Shifting the productive-logistical orientation of the Viennese space to a space of interaction and co-creation. The spatial logic of historical Vienna’s urban grid is not supporting the emergence of new models in open urban space usage, thus gives little opportunity for the reconsideration of private-common-public relationships. The grid is defined by boundaries; it is characterized by the lack of transitional space. Altering the spatial logic may support new activity models built upon shared economies by improving accessibility to common resources and reinforcing local nexuses. Reframing the spatial configuration of historical neighborhoods, a new logic for laying out public space is therefore needed to influence activities inside and outside the private domain of the apartment, to give incentives to outsource to the shared domain. Altering the spatial logic of the grid patterned historical neighborhoods may be corroborated with the following societal changes: the transition to information economy, the growing importance of leisure and the emerging self-organizing, cooperative practices of urban space production. To frame such a new logic, it is necessary to explore how the three major functions - social production, production logistics and consumption - of urban space can be changed. The new logic can have a stronger focus on micro/local geographies/ nexuses instead of city/regional scaled ones. Such a new system would also deeply affect the way we dwell.
From infrastructure to interaction
Communication and transport infrastructures have always been the most evident lines in the spatial system of cities, an indisputable organising principle. The organization of the territory is historically subordinated to the logic of acceleration1, to the movement of physical substance (people and goods) providing the supply for production. Nevertheless, recent socio-economic and technological changes may alter the primacy of physical (long distance linear) logistical infrastructural space in urban centers.
By shifting to an information economy2, emphasis is no longer on the “moving of solid energy loads but rather of information”3. Micro and local scale agglomeration economies are fueled by the potential for informal and accidental encounter. Proximity and micro scale copresence in urban space, the possibility to inhabit urban public or semi public space together may result in a new logic of territorialization. This new logic is increasing productivity by allowing new networking practices, expectedly resulting in added value and stronger market economies4. Thus, infrastructure needs to give way to interaction and “co-inhabitation”.
From production to leisure
A second major change is the increasing importance of recreation. Current lifestyles highlight the shift from “a society of work” to “a society of leisure time, of entertainment.”5 Mobility is also turning into a function of leisure and less of a function of production. Infrastructural space serving movement can, thus, be rebalanced into a space for community, creativity and fun.
New logic of production of space
Thirdly, the production of urban space is changing with a new type of urban dweller6 emerging, who is articulated, educated, innovative and socially committed, engaged in active forms of citizenship. His/ her primary social units are the peer-to-peer groups. These groups are continuously formed and re-evaluated; the user belongs simultaneously to several, depending on the domains of life they are related to, and on the actual social/professional status of the individual (professional, entertainment, living communities, etc.). These imaginary dwellers have a strong preference to live in the proximity of their peers and collectively create clusters, in order to generate synergies leading to various personal/ cultural/professional/etc. benefits. In their self-organizing processes decentralization and self-reliance is becoming a norm, they regard diversity as an asset.
They see the city as a makeable space; therefore they are actively participating in the creation of urban space. They often have a preference for self-made spaces. Their urban environment is a tool for selfexpression, which acquires a symbolic dimension expressing the socio-economic, income, occupation and interest shaped classes. The urban dweller above needs to be served by a type of urban space that is functioning in a fundamentally different way.
Motivation
Our project attempts to challenge the primacy of the infrastructure oriented traditional street network, and explore the possibilities of the multiplication or superposition of physical and nonphysical urban networks, adapting to the three phenomena above - to create urban space centered on co-inhabitation, leisure and cooperative practices of space creation. The legacy of the 19th/20th century Viennese planning is the urban grid delineating the perimeter blocks, a typical tissue of the neighborhoods around the Gürtel. Areas are defined by traditional, rigorouslyseparated functions and are enclosed by strict boundaries, offering little flexibility to use a space in a different way than it was designed to. This layout is centered on infrastructure/logistics, production and adapted to top-down planning. The urban tissue of historical Vienna is primarily defined by the infrastructural space of the street network adapted to logistics (urban goods distribution), isolating the perimeter blocks from each other. Community functions of the public spaces around the generic block are secondary. This infrastructural space is serving the need to move away instead of staying and inhabiting. Serving only logistical functions translates into several environmental, social and even economic problems. Many of the structures built in the beginning of the 20th century are no longer appropriate today and evidences in Vienna are - among others - vacant ground floors (inside and outside of the Gürtel), often turned into parking space. The interior of the perimeter block remains largely unused since courtyards predominantly have hygiene functions (such as ventilation, sunlight) or serve as storage. Nonetheless, their potential can be maximized.
Vision The ground floor structures of the typical Viennese perimeter blocks are gradually becoming porous by opening up the building structures. The ground floor is progressively turning into a continuous surface passing under the blocks, and only the vertical circulation and service cores, shafts and architectural heritage are kept. It is a space of a territorial character, a dynamic, operative topography7. Land usage is categorized and regulated along three dimensions: the body operating the field (private, community, public), the timeframe of the usage (permanent, temporary) and the economic character of the usage (for-profit, non-profit). The idea of reconfiguring of the ground floors allows moving away from a layout centered on the movement in order to create a landscape for inhabitation, with superimposing a new type of distributed network on the rectilinear grid of the existing street-square layout. The courtyards can become nodes, just like the intersections were in the traditional street network, yet nodes which are more than just spaces to transpass. This new urban structure is permitting a scalar change on the ground floor. The ground floor is not built upon but it is furnished. The goal is to liberate physical spaces, redefining them by adding extra values and changing the people’s perception of them.
fit
ro rp
f: fo
e: temporary d: permanent
BACK.GROUND SUPERSCAPE 2016
g: n
on-
pro
fit
c: public b: community a: private
Classification of the fields by operating body, timeframe and purpose of usage
a: Private: areas operated by private residents, entrepreneurs, developers; b: Community: areas operated by NGOs, local community groups, activists, block committees. Liminal spaces8 , where the functions are negotiated through self-organizing processes. This spatial category provides a framework for using space in a co-operative form, encouraging self-initiated interventions strengthening horizontal processes, ideally by sharing infrastructure. It is encouraging bottomup decision making processes and common-based peer production. It is contributing to the creation of a new type of shared public domain, a “third space”9. c: Public: areas operated by city agencies, municipality; d: Permanent: areas with usage defined for an indefinite period, suited for “stable” urban functions. e: Temporary: areas where usage is constantly re-negotiated, defined for a short-term period. It adds a reversible and adaptable layer to urban space that can be temporarily reconfigured, bridging the rigid structures of separation and integration; f: For-profit activities g: Non-profit activities
Consequently, the re-configuration of the space happens in an organic way, with small, continuous interventions - a type of urban acupuncture10 applied on strategic nodes within the city. The transformation of the ground floor permits the simultaneous, long-term reconfiguration of the apartment structure of the floors above. Conventional structures can be transformed in some of the apartments. Nowadays, the traditional space separation and domestic functions are taken for granted and the real estate market offers little variation. However, outsourcing different activities means certain spaces are not needed inside the apartment and can be reconverted according to the individual changing lifestyles.
The evolution of the plot
0. The default Viennese urban structure is the perimeter block with semiprivate courtyards inside and linear public spaces outside, adapted to infrastructure and logistics. 1. The courtyards are opening up. The areas used by the community can connect to public areas, creating a qualitatively new relationship between community and public areas. The fragmented areas can be integrated and connected to public space. It’s a layout that encourages cluster formation .
They can either be reduced to minimum or completely removed from private apartments, trading them, for instance, for well-equipped communal spaces. This enables space efficient changes that are able to reduce the current pressure on housing, without affecting the quality. One person households, potentially involved more in community activities and more susceptible for outsourcing private activities may be located on the (subdivided) smaller apartments of the lower floors, closer to the community oriented space of leisure, interaction and co-creation. Following that logic, larger and more autonomous households may be on the upper floors, in larger apartments. Due to the reconfiguration of the private apartment, more conventionally private uses can appear on the ground floor, resulting in a self-reinforcing, continuous and dynamic transformation process, both of the apartments and the ground floor. People and everyday life are brought back on the ground floor. References Virilio P. (1977) Speed and Politics: An Essay on Dromology. New York: semiotext(e) 2 Castells M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society 3, 5, 7 Gausa, M. (Ed.) (2003) The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology, Society in the Information Age, Actar, Barcelona 4 Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks, Yale University Press, New Haven and London 6 Ernsten, Ch., Janmaat J. (2008) The User City in a Voter Society, Volume Magazine 16 Engineering Society 8 Zukin, S. (1991) Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, Ca. University of California Press 9 Sassen, S. (2011) Open Source Urbanism, Domus, retrieved the 07-01-2016 from http://www.domusweb.it/ en/op-ed/2011/06/29/open-source-urbanism.html 10 Lerner, J. (2014). Urban Acupuncture. Washington, DC: Island Press. 1
2. The adjacent blocks are connected with space allocated for community functions. The former street is cut through, altering the spatial logic of urban open space. A new urban unit is formed, composed of multiple blocks - introducing a new scale and a new level of autonomy. 3. The public space flows under and
The urban layout is re-configured with seven intervention types.
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
permeates the built. This intervention type is dissolving the linearity of the streets, creating pockets that can accommodate non-logistical activities.
4. Public
areas are penetrating and passing through the blocks, opening up the possibility of constituting an alternative circulation system, compensating for the former public street spaces now used by the community. 5. The perimeters of the blocks are accommodating temporary usages. Thus, the space is a constantly adapting interface between the built and the open space of the city, between private, community and public operated areas. 6. Certain public areas (such as crossings or streets) are designated for temporary usage. The usage is constantly renegotiated at city level. 7. Certain community areas are designated for temporary usages. The community constantly re-negotiates the functions, contributing to the adaptability of the system, maintaining and practicing self-governance acts. 8. The seven modification typologies are simultaneously applied on the default urban structure, which results in a new ground floor pattern, rebalancing open spaces from productive-logistical space to a space of leisure, interaction and co-creation.
8.
I’m done racing with the cars! Cycling is so much nicer and faster through these block cut-outs! Why would I dine alone in my small, smelly kitchen when I can use the amazing equipment in the communal kitchen and also socialize with my neighbours?
No permit needed for my ever changing office location!
Zzzzzzzzzzz
My old washing machine flooded the neighbours below way too many times. Now I don’t need to worry about that anymore. Don’t worry, the space is flexible enough to fit everything in!
But last week we agreed we’d throw a paella party!
I want a clothing swap event!