5 minute read
3.1 Literature review
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Advertisement
3.1.3 Engaging-Architecture As social sustainability 3.1.4 Identity of places 3.1.5 Conclusion 3.2.1 Introduction 3.2.2 Adaptive Reuse 3.2.3 Spirit of Place
3.2.4 Conclusion 3.3.1 Importance of Ruins
3.2 CASE STUDIES OF ADAPTIVE REUSE 3.3 RUINS 3.4 CONCLUSION
3.1.1 Introduction
The literature review is organised around several key themes and a discussion on theories and models. In a thematic order, the focus of the study is to show the relevance and importance that derelict spaces have in contributing to an active fabric, the role of engaging architecture to sustain objects and social conditions, and how the identity of a place is a fundamental topic in architecture.
3.1.2 Importance of derelict spaces
Landscape architects Luis Loures and Thomas Panagopoulos state in their article “From derelict industrial areas towards multifunctional landscapes and urban renaissance” that “Derelict urban sites present a resource to society when reintegrated into the urban fabric” (Loures & Panagopoulos, 2007:181).
Loures and Panagopoulos (2007) note that altering derelict sites back to productive reuse not only has environmental benefits but also includes economic benefits. Regeneration or regrowth encourages a paradigm in which businesses and people relocate to wastelands and can create opportunities for urban renewal and the development of liveable neighbourhoods with social and economic interests.
Using the term “flexible urbanism,” Patel (2015 ) emphasises the importance of derelict spaces in the active urban fabric. Patel (2015) reflects on the use of a thought experiment of temporary infrastructures to host cultural and performance events, such as community skill-development classes and dance performances, in derelict parks and spaces. This allowed the users of the community to become the showcase, ultimately stitching the disconnected space with the surrounding context.
Creating a sense of involvement through these types of experiments brings back neglected spaces into the active urban fabric. More importantly, in these temporary structures, the community becomes the economic and cultural force for the neighbourhood.
Of the several approaches to sustainability and sustainable development, social sustainability is the least defined and understood. Social sustainability has received far less attention in the public domain than economic and environmental sustainability. In general, socially sustainable architecture focuses on designing places that are compatible with human culture, habits and procedures for the longest time feasible (Kefayati & Moztarzadeh, 2015:46).
Kefayati and Moztarzadeh (2015) provide in-depth analysis and criteria for social sustainability in architecture. They argue that architecture, in a socially sustainable environment, needs to adapt to a design approach that creates a responsive architecture consistent with human needs and behaviour patterns to improve physically and mentally with spatial qualities for all segments of society. This is an architecture that reflects direct engagement with cultural systems, sensors and behaviour patterns on a human scale.
Additionally, Kefayati and Moztarzadeh (2015) state that by upgrading public places to engage the city’s people, boosting cultural values and developing identity structures, social and cultural life support may produce a sense of belonging, a harmonious living environment and flexible spaces. Sustainable architecture is a socially responsive architecture that must guide design by researching human needs and behaviours to develop a long-term connection between humanity and the surrounding structures. In addition, the variables that create a feeling of place, a sense of belonging and identity-building variables in space take on a significant role in making the environment and currents inside it sustainable and persistent (Kefayati & Moztarzadeh, 2015:46).
Multifunctional spaces play an essential role in the regeneration of derelict urban spaces and connection back to the active urban fabric, especially disconnected ones. Author and architect Amy Muir (2018) argues that social sustainability should be at the heart of good public architecture. Through a social lens, sustainability can be defined as a notion over time. For long-term constructed results, public architecture that encourages continuity and progress in its users is essential. This can be translated into an architectural programme that aids the growth of the users, which in turn has the potential to grow the urban fabric.
Furthermore, public space, according to Amy Muir (2018), is about social interaction. When it comes to strategic and practical urban design, it is critical to provide a channel through which people can engage.
Buildings, parks, urban architecture and all other aspects of the public domain play a vital role in fostering community and a sense of belonging that echoes the fundamental thoughts of Kefayati and Moztarzadeh (2015).
Fig 49: Representation sketch of engaging architecture interpretation. (By author, 2021)
3.1.4 Identity of places
Sowińska-Heim’s (2020) article “Adaptive reuse of architectural heritage and its role in the post-disaster reconstruction of urban identity: post-communist Lodz” underlines the importance of historical values in architecture. Major architectural and historical structures serve as a point of reference for the local community, enhancing their sense of security and serving as a significant component in forming social identity.
Derelict areas can act as a catalyst for rediscovering, redefining and interpreting the urban environment and architectural legacy. In new economic, social, political and cultural circumstances, derelict sites have become an instrument for developing urban identity. As a result, tangible and intangible historical artifacts take on new meanings and are subject to a fresh, modern interpretation through the lens of present desires and beliefs. The regeneration of derelict spaces is a significant part of revitalising and regenerating damaged regions because of the numerous alterations that may occur as a result of a functional alteration that matches modern demands.
As Sowińska-Heim (2020) states, “This allows for the preservation of architectural objects that are important to the local community, promoting the integrity and historical continuity of the city while restoring the objects’ functional and economic value” (SowińskaHeim, 2020:1).
She adds that in the late twentieth century and twentyfirst century, the view has arisen that cultural legacy should not be considered permanent and unchanging but rather continually reinterpreted to reflect human activity. The belief is that preservation is about more than just protecting tangible values; it is also about preserving the cultural significance of a place and its value to past, present and future generations. Conservation should therefore include the actual substance and usage techniques and the meanings (for example, symbolic meanings associated with memories) and linkages (defined as social, spiritual and cultural ties between people and the environment) (Sowińska-Heim, 2020:2).
Sowińska-Heim (2020) concludes that, as a result, principles that affect the well-being of the site and its historical, social or spatial context have shifted from a traditional approach that sees ideals as fixed and unalterable, inherently linked with the site, to an approach that considers the interaction between the location and its historical, social or spatial context.
