Recently I came across the the work of the Atelier d´Architecture Autogérée (AAA), an architecture and urban design studio that describes itself as “an interdisciplinary practice including architects, artists, urban planners, landscape designers, sociologists, activists, students and residents”. 

The combination of so many and diverse actors within in their practice is what makes AAA projects very different from many other architecture or urban design firms. The diversity of its team members lies on the fact that their main goal is to create an  architectural and urban practice that is inclusive and respectful of the desires of inhabitants and users, whatever is their social and cultural background. 

For AAA public space is socially, culturally and politically produced and not just physically build. Their projects are highly embedded in their local contexts, including, adapting and shaping everyday practices and using them as platforms for cultural and social production. Their goal is not to create a product but a long term process that can host the diverse needs and demands of its users as well as serve as a learning space for new lifestyles and ways of being together in the future.

Such ideas are clearly reflected in their award winning project “Passage 56”. A public space that because of its format and use, it is continually “under construction”. The Passage 56 is a continuous social, cultural and political process rather than a design object.

Find more about what is going on in the Passage 56 in their blog. It is in french but the images talk for themselves.

By giving importance to the small and nearby green areas of the city, Copenhagen intends to reinforce its strategies towards reducing the city’s CO2 emissions and also contain climate adaptation. The plan “Pocket parks, more trees and more green” intends to prepare Copenhagen for a warmer and wetter future. The local authority aims to create 14 pockets parks and planting 3,000 trees over the next seven years. 

Planners in Copenhagen understand that such initiatives go beyond climate adaptations. “Besides preparing the city for future climate change we also make the city a better place to live. The green areas helps us to cope with torrential rain and heatwaves - but also makes people better able to play and enjoy themselves outdoors” says Mikkel Aarø-Hansen, head of the Center for the Environment (klimatilpasning). Therefore each park will have its own identity and has to be developed specifically to the site in question. Involvement of local residents in the development process is important to ensure that the park fits the needs and desires of the local community (sustainablecities.dk)

via irishboyinlondon:

A research project in England designed to involve local communities in decisions and practices related to the development and management of their neighborhoods.

The results of the research show that people are keen to tackle the problems that affect their everyday lives, in particular, neighbourhood grime, community safety and providing facilities for young people. These are considered to be issues where local knowledge, action and influence can make the most difference to effectively solving problems and involving people in decision-making.

The research concludes that neighbourhoods should be given powers to:

Act on very local issues, like having control over small budgets to tackle problems with public spaces, crime and grime

Influence decisions about other local services like street cleaning, recycling and youth services, through local action planning and partnerships with decision-making powers

Hold service providers and councils to account – being able to publicly challenge the decisions made by public agencies such as police and planners

Deliver very local services like street cleaning or play centres, as parish councils currently do.

The results and experiences of the research were gathered in a publication called Transforming Neighbourhoods: A collection of stories about community empowerment

via summeroffrugality via  davidgalestudios:

Although considered as a guide for the future of sustainable urban development there is something about those one-fit-all solutions that I just can’t swallow, especially when they are mainly based on land use and traffic patterns.

The idea which originated in one Portland’s development companies is an interesting one: “all of the necessary and enjoyable things that make life great, including open spaces, grocery stores, workplaces, libraries, events, and schools, within 20 minutes of the home.Twenty minutes on foot is ideal, but 20 minutes by transit, bike or even auto is a reasonable goal.”

Of course this goes in favor of the need of mixuse neighborhoods, fight against sprawl, walk more, etc, etc, etc, bla, bla,  which for many american cities this is a huge eye opener a real difference. But living in a city that could say follows many of these principles in its urban fabric I can think of a few buts that might be good to consider.

Here are just some questions that come in to mind:

do I really want to limit my daily life to my neighborhood? 

are my social relations/networks in a 20 minute radius? in other words do my friends live in my same neighborhood?

who is deciding what a community, what I consider as necessary and enjoyable things/uses?

what if what I consider essential is different from my neighbor’s?

will having “all the essential things” in a 20 minute radius mean that it will be a little of everything instead of quality of a few? … those few things that I really value

is it proximity to a certain use, as in time-distance that takes me to go somewhere, what really matters? or is it the accessibility, meaning different, comfortable, enjoyable, fruitful, inviting, etc, etc ways to go to the place I want/need.

can proximity really make a difference in our transportation patterns? I just say this because I know people that prefer to drive to the local Macdonalds even if it is just a few blocks from their house.