33
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 imagesIMAGES
 architectural issues - social spaces                                                           4.0
 01
 01. Image of men playing cards in 
Orange Farm  (by author)
34
 imagesIMAGES
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 02,03,04,05.  Images of organically
 developed social spaces in Refugee 
Camp in Chad (Herz 2007) 
02 03
 0504
35
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 imagesIMAGES
 architectural issues - social spaces
 city of refuge 
The idea of a city of refuge is not a new one and first emerged in the Hebraic tradition of 
protecting others in the Bible book, Numbers. It deals with the basic human right to immunity 
and hospitality if one conducts oneself peacefully. The Bible sees all people as God?s creation 
that has common possession of the surface of the earth and no one can withhold access to 
it from another man. (Derrida 2004:58) Historically the homeless and people seeking asylum 
are pushed to the periphery due to fears that they will cause social strain. People who have 
been granted asylum or shelter are still often controlled, curbed and closely monitored. 
A city of refuge is then defined as  a protected place for people to develop 
independence and develop a greater sense of self. (Davis 2004:20)
 The need for Refuge is normally tied to a political transition. Abrupt transitions of politics give rise to 
many emerging as well as disappearing types in space. Instances of these spaces are being repeated 
globally, such as squatter camps, emergency camps, disaster zones, disaster settlements, temporal 
borders, check-points, customs areas and tents.  All of them are normally seen as a B version of 
high architecture, or high urbanism, an exception to the stable and obedient arrangement of space. 
Normally, the acceptance of a temporal solution is an acceptance of lowering 
standards. At the same time there is a strong belief that it is an appropriate method 
with which to reach the next level with the promise of stability. (Weiss 2007:1) 
Architecture may not be the first thing most people will consider when looking at 
the plight of the homeless, displaced, refugees and asylum seekers. However, 
architecture can play an important role in creating environments which help sustain 
dignity and create a sense of belonging for people with very few social connections. 
This thesis will explore how planning can help to alleviate feelings of  mistrust and problems of xenophobia. 
The intervention will aim help people regain control of their lives by helping them to contribute to the 
market economy. The design will need to reflect the values of society, sustaining hope and human dignity. 
(Davis 2004:20) To achieve this there needs to be a balance between function, quality, construction 
and delight. There needs to be an architecture that is against alienation and will facilitate healing.
 For this solution to be successful, the intervention needs to be 
indistinguishable from the surrounding area to avoid being stigmatised. 
The design must be carefully handled, creating more functional and dignified spaces. It will need 
to cater for a sense of identity for the isolated person to feel welcome, comfortable and safe. 
Good design can improve the quality of life whether it is physical or emotional.  (Davis 2004:20)
 06. Image of fence at border between South Africa 
and Zimbabwe (by author)
 06
36
 imagesIMAGES
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 07.  Images from Refugee camp
 in Chad (Herz 2007) 
07
37
 images
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 Heterotopias as a city of 
Refuge
 The concept of Heterotopias as described 
by philosopher Michel Foucault in 1967 is a 
term used to describe places and spaces of 
otherness. These are ?spaces to be? within the 
contemporary ?spaces of flow?. Heterotopias are 
sheltered spaces closed off from the political 
and economical sphere. They are essentially 
sanctuaries, refuges or protected spaces.  They 
are sacred healing community spaces in which 
people are able to take refuge or escape their 
everyday existence. Examples of these places 
are graveyards, temples, theatres, cinemas, 
libraries, museums, saunas, holiday resorts, 
brothels and theme parks.  The philosopher called 
for a society with many heterotopias, not only as 
a space with several places for the affirmation 
of difference, but also as a means of escape 
from authoritarianism and repression. (Foucault 
1967:3-9) The term is also used to describe the 
complex relationships spaces have to memory, 
culture, rituals, identity and history.  The space 
in which we live and in which our time and our 
history occurs is heterogeneous and complex. 
The notion of heterotopias is the opposite to that 
of the notion of the camp where civil and human 
rights have been suspended and where life is 
reduced to ?bare life?. ?Bare life? is a life that has 
been stripped of its cultural form and it civilised 
character. It is also where the distinction between 
public and private space has been suspended. 
It occurs when a citizen has been stripped of 
his citizenship. In the contemporary city we 
are beginning to encounter more and more 
instances of camp like situation where the ?bare 
life? is exposed.  These can be seen in plight 
of the homeless in slums, informal settlements 
and refugee camps. Although not all of these 
are camps per say,their precarious informality 
exposes its inhabitants to the conditions of 
a ?bare life?. (Cauter 2007:237-239) So the 
intention of this project is therefore concerned 
with the making of heterotopias (safe havens) 
as opposed to camps or camp like situations.
 Problem of Camps
 In order to understand how architecture can 
affect on the condition of a ?bare life? we need 
to firstly understand how the design of camps 
contribute to the loss of identity, culture, sense of 
self and distinction between public and private. 
Refugee camps are planned by architects and 
technical planners of UNHCR. Based on the 
belief of identical human needs and global 
human rights, fundamental planning approach 
for camps is characterized by neutrality. The 
standardized plan for a refugee camp starts 
with the tent as the smallest basic unit which 
is then organized in clusters (16 tents), blocks 
(16 clusters), camp sectors (4 blocks) and the 
complete camp (4 sectors) that houses 20.000 
refugees in its ?ideal? case. (Herz 2007:316)
 People are reduced to numbers with the only way 
to identify one?s tent is to look for the assigned 
row and tent number . There is little regard for 
how these people live their lives, their cultural 
and religious practices and their social networks.
 The image of an idealized utopian city emerges, 
reminiscent of urban planning of the modern 
era in its belief in structured organization 
and clear separation of functions and uses. 
This modernistic planning approach finds its 
application all over the world. The strict order 
based on western European ideals seems can 
be a completely inappropriate response in its 
context. Regardless of whether the refugee 
drama is taking place in dense jungles or 
dry mountain regions, the same model of 
a European idealized city is used to house 
refugees. This often becomes jeopardy in the 
context of violence and catastrophes. The 
camp is actually the embodiment of rationalist 
planning. This suggests that the modern 
movement promoted authoritarian architecture 
as a system of control. (Herz 2007:316) 
An example of this occurred when the UNHCR 
applied their standardized plan for refugee 
camps for the new camp of Gondje in Sudan 
with a projected refugee population of up to 
20.000 on a region that was heavily forested 
and had specific topographical features, 
making their ?neutral? plan unusable.  As they 
were lacking the specific local knowledge of the 
region, the architects of UNHCR never noticed 
the inappropriateness of their plan. This lead 
to the clearing of large forest areas and the 
settlement of approximately 15.000 people ? a 
size of settlement that is unknown to the region 
otherwise ? had gravest effects on the nature and 
water balance of the region. In this we can see 
that through irresponsible architecture we can 
do even more harm than good. (Herz 2007:316)
  
38
 imagesIMAGES
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 07. Images of various projects
 by members of Team 10 (www.team10online.org:accessed July 2008)) 
07
39
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 imagesIMAGES
 hierarchies of space
 So how are the notions of Heterotopias applied 
in architectural terms? We began to see some 
examples in the 1950?s and 1960?s in the work 
of Team 10 as a critique of the modernist utopia. 
Team 10 grew out of the criticism within CIAM 
at the extreme functionalism of LeCorbusier 
and the modernist movement at the time.  The 
Modernist notion of the city could be clearly seen 
in Le Corbusiers design for Le Ville Radieuse 
where functions were segregated within the 
city.  Le Corbusier and other modernists saw 
streets as having an obsolete function and 
proposed separating pedestrians and transport 
to increase the efficiency of movement. They 
also divided the functions of the city into 3 main 
categories or zones namely dwelling, work and 
recreation which were to be separated and 
only connected by transportation. Members 
within CIAM in 1953 began to oppose these 
ideas and instead divided the notion of the city 
into a hierarchy of spaces namely the house, 
street, district and the city. These ideas were 
fundamentally different as architects began to 
see the city as a hierarchy of space with an 
emphasis on the activities of people. These 
members of CIAM later became team 10 as 
included architects such as the Alison and Peter 
Smithson, Aldo Van Ayck, George Chandalis , 
Shadrach Woods, Giancarlo Di Carlo, John 
Voelcker, Jaap Bakema and Ralph Erskine .
 Team 10 architects were concerned that 
modern architecture was not based on the real 
lives of its users.  They believed that how people 
used their homes and neighbourhoods could 
not be standardised and became interested in 
the everyday use of the built environment. They 
felt that the ?heroic? modernists were insensitive 
to the diverse everyday interactions of people. 
They also felt that modernism ignored the 
desire of ordinary citizens to shape the space 
around them. Modernist design consisted 
of buildings with dominant size, intimidating 
scale and space hungry plans. They were 
undifferentiated masses with no sense of 
personal space and identity. They saw that this 
type of planning as only being suited to an idea 
of a stable society that is not fundamentally 
changing. This however was not the case as 
contemporary cities are in constant flux and a 
city which is not adaptable is unsustainable. 
This was the beginning of the shift of focus of 
architecture back towards ideas of humanism, 
regionalism and the organic operation of cities. 
They wrote  ? Man may readily identify himself 
with his own hearth, but not easily with the 
town within which it is placed. ?Belonging? is a 
basic emotional need - its associations are of 
the simplest order. From ?belonging? - identity - 
comes the enriched sense of neighbourliness. 
The short narrow street of the slum succeeds 
where spacious redevelopment frequently fails. ? 
Team 10?s critque however did not go far 
enough and was ineffectual. This challenged 
many architects and writers to re-examine the 
modern planning principles being employed 
at the time. Some of the more radical of 
these were groups such as Archigram and 
the Metabolists who designed schemes for 
mass society which created large flexible and 
extendable structures which relied heavily on 
and embraced technological advancement 
which enabled an organic growth process to 
allowing the city to adapt and change with society.
 08. Team 10 diagram of the
 city  (www.team10online.org:accessed 
July 2008)) 
08
40
 images
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 by Jane Jacobs an urban theorist, writer and 
activist which highlighted the importance of the 
organic operation of cities. Her book was also 
a strong critique of the urban renewal policies 
of the 1950?s which, she claimed, destroyed 
communities and created isolated, unnatural 
urban spaces. Jacobs advocated dense, 
mixed-use neighborhoods and frequently 
cited New York City?s Greenwich Village as an 
example of a vibrant urban community. Her 
emphasis was on the realm of social activities in 
the city and the spaces that they occupy. These 
are parks, sidewalks, streets and gathering 
spaces where people can have contact within 
the city.  She saw that cities contained different 
people and activities and that these interactions 
had to be fostered by architecture and planning. 
The importance of mixed uses with smaller 
blocks and medium densities were highlighted 
as generators for the required diversity in 
the city. She saw public space as not being 
undifferentiated open space but as smaller 
pockets of space for a range of activities. 
These writings were an important influence 
on the New Urbanism moment of the 1980?s. 
So we begin to see that it is in these spaces that 
a city and architecture begins to come alive.
 Charles Correa (an Indian Architect, planner, 
activist and theoretician who studied architecture 
at the Massachusetts Institute of technology) 
also sees the value of space which addresses 
social needs within a city. Correa states that 
architects face the formidable challenge of 
using their skills and knowledge to alleviate 
the dehumanising conditions experienced by 
those who are at the margins of society. (Correa 
1983:43) Correa believes that housing people is 
about more than just providing houses. There 
needs to be a system of space that becomes 
a place where people live with a series of 
thresholds which address social needs.  These 
begin from the private (sleeping spaces), to the 
common space (cooking, eating), to the semi 
public (the front door step where people interact 
and children play) to the common public space. 
This is about creating an architectural response 
that responds to the user, by understanding 
human needs and not simply about abstractly 
solving the problem programmatically. Correa 
compares the role of the architect to that of 
carpenter and mason who must be able to 
participate in the design and construction 
process while heightening the visual sensibility of 
the environment. He also suggests that we have 
to be careful not to patronise the marginalised. 
We need to be aware the problem of diversity 
and not only focus on the integration of people 
into society. Correa suggests that a design for a 
community needs to be a celebration of diversity 
and not merely about integration.  Diversity and 
richness comes from layers of complexities 
of a society that need to engage with in order 
for a community to be successful. (Correa 
1983:45) There isn?t only a need for coherence 
but there is also a positive tension that exists in 
diversity and difference. There needs to be an 
understanding of what forms of integration can 
make a difference in people?s lives and how 
this can be achieved.  Integration that facilitates 
connectedness that brings people together in 
their diversity by using various elements in the 
urban fabric produces a truly liveable space that 
will allow people a sense of refuge and belonging.
  
designing for the inbetween
 ?Everyone wants to be accepted, wants to 
belong, wants a place of his or her own? 
(Hertzberger 1991:12)
 Herman Hertzberger an architect associated 
with Team 10 suggests that architecture 
has the potential to overcome feelings of 
alienation and foster feelings of belonging 
and acceptance. He suggests that it is in the 
design of encounters, social interactions and 
giving users a sense of responsibility, feelings 
of alienation can be addressed. The design 
of these ?human spaces? can encourage 
feelings of acceptance and enhanced social 
interaction. (Hertzberger 1991:15)  In order to 
achieve this, the designer must pay special 
attention to public/private relationships as 
well as zones of transition and threshold. 
The degrees of public and private space are 
directly related to the accessibility of the space.
 The ?in-between? (Hertzberger 1991:32) offers 
an opportunity to negate sharp transitions and 
divisions.  These thresholds offer opportunity for 
connection, dialogue, adjustment and provide 
spaces for social interaction.  At these points, 
architecture with a highly programmatic brief 
has the opportunity to create moments of 
poetry, interest and interaction.  Hertzberger 
also suggests that giving people a sense of 
responsibility within the community increases 
feelings of belonging and acceptance.
 Another important influence on architecture 
and planning was the book ?The Death and 
Life of Great American Cities?, written in 1961 
41
 cities of refug
 e
   architectural issues - social space
 s
 imagesIMAGES