TERRITORIALITY AND HESTER’S SUGGESTION 1
Territoriality in Relation to Hester’s Suggestion
Territoriality in Relation to Hester’s Suggestion
Territoriality in community design is a term referring to thenon-verbal communication regarding the manner in which people usespace to inform occupancy or ownership in possessions or areas ofpossessions (Francis, 2013). According to Lozano (2012),territoriality revolves around the concept that a person’s home issacred that one tries to keep others away from its use or control.Territoriality means a way of achieving privacy through symbolic orphysical barriers because space is considered personalised to meetone`s security, identity, reference frame and self-fulfilment(Francis, 2013). Hester’s idea about connectedness relates toterritoriality in some ways in the sense that they converge to theindividuals state of feelings on belonging to a part of the community(Hester, 2006). According to Hester (2006) territorialities are thoseplaces, elements or resources that the community attributes specialconnections to and are locally based about experience and knowledge.
The community design concept in regards to public and private turfsvaries considerably owing to different cultural parameters but thesense of ownership does not change. According to Hester (2006), it iseasy for people to observe what they do not want regarding space yetsuch community involvement solves such hardships by integrating bothmembers and shapers. Hester uses territoriality as a tool forencouraging community participation in the designing process to mapwhat they sense belonging to them (Francis, 2013). For example, therock-strewn parking lot is considered sacred for the community’sfestival. This special attachment or control of space connectscommunity members’ physical characteristics and direct the efforts,elements and materials used for the design and construction of thesacred place (Lozano (2012). This idea translates to the combinationof powerful forces of democracy and ecology required for a revolutiondesign that brings people together to take place. As democracy grantsliberty, ecology generates responsible freedom through theexplanation of interconnectedness with entities.
Hester defines community design as the entire public spaces whereresidents feel a sense of possession or ownership based on combinedresponsibility, frequent shared utility and familiar association. Thespaces are crucial for a connected community even when they do notessentially keep in correspondence to the political definitions of aparticular district, county or neighbourhood (Hester, 2006). In mostinstances, many neighbourhood spaces materialise naturally throughthe physical terrain and the interactions of the community and theystill need positive facilitation through management and designs. Fora community design to accomplish successes, Hester points out that itrequires a genuine community development progression (Hester, 2006).Territoriality links to Hester s concept of connection whenconsidering clarity of residents own spaces and the decisions todelineate them in search for a sociable community design. Inaddition, the need to comprehend the value of space for variousgroups in the community and means of adding value without losing thecommunity senses and identity links to territoriality as portrayed inindividuals (Lozano, 2012).
Territoriality shares Hester ideas of attempting to forge aconnection with fellow residents or citizens and our naturalsurroundings. For instance, the spaces that occupy phone booths,ponds, trash dumps and transportation shades or corridors usuallycome out as possessed by the community (Francis, 2013). Hesteremphasises the need to comprehend such spaces inclusive of the valuethey hold for different community groups and generate ways of addingthis value just like individuals would act (Hester, 2006). Hester’sidea about this connectedness dwells on the construction of anecological democracy through community design. Connection associatesto rebuilding our cities in such a way that people can work or relatebetter to others especially neighbour. Solving the intricatecommunity issue assists in maintaining the ecological systems,individuals’ freedom and the way of life that life liberty dependson thereby enabling the gain of pleasure from the dwelling places.According to Hester (2006), the community needs connectednesses ofplaces that attract active and informed society members, designs thatare ecologically resilient and place that enhance people’s livesthrough their livelihood.
The control of one’s space cannot be considered on personalconsiderations of spatial component alone but by a combination ofpersonal and environmental factors (Lozano, 2012). Territoriality notonly encompasses the realisation of needing more space whereby supplycannot meet, but it also comes along with emotional imbalances ofprivacy deprivation. When people live, they work and play in the areathey know best implying that they stand chances of being impacted bytheir physical environment. The urban community designs show theelements of overcrowding as they get deprived of streets andplaygrounds. Unfortunately, these areas represent a venue for aconnection where the community comes together to unwind, socialise orunfold. Territoriality shapes the community’s belief in a resilientforce that keeps people informed and effectively participating in thelocal decision making. It influences the community design and ispowerful to engage civically to portray freedom. Typically, communitychannels for designs tend to leave the residents but Hester’s ideaof territoriality brings an integration of both perspectives into asingle one (Francis, 2013).
Territoriality is the phenomena of trying to mark a territory by theuse of gestures, characteristic or certain behaviours. This conceptextends to the community as well. Hester’s idea share thisimplication concerning inhabited places having a central and certainlocally derived character with a permeable boundary that holdsimportant externalities and resources controlled for sustainabilityand connection effects. Community involvement in the creation ofecological and democratic designs enhances the feeling of belongingamong the residents of a particular society.
Francis, M. (2013). Themeaning of gardens: Idea, place, and action.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hester, R. (2006). Designfor ecological democracy. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.
Lozano, E. (2012). Communitydesign and the culture of cities: The crossroad and the wall.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.