references in relation to the Ubuntu centre

As an effective centre the Ubuntu structure has several influences, either direct or indirect,
on its surrounds. These influences have been determined by investigating groups formed
around the Ubuntu centre. After the maps were superimposed, groups were formed if
more than two associations were made with an area. Groups formed during this process
include gardens, the open space opposite the centre, the library and streets.

On the roof of the smaller multi-functional space a community garden has been built with
planter boxes. The community garden of the centre has formed an important link with
other gardens established in the community, thus forming a centre-periphery relationship.

Through the gardening programme a relationship has been established with the school
opposite the centre.

“Also here, now that there‟s a centre, we have the roof garden, and we
hold gardening programmes. Now that the centre is here, there‟s also
a gardening programme that‟s happening in the school as well. So,
that‟s what has changed since the centre has been here (1-10:44).”

Apart from the school programme, a relationship has also been established with residents.
One participant commented how the garden programme connects people on different
levels.

“It is a good thing because you know you have a garden at the back of
a house, but if it is here it means that it connects with the people
outside as well (5-9:98).”

For staff at the Ubuntu centre the main aim of the community garden is to address food
insecurity. Apart from this primary aim, the vision of the Ubuntu Education Fund is further
symbolised through the concept of growth. The centre thus not only impacts the
community from the core; it also has a ripple effect through the community members, thus
portraying community members supporting each other.

“I have made the mark on the rooftop garden. I guess with the society
that you are selling, we have also got challenges, but one of the most
challenges we are trying to address here is good security and I believe
everything that is near to my heart, so I am directly involved with this
one and it is the passion that I have with the community. So it is the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

message that is sent that everything is possible and even the

production of food in our areas is doable (10-34:39).”

Apart from the community garden, indigenous vegetation has been planted in public
spaces. As the horticulture educator mentioned, plants such as aloes are all indigenous.
The garden thus also provides a contextual reference and identity within the area.
Unfortunately, gardens adjacent to the street have not withstood the test of time. In more
protected spaces, like to the back of the building, some of the initial planted areas are still
growing (established through several observations made by the author during field work).

“...here this is outside of Ubuntu, there are some aloes and flowers
there. All of those flowers that they have planted there are African
flowers coming from I think it's indigenous plants of the Eastern Cape
and I believe those are marking our identity. It's not everywhere where
you get those kinds of aloes. There are many kinds but those
specifically belong in the Eastern Cape (10-43:112).”

Another important spatial relationship is between the Ubuntu Centre and the adjacent
public primary school. Two aspects have been identified by participants that explain this
relationship. First is the lack of dedicated external space for physical activities at the
Ubuntu centre. Available school grounds are then utilised.

“...we went to the school because we don‟t have a yard to play in

(5-10:108).”

Second is the educational contribution of the school. As the main aim of the Ubuntu Fund
is education, a strong relationship exists with the surrounding schools for the development
of learners‟ aptitude.

“The children in the surrounding areas, this is where they go to school

and get their education from, and also the school library is. So, I think
it‟s mostly because of the buildings and also the services that they
provide (1-3:32).”

Opposite the Ubuntu Centre is an undeveloped site. Currently this space is used as a
dumping site, resulting in several problems. One major problem is health and safety risks
presented to community members.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“It is not really a good space because as you know, if there is a

dumping area then it means there is a risk of people getting sick
(4-3:44).”

Apart from health risks, participants commented on the negative visual impact that this
area has on the perception of the Ubuntu centre.

“This area is across the street. It's not supposed to be a dumping site.
It is open land that is privately owned by seven individuals and those
seven do not occupy the land, it has been a dumping site. It is a
dumping site these days and that dumping site is like creating an
environment that is not conducive to our image and our health and it is
also creating an environment that is going to impact on the minds of
our kids who are coming here. You can imagine – on the left-hand side
of the street there is the Ubuntu Centre, a state of the art building. On
the other side is an opposite (10-39:64).”

Other participants saw the potential of the site for further development.

“This one is a garbage, yes, a garbage place where, it‟s actually in

front of our centre, so you have this multi million rand centre in front of
this, you know, and nothing has been done about it. Whereas there
could be, it could be utilized for something else like a park or
something the community can use. These three areas is for the same
reason in terms of, there is so much going on in the community that I
don‟t think it‟s kind, like acceptable that there‟s open space and some
of that space that cannot be used. There‟s people who want houses,
could be used for parks, build another school, anything that can help
the community, but not a space that‟s just clear and no-one is doing
anything about it. Because it‟s going to turn into a garbage tip-way
again, yes (1-4:36).”

The public library, similar to the school, has a direct relationship with the Ubuntu Centre.
Users are motivated to use the library facilities as Ubuntu itself only has computer facilities
for school projects and research.

“So I picked out the school and library, because they basically are
partners, you know. The school, the kids that come to the centre that
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

are part of the centre, you know, after school programmes, they come
after school and they become involved. So they also are partners in
making sure that what we do is effective in schools. Also the school
library, I mean, we do not have a school library, but we do have an
education programme that focuses on making sure that the kids get
proper help in terms of their literacy, so they become, for instance, if
you give a child an assignment, they know that there‟s a library
available. Although there is a computer centre also available here,
there is the library that they can go to (1-6:40).”

As the library is in close proximity it strengthens the mutual relationship between the
centre and the library.

“And the library it‟s very close, if I need something, I simply just go in to
the library to do what I want to do (8-3:46).”

Another staff member mentioned that the library is a more private space for solitude.

“There are books that people can read, do research, be there and also
it‟s a quiet place where someone can go and just be on their own
(7-2:34).”

The last contextual reference grouped was streets. This element was seen as the
connection of the centre with the external environment.

“Everybody who has come from all over the world ̶ whether in Europe,
America or Australia, before you learn that Ubuntu, you have to step
your foot on Koyanda Street coming to Ubuntu. Even someone who is
living in the whole world you have to step the foot at Koyanda so it is a
bridge, or a channel where all of us, whether in or out, we have to go
through (10-37:56).”

Apart from providing access to influential people, it also forms networks within the
community, allowing for interaction. The road networks thus help to establish the structure
as an effective centre.

“Koyanda ̶ that is Pondo it is the main street around here. I believe

street is one of the infrastructures that allow us to interact and network
with people (10-36:52).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

6.3 Findings drawn from the mapping process and narratives

Completed maps differed significantly between the two centres. Participants of the
Helenvale case study were much more familiar with the immediate environment as
opposed to those of Zwide. Although the maps differed as is indicated, the respective
centres indicated no other discrepancies that could influence validity. Both maps are of
the same scale and quality, indicating the community centre and the immediate
environment. The conclusion for this variation, identified by the author, lies in the
contextual familiarity of participants. Community members and staff who participated at
Helenvale all resided within walking distance of the centre. In contrast to Helenvale,
participants at the Ubuntu centre resided within a 7km radius. This radius represents the
area serviced by the Ubuntu Education Fund which transports learners to and from the
centre. Apart from receiving the desired service at the centre, there is little interaction with
the surrounding area. As the type of users differ for these two centres, their perception of
how the immediate environment influences each facility, differ significantly.

Perception of the two centres is formed by their prescribed functions. For both centres,
perception was on social activity, especially relating to the children. A major difference
between the two centres is one being regarded more in terms of meaning and the other as
„help‟. Considering the harsh and violent environment of the Helenvale community,
participants attached meaning to the structure to commemorate events. Although
assistance was also considered, the Ubuntu centre was associated much more with
educational and medical assistance. These aspects are, however, not influenced by
architectural or contextual factors, but rather by administrative and financial constraints
experienced at the Helenvale centre. However, some social interaction is influenced by
both of these architectural interventions. The structure of community centres therefore
plays a significant role in shaping public space for social interaction.

At both centres there was a notion to create RS by naming places. At Helenvale there was
the idea to rename streets after people who contributed to community upliftment. At the
Ubuntu centre, the clinic was named after one of its deceased staff members. Naming of
places was done to signify change and memory. Apart from the named places, the
Helenvale centre had signage opposed to the Ubuntu centre that had none. Participants
at the Helenvale centre felt that the signage created an identity of the community whereas
those at the Ubuntu centre perceived the structure itself as signifying. Identity formation
can thus occur either through description or structural reference. In the case of Helenvale,
both were used as the tower is a strong visual landmark. At the Ubuntu centre, on the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

other hand, the structure was perceived as the signifier. Although there is no visible
signage, the name Ubuntu is strongly connected to the facility, thus being a metonymy
thereof.

Considering SP, the Helenvale centre was perceived more as an „Urban‟ form of
encounter and simultaneity whereas the Ubuntu centre was seen as a „Classical‟ form of
centrality and difference. As the Helenvale centre forms spatial connections with the urban
framework of the area, it was perceived more as an „Urban‟ form. The Ubuntu centre, on
the other hand, was seen as a „Classical‟ form for the structural difference, as opposed to
monotonous housing. Participants further commented on the relationship of these centres
to Port Elizabeth. For some participants at Helenvale, the community is distanced from
Port Elizabeth, but with the addition of the structure it can now be considered as part of
the city by providing an effective centre. At the Ubuntu centre, participants felt that the
structure can favourably be compared with buildings found in Summerstrand, a suburb of
Port Elizabeth. It is thus a reference point and distinguishable from other areas. Both
structures were seen as effective centres; the Helenvale centre through the tower as a
hierarchical reference point and the Ubuntu centre with its unique form.

As both Helenvale and Zwide were planned within the former Black and Coloured Group
Areas, they are still ethnically separated and temporary. The purposes of the community
centres are consequently to provide social services in areas where little infrastructure was
installed and to break down barriers, even if only partially. Although these centres only
provide minimal change considering a whole community, their impact can still be
significant. In the case of Helenvale, the centre provided a virtual reference point and
defined the identity of the community. The Ubuntu centre , on the other hand, does not
relate specifically to the Zwide community, but, through the form provides a landmark. By
contrasting with the immediate environment, an effective centre is provided as space for
development.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 7 Analyses of the two case studies:

Sort-charts

7.1 Description and interpretation of data and findings 182

7.2 Perceptions on community centres 194

7.3 Findings read from the sort-process 213

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

As discussed in section 3.7, the sort-chart process was completed by participants in order
to determine their perception on spatial qualities of the respective community centres. At
each community centre, twenty participants completed the sort process, which required
grouping of fifteen q-sets into categories. Each q-set consisted of a photograph of spatial
elements focusing on different aspects of the built structure. Categories, determined by
theoretical analysis, include „identity‟, „enclosure‟, „community‟, „symbol‟ and „inclusion‟
(welcome). In conjunction with the interview process, participants grouped the images and
explained their reasoning behind their particular preferences.

In the first section of 7.1, the analyses of the data and the findings are described and
interpreted. Categories and q-sets for each case study are presented to form a connection
between the data and the respective community centre. This illustration is followed by the
frequency per category, as well as its frequency per category for the two respective q-sets
of Helenvale and Ubuntu. Next, the statistical analyses of row and column values are
performed.

The second part in 7.2, provides narratives of the corresponding quotes from interviews,
which, in turn, supplement the statistical results regarding the grouping of categories. The
section concludes with preliminary findings derived by comparing the two respective case
studies.

7.1 Description and interpretation of data and findings

A description of q-sets and categories for the respective case studies

The q-sets are explained in Figure 65, Figure 66 and Figure 67 typifying spatial elements.
Each q-set is numbered according to the case study for data capturing purposes. The
vantage point and direction of each photograph is indicated on the plans of the respective
community centre with a circle and arrow. Elements in the photographs can thus be seen
from the point indicated on plan (refer to Appendix XVII and Appendix XVIII for images of
q-sets).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 65. Sort-charts as photographs of Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre taken

on the ground floor. The circles indicate the position and the arrows the direction the
photographs were taken.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 66. Sort-charts as photographs of Ubuntu community centre taken on the ground
floor. The circles indicate the position and the arrows the direction the photographs were
taken.

Figure 67. Sort-charts as photographs of Ubuntu community centre taken on the first floor.
The circles indicate the position and the arrows the direction the photographs were taken.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Frequency observed per category

The number of „sorts‟ performed at each case study is uniform with 20 per community
centre. Some participants did not group all the images during a single sort process, hence
the sum of frequencies added up to 222 for Helenvale and 225 for Ubuntu. In

Table 4 and Table 5, data from the 20 participants has been combined to indicate the
percentage per category. The first five columns indicate categories and number of sorts.

Table 4. Frequency observed per category: Helenvale case study.

Categories Identity Enclosure Community Symbol Welcome TOTAL

Observed frequency 43 50 55 39 42 229
Percentage 18,8% 21,8% 24,0% 17,0% 18% 100%

Table 5. Frequency observed per category: Ubuntu case study.

Categories Identity Enclosure Community Symbol Welcome TOTAL

Observed frequency 37 52 59 43 45 236
Percentage 15,70% 22,0% 25,0% 18,2% 19,1% 100%

For both „sorts‟ conducted at each centre, „community‟ and „enclosure‟ were used most
often, with percentages above 20%. Overall, „community‟ was used most for both case
studies (Helenvale 24% and Ubuntu 25%) which agrees with the purpose of community
centres, namely to provide public gathering spaces. „Enclosure‟ was used second most,
with 21.8% at Helenvale and 22% at Ubuntu. Although these centres are mainly perceived
as dedicated for the community, they are also seen as enclosed. Since these centres are
located in vulnerable environments, they need to be secured for public appropriation. The
two categories „symbol‟ and „welcome‟ were annotated between 17% and 19.1% for both
case studies. Although all categoriy percentages are close to each other, „symbol‟ for
Helenvale, at 17% and „identity‟ for Ubuntu at 15.7%, are the lowest, showing the least
associations by participants.

Distribution and use of q-sets

During the interview process, participants were not required to group all the q-sets. If they
indicated that they were unfamiliar with certain spatial aspects the associated q-set could
be disregarded. Since this is a qualitative enquiry of perception, knowledge is also gained
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

from q-sets not classified. Patterns or relationships formed amongst these q-sets could
indicate reasons for participants‟ disassociation or lack of spatial perception.

Table 6. Two-way frequency tables for q-set by category (Helenvale).

Categories Identity Enclosure Community Symbol Welcome ROW TOTALS

HV 1 4 4 1 1 3 13
HV 2 3 12 1 2 3 21
HV 3 3 1 10 2 1 17
HV 4 6 1 2 2 1 12
HV 5 3 2 1 4 6 16
HV 6 6 1 1 7 5 20
HV 7 2 2 2 2 3 11
HV 8 1 3 12 1 1 18
HV 9 3 1 4 2 1 11
HV 10 2 1 3 3 2 11
HV 11 1 4 10 1 1 17
HV 12 3 5 1 3 3 15
HV 13 2 4 1 5 7 19
HV 14 2 8 2 2 2 16
HV 15 2 1 4 2 3 12
COLUMN TOTALS 43 50 55 39 42 229

Table 7. Two-way frequency tables for q-set by category (Ubuntu).

Categories Identity Enclosure Community Symbol Welcome ROW TOTALS

UB 1 6 1 9 1 1 18
UB 2 2 3 3 1 8 17
UB 3 2 4 2 3 3 14
UB 4 3 4 2 7 2 18
UB 5 1 2 1 2 1 7
UB 6 1 3 1 2 5 12
UB 7 2 4 11 3 1 21
UB 8 1 10 1 3 1 16
UB 9 2 8 4 1 3 18
UB 10 2 4 1 4 1 12
UB 11 3 1 13 1 1 19
UB 12 1 2 2 5 2 12
UB 13 3 1 5 4 7 20
UB 14 3 4 1 3 4 15
UB 15 5 1 3 3 5 17
COLUMN TOTALS 37 52 59 43 45 236
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Frequencies for both case studies were relatively similar. Q-sets with the highest
frequency for both community centres included architectural elements which could be
associated with, or were allocated specific functions. Strong visual association at the
Helenvale centre included q-sets HV2, HV6, HV13 and HV14. Reference was made to the
boundary in q-sets HV2 and HV14 as a security element of inclusion. Q-sets HV6 and
HV13, on the other hand, had symbolic value through the art work as metaphor (HV6) and
the tower (HV13) as a hierarchical point. Apart from the visual associations, spaces with
dedicated functions for communal use had a high frequency. Functions included three
gathering spaces, namely the main hall (HV10), the smaller community hall (HV8) and the
external sport field (HV10). The Ubuntu centre‟s q-sets with high frequencies also mainly
consisted of architectural elements or functional spaces. Visual associations at the Ubuntu
centre included UB4, UB8 and UB13. Q-set UB8 with the closed-circuit television (CCTV)
camera was mainly associated with security and UB4 and UB13 had important symbolic
value. Functional spaces with which strong associations were made include UB1, UB2
and UB7. These spaces include the rooftop garden (UB1), clinic (UB2) and multi-
functional theatre or main hall (UB7) and are all thus associated with community activity
that contributes to the health and well-being of clients. One q-set of the exterior, UB11,
was associated with functionality and symbolism. The photograph of the Ubuntu centre as
seen from the street corner accommodates all the functions and has thus been described
as the metaphor for Ubuntu.

Low frequencies on the other hand included q-sets with few architectural elements. These
q-sets were of circulation spaces, thus with no other function than connecting spaces. At
the Helenvale centre, q-sets HV1, HV4, HV9, HV10 and HV15 with low frequencies
portrayed circulation spaces. HV1 was of the eastern entrance, HV4 of the western
entrance and public space and HV10 of the corridor leading to services. Q-sets HV9 and
HV15 also include circulation spaces, but with functional allocation of the waiting area.
The latter, perhaps, had little association as the waiting area is hardly used since the
adjacent office spaces are mostly unoccupied. At the Ubuntu centre, q-sets UB5, UB6 and
UB10 with low frequencies are also of circulation spaces. UB5 was of the stairs, UB6 of
ground floor circulation and UB10 of first floor circulation. One exception is UB12, which is
of the external garden space or play area dedicated to the crèche children. As there were
few architectural elements, participants possibly found it difficult to associate with this
space.

For both case studies, aspects determining association were similar. Q-sets with high
frequencies differed between security elements, symbolic imagery or functions associated
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

with community. In turn, q-sets with low frequencies tended to be of circulation spaces.
Data on low and high frequencies can guide future q-set choices, however, both
spectrums provide valuable information. Low frequencies provide information on spatial
disassociation and should, therefore, be included.

Analysis of associations

As described in detail in the section above, the purpose of the analyses of the main
components was to scientifically model the association between perception and spatial
classification. Data obtained from the sort-charts have been cross-tabulated in the form of
frequency of occurrence for the 5 categories by 15 q-sets for Helenvale and Ubuntu
respectively. In order to simplify and visualize the information contained in the 75 cells, a
multivariate statistical technique called „correspondence analysis‟ was used, which is the
appropriate method for interpreting the findings. Correspondence analysis is mostly used
for testing associations between two data sets, where the observations consist of
frequencies in a cross-table, and the findings are portrayed on a bi-plot which has two
dimensions or axis (Greenacre: 1984). However, the results of the correspondence
analysis, summarised in the bi-plot, must be able to represent a very large portion of the
variability of the data in order to make valid deductions. For this study a bi-plot was used
to investigate the relationship between spatial perception and lived reality. Furthermore,
correspondence analysis is appropriate to detect structural relations between images and
categories, which would not be possible by only investigating the tabulated data.

Correspondence analysis has several advantages. First, data from two or more variables
can be compared by forming associations, which in this case are made between different
q-sets and categories on separate column and row bi-plots. Second, frequencies of
observed data are positioned on a bi-plot, thus creating a visual representation of data.
Relationships can thus be detected between variables („column and row values‟).
Correspondence analysis is used for exploratory studies, which have categorical data
(Storti: n.d.), and hence is suitable for investigating community members‟ perceptions.

To calculate „row and column‟ coordinates, the statistical programme STATISTICA was
used. Through this computation, observed frequencies are calculated into „row and
column‟ coordinates that can be plotted onto several dimensions. Row and column
coordinates are shown in Appendix XXII and Appendix XXIII for Helenvale and Ubuntu
centres respectively. The plot of a correspondence analysis can consist of several axes.
Dimensions for a correspondence analysis are often reduced to the first two. When
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

dimensions are reduced, information could be lost, but if the proportion of inertia is high,
data are still well represented. Inertia is defined by Habib, Etesam, Ghoddusifar and
Mohajeri (2012) as: “the total inertia value, also known as variance, [describing] the level
of association, or dependence, between variables. It shows how well the row and column
profile are represented in the graphical display”. For the two case studies investigated, the
inertia for Helenvale is 86.5% (an inertia of 55.7% on the first dimension and 30.8% on the
second dimension) and for Ubuntu 77.8% (50.3% and 27.5% respectively). For the
corresponding case studies, more than three quarters of the variation in the data is
represented, and two dimensions were thus sufficient.

According to Bendixen (2003, 7), eigenvalues “are used to determine the dependency of
row and column values”. Eigenvalues (also called characteristic values) are a
mathematical concept, based on a square matrix (in statistics, this matrix must be a
positive definite i.e. all eigenvalues will be greater than zero) (Greenacre: 1993).
Eigenvalues are linked to a distinct eigenvector (see Appendix XXII Appendix XXIII for
values). These values are calculated for each dimension, “indicating the relative
contribution of dimensions in explaining the variance in categories” (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham & Black: 2009, 342). In mathematical, multivariate statistics, the matrix is mostly a
variance, co-variance or correlation matrix. In correspondence analysis, for example, the
term „inertia‟ is used, and the relative inertia is not only directly based on the eigenvalue,
but also calculated and applied from the largest to the smallest, hence the first two (or
three) co-ordinates are used to plot two dimensions. Helenvale‟s eigenvalues for the
combined bi-plot of row and column coordinates are 0.27 in the first dimension (horizontal
axis) and 0.15 in the second dimension (vertical axis). Ubuntu‟s eigenvalues for the
combined bi-plot of row and column coordinates are 0.23 in the first dimension (horizontal
axis) and 0.12 in the second dimension (vertical axis).

Row and column coordinates were first plotted separately (Figure 68 and Figure 69). By
separating the „row and column‟ coordinates, associations can be observed between
either q-sets or categories. On the bi-plot of Helenvale‟s row coordinates (q-sets), six
associations could be made. Associations between q-sets either indicate similarities, or in
the case of close proximity, substitution. Note that associations are not determined by
measuring the distance between points but by proximity (Hair: 2009, 341).

Associations with similarities include q-sets HV2 - HV14, HV3 - HV8 - HV11, HV9 - HV10 -
HV15, HV4 - HV7 and HV5 - HV6 - HV13. In the case of Helenvale there is only one
association, HV1 - HV12, in which one q-set can be replaced by the other. When
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

investigating these two q-sets, HV1 can be replaced by HV12 as they are both of the
similar circulation space, one internal and the other external. Helenvale‟s bi-plot of column
coordinates (categories) indicates two remote categories and three in close proximity. The
categories of „enclosure‟ and „community‟ are not clustered and therefore distant.
„Welcome‟, „identity‟ and „symbol‟ were plotted in close proximity. Participants thus
associated similar aspects with these categories. On the bi-plot of Ubuntu‟s row
coordinates (q-sets), associations could be discerned. Similar associations include UB1 -
UB7 - UB11, UB9 - UB10 and UB6 - UB14. In the case of Ubuntu, there were three
associations where one q-set could substitute the other due to their direct proximity in the
bi-plot. These include UB3 - UB12, UB4 - UB5 and UB13 - UB15. Considering images that
could be substituted, the architectural qualities portrayed, differ significantly. Q-sets UB3
and UB12 are unrelated, but both images were associated with community involvement by
participants. Q-sets UB4 and UB5, on the other hand, consist of different architectural
elements, but participants related to symbolic aspects in both images. Q-sets UB13 and
UB15 are both of different external spaces perceived by participants as effective centres
of RS through identity formation. Q-sets UB2 and UB8 are remote in relation to other row
coordinates with little association between q-sets. Ubuntu‟s bi-plot of column coordinates
(categories) indicates no associations between categories, because plots are scattered on
the diagram. Two categories, „enclosure‟ and „symbol‟, are positioned closer to each other
although no association can be made.

After „row and column‟ coordinates were plotted individually, the plots from the respective
case studies were combined. The bi-plot in this case shows outcomes of both row and
column coordinates, forming associations between q-sets and categories. For plots of
both case studies, associations were made around categories resulting in 5 groups. In
some cases, groups overlapped. One q-set could thus be categorised in one, two or three
groups. On the combined bi-plot of Helenvale, five groups were formed by investigating
associations. Two groups formed around „enclosure‟ and „community‟ were plotted
independently with no mutual q-set. Associations formed for „enclosure‟, include HV2 and
HV14 and for „community‟ HV3, HV8 and HV11. This distinct grouping is mainly because
of the two categories having no association on the bi-plot of column coordinates.
Associations for the remaining three categories of „welcome‟, „identity‟ and „symbol‟ are
informed by the close proximity. Associations that became apparent around „welcome‟
include HV1, HV5, HV7, HV12 and HV13, for „identity‟ HV4, HV5, HV9, HV10 and HV15
and for „symbol‟ HV4, HV5 and HV6. As an association was observed between these
three categories on the bi-plot of column coordinates, groups formed are positioned
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

closely. Being located in close proximity, q-set HV4 was grouped around „identity‟ and
„symbol‟ and HV5 around „welcome‟, „identity‟ and „symbol‟.

Again, on the combined bi-plot of Ubuntu, five groups were formed through association.
On the bi-plot of Ubuntu‟s column coordinates no associations were formed between
categories. Groups in this case are thus well defined with limited shared q-sets. Q-sets
UB13 and UB15 are positioned between „welcome‟ and „identity‟. Associations formed
around „community‟ include UB1, UB7 and UB11, for „enclosure‟ UB8, UB9 and UB10, for
„symbol‟ UB3, UB4, UB5 and UB12, for „identity‟ UB13, UB14 and UB15 and, lastly, for
„welcome‟ UB2, UB6, UB13 and UB15.

In the figures below, relationships between „row and column‟ coordinates are indicated
(Figure 68, Figure 69, Figure 71 and Figure 72) as well as the combined plot thereof
(Figure 70 and Figure 73). Q-sets or categories in close proximity are indicated with a
broken line and those that are in a direct association with a solid line. In the combined
plots, different line types are used to indicate different relationships and not the proximity.

Figure 68. 2D plot of row coordinates for q-sets: Helenvale sort process.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 69. 2D plot of column coordinates for categories: Helenvale sort process.

Figure 70. Correspondence analysis of Helenvale sort-charts.

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 71. 2D plot of row coordinates for categories: Ubuntu sort process.

Figure 72. 2D plot of column coordinates for categories: Ubuntu sort process.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 73. Correspondence analysis of Ubuntu sort-charts.

7.2 Perceptions on community centres

After associations were made on the plots for both case studies, groups were analysed in
relation to the interviews of participants at community centres. Analyses of interviews with
ATLAS.ti have already been discussed in section 6.2. For each case study, groups formed
around categories with associated q-sets were investigated individually. All the quotations
for q-sets around the categories were thus compared for similarities, establishing spatial
relationships between areas identified in the q-sets.

Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre: Quotations for groups of

categories and q-sets.

Three categories, „identity‟, „symbol‟ and „welcome,‟ were plotted in close proximity on the
two-dimensional plot. These categories were not overlapping and were therefore not
combined. As these categories were in close proximity, some of their associated images
overlap and can be grouped in two categories. Categories are first discussed with
associated images and thereafter the association between groups is discussed.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Category 1: Identity

As „identity‟ is in close proximity to two other categories, „welcome‟ and „symbol‟, some
images were grouped in two or three of these categories. HV4 was also grouped under
„symbol‟ with HV5 and HV7 both under „welcome‟. HV9, HV10 and HV15 were grouped
exclusively under „identity‟. Photographs of HV4 and HV5 were each taken in a southern
direction toward the public space and circulation route or pergola. HV7 is of the external
courtyard accessible from the community hall. Image HV9 and HV15 are of the waiting
area, with HV9 focusing on the seating and HV15 on the office spaces. HV10 was taken
of the corridor adjacent to the services in a northern direction. Images HV9, HV10 and
HV15 could be combined as they are of internal circulation, focusing on the offices,
waiting area and corridor between services. Participants made little distinction between
these images. Image HV4 and HV5, on the other hand, although similar, cannot be
combined as categories of group formation differ. HV7, grouped under „welcome‟ and
„identity‟ has little identity formation for the twenty participants as they gave no reason as
to why this space was perceived as such. The reason for this might be that the space is
located outside of the community hall, which is only used when rented out for functions or
private events and is mostly locked.

Three images, HV4, HV5 and HV7, are of external spaces whilst HV9, HV10 and HV15
are of internal spaces. The identity of external spaces‟ was formed by signage and
objects, thus they are aspects of RS that are points of reference or effective centres.

“There is the sign, Helenvale, so that is why it is our identity

(37-15:112-HV5).”

Although not grouped under „identity‟ the signage visible on HV6 was also described
under identity formation. This specific account also connects „identity‟ with place. Signage
as an object was thus a strong reference point, for both community members and visitors.

“These children are part of Helenvale and the words that are written
there it is all part of Helenvale‟s children, the youth and there are
children that are still going to be big because they are small. So, that is
what reminds me of the identity of the place and how people look at it
because many people who come here they always go in front there to
look and to see and to read what is said there (36-8:88-HV6).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The community centre is further seen as an effective centre being relational and a
reference point.

“I can look over Helenvale from it and it gives the idea of security, we
are surrounded by security. I would say here, it shows... here I can see
that a lot of people also got jobs, the community got work as there are
a lot of workers showing who are working (39-7:70-HV4).”

Apart from the signage, the entrance was also seen as reference point, being the identity
of Helenvale.

“The entrance tells me that this is my place. Yes and also when my
friends from far I can show them this is our Community Hall. It‟s our
building. I can feel proud thereof (40-13:206-208-HV5).”

The public space, with the sculpture as nodal point, was further identified as directional
effective centre.

“P: Look, standing here, I have a good view of the scenery behind the
shop and this, that round thing, that silver round thing, that is very
pretty, it is something good.

I: What does it mean to you, that silver thing?

P: To me it means… that thing is very important. It‟s there, how can I

put it, the community, that is something nice that we can take photos
there and we have taken many photos there (20-14:114-HV4).”

Connected to the notion of „welcome‟, the entrance was seen by a participant as inclusive.
Structural identity thus allows multiple representations.

“This hall is not for white, black, to say whites belong here, blacks
should not be here, whatever. This kind of hall is built for everyone and
everyone is welcome and that is why there is security so that we can,
violence... people for example that come by car, they are nicely
dressed and they do their thing. So, I think that photo shows that every
one... it is a rainbow nation (35-10:91-HV4).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Two staff members of Helenvale‟s response for „identity formation‟ were different from the
community‟s. Identity formation was shaped less by the exterior and art works and was
defined more by interior spaces. Daily reality was formed by geometric spaces of „within‟,
in which tasks were performed.

“This one shows there where the toilets... how nice and clean... the
cleaners that are working here, and the janitor that is looking so well
after the place and I believe that there are no problems. When other
people come from outside they can come with pleasure and talk. This
place is beautiful and clean (35-18:111-HV10).”

Category 2: Enclosure

„Enclosure‟ as a category was plotted separately with no close association between other
categories. Around the category of „enclosure‟ two images, HV2 and HV14, were plotted
in close proximity. HV2 was taken in a north-eastern direction towards the gate adjacent
to Baadjies Road. The mural painted on the external wall and residential units
neighbouring Baadjies Road are visible in the image. HV14, on the other hand, was taken
in an eastern direction from the office space toward the parking space and boundary.
Participants associated these images with „enclosure‟ mainly because of the fence.

“Because of the fence that goes right around (40-11:194: HV14).”

The fence further contributed to the feeling of enclosure by creating a safer environment.

“I feel safe here because when… because of the fence that is here
now (20-12:86).”

“You can see as you come up there, the gate is locked, you can see it
is secure and the fence on-top [electrified fence] (21-21:9-2).”

Although HV2 is an image of an entrance gate, it is associated with „enclosure‟ and not
with aspects of SP such as access. The reason for this is that the gate was only open
during the inaugural ceremony and never again. The space can thus be seen as a
junction point, being accessible only for certain occasions. Closed access is mainly due to
security problems, which were resolved by providing one controlled entrance.

“Yes, it is always locked I do not know why. I suppose it is for security.

They should open it and put security there as well. It is closer than
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

having to go around the other way round because then there will be an
entrance at the bottom section for the people and this one is for the top
section (27-13:111-115-HV2).”

Category 3: Community

On the two dimensional plot the position of „community‟ has no close association with
other categories. Around the category of community centre, three images have been
sorted, HV3, HV8 and HV11. Image HV3 was taken in a western direction from the soccer
field toward the exterior of the multi-functional hall. HV8 is a photograph in the eastern
direction of the internal community hall. HV11 is an interior shot of the multi-functional hall
toward the stage. Similarities between these images are mostly around the function of the
space. Functions include private, public and informal use. The concept of „community‟
associated with the hall include social activities that allow interaction,

“This is inclusion and safety inside because it is the smaller community

hall. It is also where people come together and talk (36-13:116-HV8).”

Other activities falling under the concept of „community‟ is sports facilities. These activities
are not only considered for their physical benefits, but also to instigate change and
stability amongst the youth of Helenvale.

“Because it shows an open space that we can use ourselves for

recreation, to get out a bit. This field is for basketball; the community
use it and the children use it and that helps to keep them out of trouble
(40-9:186-HV11).”

External spaces, fenced and secure, provide an inclusive environment. Inclusion and
security are two contradicting constructs, but in this insecure environment exclusion
allows for other activities. As Parkinson (Parkinson: 2006, 14) maintained, not all activities
should be permitted in public spaces. He suggested that different spaces should be
provided as is the case with skateboard activities, thus providing a skateboard park and
limiting these activities in other areas.

“This is for the community and this is where the children come and
play soccer and normally they play netball here outside on the grass
and they also feel welcomed and inclusion when they come here
because when they are here inside they feel safe they are not outside
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

in the streets where the gangsters are and then they run with knives
and so forth (36-17:124-HV3).”

As the activities hosted in the gathering spaces create a sense of community, the act of
„coming together‟ further suggests this notion.

“We have that is the important thing of to come together you put the
difference aside and to come together. Number eleven is as you can
see this when you come together (17-12:149-HV11).”

Category 4: Symbol

A group was formed around the category of „symbol‟ with three images of HV4, HV5 and
HV6. HV6 was taken in a north-westerly direction toward the sculpture of children
skipping. These images are all of the same space but photographed from different
positions. The space is thus regarded as symbolic, representing the community in
general. Referring to the quotations, symbolic reference is mainly to two art works, the
mural of children playing and the bronze statue of the boy flying a kite, which is mounted
on an aluminium circle.

“How do I put it, you see the name is there and the children that are
there you can say now you see, them playing there, children of
Helenvale (17-8:117-HV4).”

The sculpture in image H6 reminded one participant of his/her own children playing and
thus being a representation of happiness. In this particular case a connection is made
between the image or sculpture, lived experiences and emotional conditions.

“I mean, the children are playing, and look happy and everything is just
lovely (26-5:99-HV6).”

The two artworks along with the public space in front of the Helenvale centre has become
an effective centre and point of hierarchy. Participants referred to this as a point of
direction and reference for Helenvale.

“The entrance tells me that this is my place. Yes and also when my
friends from out of town come and visit I can show them this is our
Community Hall. It‟s our new building (40-13:206-208-HV5).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

As a point of reference these spaces and art works are also areas of condensation,
becoming metaphors for certain momentous occasions in community members‟ lives. This
commemoration has been done in two ways, the first as memory or photograph
opportunity.

“This photo here it shows the love for the children here is a park for the
children to come and play, there are playgrounds and there are also
there are people that are outside standing by the gate and taking a
photo they are showing their friends and all those things and it is very
beautiful (35-12:95-HV6).”

The second way of using this space is as commemorative memorial space. Although the
structure and statue were constructed prior to the death of multiple children, the tragic
events were connected to the images of the children. After their death, flowers were laid
beneath the statue, thus becoming a memorial.

“It reminds me of the children that have been shot dead, no really. That
thing was put up that there before any child died (16-8:113-HV6).”

Representational space was further created with the lettering cut from the aluminium
mural. The words had become a reference for community members as the mural is placed
at the entrance.

“And this section is part of this entrance that is also a good symbol
because you can see when you come in you get this section and that
is what people know. People who come here they recognise it
(36-14:116-HV5).”

This „representational‟ reference further gained an historic significance as the children

form part of the Helenvale community.

“I think that it is very beautiful because it is one of Helenvale‟s children

that were put there. So, it plays a very important role because it is part
of our history (36-4:48-HV6).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Category 5: Inclusion

Around the category of „welcome‟ five q-sets were plotted of HV1, HV5, HV7, HV12 and
HV13. HV5 and HV7 have also been grouped with „symbol‟ and „identity‟ respectively. As
mentioned under the identity section, HV7 had little response from participants and,
therefore, no quotes are included. HV1 was photographed in a south-western direction
toward the eastern entrance. HV5 indicates the public space, entrance and pergola in a
south-western direction. The direction of HV7 has already been discussed under „identity‟.
HV12 is of the internal community street viewed towards the main western entrance.
Lastly, HV13 was taken in a south-western direction towards the vehicle entrance and
tower.

Four images are of circulation spaces with the exclusion of HV7. Circulation spaces are of
site boundaries and access points (HV5 and HV13), the western building entrance (HV1)
and the circulation space once the structure is entered (HV12). It is important to note that
the entrance (HV5) is used intermittently. Access, both vehicular and pedestrian, is
controlled by security staff situated beneath the tower. Once community members are
allowed to enter, the vehicular gate is opened (the gate west of the tower) with access to
the building through the western entrance (HV1). Association with the category of
‟welcome‟ was thus not only with HV4, HV5, HV9 and HV15, images of the main entrance,
but with aspects of the secondary entrance.

HV1 and HV12 were plotted adjacent to each other. According to the principles of
correspondence analysis, when two or more images or categories are in near proximity
they can be replaced by the other. HV1 and HV12 thus had the same value for
participants. Although these are two dissimilar images, they are both of circulation spaces;
HV1 of the external street and HV12 of the internal continuation. This similarity is good as
participants thought of these two spaces as one the extension of the other. The architect‟s
goal to extend the internal street toward the external spaces is confirmed by HV1 and
HV12 being plotted in close proximity.

Q-sets grouped in close proximity to „welcome‟ were mostly associated with security
presenting a geometric space of within, enclosure, a centre-periphery relationship and
objects as markers providing an effective centre as point of hierarchy. This sense of
security is created by two aspects, the fence and the other, security personnel.

“It is safe here, everything right around it is enclosed; any violence that
is happening outside, it is hidden away (26-6:103-HV12).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“As you come in there is security right there and you just feel safe
when you come in because you know the securities... They sit there at
the gate (22-5:159-HV13).”

Along with the aspect of security, a participant felt that the aesthetic environment created
a welcoming feeling.

“I: What does the tower mean to you?

P: Because it is a symbol of Helenvale and I think welcome. The sight,

the place is so nice that I feel secure and at the same time I feel
welcome, I mean if I am standing there (37-17:119-122-HV13).”

Apart from security, representational aspects also contributed to a sense of inclusion

(welcoming). The first important reference is the tower as a point of hierarchy.

“I: Why did you specifically group this number 13, with the tower, under
welcome?

P:The reason why I have grouped it under welcome is because it can

be seen. That it can be seen (15-18:112-HV13).”

Apart from being a point of hierarchy, the tower also acts as an effective centre by being
directional.

“The tower is a beacon (24-11:96-HV13).”

Displacement occurs through the signage on the tower becoming representational, not
only of the centre, but also of the Helenvale community.

“It means a lot to me because if you stand in Extension 12 and you

look down and then you see the symbol and then...you see Helenvale
resource centre written on it [on the tower]. So, it is a symbol that it is a
place for the community because it says Helenvale resource centre. It
is where the community can come and see the council member,
perhaps there are people that can help inside and so forth
(36-9:94-HV13).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Hierarchy and effective centrality are also created through the effect of light at night. In
Helenvale, street lights are often vandalised. The centre is then the only public lit space,
thus being a visual point of convergence.

“This one here, too, shows that the place belongs to us as a

community as you can see the green grass outside, the lights that are
burning even in the evening you can see from outside how nice the
lights are shinning (35-19:113-HV12).”

Ubuntu community centre: Quotations for groups of categories and q-sets.

Category 1: Identity

Q-sets grouped around the category of „identity‟ include UB13, UB14 and UB15. UB13 is
of the first structure on site used as a gathering space. The image was photographed in
an easterly direction toward the painted mural. UB14 and UB15, on the other hand, are of
the structure completed in 2010. UB14 was photographed in a northerly direction toward
the second entrance. UB15 was also photographed in an eastern direction toward the
external structure and corner of the site.

Association between q-set UB14 and UB15 lies in the structure. Participants commented
on the uniqueness of the structures.

“I like the way it is structured together (6-16:108-UB15).”

“You know the combination of the wall around the flowers, it's amazing
the dimension (10-55:213-UB14).”

Apart from the structure being unique, it is also a form of condensation, thus being a
metaphor for what Ubuntu as an organisation represents.

“One of the things that people often ask me, I mean, also when I first
saw it, is that the walls are not straight, why is it skew, why does it look
skew, but as the architecture explained that he built it based on the
fact that he wanted it to symbolize that the community is leaning
against each other, so the walls are also leaning against each other,
yes (1-18:86-UB15).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

No signage was applied on the exterior of the structure. One of the participants
commented on the absence of the organisation‟s name and how the structure has
become the metonymy of Ubuntu.

“You know when we look at this building, somebody will ask you where
you are working, you will say at Ubuntu Centre. Where is Ubuntu
Centre because Ubuntu is not written on the outside, there is no name
or billboard but once you say that building with its wall, its colour and
so on it gives identity. If you explain about that building with bolts on
the window, it gives us identity but we don't have the name
(10-56:229-UB15).”

Image UB13, on the other hand, is of the existing structure that had first been used as a
gathering space. Although there is no direct correlation between these structures, UB13 is
a metaphor of the historical situation whereas UB14 and UB15 represent the „new‟, the
growth of Ubuntu.

“That's where we all started (32-6:175-UB13).”

As an historical reference, the building still indicates the „identity‟ of Ubuntu. The purpose
of the Ubuntu Education Fund is even emphasized by the contrast between the new and
old, being physical proof for the possible growth.

“The pictures of the building, when you look at them, you immediately
recognize what the building is, that‟s Ubuntu, this is the old building
that we used to use. So it‟s a matter of identity, automatically identify
the building and what it stands for (1-17:84-UB13).”

This growth is portrayed in the mural painting, which further elaborates on the concept of
Ubuntu, relying on one another for growth.

“It is because if you are walking down the street and you see there,
you read and you see that there is a kind of story, not a done story yet
that is showing something. We need to gather together, we need to
unite and reconcile as people, even if you are fighting HIV and Aids, it
is telling us it is deep, it is deep (2-10:160-UB13).”

“Because what it says, “Sisonke kulumwe” we are all here to talk, so

that‟s what it says and then the colour also (7-11:81-UB13).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

For staff members, identity formation was slightly different. Spaces were associated more
with daily tasks, which then formed their identities as staff members of the Ubuntu
Education Fund.

“Because you see, here you don‟t go inside by the front door as a staff
member, you see, you have to come here, but for me I always know
that if I am a staff member for Ubuntu, so it is a symbol for me
(5-17:156-UB14).”

Category 2: Enclosure

Three images, UB8, UB9 and UB10, were grouped around the category of „enclosure‟. Q-
set UB8 was photographed in a southerly direction toward the structure‟s corner. UB9,
also photographed in a southerly direction, focuses on the main entrance and internal
circulation in front of the community hall. Although architectural elements in the images
differ notably, participants associated the tree images with enclosure. Inclusion in this
case focuses on spatial differentiation between secure and insecure, inside and outside,
and private and public. Q-set UB8 was associated with security due to CCTV cameras
surveying the public spaces.

“Basically the structure and here inside you are protected from
anything in the outside world and all that. You can also see even when
you stand outside you can see if you can be inside a picture like this
one you are in a safer environment than outside. Cameras ̶ if
anything happens they will be able to sort it out (11-6:93-UB8).”

Spatial differentiation is further made between internal and external spaces. Q-set UB9
provides a visual permeable boundary, restricting physical access but allowing
observation of activities in the foyer and multi-purpose gathering space on the ground
floor.

“Okay, when someone just walks around this place and they see this,
they want to know what is inside, they want to come inside and see for
themselves what in this area (14-9:133-UB9).”

Differentiation is made by restricting access. Certain spaces are considered more private
than others. Floor levels often create spatial seclusion. The multi-functional space is
inaccessible for visitors and is only utilized for organised activities.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“Yes because you normally don‟t allow the visitors up there

(43-5:198-200-UB10).”

These spatial aspects were mostly created through architectural archetypes associated
with inclusion. Two different boundaries were created - visual and physical. Visual
boundaries were created with frosted glass, restricting internal or external views for
privacy. Physical boundaries, on the other hand, were created with slanted screen walls
and „burglar bars‟ of gum poles. These physical boundaries allowed visual access with
physical restrictions. As there is no fence, threshold and restrictions between the public
and private spaces had to be created, allowing gradual transition.

Category 3: Community

Q-sets grouped around the category of „community‟ include UB1, UB7 and UB11. Image
UB1 is a photograph of the roof garden situated above the community hall. UB7 is an
image of the theatre, utilised as the central gathering space. UB11 is a photograph taken
in a western direction of the Ubuntu community centre as seen from Qeqe Street. The
images grouped around „community‟ are quite diverse being of external and internal
spaces. The descriptions by community members, however, indicate that they were all
associated with social activities that involved community members and assembly.

As urban form, the centre is seen as a point of assembly with relative unrestricted access
for community members.

“We are outside, we are in the community and that is where the
community activities take place. People from outside can hear what is
going on and can be interested in going in (7-10:77-UB11).”

The gathering space that was associated mostly with community is the theatre.

“There are a lot of events which get held here which invites the
community to come in and just explore and see what is going on inside
Ubuntu (6-14:98-UB7).”

As a gathering space, the theatre ought to be used as an unrestricted public space with
relative rules and regulations. This space can be used by children for social activity, which
is often not possible in the streets due to safety issues.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“This is our theatre I suppose, it‟s the dance theatre. That‟s where
children can come in and know that they won‟t be judged
(7-6:65-UB7).”

The roof garden was strongly associated with the concept of „community‟.

“Community, this to me would stand for community. It is a garden

(31-3:58-UB1).”

Being associated with community, the garden also portrays the vision of the Ubuntu
Education Fund. Community members learn how to produce crops which are then
distributed amongst community members and children participating in after-school
programmes. It is thus a mutual relationship, involving community members on all levels.

“This is a garden type of thing so normally it associates with most

communities as you can find something to eat and things like that, and
these get distributed to the community members or it gets used to
make food for these kids, so I will tie that with that (6-13:94-UB1).”

For the building to be perceived as a communal structure, access must be relatively

unobstructed.

“I mean you won‟t be able to see but you will see there are no barriers,
gates, or something (6-18:116-UB11).”

As there are few barriers and boundaries, community members can feel free to enter the
facility, thus experiencing it as a public building.

“Which means that it is open for everybody to come in and have a

look, so that is why I pick that one (6-19:118-UB11).”

As an effective centre, there must be a centre-periphery relationship to truly connect the

structure with the environment. This was done in two ways. First, through the community
garden as the source of knowledge and food, that is then distributed in the community.

“This one, the garden that you see here. Also helps the community -
what they are growing here, they give back to the community
(14-8:129-UB1).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Second, by being constructed across pedestrian walkways and thus being part of the
community activities.

“The picture here, having, it also symbolizes community because you

have people walking around and you have the centre in the middle of it
and this is exactly what we wanted the centre to be, to be in the
community, for the community as well (1-16:80-UB11).”

For the structure to be seen as an effective centre there must be some sense of hierarchy.
A participant commented on the directional qualities of the centre being a strong reference
point in the community due to its scale.

“Then obviously you can see even in this one, it is easy for people to
kind of see. You see the structure itself is too huge, you can go in this
direction but you still see the structure, so there is no way that one
would not notice (4-23:132-UB11).”

Category 4: Symbol

Q-sets plotted around the category of „symbol‟, include UB3, UB4, UB5 and UB12. UB3 is
a photograph of the internal gathering space in front of the crèche classrooms. UB4, also
a photograph of an internal space, is of an office space with imagery against the wall of a
graduate. UB5 is of the internal stair leading to the staff offices. Lastly, UB12 is of the
external garden spaces used as children‟s play areas. Images grouped around „symbol‟
have no resemblance other than being architectural elements, but when considering
participants‟ quotations, the connection lies in the attached meaning. Although participants
commented on different archetypes, the framework of education and growth remained
comparable. Image UB4, the office space with the image of a graduate, was strongly
connected to education. A connection was further made between the purpose of the
building and the Ubuntu Education Fund. This image is thus a metaphor for Ubuntu.

“Here, this is, I took the picture though, because it‟s a symbol of what
the building stands for or why the building was built (1-28:92-UB4).”

This purpose of providing opportunities is further visible spatially in the gathering space in
image UB3. By providing a different environment, children are made aware of
opportunities.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“This one ̶ I would put this one here as well. I will put that one as a
symbol. To me those I would call them cushions and I guess we give
them to the clients. The clients they are the people who are making a
certain environment and they are not used to sitting on those. Now
when it is with them, an opportunity to experience new life sitting on
that kind of relaxing with the posture around tables and everything.
You are giving them that is going to open up their minds, relax and
whatever challenges you have in life, for a moment they will be on
course because of the environment

I believe that sometimes you may have challenges and somebody may
move you from point A to point B not because the challenges are gone
but you may feel better and then it's another thing when you go back
and you start experiencing them again, but when you get a break of
being away, you are like switching off. So I guess that environment is a
symbol of that (10-59:239-241-UB3).”

For one participant, this change is portrayed in the staircase as a physical manifestation.

“Stairs are a symbol of growth and development. You are at a certain

level but for you to get to the next level you need to take a step so it's
a symbol of success, a symbol of growth (10-53:205-UB5).”

On another level, meaning was attached to the vegetable gardens and playgrounds. The
focus is thus not only on growing minds, but also healthy bodies.

“I guess this part, the garden, and the playground. It is more a

meaning of let‟s say healthy lifestyle (4-25:134-UB12).”

This concept of growth and development was mostly commented on when discussing q-
set U4. For one participant this image was seen as a symbol of education.

“This picture of this young girl is a symbol of education

(11-8:102-UB4).”

The reason for this strong association is that the girl in the image was part of the Ubuntu
Education Fund programme which enabled her to attend a university. After completing her
degree she started to work at the centre, becoming an example of what is possible.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“That from cradle to career or yes, from cradle to career that we take
children for when they were young to, where they are graduates now
and that is a living example actually. It‟s a symbol and it‟s a sign that
keeps reminding us every day (1-29:94-UB4).”

One participant related to the picture as she has a similar story.

“It is an office and then I see this picture. I am relating to this because I
know the story behind that lady. It is sort of a story that I can say is my
story as well. Having to grow up from a single mother, Ubuntu being
the helping hand to that, making sure that she graduates, and she has
a stable job. I relate specifically to her story (31-1:54-UB4).”

This image further symbolises the notion that the Ubuntu centre has no boundaries, which
allows everyone to „speak‟. The building thus focuses as an effective centre being
directional and relational at the same time.

“On this one I would like to say Ubuntu takes a small kid and even if
you are HIV positive, you are not afraid to come here and you can
speak out and say I am here, I want to tell you that I am HIV positive
and gain a lot at Ubuntu. Even I can come and talk to anyone here at
Ubuntu. They give them i-vegetables there in that building…
(29-10:76-UB4).”

Although the image UB4 is not of a sculptural element as is the case at Helenvale centre,
meaning was still ascribed. It does not depend on the quality of the imagery, but rather on
its representational ability.

Category 5: Inclusion

Around „inclusion‟ four images were grouped, UB2, UB6, UB13 and UB15. The direction
and focus of UB13 and UB15 direction and focus have already been discussed under
identity. UB2 is of the clinic‟s reception and waiting areas and UB6 of the circulation in the
middle of the theatre and staff room. Although the four images grouped around „welcome‟
differ significantly, participants commented on aesthetic qualities in these images that
created a welcoming feeling. The design and aesthetic qualities can be summarised by
this quotation of a participant:
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

“You feel like welcome, and the design as well is telling that you are
welcome here at Ubuntu because the way they design it. The creativity
it shows that it is um, you are coming in at Ubuntu now, and you are
full welcome (33-6:105-109-UB2).”

In the case of UB13 it was the mural as representation of inclusion that was experienced
as welcoming.

“I am looking at this wall painting and it's so beautiful, it's unusual and
it's unique and the person passing by far away would be attracted to
come closer because this is welcoming. It is in the car parking area
when you come into the centre at the back, before you see the faces of
the employees of Ubuntu you see this picture, it's welcoming and
inviting (10-52:188-UB13).”

“Then the other one that is welcoming, we can maybe, I will take this
clinic part because you get to see different structure, or design when it
comes to the other clinics, like the community clinics, so to me that one
is inviting to patients (4-27:142-UB2).”

Aesthetic qualities identified by a participant included the doors to the theatre. The
textured timber contrasts with the concrete to create a sense of warmth.

“I: The door? Why do you like the door?

P: Because it is beautiful (30-8:79-80-UB6).”

“Yes because you see there is a door here for when you want to take a
break, so it is welcoming (5-20:178-UB6).”

Apart from aesthetics, structural differences also contributed to the welcoming quality of
the Ubuntu centre.

“Yes because like some of the community members like they don‟t
know the building. Like if you are over there and you saw this big and
funny building, you wanted to come and see what‟s happening over
there (43-9:188-UB15).”
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Other welcoming aspects that can be noted under difference are the clinic‟s waiting area.
The waiting area has been changed through a ticket system, thus removing certain
stigmas connected to clinics and HIV.

“Then the other one that is welcoming, we can maybe, I will take this
clinic part because you get to see different structure, or design when it
comes to the other clinics, like the community clinics, so to me that one
is inviting to patients (4-27:142-UB2).”

Functionally, spaces where movement occurred were also seen as inviting when certain
elements along the route seemed welcoming. From the internal circulation space the big
sliding doors were seen as inclusive.

“This is an opening to the kitchen, or to the staff room and this is also
the opening to the theatre, so I took them as enclosed because they
also invited to those areas (1-22:90-UB6).”

As part of external public space the mural on the existing structure was described as an
object marking a reference point.

“Because it is a little bit besides the building where you have got
everyone who is passing by will just be attracted by that view of the art
there (5-15:152-UB13).”

Opposed to Helenvale‟s welcoming spaces that were mainly defined by security, only one
participant at the Ubuntu centre made the connection between security and inclusion.

“You have no worries through the day. You feel protected. Everything
is secured as the security guards, and even the building itself
(31-2:58-UB13).”

Safety and security are usually associated with boundaries and obstructions creating
forbidden or restricted territories. In the case of Ubuntu, these boundaries have been
removed both externally and internally. Although access to the facility is controlled by
electronic remote control, the entrance is perceived as unobstructed.

“Because we can see it is open to anybody. There are no closed or

locked gates. When you come in you have to be asked behind the
gate, so it is just open for anybody to come in and get what they need
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

or ask questions if they are not sure if they will be able to get whatever
they need from the conversation (4-22:130-UB15).”

In the clinic, „inclusion‟ is further enhanced by removing boundaries that are usually
associated with health facilities. Spaces that would usually be fragmented into different
functional specificities are consolidated into an open space for encounter:

“Yes, so for us it is different. For one you are able to be close to the
person that you are asking, because I mean to have somebody that is
behind glass and you are on the other side. That can be a boundary
for you as a person that is coming in, who is sick and asking for help
because you might look at this person as the higher person that you
would feel uncomfortable to ask certain things. In a situation where you
have an open space, then that is inviting because one, that person will
welcome you and you are able to see that person closer to you and
you are able to say what you need to say. Then obviously the area
itself for waiting, it doesn‟t categorise anyone, anybody can sit
anywhere, so whoever comes to our clinic wouldn‟t know why this
person is sitting here or which service they are coming for. If you go to
a different clinic, then you get to know these people that are sitting
here are here for TB or HIV, so there is that difference between us and
the clinic and the structure itself (4-30:150-UB2).”

7.3 Findings read from the sort-process

With the sort-process community members‟ perceptions were determined by organising

different q-sets into predetermined (direct sort) categories. These categories included
„identity‟, „enclosure‟, „community‟, „symbol‟ and „inclusion‟, which were established
through a theoretical analysis discussed in Chapter 2. Q-sets organised into categories
were further described by participants through semi-structured interviews, which formed
the narrative in section 7.2. Data categorised from the sort-process was cross-tabulated
and statistically calculated with a correspondence analysis. From the calculation, data
could be represented on a bi-plot that formed associations between q-sets.

Through this method, participants‟ spatial perceptions could be determined as they

identified certain images with categories. The semi-structured interview elicited reasoning
behind this categorisation. The correspondence analysis, from data of q-set
categorisation, further highlighted associations between spaces that were explained in the
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

interviews. The sort-process, semi-structured interviews and correspondence analysis are

thus interdependent, substantiating each other. Findings from each category are
discussed in the section below in relation to SP and RS.

Comparing both combined plots with row and column values of the respective case
studies, „community‟ had the strongest associations with q-sets. Considering the function
of community centres, these associations were mostly with gathering spaces. Other
associations included the sport field at the Helenvale centre and the community garden at
the Ubuntu centre, both functions were thus strongly associated with community centres.

On both plots, the categories of ‟welcome‟ (inclusion) and „identity‟ were in close proximity.
As these are in close proximity, according to correspondence analysis theory, they can be
either substituted or have similar characteristics. Considering the semi-structured
interviews, aspects associated with „identity‟ contribute to notions of „inclusion‟ such as
public, accessibility, unrestricted boundaries, within, open and the centre-periphery
relationship.

Considering the choice of q-sets, two aspects were highlighted. First, q-sets that were
associated the least were circulation spaces and in one case at Helenvale, an external
gathering space. Q-sets that were associated the most, had functional attributes such as
the hall or theatre, and according to the quotations were connected with specific activities.
Spaces with little association thus had no functional connection. In the case of the
external gathering space at Helenvale, the fact that the space is not accessible as it is
mostly locked should be considered. Again, no functional connection can be made.
Second, is the question of the influence of people in the q-set images. In some cases
participants commented on a space being communal as it contained activities, as was the
case with Ubuntu‟s theatre (UB7), the perspective of the Ubuntu centre (UB11) and the
community hall at the Helenvale centre (HV8). To minimize direct association, people in
the q-sets were rendered unrecognisable. For future research, images containing people
can be used to investigate perception on a space‟s associated activities. One image
(UB4) of an office space, with a poster of a young graduate, did generate significant
responses. This graduate was considered to be a symbol of the UEF, thus not referring to
the space but the representational image contained. It is significant to identify the
symbolic value of representational elements to indicate how participants‟ construct
meaning.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Identity formation

This aspect differed significantly between the two centres as „identity‟ was formed mostly
at the Helenvale centre through images and objects, whereas at Ubuntu, it was formed by
the structure. At Helenvale, the tower, sculpture and mural were considered elements of
displacement. The tower and sculpture were seen as reference points and effective
centres as they were hierarchical elements. The sculpture and mural were further seen as
memorials and reference to the children of Helenvale. At the Ubuntu centre, the concrete
structure was seen as the element that formed the identity of the Ubuntu Education Fund.
In this case no signage is provided, thus relying more on the structure‟s representative
qualities. Another element that was considered under „identity‟ was the painted mural on
the existing structure, providing a historic reference.

As the archetypes of displacement and condensation differed at the respective case

studies, so did their perceived meanings. At the Helenvale centre, the objects were seen
as memorial spaces and reference points as effective centres. At the Ubuntu centre, the
structure portrayed the interdependence of the community and the development of historic
references. Both these community centres provide an effective centre of hope, but
Helenvale is further seen as memorial and Ubuntu as growth. As was noted by
participants, historic references at the Ubuntu centre suggest this growth. At the
Helenvale centre, some participants commented on the lack of historic reference to
indicate the development of Helenvale.

Enclosure

Security and boundaries were the main features that created a sense of „enclosure‟. The
characteristics of these boundaries, however, differed between the two case studies. At
the Helenvale centre, boundaries were seen as physical obstructions, whereas at Ubuntu,
they were seen as permeable. At the Ubuntu centre „enclosure‟ was further characterised
by spatial differentiation of spaces considered more public than private.

Community

The category of „community‟ was mainly associated with gathering spaces such as the
multi-functional hall referring to urban form of assembly. At the Helenvale centre, the
sport field was also associated with „community‟, and at the Ubuntu centre the rooftop
garden. Both these elements are thus associated with the notion of gathering, further
more connected, thus forming a centre-periphery relationship with the community.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Symbolism

At both centres, symbolism was connected to representational elements. In the case of

Helenvale, q-sets associated with „identity‟ were similar to those of „symbolism‟. The
entrance with the sculpture was again perceived as representative of Helenvale‟s children.
The mural, on the other hand, was associated more with symbolism being a metaphor for
the children. Lettering cut from an aluminium sheet enhances the symbolic value. At the
Ubuntu centre, strong symbolic associations were made with the image of the graduate
(UB4) and the central gathering space feeding into the crèche (UB3). Both these q-sets
are connected to the vision of the Ubuntu Education Fund to provide hope through
education. Considering symbolic connections made at both centres, Helenvale‟s is
connected to the community, whereas Ubuntu‟s only focuses on the centre‟s purpose.
Perhaps neither is wrong, but a community centre should constantly move between the
part and the whole addressing the greater community and the function.

Inclusion (welcoming)

Associations made at the two case studies differ significantly. At the Helenvale centre
security was connected to „inclusion‟, and at the Ubuntu centre, to aesthetic qualities.
Boundaries supported the notion of within and enclosed, strengthening the centre-
periphery relationship of the structure as it is a sensitive environment. The tower was
further seen as a hierarchical element, being directional and thus creating a sense of
inclusion. Aesthetic qualities associated at the Ubuntu centre include the clinic and the
hand crafted elements. The mural in the clinic as well as the hand crafted reception desk
and door to the theatre, created a sense of care, and thus inclusion. The clinic‟s ticket
system and unrestricted reception further contributes to SP of within and open, allowing
the clients access without disclosing any illness or problem.

To conclude the section on the sort-process, the plot configured by the correspondence
analysis simplified the comparison of the data of the two case studies. With the
correspondence analysis, data from the sort-process could be minimized to two-
dimensions, where after a relationship with respective quotations was formed.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 8 Corroborating the three research

questions: Findings and discussion

8.1 Introduction 218

8.2 Findings considered for the three research questions 218

8.3 Three research questions: Patterns and themes identified 224

8.4 Conclusion on research questions 227

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

8.1 Introduction

This research studied community centres through the theoretical lens of Lefebvre‟s spatial
triad. The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between lived reality (SP),
perception (RS) and architecture (RoS). Primary users of two community centres were
interviewed, utilising a mapping and sort-chart process, which was supported by semi-
structured interviews. Information from the respective architects was also gathered
through open-ended interviews.

In the following chapter, the data gathered and analyzed is discussed to investigate the
three research questions. First, what is the relationship between lived reality of community
members (SP) and the two-dimensional representation designed by architects (RoS)?
Second, what is the relationship between users‟ perceptions (RS) and the architect‟s
intent (RoS) of symbolism, images and signs? Third, how do community centres, in the
macro-context, reconfigure boundaries, forms and functions (SP), as well as areas of
centralization, condensation and displacement (RS)? Findings corroborating each
research question are considered and themes and patterns identified.

8.2 Findings of the three research questions considered

Considering the relationship between Lefebvre‟s spatial triad, it is important to restate the
interdependence of SP, RoS and RS. With regard to communities, he described the
purpose as “...the „subject‟, the individual member of a given social group, [moving] from
one to another without confusion” (1991, 40). The research questions thus investigate the
relationship between the different aspects of Spatial Production to determine the
relationship between lived reality, perception and architecture.

In the following three sections, findings on each research question are discussed. After
briefly restating the research question, the theoretical themes of each respective spatial
construct (SP, RoS and RS) is reiterated. Thereafter, the results from the two case studies
and different methodologies are combined to consider the findings. After investigating the
three research questions, themes and patterns are identified and discussed in section 8.3.
The chapter concludes with a summary of the process and findings examined.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Research question 1: What is the relationship between lived reality of

community members (SP) and the two-dimensional representation thereof as
designed by architects (RoS)?

The first research question investigates community members‟ lived reality as an aspect of
SP in relation to conceived space designed by architects as RoS. This considers the initial
design, the physical structure and how it is perceived by participants.

Perception of participants was considered as SP, which mainly included form, structure
and function. Form has been divided into geometric space, urban and classical form as
well as bodily reference. Structure has been considered as scale and technology, which
has also been considered as stereotomic or tectonic elements. The last aspect of function
has been divided into circulation, private and public spaces and boundaries. The latter has
been categorised further into boundaries of accessibility, forbidden territories, places of
abode and junction points.

Themes of conceived space as RoS of architects were mainly fragmented and subdivided
spaces and construction techniques. In contrast to these themes, is spatial context and
texture which addresses the above mentioned problems. Other aspects also considered
under RoS include boundaries, public or private and meditational spaces. These can then
be defined as open or enclosed, inside or outside, inclusion or exclusion and in degrees of
accessibility. Features mentioned also coincide with those of SP, but are considered from
the architects perspective.

Geometric form at both centres was considered to create a sense of inclusion (open or
within as SP). At the Helenvale centre, thresholds and boundaries were constructed to
create a transitional space and at the Ubuntu centre, wall elements formed barriers
between internal and external space. Furthermore, both centres had unrestricted public
space adjacent to the street for contextual connectivity. Apart from these archetypes,
inclusion was furthermore effected by RS, which is discussed later in this section.

Considering participants‟ responses, the Helenvale centre was perceived more as an

„urban‟ form, whereas the Ubuntu centre was perceived as a „classical‟ form. In relation to
the RoS, the Helenvale centre is more cohesive, connecting spaces that would have been
considered as fragmented and subdivided. The Ubuntu centre, on the other hand, was
rather seen as an effective centre, thus not breaking boundaries, but rather connecting
through network formation as nodal points.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Considering structural aspects, the perception of scale was perceived by some

participants as notions of fragmentation and subdivision, in contrast to other participants
who favoured spatial context and texture. Some participants at the Helenvale centre
commented on the hierarchical reference of the centre in relation to the rest of the
community. In this case, the structure ought not to be subsumed, but should rather
contribute to create an urban form. The tower, colour scheme of the centre, as well as the
artwork contributed to this referential aspect. The Matrix cc..., the architects of the centre,
in turn, separated functional spaces that stepped across the sloped site. Spatial division
further contributed to the fragmented footprint, allowing contextual reference to RDP
housing. However, spatial connection with the adjacent school was not considered, as
was evident in the few references made to spatial associations. The Ubuntu centre, on the
other hand, had limited space and therefore had to restrict the footprint of the structure.
Participants complemented the appropriate scale as it is also in an educational precinct.

Structurally, Helenvale circulation area is more tectonic connected with stereotomic

services. In contrast, Ubuntu is mostly stereotomic, although some of the glass infill
panels create a visually permeable structure.

Other aspects associated with SP are function as circulation space, spatial differentiation
between public and private areas, and boundaries. These aspects are influential on one
another, affecting participants‟ lived reality and the architect‟s conceived spatial
organisation. Spatial specificities and differentiation as well as materiel qualities in turn
also affect function. Circulation at both case studies has been affected by boundaries.
Initially both had cross-circulation running through the centre, but for security reasons was
restricted. At Helenvale, restrictions occur through physical site boundaries and an
inaccessible entrance as is the case with the secondary door at Ubuntu. In Figure 74 and
Figure 75, altered circulation routes are indicated as observed by the author. The broken
line indicates intended circulation routes, whereas the red broken line indicates actual
use. Although both centres were perceived as relatively accessible, management in some
cases, caused admission to be perceived as junction points. These spaces of specificities
alter intended public spaces such as the gathering space in front of Helenvale.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 74. Actual and intended access routes to the Helenvale multi-purpose resources
centre.

Figure 75. Actual and intended access routes to the Ubuntu community centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Research question 2: What is the relationship between users‟ perception (RS)

and architect‟s intent (RoS) of symbolism, images and signs?

The second research question examines meaning from multiple perspectives. RS shaped
by the lived reality of SP is considered from community members‟ perception and the
conceived and ascribed meaning as intended by the respective architects is described.

Themes investigated under RS include displacement, condensation and effective

centrality. Displacement refers to metonymy, whereas condensation to substitution.
Effective centrality refers to directional, relational and situational typologies providing
points of hierarchy that address the centre-periphery relationship.

As both architects responded to the notion of meaning and symbolism, their approaches
differed significantly. For Hollins, the project architect of Helenvale, functions precede
meaning, as was the case with the tower. Herholdt, one of the principals of The Matrix
Urban Designers and Architects, however, considers the theatrical and representational
value of architectural elements important. This is evident in their offices with the entrance
door and light above the conference table. Upon opening the entrance door, mechanical
movement turns an „eye‟ onto the visitor. The same theatrical quality was added to the
light, when switched on, it opens like a lotus flower. This notion of artwork is also applied
to several of their projects, as was the case at the Helenvale centre and the St John‟s
Methodist Church hall, to which an aluminium screen was added as connection between
the historic church and hall. For Stan Field, the principal of Field Architecs, symbolism and
meaning is not something that should be imposed on the building, but should rather grow
from the site. As the pedestrian routes and figure ground plan of Zwide were considered,
a form was derived. Meaning was further attached to the form, representing the
community leaning on one another.

Considering both case studies, meaning is not prescribed. Instead, architectural qualities
of the structure open possibilities for community members to construct their own
associations. The Matrix Urban Designers and Architects utilises aluminium artwork,
where as Field Architects considers form as signifier. One can argue that the artwork at
the Helenvale centre is not part of the structure; however, its contextual integration is the
binding element. By placing it on an axis, connecting it to the public space opposite the
centre, it is integrated with the Helenvale centre.

Although participants at Ubuntu did not directly associate the structure with
interdependence, they did consider the form to portray the values of Ubuntu. A centre-
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

periphery relationship is further enhanced by providing a building that participants

compared to more developed areas of Port Elizabeth. Through this connection, the
fragmented nature of the urban framework, disconnected from the CBD, is amended.
Other material qualities further contributed to meaning, such as the reference to African
elements. These materials provide a contextual reference whilst the structure is a
contemporary solution. Historic references referring to the community and the structure
itself are significant to indicate development.

A strong association was made between identity and welcome as noted in the
correspondence analysis of the data from the sort-process. Identity formation is thus an
important notion for perception on inclusion; how different archetypes, either structure or
artworks, can be utilised to achieve this.

Structural references (RoS) can form RS connections with external spaces to bridge
boundaries formed by apartheid urban planning. However, this is not physical
transformation of the urban environment, but rather one of perception. This relates to the
ability of the community centres to be perceived as effective centres, being both
situational and directional.

Research question 3: How do community centres, in the macro-context,

reconfigure boundaries through form and function (SP), as well as areas of
displacement, condensation and centralization (RS)?

The last research question investigates the impact of the community centre in its
immediate environment considering both SP and RS. The first two questions focus only
on the community centre itself, whereas the third considers its relationship to the
community. Although themes of SP and RS have already been discussed under the first
two questions, spatial aspects are now also considered on an urban level.

Perception on RS was influenced by contextual reference, relying on interaction with the

environment on a pedestrian level. Participants of Helenvale resided within walking
distance from the centre whereas those at Ubuntu within a 7km radius. Contextual
references could be formed more by participants who had physical references with the
environment. The mapping process further indicated how architectural archetypes of
community centres created different spaces for social interaction. Considering the case
studies, Helenvale is more extroverted and Ubuntu introverted, with the latter thus not
acting as urban form of inadvertent encounter and simultaneity.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Boundaries such as forbidden territories are created by RS, with SP being the physical
manifestation of this as is the case with streets at Helenvale. A second example is the
controlled access at both centres. Although perceived as accessible, both are access-
controlled. External public space is thus important to create an accessible threshold to
create a sense of a more permeable boundary. Boundaries are thus formed by RS and
SP, but can be made more porous by the latter. On an urban scale, boundaries are not
transformed physically, but rather through displacement. Community centres thus become
the metonymy between the community and the larger context of the urban environment.
The perceived meaning of these centres is thus important as physical boundaries of
communities are not easily modified.

Considering form, reconfiguration can either occur through encounter and simultaneity, as
was the case at Helenvale, or contrast as materialized at Ubuntu. At Helenvale, form was
mostly seen as lived reality, whereas at Ubuntu it was perceived as representational.

Over time, a contextual reference was made, such as the residential units painted in the
indistinguishable green of the Helenvale centre thus becoming a metaphor. The urban
framework of Helenvale further contributed to a relationship with its residential units, which
was further enhanced by the street being used as public space. In contrast, less reference
was made to Ubuntu‟s contextual integration. The pedestrian route that extends into Qeqe
Street creates a link, although not as a pertinent area of displacement.

8.3 Three research questions: Patterns and themes identified

From the three research questions investigated, findings were explored which, in-turn, can
be categorised into patterns and themes. The purpose of these findings is to consider the
impact of public infrastructure as catalysts for urban change. If community members‟ lived
reality could be combined with the RoS of architects, public space can instigate significant
change.

The perception and design approach of participants and the respective architects of the
two case studies are considered. Participants either perceived the centre from an SP or
RS perspective. The respective architects designed either from an SP or an RS
perspective, although predominantly RoS. Another theme that was established is
boundaries as an aspect of SP. Boundary formation occurred through physical attributes,
but most importantly was constructed through perception. The last pattern investigated, is
the differing perceptions on RS and how they amend spatial fragmentation and
subdivision to achieve an integrated context and texture.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Two relationships need to be discussed, the interdependence between the spatial triad
and the association between the architects‟ intent and participants‟ perception and lived
reality. These relationships differ at each case study. Although both architects mainly
designed the centres from a RoS perspective, the Helenvale process inclined toward SP
and Ubuntu to RS. Hollins from the Matrix Urban Designers and Architects considered his
design more from the perspective of function and urban form (SP). On the other hand,
Field, from Field Architects, designed more from the perspective of the structure (SP) and
the fragmented nature of the site (RoS) but then added the notion of meaning (RS). Both
design processes thus began from RoS, but developed in different directions. Participants
of the two case studies commented on aspects that could be classified in all three
categories. However, each case study had a dominant spatial aspect. Helenvale was
mainly perceived as RS, whereas Ubuntu was seen as SP. The significance is that there
is a dire relationship between the architect‟s design process or intent and participants‟
lived reality or perception. Conversely, it is either influenced by participants‟ contextual
association and familiarity (as was the case at Helenvale), or by the functional
management (as was the case at Ubuntu). It can thus be concluded that if there are
strong contextual references, then meaning (RS) is ascribed more to building elements. In
the case of less contextual familiarity and strong functional organisation, the centre is
perceived as SP.

Figure 76. Relationship between the architect‟s and community member‟s perception:
Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre.

Figure 77. Relationship between the architect‟s and community members‟ perception:
Ubuntu community centre.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The second theme investigated physical or imaginary thresholds. Spatial aspects of the
respective architects and participants did not differ significantly. They consisted of the
structure, boundaries, security elements, public spaces, streets and the urban
environment. Associations made with SP consisted mostly of physical elements such as
walls, boundaries, function specific spaces and public spaces. References to RS are also
of physical elements, but rather as perceived and not their lived reality. These include
streets, artworks, hierarchical elements such as the tower, streets and the notion of
community.

SP defined by boundaries of accessibility and to a lesser extent forbidden territories (with

access being controlled) and junction points (restricting activity on certain occasions).
Clearly defined boundaries create a sense of within or enclosed. These vary, in the case
of Helenvale physical boundaries enclose external space, and in the case of Ubuntu the
structure forms the threshold. Regardless of boundaries, the most important aspect of the
community centres is for them to be perceived as effective centres (RS). This was
achieved through subdued fragmentation and subdivision (RoS), whilst considering
aspects of materiel and not only material. SP aspects of function, form and structure as
permeable and adaptable environments were considered. These architectural elements
(SP) further contributed to RS aspects of hierarchy, reference and rhythm thus confirming
the reciprocal relationships. SP in this case is thus defined by transitional archetypes
whereas RS is strengthened by referential factors.

The last pattern identified, is the differing perception of RS and the influences thereon. At
the Helenvale centre, RS was described as effective centrality which is integrated into the
urban framework. On the other hand, the Ubuntu centre‟s RS was described in relation to
form (SP). Apart from this distinction, both were considered to be spatially and
hierarchically differentiated. Space is thus reconfigured through objectification or
integration into the urban framework. The gradual dilution of fragmented and segregated
spaces of specialization and specificity thus contributes to Lefebvre‟s notion of spatial
context and texture (1991). Considering both case studies, perception of RS is influenced
by contextual integration and experience. The lived reality (SP) of the surrounds (of the
public space) thus directly affects perception of RS.

To conclude, by considering SP and RS from participants‟ perspectives of lived reality,

spatial fragmentation and subdivision could be incorporated by the architects into the
community centre‟s design to create a contextually integrated centre with local textures.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

8.4 Conclusion on research questions

The significance of these research questions in relation to architecture and practice can
be affirmed by a quote of Lefebvre:

“Like all social practice, spatial practice is lived directly before it is

conceptualized; but the speculative primacy of the conceived over the
lived causes practice to disappear along with life, and so does very
little justice to the „unconscious‟ level of lived experience per se
(1991, 34).”

Spatial production should thus rather transpire from lived reality and not be constructed
from preconceived ideas. Unfortunately, the urban layout along with building restrictions
often dictates the outcome. Additional fragmentation is caused by specialists such as
architects, urban planners and engineers, often only considering segments and not the
Gestalt.

Perhaps the role of architects will not change in the near future to that of consultant or
even to artisan technicians (combining elements or detailing), allowing space to be lived
before conceived. However, if the appropriate methodology for community engagement is
followed to determine needs and perception, this relationship could be re-established.

Figure 78. Professionals working in isolation, informing RS and SP (image on the left). Re-
establishing the relationship between Lefebvre‟s spatial triad, allowing RS and SP to
influence RoS (image on the right).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Chapter 9 Spatial Production of public architecture:

Conclusions and implications

9.1 Introduction: Lived reality of community centres and public------

architecture 230

9.2 Findings from themes and patterns in relation to other relevant ----
research 231

9.3 Philosophical implications on Lefebvre‟s Production of Space 233

9.4 Influence on educational discourse and practice 234

9.5 Implications for theory and practice, nationally and internationally 235

9.6 Direction for future research and limitations 237

9.7 Conclusion: The importance of the relationship between lived --------

reality, perception and architecture 239
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

9.1 Introduction: Lived reality of community centres and public architecture

The purpose of this study was to investigate community centres in developing Group
Areas to determine perception and contextual integration and upliftment. Community
centres were chosen as this typology was deemed most accessible by a diverse group of
the community. Two case studies were chosen, the Helenvale multi-purpose resources
centre and the Ubuntu community centre, due to the geographical proximity to Port
Elizabeth. These two case studies were investigated through the theoretical lens of
Lefebvre‟s spatial triad of Spatial Production, Representations of Space and
Representational Space. This theoretical approach was followed to assess the
relationship between community members‟ lived reality (Spatial Production), the
architects‟ design approach, intent (Representations of Space) and perception
(Representational Space). To gather data on these three aspects, methods such as
mapping and sort-charts supported by semi-structured interviews were used. Data from
the respective architects was collected through open-ended interviews which were
supported by their architectural drawings and observations made by the author during
field work.

Background information was provided on the development of public gathering spaces and
on public infrastructure in developing areas in South Africa with specific reference to
NMBM. The last section of the background chapter describes the typological and
structural characteristics of community centres in South Africa.

Data collected through different methods was separately analysed after which themes
were identified. From the open-ended interviews conducted with the respective architects,
a narrative was written to explain identified aspects of Representations of Space, and to a
minor extent Spatial Production and Representational Space. The maps completed by
participants were superimposed on, after which findings were corroborated with the semi-
structured interviews. Data from the completed sort-processes were tabulated from which
a correspondence analysis was performed. From the different analytical methods, findings
were discussed in Chapter 8.

In the conclusion to follow, findings and their relevance to research, theory, education and
the architectural profession, is discussed. First, the main findings are reiterated after
which relevant references that correspond or oppose them are explained. Convergence or
divergence in relation to this thesis is thus elucidated. Second, is the discussion of the
theoretical significance in relation to spatiality; third, the implication for education and
lastly for the architectural profession.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

9.2 Findings from themes and patterns in relation to other relevant research

From the findings discussed in Chapter 8, reference can be made to other relevant
research. The three main findings were investigated: First, the relationship between
Spatial Production, Representations of Space and Representational Space of the
respective architects and participants; second, spatial aspects, either as constructed or
perceived, being embedded in Spatial Production or Representational Space; and third,
the reconfiguration of communities through aspects of form (Spatial Production) or
effective centrality (Representational Space).

The first finding investigates the relationship between Lefebvre‟s spatial triad from two
view points, that of the architect and participants (Figure 79). After considering the
architect‟s design intent and the lived reality and perception of participants, it is concluded
that the relationship is not as reciprocal as it ought to be. During the design process,
Spatial Production and Representational Space are not continuously incorporated into
RoS, especially regarding lived reality influencing perception. Jonathan Hill defined three
types of users, the passive, reactive and creative (2001). The passive user does not
transform the given space, whereas the reactive user “modifies the physical
characteristics of space as needs change, but must choose from a narrow and predictable
range of configurations largely defined by the architect” (Hill: 2001, 364). He further
describes five types of creative users as the bodily, physical, constructional, mental and
conceptual. The first three descriptions coincide with Spatial Production, whereas mental
and conceptual creativity can be categorised as Representational Space. Through this
„creative‟ means, space is thus appropriated to become more than utilised objects.

Although both architects designed from Representations of Space, with different

influences of Representational Space and Spatial Production, participants‟ perceptions
differed. Perception of participants is either determined by function (Spatial Production) or
contextual references and familiarity (Representational Space).

Compared to Landman‟s (2006) proposed framework (Figure 80) for the socio-spatial
transformation of urban environments, structures are designed from a Spatial Production
perspective. Space, need, idea, order and form are considered, with less consideration of
meaning, place and time. Contextual integration of Representations of Space (in the
diagram production and management) into Representational Space, in relation to Spatial
Production, still needs to be considered.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Figure 79. Summary of the relationship between Spatial Production (SP), Representations
of Space (RoS) and Representational Space (RS) from the perspective of architects and
participants.

Figure 80. Landman's suggested relationship for socio-spatial transformation (2006; 8).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

The second finding explains perception in relation to Spatial Production or

Representational Space. Physical aspects such as walls and boundaries were notions of
Spatial Production, whereas representational and urban characteristics were associated
with Representational Space. Features associated with Spatial Production relate to urban
or classical form which in turn directly translates into the function and structure. Parallel to
Spatial Production, is effective centrality of Representational Space. This reference point
is formed by combining Spatial Production and Representational Space characteristics.
Representational Space is further enhanced by archetypes that can accommodate
displacement or substitution. A relationship between Spatial Production and
Representational Space thus exists to form an effective centre. Apart from this, Spatial
Production is associated more with archetypes used as transitional spaces and
Representational Space by apparent referential objects. This contributes to Lynch‟s
environmental image of identity, spatial integration and meaning, which is defined by
paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks (1960). Paths, edges and districts can be
defined as transitional spaces (Spatial Production) along with nodes and landmarks as
referential points (Representational Space). Transitional spaces further relate to
Bachelard‟s (1994) spatial dialectics of inside or outside.

The third finding was the different perceptions of Representational Space at the two case
studies. At Helenvale, Representational Space is seen as effective centrality within the
urban framework whereas at Ubuntu it is seen as Spatial Production of form. Both centres
included Representations of Space of spatial and hierarchical differentiation. Perception
on effective centrality (Representational Space), the urban framework and form (Spatial
Production) is influenced by contextual integration and familiarity. Representational Space
is thus influenced by the relationship participants have with the immediate environment.

9.3 Philosophical implications on Lefebvre’s Production of Space

This research investigates community centres through the theoretical lens of Lefebvre‟s
spatial triad. By incorporating the three aspects of lived reality (Spatial Production),
perception (Representational Space) and architecture (Representations of Space), public
space is investigated from multiple angles. Most studies on architecture focus only on
material qualities (Ching: 1996; Baker: 1989; White: 1983), but in this case the lived
experience is also considered. Lefebvre (1991; 2003b; 2014) and De Certeau (1988) were
among the first philosophers who combined the concrete with the metaphysical and
social. On an urban level, John Chase, Margaret Crawford and John Kaliski (1999) and
Louis Wirth (1938) investigated everyday life in urban environments. Lefebvre‟s spatial
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

triad was relevant as it integrated community members‟ lived experience and perception
with the architects‟ representations. His spatial triad provided the framework from which
the research design developed. It further guided the methodology and themes for the
analysis.

From the findings, some aspects of this spatial triad were highlighted. Representations of
Space are not altogether fragmented and subdivided; in contrast contextual references
and spatial textures are incorporated in architecture. The degree to which these aspects
are applied may differ, thus resulting in more or less fragmented and subdivided spaces.
Contextual reference and spatial texture can, therefore, be considered as the
counteracting elements for fragmentation and subdivision in Representations of Space.

In Lefebvre‟s triad, Spatial Production, Representations of Space and Representational

Space cannot be separated. Architects‟ design process as Representations of Space are
influenced more by either Spatial Production or Representational Space. In some cases
Spatial Production described by architects can be influenced by Representational Space.
Representations of Space designed from either Spatial Production or Representational
Space perspective is not necessarily perceived as such by community members or users.
Building‟s designed from Representations of Space influenced by Spatial Production could
thus be perceived by the community from a more Representational Space perspective.
The relationship between in Lefebvre‟s triad is thus confirmed by the two case studies and
has become even more interdependent through this research.

9.4 Influence on educational discourse and practice

Undergraduate studies of architecture in South Africa generally consist of a normative,

European approach. Design tools, as mentioned by Ching, consist of principles such as
axis, symmetry, hierarchy, datum, rhythm, repetition and transformation (1996). This often
leads to two-dimensional Representations of Space approaches that do not consider the
lived reality of a community. Digitized data such as Google maps further allow students to
distance themselves from the physical environment. These tendencies are carried over
into practice, where architects re-create lived environments through computer generated
projections. Through this process, the lived reality and perception of communities are not
incorporated, resulting in imposed or prescribed settlements in South African townships.

In contrast, is a more social approach that originated in America with authors such as
Donald Appleyard. With his writings on liveable streets, new methods of social analysis
developed (Appleyard: 1976; 1982). Other research that followed is that of Bill Hillier and
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Julienne Hanson‟s The social logic of space (1989) from which aspects of space syntax
originated. This provided a quantitative approach to investigate human movement in the
built environment. More qualitative studies on the urban environment include that of
Erving Goffman (1963; 2005; 2010) and Lyn H. Lofland (1998), which focus more on
social aspects.

In relation to this research, design principles were discussed briefly whilst more focus was
placed on the social aspect through Lefebvre‟s spatial triad. However, the Eurocentric
approach must not be totally discarded, but should rather be combined, as was done with
the comparison between Spatial Production, Representations of Space and
Representational Space. In the design process, for students and professionals, all three
aspects should be included. This can only be done through specific observational or
mapping methods which should directly involve the community.

Often community centres are design by isolated practitioners, focusing mainly on

Representations of Space. This process could result in aspects of fragmentation and
segregation, or in extreme cases non-appropriation. A reciprocal relationship between
Spatial Production, Representations of Space and Representational Space should be
established and maintained throughout the design and construction process. As public
infrastructures, such as community centres, are insertions into existing communities, this
relationship is of utmost importance to instigate change.

9.5 Implications for theory and practice, nationally and internationally

The thesis contributes to two key aspects of architectural practice; firstly, the approach to
planning, and secondly boundary formation considering apartheid‟s legacy. Theoretically,
the study contributes to the inquiry of Lefebvre‟s spatial triad applied to architecture and to
the ongoing debate on defining the concept of the public.

This thesis contributes to the architectural practice by researching development from

grassroots rather than through technocratic development. It challenges Western ideology,
both nationally and internationally, to answer questions of transformation pertaining to
post-colonialism (Low: 2003; Van Rensburg: 2008; Coetzer: 2013) and insurgent planning
(Sandercock: 1998) is expanded on. Therefore participatory methods, such as sort-chart
and mapping as employed in this study, could guide future direction of infrastructural
planning. Most importantly, the process of planning should be altered to that of a lived
reality as opposed to space being conceived only by external parties. Through this
reciprocal relationship between the lived realities of community members, conceived
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

space should be shaped and continuously transform, altering perception. This allows for
the incessant spatial production required for dynamic communities where boundaries are
constantly shifting producing new public spaces for social interaction.

The second practice-based contribution is the application of Lefebvre‟s theory to the

transformation of the South African post-apartheid context by considering a gradual shift
of boundaries between the urban core and peripheral environments through Spatial
Production. Boundaries as physical and perceived elements of Representational Space
could shape identity in communities lacking representation. Nationally, boundaries as
representational elements contribute to research on introverted gated communities
(Bremner: 2010; Landman: 2006) and to isolated peripheral areas such as townships.
Internationally, this change in the centre-periphery relationship through representation
could be applied to studies on improving networks between historic urban centres and
surrounding suburban areas.

Theoretically, the spatial analysis of the thesis contributes to the debate on public space
(Fraser: 1993; Mitchell: 1995; Hénaff & Strong: 2001; Habermas: 2011) formed by
boundaries (Lynch: 1960; Gehl: 1987; Madanipour: 2003) and representation. Public
space is not necessarily created by physical boundaries, but is rather shaped by the
perception of community members. This can be applied to all public buildings where use
of space ought to be restricted for certain activities to allow for safe public use. The public
domain, as defined by Hajer and Reijndorp (2001), is rather determined by security
measures, access and contextual references determined by location. Related research on
public space (Amin: 2008), corresponded to place as being important rather than activities
as the spatial catalyst. In South Africa, both these aspects can guide future development
of public infrastructure in developing communities where public space is required or in
some cases is non-existent.

Furthermore, a practical connection between the production of architecture and spatial

theory was created by referring to theories on space (Massey: 2005). Lefebvre‟s spatial
theory as applied to architecture combines the perception of absolute and abstract space.
This application contributes to literature on Lefebvre‟s spatial theory (Shields: 1999;
Elden: 2004b) developing from theory into instruments for urban analysis. Another
significant implication is the possible addition to Soja‟s (1996) term Thirdspace, defined as
Representational Space or the experiential/perceived, centre/periphery, abstract/concrete,
and the conceptual/lived. This term considers the „Other‟ as alternity, also described by
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Sandercock (1998, 163) as a reason for boundary formation in reaction to the fear of the
„Other‟.

9.6 Direction for future research and limitations

This research examined community centres through the lived reality and perception of
community members and the Representations of Space of architects. The significance lies
in contributing to future planning and re-development of cohesive and inclusive
settlements that communities can actualise. This could influence future research on
methods involving community members, different case study areas, development of
spatial theory and the Representations of Space of architects.

Methodology used for this research, of mapping and sort-process supported by semi-
structured interviews, could be developed further. With the sort-process, the effect of the
content of the q-set‟s (images for sort-charts) could be investigated. References made to
human subjects, other artefacts or symbols and the perceptions formed should be
examined. Participants should further photograph their daily activities or observations to
form their own q-sets. Categorisation of content was investigated by Habib, Etesam,
Ghoddusifar and Mohajeri (2012) to organise different architectural styles. Data were then
cross tabulated and examined with a correspondence analysis, as was done with this
research. Sort-charts or correspondence analysis could thus be used to involve
participants more, or to analyse data derived from images.

Maps of the respective buildings and the immediate environment were used for
participants to indicate predetermined codes. These were used to identify networks and
aspects of Spatial Practice, Representations of Space and Representational Space. For
future research on methods, mapping could be compared with cognitive maps or drawings
to determine perceptions of the built environment. Through this comparison, spatial
orientation and meaning could be tested on different levels.

In the case of this study, the focus was on two settlements in developing areas of Port
Elizabeth. Future research could focus on other areas within Helenvale and Zwide. This
research could be extended to the Free State Province, and specifically Bloemfontein. By
extending the case studies, the notion of spatial context and texture as described by
Lefebvre (1991) could be elaborated on in terms of place and phenomenology.

Representations of Space, as a design process that involves the architect and other
professionals, could be investigated in more depth. Through a hermeneutic study of
architectural drawings, the fundamentals of the specific design process could be
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

established. Furthermore, as architects are often the „other‟ in communities, the influence
of their architectural training and background ought to be investigated, as was the case
with Stan Field who studied under Louis Kahn.

Limitations that occurred are the geographic location, limited typological diversity,
management of structures, and the lack of quantitative data. Considering the geographic
location, other public infrastructures, situated in rural and dense urban environments,
could have a different spatial production as opposed to developing areas. Influences such
as culture, language, economic circumstances and the existing urban framework, within
different locations, might further impact the formation of Spatial Production and
Representational Space. Data and findings are thus place specific and cannot be directly
compared to other cases. However, the theoretical underpinning could provide the
foundation for a subsequent study in other geographic areas.

Typologically, the case studies were limited to public gathering spaces of community
centres, excluding schools, libraries, health care and sport facilities. Each typology has a
complex background, such as prescribed „Bantu‟ schools which had a specific spatial
configuration and sociological impact (Lokko: 2000). The author opted for an in depth
investigation rather than a comparison between the different typologies. It is therefore
recommended to examine each typology in a demarcated geographic area, after which
the networks and influences on others can be discussed.

Another area that needs investigation is the managerial issues of public infrastructure.
During the investigation, it was found that the functional operation of the structure impacts
the actualisation and perception of community centres significantly (Marriot: 1997). The
lack of trained staff, resources to facilitate programmes and maintain the structure,
indirectly influences perception. Although research has been done on the management of
facilities (Marriot: 1997), a link must still be made between functional operation and the
formation of Spatial Production and Representational Space. Perhaps this research
question is more appropriate for psychologists, social workers or others dealing with social
structures and management.

However, to investigate some of the aspects in the above paragraph, quantitative data
might have highlighted some issues. Data on spatial use through records could have
indicated a correlation between management, function and space. Space syntax
investigating movement studies could then further highlight related activities. Although
these methods investigate managerial and spatial issues, it diverts from the initial
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

research question and was, therefore, considered more appropriate for future research
endeavours.

9.7 Conclusion: The importance of the relationship between lived reality,

perception and architecture

Through the theoretical lens of Lefebvre, the relationship between Spatial Production,
Representations of Space and Representational Space has been investigated as
perceived and experienced by community members and conceived by architects. This
triad of spatial exploration is an ongoing process, continuously producing and altering
space. Once the construction of a community centre has been completed, the
architectural product is not finite. From the initial planning phase, continuing throughout
the life cycle of the building, the concept and physical structure creates a canvas for
representation.

In townships and developing communities urban planning and infrastructure have been
imposed on communities, resulting in monotonous environments. Jeremy Till described
this as community members “not only [being] potentially disempowered but also exposed”
(1999, 40). Apart from the lack of representational value, aspects of Spatial Production
such as public space are underdeveloped. Although the urban frameworks of modernist
grids and their fragmented and secluded nature cannot be altered, infrastructure could
make a difference. Public spaces and buildings such as community centres, schools,
clinics, parks and pedestrian networks could instigate significant change.

From the findings, the relationship between Lefebvre‟s spatial triad was discussed from
which three significant aspects were identified. First, through the investigation of the two
case studies, a relationship between the architect‟s design process and participants‟
perception could not be established. The design approach does not influence the lived
reality and perception of community members significantly to form a pattern. Perception
and lived reality is rather influenced by the urban and classical form of the structure
(Spatial Production) in relation to its context. Furthermore, contextual references and
networks could contribute to participants‟ ability to form constructs of Representational
Space. The importance of spatial context and texture is confirmed, influencing both the
lived reality and perception of community members. Second, boundaries or spatial
definition could be realised either as urban or classical form (Spatial Production) or as
Representational Space of effective centrality. Both these rely on architectural elements to
be formed, but the first are physical and the latter representational. Third, perception is
further formed, not only by Representational Space, but also by Spatial Production
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

aspects such as form. Again, the formation of Representational Space depends on

contextual references and the functional appropriation of the structure, confirming the
interdependence of Lefebvre spatial triad.

Although the structures investigated in these case studies cannot be altered, valuable
information has been gathered for future development. These include aspects such as the
use of space in relation to the management thereof and how archetypes are perceived
which could lead to possible identity formation in communities. Considering Lefebvre‟s
spatial triad, each aspect of lived reality (Spatial Production), perception (Representational
Space) and architecture (Representations of Space) should be addressed reciprocally
when public architecture is produced. For lived reality (Spatial Production), the importance
of community and contextual integration has been established which requires the
architect‟s involvement and consultation (Representations of Space) from the project‟s
initiation. Furthermore, as each building is unique, perception (Representational Space)
will always be subjective, but architectural elements and contextual references can
contribute to the appropriation and meaning formation of infrastructure. This process is
important to gradually instigate the needed change in townships; to break down barriers of
segregation through network formation, to form public spaces that promote social
interaction and to create a sense of identity through representational qualities.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Bibliography

Adhya, A. 2008. The public realm as a place of everyday urbanism: learning from four
college towns. Unpublished thesis (PhD). Michigan: The University of Michigan.

Alley, R. 1981. Catalogue of the Tate Gallery‟s Collection of Modern Art other than Works
by British Artists. London: Tate Gallery.

Amin, A. 2008. Collective culture and urban public space. City, 12(1), pp.5–24. Available
from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810801933495> [Accessed on 24 April 2015].

Amsden, J. & van Wynberge, R. 2005. Community mapping as a research tool with youth.
Action Research, 3(4), pp.357–381. Available from:
<http://arj.sagepub.com/content/> [Accessed on 20 January 2014].

Appleyard, D. 1976. Planning a pluralist city. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Appleyard, D. 1980. Why buildings are known. In: Broadbent, J., Bunt, R., & Llorens, T.
(Eds.). Meaning and behaviour in the built environment. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

Appleyard, D. 1982. Liveable streets. Berkeley: MIT Press.

Arendt, H. 1998. The human condition. 2nd ed. London: University of Chicago.

Augé, M. 2008. Non-places: An introduction to supermodernity. London: Verso.

Bachelard, G. 1994. The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon.

Bafna, S. 2003. Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques.
Environment and Behaviour, 35(1), pp.17–29.

Baker, G.H. 1989. Design strategies in architecture : An approach to the analysis of form.
London: Van Nostrand Reinhold International.

Banerjee, T.K. 1971. Urban experience and the development of the city image: A study in
environmental perception and learning. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Bendixen, M. 2003. A practical guide to the use of Correspondence Analysis in Marketing

Research. Marketing Bulletin, 13(2).

Bhabha, H.K. 1994. The location of culture. London: Routledge.

Bremner, L. 2010. Writing the city into being: Essays on Johannesburg 1998-2008.
Johannesburg: Fourthwall Books.

Brenner, M., Brown, J. & Canter, D. (Eds). 1985. The research interview: Uses and
approaches. London: Academic Press.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Calderwood, D.M. 1953. Native housing in South Africa. Johannesburg: University of the
Witwatersrand.

Canter, D. 1996. A multiple sorting procedure for studying conceptual systems. In:
Psychology in Action. Hantshire: Dartmouth Publishing Company, pp. 71–106.
Available from: <http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/9225/> [Accessed 17 January 2014].

Canter, D., Brown, J. & Groat, L. 1985. A multiple sorting procedure for studying
conceptual systems. In: Brenner, M., Brown, J. & Canter, D. (Ed.). The research
interview: uses and approaches. London: Academic Press, pp. 79–114.

De Certeau, M. 1988. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Chase, J., Crawford, M. & Kaliski, J. (Eds). 1999. Everyday urbanism. New York: The
Monacelli Press.

Ching, F.D.K. 1996. Architecture: Form, space and order. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Clark, R.H. & Pause, M. 1996. Precedents in architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Coetzer, N. 2013. Building apartheid: On architecture and Other in imperial Cape Town.
London: Ashgate.

Connell, P.H., Irvine-Smith, C., Jonas, K., Kantorowich, R. & Wepener, F.J. 1939. Native
housing: A collective thesis. Witwatersrand.

CSIR. 2005. Guidelines for human settlement planning and design. Pretoria. Available
from: <http://www.csir.co.za/Built_environment/RedBook/> [Accessed 26 November
2013].

Davies, W.J. 1971. Patterns of non-white population distribution in Port Elizabeth with
special reference to the application of the Group Area Act. University of Port
Elizabeth.

Desmond, T. 1999. No future without forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.

Elden, S. 2004a. Between Marx and Heidegger: Politics, philosophy and Lefebvre‟s The
Production of Space. In: Antipode. Oxford: Blackwell.

Elden, S. 2004b. Understanding Henri Lefebvre: Theory and the possible. London:
Continuum.

Elden, S., Lebas, E. & Kofman, E. (Eds). 2003. Henri Lefebvre: Key writings. London:
Continuum.

Entrikin, J.N. & Berdoulay, V. 2005. The Pyrenees as place : Lefebvre as guide. Progress
in Human Geography, 29(2), pp.129–147.

Fanon, F. 2008. Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Findley, L. 2005. Building memory, building change- architecture, politics and cultural
agency. New York: Routledge.

Fisher, R. 1981. From grass-roots organizing to community service: Community

organization practice in the community center movement, 1907–1930. In: Fisher, R.
& Romanofsky, P. (Eds.). Community organization for urban social change: A
historical perspective. Wesport: Greenwood Press, pp. 35–58.

Fisher, R. 1994. Let the people decide: Neighborhood organizing in America. New York:
Twayne.

Fitchet, A. 2009. Alexandra heritage centre. In: Joubert, O. (Ed.). 10 Years 100 buildings:
Architecture in a democratic South Africa. Cape Town: Bell-Roberts.

Fraser, N. 1993. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy. In: Calhoun, C. (Ed.). Habermas and the public sphere.
Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gehl, J. 1987. Life between buildings: Using public space. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.

Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on social organization of gatherings.

New York: The Free Press.

Goffman, E. 2005. Interaction ritual: Essays in face - to - face behavior. New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.

Goffman, E. 2010. Relations in public: Micro-studies of public order. New Jersey:

Transaction Publishers.

Greenacre, M.J. 1984. Theory and applications of correspondene analysis. London:

Academic Press Inc.

Greenacre, M.J. 1993. Interdisciplinary statistics: Correspondence analysis in practice 2nd

ed. Boca Raton: Academic Press.

Groat, L. 1982. Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple

sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2(3), pp.3–22.

Groat, L. & Canter, D.V. 1979. Does post-modernism communicate? Progressive

Architecture, December, pp.84–87.

Habermas, J. 2011. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity
Press.

Habib, F., Etesam, I., Ghoddusifar, S.H. & Mohajeri, N. 2012. Correspondence Analysis: A
new method for analyzing qualitative data in architecture. Nexus Netw J, 14(3),
pp.517–538.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. 2009. Multivariate data analysis.
7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Hajer, M. & Reijndorp, A. 2001. Public domain: Analysis and strategy. Netherlands: NAI
Publishers.

Heidegger, M. 1967. Being and time. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hénaff, M. & Strong, T.B. 2001. Public Space and Democracy. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.

Heraldine, M. 1996. Port Elizabeth: A social chronicle to the end of 1945. Port Elizabeth:
E.H. Walton Packaging.

Herholdt, A. (Ed). 2013. Coastal contemporary. Architecture of Nelson Mandela Bay:

2000-2013. Port Elizabeth: DOT Matrix.

Hill, J. 2001. The Use of Architects. Urban Studies, 38(2), pp.351–365. Available from:
<http://0-
web.a.ebscohost.com.wagtail.ufs.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=dacd
ab3a-d1d1-41f4-9690-376df367c220@sessionmgr4002&hid=4114> [Accessed 17
February].

Hillier, B. & Hansen, J. 1989. The social logic of space. London: Cambridge University
Press.

Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J. & Pérez-Gómez, A. 2006. Questions of perception:

Phenomenology of architecture. San Francisco: William Stout.

De Jager, S. 2012. Investment transforms once ailing suburb. Weekend Post, 29 Sept.,
p.4.

De Jager, S. 2013. Statue honours children: Artwork is part of initiative to upgrade

impoverished Helenvale. The Herald, 29 July, p.5.

Kaplan, R. 1976. Way-finding in the natural environment. In: Moore, G. T. & Golledge, R.
G. (Eds.). Environmental knowing. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.

Kohn, M. 2004. Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. New York:
Routledge.

Krige, D.S. 1989. Apartheidsbeplanning in die Bloemfontein- Botshabelo- Thaba Nchu

streek. University of the Orange Free State.

Landman, K. 2006. Socio-spatial transformation in Africa : a framework to map the

process and guide the planning of future cities. In: Planning Africa. Cape Town, pp.
1–22. Available from: <http://stepsatest.csir.co.za/events-1/events-folder/sacn-city-
transformation-event-documents/socio-spatial-transformation-in-africa-a-framework-
to-map-the-process-and-guide-the-planning-of-future-cities> [Accessed 20 Augustust
2013].

Lee, R.E., Booth, K.M., Reese-Smith, J., Regan, G.R. & Howard, H.H. 2005. The physical
activity resource assessment (PARA) instrument: evaluating features, amenities and
incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. International Journal
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2(13). Available from:

<http://grants.hhp.uh.edu/undo/?page_id=21> [Accessed 20 June 2013].

Lefebvre, H. 1956. Pignon. Paris: Le musée de poche.

Lefebvre, H. 1965. Pyrénées. Lausanne: Éditions Recontre.

Lefebvre, H. 1968. The sociology of Marx. New York: Pantheon Books.

Lefebvre, H. 1978. Les contradictions de l‟État moderne: La dialectique et. De l‟État, 4.

Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lefebvre, H. 2002. Critique of everyday life. London: Verso.

Lefebvre, H. 2003a. Preface to the study of the habitat of the pavillon (from L‟habitat
pavillonnaire, 1966). In: Elden, S., Lebas, E., & Kofman, E. (Eds.). Henri Lefebvre:
key writings. New York: Continuum.

Lefebvre, H. 2003b. The urban revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Lefebvre, H. 2003c. Triads and dyads. In: Elden, S., Lebas, E., & Kofman, E. (Eds.). Henri
Lefebvre: Key writings. New York: Continuum, pp. 50–56.

Lefebvre, H. 2014. Toward an architecture of enjoyment. Stanek, L. (Ed.). Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Lofland, L.H. 1998. The public realm: Exploring the city‟s quintessential social territory.
New York: Transaction Publishers.

Lokko, L.N.N. 2000. White paper, black marks: architecture, race, culture. London:
Athlone.

Low, I. 2003. Space and transformation: architecture and identity. Digest of South African
Architecture.

Lundahl, E. & Södergren, N. 2008. Township upgrading of Helenvale: Port Elizabeth,

South Africa. Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Lusk, A. 2002. Greenways‟ places of the heart: Aesthetic guidelines for bicycle paths.
Unpublished thesis (PhD). Michigan: University of Michigan.

Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Lynch, K. 1995. Reconsidering The Image of the City. In: Banerjee, T. & Southworth, M.
(Eds.). City sense and city design: writings and projects of Kevin Lynch.
Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Madanipour, A. 2003. Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Madanipour, A. 2007. Designing the city of reason: Foundations and frameworks. London:
Routledge.

Marien, M.W. & Fleming, W. 2005. Fleming‟s arts and ideas. 10th ed. London: Thomson
Wadsworth.

Marriot, P. 1997. Forgotten resources? The role of community buildings in strengthening

local communities. York: York Publishing Services.

Marx, K. 1983. Capital : A critique of political economy; Volume 1. London: Lawrence &
Wishart.

Masondo, S. 2009. Troubled Helenvale to get R40m centre to help combat problems. The
Herald, 16 Mar., p.5.

Massey, D. 2005. For space. London: Sage.

Matavire, M. 2007. Crime-ridden Helenvale to get a comprehensive makeover. The

Herald, 13 June, p.8.

Mathewson, J.E. 1956. The establishment of an urban Bantu township: With special
reference to Daveyton. Published thesis (M). Potchefstroom.

Mbembe, J.A. 2001. On the postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press.

McClenaghan, C. 2003. Cato Manor Heritage Centre. Architecture South Africa,

Nov./Dec., pp.18–21.

Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964. The primacy of perception: And other essays on

phenomenological psychology. Evanston: Northwestern Universtiy Press.

Mess, H.A. & King, H. 1947. Voluntary Social Services since 1918. In: London: Kegan
Paul.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Mini, P. 2012. Contractors out in cold: SMMEs claim HURP has turned back on them after
promising jobs. The Herald, 13 Nov., p.5.

Mitchell, D. 1995. The end of public space? People‟s park, definitions of the public, and
Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), pp.108–133.
Available from: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564281> [Accessed 21 February 2012].

Mitchell, D. 2003. The right to the city: social justuce and the fight for public space. New
York: Guilford.

Morejele, M. 2006. Red Location Museum of Struggle. In: Between ownership & belonging
- transitional space in the post-apartheid metropolis. Pretoria: Department of Foreign
Affairs.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Morojele, M. 2003. Space and identity- from the grassroots to the global. Digest of South
African Architecture, pp.104–105.

Murray, N. 2007. Remaking Modernism: South African architecture in and out of time. In:
Murray, N., Shepherd, N., & Hall, M. (Eds.). Desire lines: Space, memory and identity
in the post-apartheid city. London: Routledge, pp. 43–65.

Murray, N. & Witz, L. 2014. Hostels, homes, museums: Memorialising migrant labour
pasts in Lwandle, South Africa. Cape Town: UCT Press.

no author 1. 1986. Minor community hall, Erica ext 9, Belhar, Cape. Journal of the South
African Institute of Architects, pp.37–39.

no author 2. 1988. Salt River community centre. Journal of the South African Institute of
Architects, 34(11), p.22.

no author 3. 1999. Bopitikelo Molatedi community and cultural centre: Peter Rich
Architects. South African Architect, April, pp.16–17.

no author 4. 2000. Paternoster community centre. South African Architect, Jan/ Feb,
pp.48–49.

no author 5. 2002. A place of reconciliation. Journal of the South African Institute of

Architects, Aug/ Sept, p.21.

NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2009. Stakeholder engagement strategies for

participatory mapping.

Noble, J.A. 2011. African identity in post-apartheid public architecture: White skin, black
masks. England: Ashgate.

Parkinson, J.R. 2006. Holistic democracy and physical public space. British Journal of
Political Science Conference, pp.1–17. Available from:
<http://johnrparkinson.net/Democracy and public space - BJPolS conf.pdf>
[Accessed 4 June 2013].

Parkinson, J.R. 2012. Democracy & public space: The physical sites of democratic
performance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pathways through Participation 2010. Using participatory mapping to explore participation

in three communities. Available from:
<http://pathwaysthroughparticipation.org.uk/resources/finalreport/> [Accessed 23
January 2014].

Pérez-Gómez, A. & Pelletier, L. 1992. Architectural representation beyond perspectivism.

Perspecta, 27, pp.21–39. Available from: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567174>
[Accessed 12 March 2013].

Peters, W. (Ed). 2002. Intuthukho Junction, Cato Manor. KZ-NIA Journal, 1, pp.8–9.

Peters, W. 2009. Intuthukho Junction. In: Joubert, O. (Ed.). 10 Years 100 buildings:
Architecture in a democratic South Africa. Cape Town: Bell-Roberts.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Pevsner, N. 1976. A history of building types. London: Thames and Hudson.

Phaidon. 2008. Phaidon atlas of 21st century world architecture. London: Phaidon.

Pignon, E. 1956. Pignon. Paris: Edition Falaise.

Preziosi, D. 1979. Architecture, language, and meaning. New York: Mouton.

Prinsloo, R., Jansen-Verbeke, M. & Vanneste, D. 1999. South Africa: Spatial

transformation in the post-apartheid era. Leusden: Acco.

Van Rensburg, R.J. & Da Costa, M. 2008. Space as ritual: rethinking spatial strategies in
the African city. South African Journal of Art History, 33(3), pp.43–55.

Robinson, J. 1996. The power of apartheid: state, power and space in South African
cities. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Roth, L.M. 1993. Understanding architecture: Its elements, history and meaning. New
York: Harper Collins.

Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Scott, M.J. & Canter, D. V. 1997. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, pp.263–281.

Shields, R. 1999. Lefebvre, love and struggle: Spatial dialectics. New York: Routledge.

Silverman, D. (Ed). 2011. Qualitative research. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Smith, M.K. “Community centres (centers) and associations”, the encyclopedia of informal
education. Available from: <http://www.infed.org/mobi/community-centers-and-
associations> [Accessed 8 October 2013].

Soja, E.W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined
places. Oxford: Blackwell.

Solzhenitsyn, A. 1974. The Gulag archipelago. London: Collins.

Stanek, L. 2011. Henri Lefebvre on space: architecture, urban research, and the
production of theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Storti, D. Correspondence analysis. Available from:

<http:/www.unesco.org/webworld/idams/advguide/Chapt6_5.htm> [Accessed on 15
September 2014].

Stubblefield, H.W. & Keane, P. 1994. Adult education in the American experience: From
the colonial period to the present. California: Jossey-Bass.

Tang, L. & Ding, W. 2013. A tentative approach to mapping street space: a case study of
Chinese Central urban districts. Future Publics: Politics and Space in East Asia‟s
Cities, pp.91–106. Available from: <http://0-
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

web.a.ebscohost.com.wagtail.ufs.ac.za/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=10fdb4
e5-9bf3-4c57-8194-69f13be99e42%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4114> [Accessed 22
February 2014].

Till, J. 1999. Architecture of the impure community. In: Hill, J. (Ed.). Occupying
architecture: Between the architect and user. London: Routledge, pp. 34–42.

Trevelyan, G.M. 1946. English social history: a survey of six centuries: Chaucer to Queen
Victoria. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

Twelvetrees, A.C. 1976. Community associations and centres: A comparative study.

Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.

Vajjhala, S.P. 2005. Integrating GIS and Participatory Mapping in Community. In: ESRI
International User Conference, Sustainable Development and Humanitarian Affairs
Track. Available from:
<http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap1622.pdf> [Accessed
25 February 2014].

Venturi, R. & Brown, S. 2004. Architecture as signs and systems. London: Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.

Vidler, A. 2000. Diagrams of diagrams : architectural abstraction and modern

representation. Representations, 72, pp.1–20. Available from:
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2902906> [Accessed 10 January 2012].

White, E.T. 1983. Site analysis: diagramming information for architectural design. Tucson:
Architectural Media.

Williams, L. 2011. Hope for project in H‟vale. The Herald, 30 Nov., p.6.

Wilson, G. 2014. Helenvale mob justice threat. Herald Live. Available from:
<http://www.heraldlive.co.za/boy-16-shot-in-helenvale/> [Accessed 28 January
2015].

Wirth, L. 1938. Urbanism was a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1).
Available from: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2768119> [Accessed 27 November
2014].

De Wit, A.H. 1994. Die geografie van ongelykheid: Bloemfontein as gevallestudie. MA

Thesis. Universiteit van die Oranje-Vrystaat.

Zeisel, J. & Griffin, M. 1975. Charlesview Housing : a diagnostic evaluation.

Massachusetts: Architecture Research Office, Graduate School of Design, Harvard
University.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendices

Appendix I. Ethical clearance ......................................................................................... 252

Appendix II. Pilot study 1: Mapping of Belhar community hall ........................................253
Appendix III. Pilot study 1: Mapping of Red Location precinct ........................................253
Appendix IV. Pilot study 1: Mapping of Ubuntu community centre .................................254
Appendix V. PARA assessment document ....................................................................255
Appendix VI. PARA assessment protocol ......................................................................257
Appendix VII. Images for sort-process of pilot study at Lourierpark, Bloemfontein .........262
Appendix VIII. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Free-sort on contextual
map .........................................................................................................270
Appendix IX. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Free-sort on plan .................270
Appendix X. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Direct-sort on contextual
map ......................................................................................................... 271
Appendix XI. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Direct-sort on plan ...............271
Appendix XII. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Observation of author .........272
Appendix XIII. Protocol for fieldwork and interviews .......................................................273
Appendix XIV. Questions for semi-structured interview with community members .........274
Appendix XV. Superimposed base map of Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre...275
Appendix XVI. Superimposed base map of Ubuntu community centre ...........................275
Appendix XVII. Q-sets of the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre........................276
Appendix XVIII. Q-sets of the Ubuntu community centre................................................279
Appendix XIX. Tabulation of demographic information of Helenvale. Data obtained
from Census 2011 ...................................................................................282
Appendix XX. Tabulation of demographic information of Zwide 3. Data obtained from
Census 2011 ...........................................................................................283
Appendix XXI. Selection of quotes before translated to English: Helenvale multi-
purpose resources centre........................................................................284
Appendix XXII. Correspondence analysis for Helenvale community centre....................288
Appendix XXIII. Correspondence analysis for Ubuntu community centre .......................294
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix I. Ethical clearance

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix II. Pilot study 1: Mapping of Belhar community hall

Appendix III. Pilot study 1: Mapping of Red Location precinct

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix IV. Pilot study 1: Mapping of Ubuntu community centre

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix V. PARA assessment document

Case Study: Address:

1] Date
2] Time

3] Type of Resource 4] Size: m²

a] Community Centre
b] Library
c] Gallery
d] Cultural Centre
e] Other
5] Cost Free Pay only for certain programs
Pay at
Other
door
6] Hours A] Open
B] Close
7] Signage of hours Yes No 8] Signage Rules Yes No
9] Ownership of building
10] Management of facility
11] Source of funds
12]Hiring of facilities
13]Allowed activities

Access to grounds A Yes No

14] Gate Material Height
15] Fence Material Height
16] Access control Type
17] Security guard Location
18] Detection system Location
19]Reception Location
20]Staff member Language
21]Parking Amount
Distance to entrance[ meters]

Feature B 0 1 2 3
22] Workshops
23] Library
24] Reading room
25] Multi-functional space
26] Permanent clinic
27] Kitchen/ Feeding scheme
28] IT Facilities (computer)
29] Internet connection
30] Public telephones
31] Rental space
Specify:
32] Sport facilities
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Specify:
33] Soccer field
34] Bike rack
35] Exercise station/ Gym
36] Play equipment
37] Hall
38] Foyer
Comments:

Amenity C 0 1 2 3
39] Access points
40] Bathrooms
41] Showers
42] Lockers
43] Seating
44] Tables
45] Potable water
46] Lighting
47] Shelter
48] Shade (Vegetation)
49] Landscaping
50] Dustbins(Waste)
51] Walkways
52] Community Garden

Incivilities D 0 1 2 3
53] Auditory annoyance
54] Broken glass
55] Broken furniture
56] Broken lights
57] Dog refuse
58] Dogs unattended
59] Animals unattended
60] Evidence of alcohol abuse
61] Evidence of substance abuse
62] Graffiti
63] Litter
64] No grass
65] Overgrown grass
66] Sex paraphernalia
67] Vandalism
Comments:
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix VI. PARA assessment protocol

Environmental analysis of the built environemnt

Access to Grounds-- Numbers 14 – 21

Answer each question with yes or no. If yes, provide the required description.

Features -- Numbers 22 – 40
Rate each item by circling a number. Operational definitions describing each are found below, in
the section on Operational Definitions .
0 = Not Present 1 = Poor 2 = Mediocre 3 = Good
Special note on item 16) Play Equipment. If it is ‘typical’ equipment such as a slide, swings,
horizontal bar; no description is necessary.
When the equipment is unusual, please describe and use the Comments space as necessary.
Amenities -- Numbers 41 - 54
Rate each item by circling a number. Operational definitions describing each are found below, in
the section on Operational Definitions .
0 = Not Present 1 = Poor 2 = Mediocre 3 = Good
Incivilities Numbers 55 - 69
Rate each item by circling a number. Operational definitions describing each are found below, in
the section on Operational Definitions .
0 = Not Present 1 = Poor 2 = Bad 3 = Very Bad

Features Poor Mediocre Good

22 No equipment or in a Equipment need minor Equipment in working
dysfunctional state. Room repair. Natural light and condition. Room is
Workshops

not suitable for task related windows in room not maintained with adequate
work. enough. Inadequate lighting, fresh air and
storage. storage.

23 Space not functional. No Space functional, minor Space functional with

books or in a derelict state. changes required. Books adequate lighting. Books in
Library

need slight repair. More a good condition. Variety of

books can be acquired. books adequate.

24 Light for reading not More natural daylight Enough seating and natural
Multi-functional Reading room

adequate. Seating and required. Desks and seating daylight. Desks are
desks in dysfunctional not enough. provided.
condition.

25 Space not functional. Space adequate. Repair to Space fully functional and
furniture and fixtures all fixtures in working
space

required. condition.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

26 Equipment not in working Some equipment is not All the equipment is in

Permanent clinic
condition. Place is dirty working. Space is adequate. working condition. Space is
and unhygienic. No medical Some medical supplies are adequate and in a hygienic
supplies. out of stock. condition.

27 Space to small. Cooking Space is adequate. Space is adequate. Cooking

Kitchen/ Feeding

equipment not in functional Inappropriate cooking equipment adequate.

scheme

condition. Unhygienic equipment. Hygienic environment.

conditions.

28 Computers not in working Some of the computers not Facilities provided in

IT Facilities (computer)

condition or outdated. in a working condition. working condition.

Seating and desks not More seating and desks Adequate seating and
adequate. No one available required. No qualified desks. Qualified person
for assistance. person available to help available for assistance.
with assistance.

29 No internet connection Internet connection. Internet connection.

connection
Internet

Expensive rates. Allocated free access or

affordable rates.

30 Broken equipment. Equipment in working Equipment in working

Rental space Public telephones

Surroundings not in a good condition. Repair might be condition. Surrounding

condition. required. Surrounding area area in good condition.
needs maintenance.

31 Space not in good Minor repairs required. Space in good condition.

condition.

Specify:

32 Not in working condition. In working condition. Minor In working condition. Safe

Sport facilities

Safety risk. repairs required. environment.

Specify:

33 Grass coverage may be Grass coverage may be Field has uniform grass
poor in 50% or > of the sparse in a few places, coverage and is well-
Soccer field

field, rough surface, grass may be too high, mowed, no trash or debris
hazards and/or trash on the some trash or debris on on field; nets, if furnished,
field field are intact
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

34 Rack is in poor condition, Rack is bent, or missing Rack is sturdy, usable, may

Bike rack
almost unstable or has paint, but otherwise usable have a few cosmetic
poor access blemishes

35 4 or > stations need major 3 or < stations may need Stations themselves are in
Exercise station/ Gym

repair – are not safe to use. minor repair or good condition and safe. 5
Signage may be missing or maintenance, path between or > stations with safe path
in poor condition for stations need minor between them
several stations. Path improvement
between stations is unsafe.

36 Several pieces are in need Some equipment is in need In good condition, variety
Play equipment

of major repair and is of minor repair, there is of pieces, ground in good

almost or unstable, there is some trash, and the ground condition, well-kept and
a lot of trash, and the needs some improvement clean
ground is overgrown or
barren
37 Not in functional condition. Functional with minor Functional with some
repairs required. cosmetic repairs to be
Hall

made.

38 Reception area in derelict Reception provided. Seating Reception area with

condition. No seating not adequate. Staff member seating. Staff member
Voyeur

provided. No staff member. not always present. present.

Amenities Poor Mediocre Good

39 Some appear as potentially Not all access points are Clearly visible, safe, free of
Access points

unsafe areas, unkept, not clearly marked. Some may debris or overgrown grass.
well-marked have trash or overgrown If gated, works properly.
grass.

40 Bathroom is not clean, not Bathroom is fairly clean, Bathroom is clean, well-lit,
well-stocked. More than moderately stocked, and stocked, all plumbing is
Bathrooms

50% of fixtures are in most sinks’ and toilets’ functioning well.

disrepair plumbing is in good
working order.

41 Unclean, may not be well- Most areas are clean, , clean, well-lit, plumbing
Showers

lit, , plumbing is almost plumbing could be works well

unusable improved, but works

42 Not secure environment to Lockers and dressing space Lockers and/or dressing
Lockers

store personal items. Space provided. Space space provided with ample
inadequate and dirty. inadequate, relatively space, storage and security.
clean.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

43 Benches are in bad Benches are missing some In good condition but could
condition, unusable paint or boards, may be have minor cosmetic flaws
Seating crooked, but otherwise
usable

44 Tables are in bad condition, Tables are missing some In good condition but could
unusable paint or boards, may be have minor cosmetic flaws
Tables

crooked, but otherwise

usable

45 Tap or fountain unusable. Tap, in working condition. Working, clean fountains

Potable

Surrounding area with clean surrounding

water

inadequate. area

46 Area has limited lighting, They are usable, but need Area or building has
Lighting

inadequate for safety minor repair, partially effective overhead lighting

clean which sufficient for safety

47 Structures are not intact – Structures are in need of Structures are intact,
so rain would get into area. some repair, provide provide protection from
Shelter

If seating/tables are protection from weather. If weather. If seating/tables

present, they are in major seating/tables are present are present they are clean.
need of repair or are they are usable but need
missing minor repair
48 Existing trees unkept or Trees available in moderate Trees available in correct
dead. Not located in the amount. Pruning and areas where seating are
(Vegetation)
Shade

correct area to provide maintenance required. provided. Trees in healthy

shade. condition.

49 Shrubs or flowering plants Shrubs or flowering plants Attractive live shrubs

appear dead or more than in ground, but do not and/or flowering plants,
Landscaping

50% overgrown with weeds. appear healthy and/or perhaps decorative

(Does not include grass) colorful. Existing weeds. material such as rock or
mulch

50 Unclean and/or in poor Partially unclean or in < Clean on exterior, scattered

Dustbins(Waste)

condition, more care perfect condition, but throughout, not overflowing

needed, Full with trash or scattered, and unstable with trash
overflowing.

51 Sidewalk has major damage Sidewalk has some debris, Sidewalk is smooth, clear of
and needs repair, almost cracks or uneven surfaces, debris
Walkways

unusable but otherwise usable

52 Plants appear dead or more Edible plants in ground, but A Variety of healthy
than 50% overgrown with do not appear healthy vegetables and other edible
Community
Garden

weeds. (Does not include and/or colorful. Existing plants. No weeds, garden
grass) weeds. are well maintained.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Incivilities
Poor Bad Very Bad
53 Auditory Sound is not irritating, but Sound(s) is (are) Noticeable sounds which
annoyance is (hardly) noticeable noticeable and interfere(s) are unpleasant. Reaction
with enjoyment of is to leave area.
resources

54 Broken glass A few pieces of broken Several pieces of broken Many pieces of broken
glass (the equivalent of 1 glass (the equivalent of 2 – glass (5+ bottles)
bottle) 4 bottles)
55 Broken Furniture in a good Several pieces of furniture All furniture broken and
furniture condition. Minor cosmetic are broken. Maintenance not functional.
damage might be visible. is required. Replacement required.
All pieces in a functional
condition.
56 Broken lights 1 light not working 1-3 lights not working 4> lights not working
57 Dog refuse 1 refuse pile from dog 2 – 4 dogs refuse piles 5 or > refuse piles from
from dogs dogs
58 Dogs unat- 1 dog unattended 2 – 4 dogs unattended; 5 or > dogs unattended,
tended may be associated noise definitely unsafe, may be
associated noise
59 Animals 1 animal unattended 2 – 4 animals unattended; 5 or > animals unattended,
unattended may be associated noise definitely unsafe, may be
[specify] associated noise

60 Evidence of 1 bottles, cans, or bottle 2 – 4 bottles, cans, or 5 or > bottles, cans, or

alcohol caps visible bottle caps visible bottle caps visible
abuse
61 Evidence of 1 piece: syringes, paint 2 – 4 pieces: syringes, 5 or > pieces: syringes,
substance cans, rags, baggies, rolling paint cans, rags, baggies, paint cans, rags, baggies,
abuse papers rolling papers rolling papers

62 Graffiti 1-3 small 4+ small or 1 large 6+ small or 2 large

63 Litter A few items (<5) are on the Several items (5-10) are on Many items are on the
ground the ground ground (11+)
64 No grass A small area without grass A moderate portion of the A large area without grass
area without grass (more than with grass)
65 Overgrown A little bit, hardly A moderate amount, A lot, very noticeable, may
grass noticeable noticeable be obstructing some
equipment
66 Sex parapher- 1 used or unused 2 - 4 used or unused 5 or > used or unused
nalia contraceptive devices contraceptive devices contraceptive devices
and/or 1 pieces of and/or 2 - 4 pieces of and/or 5 or > pieces of
pornographic reading pornographic reading pornographic reading
material visible material visible material visible
67 Vandalism Hardly noticeable, but it Noticeable, more than a Very noticeable, more
appears up to a few pieces few pieces of equipment equipment in disrepair
of equipment or an area of are vandalized, or < 50 % than in good order,
indoor space has been of the space has been between 50%-100%,
defaced rendered unusable by because of vandalism.
vandalism Signs of vandalism are
obvious.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix VII. Images for sort-process of pilot study at Lourierpark, Bloemfontein

Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix VIII. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Free-sort on contextual map

Appendix IX. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Free-sort on plan

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix X. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Direct-sort on contextual map

Appendix XI. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Direct-sort on plan

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XII. Pilot study at Lourierpark community centre: Observation of author

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XIII. Protocol for fieldwork and interviews

Preparation done prior to interviews

Consent form sent to
1. Researcher to be familiarized with the environment.
relevant authority of
2. Introduction to relevant authorities.
community centre 4 weeks
3. Set up instruments in allocated space
in advance

Interviews
Briefing of participant
Participant to be selected on 1. Participant to be briefed 1. Explain the consent form
site. about the research project to the participant
2. Discussion of the process 2. Participant sign the
and expectations consent form
3. Protection of data and
information discussed
4. Participants right to
withdraw from the study
discussed

To be repeated until required data is collected

5. Questions to be asked by

Each interview approxiametly 40 minutes

participant

Preparation Data Collection

Free-sort Direct sort
1. Explain the sort- chart 1. Participant to organise 1. Participant to organise
process to the participant sort-charts into own sort-charts into
categories predetermined categories
2. Questions on this process 2. Questions on this process
3. Researcher to document 3. Researcher to document
the sort-chart groups the sort-chart groups

Networks Social areas

1. Explain the process to 1.Participant to place 1. Participant to identify
identify social areas and stickers on identified different social areas
networks on the provided networks.
base map.
2. Participant familiarises 2. Drawing connections 2. Participant to draw the
himself with the map between different networks circumference of the area

3. Questions on network 3. Questions on social areas

formation

Debriefing of participant
Observations: Researcher observing activities
1. Familiarise with map an 1. Observe activities at each Rotate between the different
Observation

consequent
days for 8
over two

site focus area for 15 minutes focus areas

hours

2. Identify focus areas 2. Activities to be mapped on

the diagram.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XIV. Questions for semi-structured interview with community members

Spatial transformation: production of space in selected community

centres built after democracy in South Africa

University of the Free State . Department of Architecture

Multiple Sorting Tasks, Identification of social areas and networks on map supported by a
semi-structured interviews.

Semi-structured interview questions:

Questions regarding the free-sort process:

1. Please describe your thought process when choosing the categories for the free-
sort.
2. Please identify what image/images helped you form the categories?
3. What spatial aspects helped you to make this decision?

Questions regarding the direct sort process:

1. Please describe why you chose to group image “A” into category “one”.
2. Identify the spatial aspects that helped you to group the image into the chosen
category.
3. What does the place or area identified in the image mean to you in term of (a)
power or (b) public space, or (c) social connectivity?

Questions regarding the identification of social areas:

1. How does the community centre influence the identified social areas?
2. Please describe how you perceive these spaces in terms of (a) power, (b) public
space or (c) social connectivity?

Questions regarding the identification of networks:

1. How does the community centre influence the different networks within the area?
2. Please describe why the identified nodes within the network are important spaces?
3. Please explain where and why this network is perceived as (a) power, (b) public, or
(c) social connectivity.
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XV. Superimposed base map of Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre

Appendix XVI. Superimposed base map of Ubuntu community centre

 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XVII. Q-sets of the Helenvale multi-purpose resources centre

Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XVIII. Q-sets of the Ubuntu community centre

Lived reality, perception and architecture
Lived reality, perception and architecture
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XIX. Tabulation of demographic information of Helenvale. Data obtained from

Census 2011
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XX. Tabulation of demographic information of Zwide 3. Data obtained from

Census 2011
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XXI. Selection of quotes before translated to English: Helenvale multi-purpose

resources centre

Daar is die „sign‟ Helenvale, so dit is ons identiteit (37-15:112-HV5).

Dié kinders is deel van Helenvale en die woorde wat daar geskryf is,
hulle is deel van Helenvale se kinders, die „youth‟ en dit is kinders wat
nog gaan groot word - van hulle is klein. So dit is wat my herhinder aan
die identiteit van die plek en hoe mense dit insien want baie mense as
hulle hier kom dan gaan hulle altyd daar voor na toe om daai prentjie
te gaan lees wat dit daar sê (36-8:88-HV6).

Ek kan ook Helenvale daarvan sien. Dit skep ook veiligheid en ons is
omring deur veiligheid. Ek sal sê hier, dit wys dat.. .hier wys dit dat
baie mense ook werk gekry het. Die gemeenskap het werk gekry want
dit is werkers wat hier werk (39-7:70-HV4).

Die voorkant. Dis is net om vir my te bewys die is my plek. Ek kan ook
vir my vriende van ver wys daar is onse gemeenskapsaal. Onse nuwe
gebou. Ek kan trots daarop voel (40-13:206-208-HV5).

P: Kyk as ek hier staan kan ek die „view‟ baie mooi sien agter die
winkel en die, daai ronde ding daarso, daai silwer ronde ding is baie
mooi. Dit is iets goed vir die gemeenskap.

I: Wat beteken dit vir jou, die silwer ding?

P: Vir my beteken dit hy is baie belangrik né. Hy is daar, hoe kan ek

nou sê? Hy is daar vir die gemeenskap, ons kan „photos‟ vat en ons
het baie „photos‟ gevat (20-14:114-HV4).

Die saal is nie gebou vir wit, swart, om te sê wittes behoort hier en die
swartes behoort nie hier nie „wat ever‟. Die tipe saal is gebou vir,
elkeen is welkom en „thats why there is security‟. Dis...dis sodat ons
kan, geweld, mense wat miskien byvoorbeeld, mense wat kom met
karre, hulle is mooi aangetrek, hulle kom hulle dinge doen. So ek dink
dat daai „photo‟ wys dat elkeen, „rainbow nation‟, is welkom
(35-10:91-HV4).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Hierdie een wys daar by die toilette hoe mooi en skoon, die „cleaners‟
wat hierso werk, die opsigter wat so mooi kyk na onse plek en ek glo
daar is nie „n probleem. Wanneer ander mense van buitekant af kom,
kan hulle met graagte kom en praat. Die plek is baie pragtig en mooi
skoon (35-18:111-HV10).

Want die „fence‟ is reg rondom (40-11:194: HV14).

Hier voel ek nou ook veilig want… dit is nou ook die heining hier (20-
12:86).

Jy kan sien as jy op kom daarso, die hek is gesluit, jy kan sien dit is
„secure‟ en die heining daarbo [electrified fence] (21-21:9-2).

Ja die hek is gesluit en ek weet nou nie hoekom nie. Dit is seker vir
„security‟. Die hek moet oop wees en daar ook sekuriteit sit. Dit is
nader as wat ons só om moet loop, so dit is „n ingang vir die onderste
mense en die ander vir die boonste mense (27-13:111-115-HV2).

Hier sal ek ook sê dit is omsluiting en veilig binne want dit is ook nou
die klein gemeenskapsaal. Dit is ook waar mense bymekaarkom om
oor dinge te praat (36-13:116-HV8).

Omdat dit wys „open space‟ waar ons dit self kan gebruik vir
ontspanning en om uit te kom. Die veld die, dit is vir basketball, dit is
meer vir ons gemeenskap om te gebruik. Al die kinders gebruik dit en
bly lekker uit die kwaad uit (40-9:186-HV11).

Die is ook mos maar vir die gemeenskap want dit is waar die kinders
kom sokker speel, gewoonlik netbal speel hier buite op die gras en
hulle voel ook welkom en omsluiting wanneer hulle hier kom want hulle
voel as hulle hier binne is, is hulle is veilig. Hulle is nie buite in die
strate waar die „gangsters‟, hulle hardloop met die „meste‟ [messe] en
so aan (36-17:124-HV3).

Ek meen die kinders wat speel, hulle lyk vredevol, als is net lieflik
(26-5:99-HV6).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Die ingang is maar net om vir my te bewys dat die is my plek. Ja en ek

kan ook vir my vriende van ver af kom sê daar is onse
gemeenskapsaal. Dit is onse nuwe gebou (40-13:206-208-HV5).

Die „photo‟ hy wys die liefde vir die kinders, die speelgrond, die kinders
kan kom speel. Daar is „n speelgrond. Daar is „even‟ baie dinge, wat
mense daar buitekant staan, „photo‟ vat, hulle wys hulle vriende
(35-12:95-HV6).

Dit herinner my aan die kinders wat dood geskiet is. Kinders wat dood
geskiet is, nee rerig. Daai ding was opgesit toe is daar nog nie „n kind
dood nie (16-8:113-HV6).

En die stuk is mos die „entrance‟. Dit is ook „n goeie simbool want jy
sien daar wanneer jy inkom kry jy die stukkie mos en dit is om mense
te, dit is wat mense „know‟, dit is „what they know” (36-14:116-HV5).

Ek dink dit is pragtig want dit is ook van Helenvale se kinders wat hulle
daar gesit het. So dit speel „n belangrike rol want dit is deel van ons
geskiedenis (36-4:48-HV6).

Is veilig. Als is reg rondom hier toe. Enige „violence‟ wat buitekant
gebeur, die is weg gesteek (26-6:103-HV12).

As ons nou hier in kom is dit die sekuriteit wat daar sit, ek voel sommer
veilig om hier in te kom. Die „securities‟ is daar by die hek (22-5:159-
HV13).

I: Wat is die toring se betekenis vir jou?

P: Want dit is „n simbool van Helenvale, dit is welkom. Die uitsig is so

mooi, ek voel veilig en ek voel terselde tyd welkom as ek daarso staan
(37-17:119-122-HV13).

I: Hoekom is nommer 13, met die toring, onder welkom?

P: Die rede hoekom hy onder welkom is, is sodat hy gesien word. Dat
hy gesien moet word (15-18:112-HV13).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Die toring is „n baken (24-11:96-HV13).

Dit beteken vir my baie want as jy in „extension‟ 12 staan en jy kyk af

dan sien jy die simbool en dit gee... dan jy sien geskryf „Helenvale
resource centre‟ [op die toring]. So dit is „n simbool dat dit die plek is
van die gemeenskap want dit sê „Helenvale resource centre‟. Dit is
waar die gemeenskap kom om ook die raadslid te kan sien, want hier
is miskien mense wat hier binne kan help en so aan (36-9:94-HV13).

Die een wys ook dat die plek aan ons behoort as gemeenskap en soos
u kan sien, hoe groen is die grass daar buitekant, die ligte wat brand,
selfs in die aand kan jy sien hoe mooi skyn die lig (35-19:113-HV12).
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XXII. Correspondence analysis for Helenvale community centre

Correspondence Analysis of a Two-Way Table

Variables and number of categories:

Row variables: Helenvale 2(15)

Column variables: Association HV(5)

Variable with counts (or other correspondence measure): Freq HV

Eigenvalues: .2786 .1538 .0559 .0116

Total chi-square=114.475 df=56 p=0.000

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia (MadStoff Helenvale 2.sta)

Name Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Row Coordin. Coordin. Mass Quality Relative Inertia
Number Dim.1 Dim.2 Inertia Dim.1
HV1 1 -0.359447 0.152369 0.056769 0.530056 0.032655 0.026326
HV2 2 -0.402607 0.778783 0.091703 0.987697 0.142752 0.053352
HV3 3 0.821891 -0.204832 0.074236 0.992974 0.107300 0.179991
HV4 4 -0.109270 -0.407316 0.052402 0.261605 0.071264 0.002246
HV5 5 -0.474323 -0.319754 0.069869 0.800488 0.057135 0.056421
HV6 6 -0.463838 -0.562228 0.087336 0.946573 0.098053 0.067443
HV7 7 -0.163817 -0.111507 0.048035 0.606426 0.006222 0.004627
HV8 8 0.998842 0.127065 0.078603 0.985148 0.161818 0.281474
HV9 9 0.309720 -0.267627 0.048035 0.748988 0.021496 0.016539
HV10 10 0.058205 -0.321335 0.048035 0.758577 0.013509 0.000584
HV11 11 0.824006 0.252147 0.074236 0.987609 0.111657 0.180918
HV12 12 -0.393057 0.181447 0.065502 0.969142 0.025340 0.036322
HV13 13 -0.499662 -0.113514 0.082969 0.624753 0.069750 0.074350
HV14 14 -0.229969 0.636735 0.069869 0.974710 0.065720 0.013263
HV15 15 0.180756 -0.268825 0.052402 0.717566 0.015330 0.006145

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions

Name to Inertia (MadStoff Helenvale
2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15
x5
Standardization: Row and column
profiles
Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
HV1 0.449318 0.008568 0.080738
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions

Name to Inertia (MadStoff Helenvale
2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15
x5
Standardization: Row and column
profiles
Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
HV2 0.208300 0.361577 0.779398
HV3 0.934906 0.020249 0.058068
HV4 0.017563 0.056519 0.244042
HV5 0.550372 0.046441 0.250116
HV6 0.383346 0.179474 0.563227
HV7 0.414416 0.003883 0.192010
HV8 0.969459 0.008250 0.015689
HV9 0.428812 0.022367 0.320176
HV10 0.024098 0.032245 0.734479
HV11 0.903050 0.030684 0.084559
HV12 0.798895 0.014020 0.170246
HV13 0.594091 0.006950 0.030662
HV14 0.112473 0.184156 0.862237
HV15 0.223412 0.024619 0.494154

Column Column Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia (MadStoff Helenvale

Name 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Column Coordin. Coordin. Mass Quality Relative
Number Dim.1 Dim.2 Inertia
Community 1 0.929446 -0.035184 0.240175 0.996795 0.416981
Enclosure 2 -0.237160 0.713769 0.218341 0.997433 0.247725
Identity 3 -0.210501 -0.277588 0.187773 0.387217 0.117733
Welcome/ Inviting 4 -0.431938 -0.194096 0.183406 0.657783 0.125076
Symbol 5 -0.309452 -0.350386 0.170306 0.805000 0.092485

Column Column Coordinates and Contributions to

Name Inertia (MadStoff Helenvale 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Inertia Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
Community 0.744703 0.995369 0.001933 0.001426
Enclosure 0.044078 0.099168 0.723159 0.898266
Identity 0.029864 0.141373 0.094063 0.245844
Welcome/ Inviting 0.122819 0.547275 0.044919 0.110508
Symbol 0.058536 0.352752 0.135927 0.452248
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

2D Plot of Row Coordinates; Dimensions: 1 x 2

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
1.0
Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .15382 (30.77% of Inertia)

0.8 HV2

HV14
0.6

0.4
HV11
0.2 HV12
HV1 HV8

0.0
HV13 HV7
-0.2 HV3
HV15 HV9
HV5 HV10
-0.4 HV4

HV6
-0.6

-0.8
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .27861 (55.73% of Inertia)

2D Plot of Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
1.0
Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .15382 (30.77% of Inertia)

0.8
Enclosure

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 Community

Welcome/ Inviting
-0.2
Identity
Symbol
-0.4

-0.6
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .27861 (55.73% of Inertia)
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

1D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates for Dimension: 1

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Eigenvalue: .27861 (55.734% of Inertia) Contribution to Chi-square: 63.801
1.2

HV8
1.0 Community
HV11
HV3
0.8

0.6
Coordinate Value

0.4
HV9

0.2 HV15
HV10
0.0
HV4
HV7
-0.2 HV14 Identity
Enclosure
Symbol
HV1
HV12
HV2 Welcome/ Inviting
-0.4 HV6
HV5
HV13
-0.6

-0.8
Row Coordinates Column Coordinates

1D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates for Dimension: 2

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Eigenvalue: .15382 (30.771% of Inertia) Contribution to Chi-square: 35.225
1.0

0.8 HV2
Enclosure
HV14
0.6

0.4
Coordinate Value

HV11
0.2 HV12
HV1
HV8

0.0 Community
HV7
HV13
HV3 Welcome/ Inviting
-0.2 HV9
HV15 Identity
HV5
HV10 Symbol
-0.4 HV4

HV6
-0.6

-0.8
Row Coordinates Column Coordinates
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
1.0
Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .15382 (30.77% of Inertia)

0.8 HV2
Enclosure
HV14
0.6

0.4
HV11
0.2 HV12
HV1 HV8

0.0 Community
HV13 HV7
Welcome/ Inviting HV3
-0.2 HV15HV9
Identity
HV5 Symbol HV10
-0.4 HV4

HV6
-0.6

-0.8
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Row.Coords
Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .27861 (55.73% of Inertia) Col.Coords

Number Eigenvalues and Inertia for all Dimensions (MadStoff

of Dims. Helenvale 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Total Inertia=.49989 Chi²=114.48 df=56 p=.00001
Singular Eigen- Perc. of Cumulatv Chi
Values Values Inertia Percent Squares
1 0.527832 0.278607 55.73357 55.7336 63.80103
2 0.392201 0.153821 30.77096 86.5045 35.22508
3 0.236379 0.055875 11.17744 97.6820 12.79538
4 0.107646 0.011588 2.31803 100.0000 2.65357
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Plot of Eigenvalues
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Total Inertia=.49989 Chi²=114.48 df=56 p=.00001
0.35

0.30

0.25
Eigenvalue

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4
Number of Dimensions
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Appendix XXIII. Correspondence analysis for Ubuntu community centre

Correspondence Analysis of a Two-Way Table

Variables and number of categories

Row variables: Ubuntu 2(15)

Column variables: Association Ub(5)

Variable with counts (or other correspondence measure): Freq Ub2

Eigenvalues: .2354 .1288 .0735 .0306

Total chi-square=110.507 df=56 p=.0000

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)

Name Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Row Coordin. Coordin. Mass Quality Relative Inertia
Number Dim.1 Dim.2 Inertia Dim.1
UB1 1 -0.78798 0.038163 0.076271 0.823421 0.123115 0.201176
UB2 2 0.14548 -0.566876 0.072034 0.640717 0.082237 0.006476
UB3 3 0.27364 0.008174 0.059322 0.997647 0.009517 0.018870
UB4 4 0.31474 0.101315 0.076271 0.316470 0.056270 0.032096
UB5 5 0.28584 0.139316 0.029661 0.736164 0.008700 0.010295
UB6 6 0.42621 -0.391935 0.050847 0.800789 0.045464 0.039238
UB7 7 -0.53169 0.342325 0.088983 0.900795 0.084359 0.106858
UB8 8 0.68291 0.701611 0.067797 0.933591 0.148669 0.134312
UB9 9 0.19240 0.321780 0.076271 0.419108 0.054628 0.011994
UB10 10 0.41926 0.273932 0.050847 0.705594 0.038600 0.037968
UB11 11 -1.00788 0.187355 0.080508 0.978615 0.184639 0.347410
UB12 12 0.25392 -0.005345 0.050847 0.169753 0.041264 0.013927
UB13 13 -0.07719 -0.488225 0.084746 0.915613 0.048293 0.002145
UB14 14 0.36604 -0.163110 0.063559 0.853662 0.025535 0.036176
UB15 15 -0.05887 -0.472850 0.072034 0.717103 0.048708 0.001060

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions

Name to Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15
x5
Standardization: Row and column
profiles
Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
UB1 0.821494 0.000863 0.001927
UB2 0.039591 0.179761 0.601126
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions

Name to Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15
x5
Standardization: Row and column
profiles
Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
UB3 0.996758 0.000031 0.000889
UB4 0.286756 0.006080 0.029713
UB5 0.594855 0.004471 0.141309
UB6 0.433886 0.060657 0.366903
UB7 0.636815 0.080978 0.263981
UB8 0.454187 0.259169 0.479403
UB9 0.110379 0.061328 0.308730
UB10 0.494496 0.029630 0.211098
UB11 0.945929 0.021946 0.032687
UB12 0.169678 0.000011 0.000075
UB13 0.022328 0.156870 0.893285
UB14 0.712239 0.013132 0.141423
UB15 0.010945 0.125074 0.706158

Column Column Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)

Name Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Column Coordin. Coordin. Mass Quality Relative
Number Dim.1 Dim.2 Inertia
Community 1 -0.752271 0.143567 0.250000 0.973763 0.321582
Enclosure 2 0.499369 0.455350 0.220339 0.880543 0.244065
Identity 3 -0.199869 -0.152210 0.156780 0.274767 0.076910
Welcome/ Inviting 4 0.252838 -0.623258 0.190678 0.882652 0.208705
Symbol 5 0.335680 0.035576 0.182203 0.298096 0.148738

Column Column Coordinates and Contributions to

Name Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Inertia Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
Community 0.600992 0.939543 0.040016 0.034220
Enclosure 0.233408 0.480784 0.354785 0.399759
Identity 0.026605 0.173908 0.028207 0.100859
Welcome/ Inviting 0.051780 0.124730 0.575201 0.757922
Symbol 0.087214 0.294785 0.001791 0.003311

Number Eigenvalues and Inertia for all Dimensions (MadStoff Ubuntu

of Dims. 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Total Inertia=.46825 Chi²=110.51 df=56 p=.00002
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Singular Eigen- Perc. of Cumulatv Chi

Values Values Inertia Percent Squares
1 0.485188 0.235407 50.27359 50.2736 55.55608
2 0.358846 0.128771 27.50031 77.7739 30.38990
3 0.271126 0.073509 15.69863 93.4725 17.34816
4 0.174829 0.030565 6.52748 100.0000 7.21335

Plot of Eigenvalues
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Total Inertia=.46825 Chi²=110.51 df=56 p=.00002
0.30

0.25

0.20
Eigenvalue

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4
Number of Dimensions
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

1D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates for Dimension: 1

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Eigenvalue: .23541 (50.274% of Inertia) Contribution to Chi-square: 55.556
1.0

0.8
UB8
0.6
Enclosure
UB6
UB10
0.4 UB14 Symbol
UB4
UB5
UB3
UB12 Welcome/ Inviting
0.2 UB9
UB2
Coordinate Value

0.0 UB15
UB13
Identity
-0.2

-0.4
UB7
-0.6
UB1 Community
-0.8

-1.0 UB11

-1.2
Row Coordinates Column Coordinates

1D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates for Dimension: 2

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Eigenvalue: .12877 (27.500% of Inertia) Contribution to Chi-square: 30.390
1.0

0.8
UB8

0.6
Enclosure
0.4 UB7
UB9
Coordinate Value

UB10
0.2 UB11
UB5 Community
UB4
UB1
UB3 Symbol
0.0 UB12

UB14 Identity
-0.2

UB6
-0.4
UB15
UB13
UB2
-0.6 Welcome/ Inviting

-0.8
Row Coordinates Column Coordinates
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

1D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates for Dimension: 1

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Eigenvalue: .23541 (50.274% of Inertia) Contribution to Chi-square: 55.556
1.0

0.8
UB8
0.6
Enclosure
UB6
UB10
0.4 UB14 Symbol
UB4
UB5
UB3
UB12 Welcome/ Inviting
0.2 UB9
UB2
Coordinate Value

0.0 UB15
UB13
Identity
-0.2

-0.4
UB7
-0.6
UB1 Community
-0.8

-1.0 UB11

-1.2
Row Coordinates Column Coordinates

Column Column Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)

Name Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Column Coordin. Coordin. Mass Quality Relative
Number Dim.1 Dim.2 Inertia
Community 1 -0.752271 0.143567 0.250000 0.973763 0.321582
Enclosure 2 0.499369 0.455350 0.220339 0.880543 0.244065
Identity 3 -0.199869 -0.152210 0.156780 0.274767 0.076910
Welcome/ Inviting 4 0.252838 -0.623258 0.190678 0.882652 0.208705
Symbol 5 0.335680 0.035576 0.182203 0.298096 0.148738

Column Column Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia

Name (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta) Input Table (Rows x
Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Inertia Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
Community 0.600992 0.939543 0.040016 0.034220
Enclosure 0.233408 0.480784 0.354785 0.399759
Identity 0.026605 0.173908 0.028207 0.100859
Welcome/ Inviting 0.051780 0.124730 0.575201 0.757922
Symbol 0.087214 0.294785 0.001791 0.003311
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Number Eigenvalues and Inertia for all Dimensions (MadStoff Ubuntu

of Dims. 2.sta)
Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Total Inertia=.46825 Chi²=110.51 df=56 p=.00002
Singular Eigen- Perc. of Cumulatv Chi
Values Values Inertia Percent Squares
1 0.485188 0.235407 50.27359 50.2736 55.55608
2 0.358846 0.128771 27.50031 77.7739 30.38990
3 0.271126 0.073509 15.69863 93.4725 17.34816
4 0.174829 0.030565 6.52748 100.0000 7.21335

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)

Name Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Row Coordin. Coordin. Mass Quality Relative Inertia
Number Dim.1 Dim.2 Inertia Dim.1
UB1 1 -0.78798 0.038163 0.076271 0.823421 0.123115 0.201176
UB2 2 0.14548 -0.566876 0.072034 0.640717 0.082237 0.006476
UB3 3 0.27364 0.008174 0.059322 0.997647 0.009517 0.018870
UB4 4 0.31474 0.101315 0.076271 0.316470 0.056270 0.032096
UB5 5 0.28584 0.139316 0.029661 0.736164 0.008700 0.010295
UB6 6 0.42621 -0.391935 0.050847 0.800789 0.045464 0.039238
UB7 7 -0.53169 0.342325 0.088983 0.900795 0.084359 0.106858
UB8 8 0.68291 0.701611 0.067797 0.933591 0.148669 0.134312
UB9 9 0.19240 0.321780 0.076271 0.419108 0.054628 0.011994
UB10 10 0.41926 0.273932 0.050847 0.705594 0.038600 0.037968
UB11 11 -1.00788 0.187355 0.080508 0.978615 0.184639 0.347410
UB12 12 0.25392 -0.005345 0.050847 0.169753 0.041264 0.013927
UB13 13 -0.07719 -0.488225 0.084746 0.915613 0.048293 0.002145
UB14 14 0.36604 -0.163110 0.063559 0.853662 0.025535 0.036176
UB15 15 -0.05887 -0.472850 0.072034 0.717103 0.048708 0.001060

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia

Name (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta) ; Input Table (Rows x
Columns): 15 x 5; Standardization: Row and
column profiles
Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
UB1 0.821494 0.000863 0.001927
UB2 0.039591 0.179761 0.601126
UB3 0.996758 0.000031 0.000889
UB4 0.286756 0.006080 0.029713
UB5 0.594855 0.004471 0.141309
UB6 0.433886 0.060657 0.366903
UB7 0.636815 0.080978 0.263981
UB8 0.454187 0.259169 0.479403
UB9 0.110379 0.061328 0.308730
UB10 0.494496 0.029630 0.211098
UB11 0.945929 0.021946 0.032687
UB12 0.169678 0.000011 0.000075
 Lived reality, perception and architecture

Row Row Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia

Name (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta) ; Input Table (Rows x
Columns): 15 x 5; Standardization: Row and
column profiles
Cosine² Inertia Cosine²
Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.2
UB13 0.022328 0.156870 0.893285
UB14 0.712239 0.013132 0.141423
UB15 0.010945 0.125074 0.706158

Column Column Coordinates and Contributions to Inertia (MadStoff Ubuntu 2.sta)

Name Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
Column Coordin. Coordin. Mass Quality Relative
Number Dim.1 Dim.2 Inertia
Community 1 -0.752271 0.143567 0.250000 0.973763 0.321582
Enclosure 2 0.499369 0.455350 0.220339 0.880543 0.244065
Identity 3 -0.199869 -0.152210 0.156780 0.274767 0.076910
Welcome/ Inviting 4 0.252838 -0.623258 0.190678 0.882652 0.208705
Symbol 5 0.335680 0.035576 0.182203 0.298096 0.148738

2D Plot of Row and Column Coordinates; Dimension: 1 x 2

Input Table (Rows x Columns): 15 x 5
Standardization: Row and column profiles
1.0
Dimension 2; Eigenvalue: .12877 (27.50% of Inertia)

0.8
UB8

0.6
Enclosure
0.4 UB7 UB9
UB10
0.2 UB11
Community UB5
UB4
UB1 Symbol
UB3
UB12
0.0
Identity UB14
-0.2

UB6
-0.4 UB15
UB13
UB2
-0.6 Welcome/ Inviting

-0.8
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Row.Coords
Dimension 1; Eigenvalue: .23541 (50.27% of Inertia) Col.Coords