1
Social interaction and cohesion is one of the categories within Salvador Rueda’s larger framework for evaluating cities. Rueda’s approach considers the city as a complex, layered system and uses GIS as a tool for evaluation. The social interaction and cohesion tool departs from this framework, focusing on specific indicator data at the level of human experience to evaluate the ability for spaces to support social interaction and cohesion in urban environments. Rueda’s theory of social interaction is used in creating a framework of primary and secondary qualities to organize indicators. Land use encompasses social space, services, and housing; job access was added as well. Demographics includes age, income and culture, and eliminates Rueda’s category of education. Infrastructure includes transit and adds information technology. IT was considered important because modern access to digital modes of communication supports more social interaction in public space—ie, phones allow people to easily communicate a place to meet or congregate.
2
The key to this tool is the careful translation of a qualitative understanding of urban space into easily measurable quantitative information/indicators. For example, data evaluation within the category of social space included tree species height, canopy and trunk diameter as indicators of overall tree health. All indicators are divided into public and private categories.
Space includes tree species and height as public indicators alongside [other plantings], [health, pollution or draught], [dominant sound source], [exterior seating], [lighting] and [kid friendliness]; private indicators include [name], [# occupancy], [seating type], [# employees], [comfort], [character].
Housing includes [public housing] as a public indicator, and [housing type], [housing diversity], [bath], [bedroom #], [# floors], [area], [cost per sq ft], [rental cost] as private indicators.
3
In comparing Gracia and the Superilla, the use category evaluated meeting places. Lighting and source of sound were at their highest level in Gracia, and third-space max occupancy along with diversity of seating were also high. Lushness of vegetation was lower, but tree species was similar. Indicators of access to housing were similar. Services and jobs indicators were lower and sometimes immeasurable. Despite the lack of lush vegetation and services, the relative success of Gracia is seen through demo graphics and infrastructure indicators, revealing the high level of walkability/bike friendliness and lower costs of staple foods. In Gracia, traditional transit, job diversity and lush vegetation are not necessary for the successful experience of a meeting place.
lcabcn2016uo.wordpress.com 