Part 3

Part 3 Re—-Work Symposium argument summary and analysis

Re—-work: Mediating the future city symposium presented design based observations, principles and precedents that have evolved to define the future of how an urban space is being used by identifying the changing traits, user needs and ecological sustenance urgency within urban projects. Speakers Ojay McDonald, Daniel Elsea, Marco Casagrande and Phineas Harper are professionals with work experience in urban project research, conceptualisation, designing and onsite execution with respect to their own urban ideologies and expertise. The integration of sustainable elements within the future projects was an important argument presented. Taking lessons from the traditional and vernacular knowledge to inculcate within the progressing urban fabric and how it can be executed was a major discussion point within the symposium. The rapid pace of technological advancement and the need to direct it into creating a city that is more resilient as well as inclusive describes the reality of unprecedented domination of technology in the urban lives especially sparked by the way cities are being used during a pandemic. A common thread observed within the symposium was the optimistic outlook towards the use of spaces post the covid pandemic.

Ojay McDonald’s futuristic presentation of the three interconnected revolutions that will determine the urban future highlighted the rate of change due to the intensive development of technology in the time period of a global pandemic. The disconnect between the user groups, the policy makers and managers of urban activities due to varied information consumption on social media can result in unprecedented outcomes at how space is being consumed and explored. This he terms as ‘The social revolution’ where technology is becoming increasingly easy to use and customise by younger age groups. With the customisation and personalisation of technology comes ‘The industrial revolution’ where a shift in the trends of technology is reframing the use of space and place especially observed by the decreasing use of office space during the pandemic. Involvement of technology in the way we make payments, consume entertainment and retail has caused a shift in the nature of employment but the same technology must be used to create spaces that explore social experiences within the urban spaces. The pace of innovation must also be explored in the creation of smart sources of energy that are decentralised and independent just like the future need to create communities that are independent of vehicular movement while sourcing their daily needs. ‘The environmental revolution’ must address the role of urbanism in the climate emergency faced globally.

Daniel Elsea demonstrated how a conventional definition of a place conceived as a paradise can change when crisis takes over urban living conditions. As cities are regaining their usual footfall after the easing of national lockdown rules, people are seen using urban locations in newer ways than before as he displayed the image of people sitting on the stairs of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Finding pockets of paradise within the city and activating more synergetic use of public realm is an outdoor activity observed during various times of crisis from the indoor confinement during lockdowns or during a pro democratic movements and protests (as displayed during the democracy protests of Hong Kong which Elsea has written a dissertation about).

This is the time when streets become a channel for public domain and display of urban symbiosis. Giving importance to the street layout fabric and traditional typologies of public spaces are his projects in Doha and King’s cross. The importance of reusing existing structures and reassigning the function of underused spaces is of vital importance in terms of sustainability and maintain the density pattern of a neighbourhood. This again brings in the title of Elsea’s presentation of finding paradise in ‘what is there’ as he says referring to the existing built structures converted into a sense of urban paradise with the introduction of green spaces to form linear parks on bridges. Embracing streets and their characteristics is vital as he suggests the ways to do so is by acknowledging the public realm aspect of road surfaces. Sharing of street activities and regulations that encourage a more democratic means of its usage open up opportunities of creating local sense of individual paradise effect.

Marco Casagrande has an organic approach while executing projects related to underused structures. His projects analyse organic process of nature taking over the planned synthetic fabric of manmade structures producing aesthetics that converse with both nature and the human users within the sphere of abandoned spaces. Casagrande’s definition of working with ruins is when manmade becomes a part of nature by the organic course. The discord created by the emergence of concrete structures ageing poorly into abandoned frames are reinvented in their aesthetics by inviting and nurturing the nature’s dominance over the ruins through Casagrande’s design firm. A form of resilience is added to his projects to withstand the consequences of industrialisation which he describes as a patriarchal system which contrasts the matriarchal system followed by the local family based cultures in many indigenous communities. He leads his projects through the values of knowledge gained from the experienced elderly with ideologies mostly contrasting from the political system.

Phineas Harper attributes the absence of earth architecture in contemporary building techniques to the recurring requirement of care needed to maintain natural materials. This characteristic trait of earth based materials is viewed as a weakness when compared to the longevity of other durable materials that are designed to sustain for centuries at a stretch. He argues that longevity of durable materials used for construction cannot be considered ecologically sustainable on the basis of their low maintenance and carbon footprint calculated as distributed over hundreds of years. The emergency to reduce carbon emission levels compared to the foresight of durability over a century do not serve the purpose of ecological sustenance required in the coming decade. He compares the care needed for a structure constructed with natural materials to the continuous and loving care rendered by a parent towards their child or the recurring labour of maintenance provided by a gardener to their garden. The ecological effect of using earth architecture is greater than the outlook of avoiding regular repair and care. The general perspective towards repair work included with the earth materials hampers its use and durability is prioritised over the environment.

Harper presents the case of contemporary buildings made of glass facades fitted with mechanism of cleaning the structure regularly to maintain its pristine look. This proves that the need for regular maintenance of a structure is possible but the technology is applied on buildings that are made with contemporary forms of construction materials. The traditional earth architecture around the world can be seen with design elements that work as scaffoldings due to the need for reapplication of mud or clay over the structure frequently. These elements have been integrated into the aesthetics of the structure and evolved into architectural identities over time. Harper displays the need to accept the natural evolution of the aesthetics that develop with the repair and regular maintenance of a design. To appreciate earth architecture in contemporary times, the change of perspective is necessary. Instead of viewing material maintenance as tedious, it should be seen for its ecological sustainability, accepting it as a means of care towards the structure and environment. Appreciation for the aesthetic impact that results from regular repair needs to be seen as an evolution of design and acceptance towards the changing dynamics of the structure.

Moving forward in a post pandemic urban environment initiates a need for connection with nature within the given space frame provided by urban fabric. Elsea and Casagrande mention the common theme of integration of natural elements with man made structures. Creation of localised spaces with a sense of ‘paradise’ within the existing framework requires intermingling of activities with the organic characteristic of the city’s pattern of space usage. While Elsea’s precedents demonstrate a structural placement of pedestrian movement simultaneously with landscaping as an urban element, Casagrande’s projects follow the organic dominance of nature to lead the way. The preference of human activity within the project is guided by the natural growth and the flow of elements like rainwater through the built environment. Within urban outdoor activity, the presence of a guided flow of pedestrian route of hardscaping helps the efficient flow of crowd within a specific space like in the case of linear urban parks. Design elements that support static activities as seen in Elsea’s project of Doha within the traditionally recognisable typologies are identifiable by the local user groups.

Casagrande’s projection of the development of ruins focuses on the democratic growth of nature unhampered by human intrusion wherever possible also resonates with Harper’s idea of requiring recurring care for the enhancement of natural life interlinked with human activities within a structure. Here, the structural framework used is not earth based material but the renunciation of man made structure to be governed by nature. The presence of abandoned or unused structures post the industrial revolution has hampered the urban neighbourhoods and raising safety and land use issues. Casagrande’s urban design solutions deal with the changed relation with space use and keep the relevance of the available built density within urban frame. This approach along with McDonald’s evaluation of the environmental revolution beginning to reconsider our relation with the city as a space for essential activities is changing the relevance and urban based activities.

The post pandemic city requires a serious consideration of the materials that are used in public space that are coming in physical contact with multiple users around the day. The pandemic has resulted in an advanced study into the materials that can retain microbial matter for longer period of time. This means the requirement of sanitisation multiple time to effectively reduce the spread of any harmful microbial matter if need be. The concentration of resources into recurring sanitation can be redirected into the care and maintenance of earth based material used in and around the city. As observed in the cases of linear parks that do not have the spacial consideration for social distancing, such urban spaces are forced to remain closed or at partial capacity which directly opposes its primary purpose of providing inclusive public spaces within a dense urban neighbourhood.

Reassigning urban spaces to support multi use activities that can instantly and easily switch its purpose. The execution of this on urban level does lie in Elsea’s approach of multiplying traditional typologies of open spaces which are easily identifiable and resourcefully adaptable by local communities. This may also solve the issue of urban space relevance in coming times as such typologies have survived and evolved through the test of time. The real challenge is the unpredictability and constant nature of change as mentioned by McDonald and the inevitable change that technological development is bringing in the flow of physical traffic within the city. The designing of communities that function as a self sufficient bubble rather than a household considered as a bubble must be the next step towards keeping a healthy social and urban life with respect to McDonald’s evaluation of the revolutions that is changing the way we utilise urban facilities.

References

Balmori, D. (2010) A Landscape Manifesto. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Charlesworth, E. (2005) City Edge. Oxford, England: Architectural Press.

Childs, M. C. (2012) Urban Composition: Designing: Developing Community though Urban Design. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cutieru, A. (2020) How has public space changed in 2020? Archdaily.com. ArchDaily. [Online] [Accessed June 25th, 2021] https://www.archdaily.com/953517/how-has-public-space-changed-in-2020.

Higgins, A. (2020) The High Line has been sidelined. When it reopens, New Yorkers may get the park they always wanted. Washingtonpost.com. [Online] [Accessed June 21st, 2021] https:// www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/home/the-high-line-has-been-sidelined-when-it-reopens-new-yorkersmay-get-the-park-they-always-wanted/2020/06/23/5e2a59e0-acd1-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html.

High line reopening — story (n.d.) Pentagram.com. [Online] [Accessed June 25th, 2021] https:// www.pentagram.com/work/high-line-reopening/story.

Mehta, V. (2021) “Evaluating Public Space.” In Public Space Reader. Routledge, pp. 404–411.

Paköz, M. Z., Sözer, C. and Doğan, A. (2021) “Changing perceptions and usage of public and pseudo-public spaces in the post-pandemic city: the case of Istanbul.” Urban design international.

Reijndorp, A. and Hajer, M. A. (2001) In search of the new public domain. Rotterdam, Netherlands: NAI.

Yarina, E. (2017) “How architecture became capitalism’s handmaiden: Architecture as alibi for the high line’s neoliberal space of capital accumulation.” Architecture and culture, 5(2) pp. 241–263.