Our initiative looks at the existing site in Christiania, Christianshavn, and challenges their meaning and existence. Taking Christiania at face value, we looked to question what a community was doing, what it was saying about an area, and what would happen to its future in upcoming years. Christiania scattered in acres of land seems to have very specific access points, characterized by bottlenecks in which residents are living at their own pace.

In our module, housing alternatives, we looked and studied various co housing schemes in UK, as well as in Europe to understand the dilemma, like how these communities work in its own ground. The first and foremost thought which came into my mind was the scale of the site and secondly the number of residents living in the community all over the co-housing schemes is comparative very low to Christiania, as a result these communities are quite easy to run on their grounds. Every scheme has its own function and identity, for us it is something to understand the relation in terms of social background and planning principles which exists in the functionality, Lancaster is one out of them.

Furthermore, the Christiania exists on the edge of the Stadsgraven, and acts as a band of greenery and tranquility away from the busyness of Copenhagen. The character of this area evokes many comparisons with the slowness and perceived relaxed atmosphere of Christiania where every aspect of life seems to be fragile but internally they have a very strong sense of community which had prevailed their existence up till now. On the other hand co housing schemes like in Lancaster is precised and encircled by its own set of rules and regulation within its boundary in terms of  work sharing and policy making process.

A unique autonomous community in Christianhavn district which is grainy, rough, gritty, untamed and mixed in its character. The old fortifications of Copenhagen express a raised rampart which acts as a fortification to the community defines the edges and boundary whereas other top down co-housing communities are urban, well planned, enclosed by a confined fence.

Our design study looks at dialogue between Christiania and other up down co housing communities. Through the creation of two different types of key spaces, an open green park space with muddy pathways and individual house (timber) whereas the Lancaster co-housing  a well defined group of residents, residing close to each other, who communicates and share their activities in their own way. We analysed the lifestyle and working of the residents in Christiania and Lancaster to interchange thoughts and history about these places.

Ironically though, the place looks like a free town to me, eco-friendly to some extent, but not an model community- it seemed more like an substitute community which was little sturdy for us to read out though, other side the community in Lancaster is like a miniature model of a well settled planned town who fulfills all its demands and requirements among themselves in all respects.

The Negative effects of Gated Communities can concluded as some key words:

“limited access”, “social segregation”, “loss of community”, “urban deterioration”, “loss of a livable urban center”, “faking security”  and “exclusion”;

Meanwhile, the positive effects of gated communities are defined by some studies. These studies state that the main two positive meanings of gated communities are addressing fears and increased property values. In fact, by enhancing a sense of personal protection and security as well as protecting the home from unwanted intrusions, gated communities may contribute to decreasing the fears and anxieties of individuals, thus improving community well-being.

In comparison, here I just share my experience and understanding of co-housing that comes from my tutorial. During the design process, all of the tutors convey some important points for co-housing and communities to me. For one thing, it is unnecessary to set boundary for each neighbourhood/scheme. It is preferable to increase social interaction between neighbourhood/scheme with friendly boundaries or without any physical boundaries. For another, the co-housing could be accessible for public rather than gated communities because this can attract others to know about the benefit about co-housing and also convey the idea of co-housing to public. In this case, the negative effects of gated communities come out when we design for a community that are integrated into the local context. Last but not the least, a community should be treated as an isolated or exclusion part of the local context. It should be a member of the content and play a transiting or engaging role in the environment, just like our site in Hexham.

What’s your opinion about co-housing, integrated and gated communites?

Relevant Reading:

Cohousing: A contemporary Approach to housing ourselves, Kathryn McCamant, Charles

Durrett, 2nd Edition

Low, S. (2003). Behind the gates: life, security and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America  (First Edition). New York:  Routledge.

Quintal, D. & Thompson, S. (2007). Gated communities: the search for security. State of Australian Cities. The University of New South Wales. Retrieved April 7, 2011 from,http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/SOAC/gatedcommunities.pdf

Zhang, Z. (2001) Guangdong Shehui Zhian Zonghe Zhili Qude Xianzhu Chengji [Major progress made in the comprehensive management of public security in Guangdong], NetEase, available at:http://www.news.163.com/editor/011122/011122 309599.html, 22 November.

In this semester, we have a fortune to get involved in one of the most interesting and challenging module – ‘Cities and Culture’, which is mainly focus on the understanding of Christiania community that is located in Copenhagen, Denmark. This module has organized an exciting filed trip for us to explore and study about Copenhagen and Christiania. In additional, this field trip also helps us in another core module in this semester- ‘Housing Alternatives’ – by giving us a unique experience of special community that is complimented by shared facilities and activities. These let me rethink and compare about the difference of development and management of some communities scheme in Shenzhen, China and the co-housing scheme as well as Christiania community.

After exploring relevant studies and articles as well as the field trip, we have our own understanding about Christiania.

It is an instance of consensus-led development, governance and management for a community that has already sustained for morn than 40 years (Christiania was founded in 1970s). There are regular and scheduled meetings within Christiania for decision-making towards the problem in governance. All of about 900 residents make a consensual idea together with a deep consideration about the potential problems and the future of their own community. As a result, it may be time-consuming but it must be conscious and careful. Moreover, basically, all of these decisions are reflecting residents’ needs and worries and they help solving problems robustly. This also works in the special planning and development in Christiania. The similar example is some of co-housing schemes in Denmark and the UK. For example, the co-housing scheme in Lancaster, where we visited and had an experience of shared-actitivties for ‘Housing Alternatives’ in February .

In my hometown, Shenzhen, the new scheme of community develops, firstly, under the regulation proposed by urban planning institution and, secondly, within the proposal conducted by developers or property developing firms. It is kind of ‘top-down’ development of communities. The residents only can buy and live in the property without any participation during the developing process. However, in fact, the residents can get involved in the governance procedure after they move in by founding or choosing the governance institution within their community. However, it is hard to find some shared facilities or regular shared activities in many communities in Shenzhen although the communal governance institutions try to hold some activities on some specific dates or festival.

(reference:http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980w/public/2013/05/10/8e9df3076a822deef26086b8e0587cea.jpg?itok=6QIf-c-W)

For my opinion, for one thing, Christiania and many of co-housing schemes are consensus-led developed communities. The residents participate in the process of proposing scheme, development, construction as well as the governance. For the other, the residents are willing to involve in due to the direct benefit for sustainable development for their communities. While, in Shenzhen, the residents only have the chance to reflect their demands after they move in their communities that are top-down schemes. However, both of these two styles of communities can meet resident’s needs of housing and give the communities they love. It’s hard to say which one is better.

The concept of consensus has been a key theme of our studies this semester.  Our class visit to Christiania, in Copenhagen is an example of how consensus governance has been sustained over a long time period (since the 1970s).  Our cohousing project similarly explores consensus and its impact on the physical fabric of places.

To begin with, I was skeptical of how consensus could work- how can everyone agree on everything?  Especially in communities such as Christiania, with around 900 residents from a variety of walks of life- thats a lot of room for differences of opinion.

The truth is, consensus isn’t necessarily about everyone having the same opinion on a matter, more it is people understanding other people’s view points, and in doing so agreeing on a course of action based on the good of the whole group, or community.

The process of consensus governance can therefore can take a long time from an issue being raised, to a decision being made.  This is due to the need for lengthy periods of discussion, and the time taken to fully understand and appreciate the ideas, concerns and opinions of others.

The key to consensus seemed to be having official arenas and structures for exchange- a clear decision making process that must be followed.  Christiania had a highly organised structure, holding several meetings every week.   Lancaster Cohousing Group had devised systems and rotas for shared activities, and for the management of the scheme.

The use of shared facilities, and what they should be seemed a common theme- the suggestion to install a TV in the common house was a current topic for debate no yet resolved.  Other more contentious topics for the group, such as the consumption of meat in the common house, tended to evolve over time- the process of learning and accepting other people caused new behaviours and norms to evolve- meat-eaters now organise their own meat meals in the common house.

A tight knit community in Lancaster Cohousing Group

Some issues however, are more contentious- the example of Pusher Street and the ‘legalisation’ of the hash trade in Christiania has long divided residents- to the point that some residents refuse to pass through Pusher Street. This issue has been the cause of much controversy within Christiania and outside, and as such has been ignored- a key failing of consensus is its ability to be passive about certain issues.

Clear community boundaries in Christiania

Despite this, consensus is an empowering and socially sustainable way of governance and decision making.  A key point is that for consensus to work, people have to consent to it, and also to form structures of decision making.   This makes consensus a positive method at community level, however translating the idea into larger, less formalised communities without boundaries may prove problematic.

Torino, Italy has historically accepted industrialization as part of its city and more recently, has equally accepted de-industrialization.  What does de-industrialization create besides brownfields and abandoned lots?  In the case of Parco Dora, a post-industrial landscape has been transformed into a 456,000 square meter park signified by five different lots.  This almost completed park can be considered one of the largest parks in Torino and it is successfully connected to the river Dora Riparia, which redevelopment of its banks are considered part of the project “Torino City of Water.”  The park consists of natural environments as well as remnants of pre-existing structures that form part of the aesthetics and function drawing people to the park.

The five different lots were all beautiful and intriguing, but the section of Parco Dora that left the greatest impression was ‘Lot Vitali.’  Vitali is the largest lot in the park covering 89,000 square meters and takes the place of the old Ferriere Fiat factory.  The remains of the factory that were left within the park were massive steel columns and an overhead structure at an infinite height.  An elevated walkway brings users close, but above the activity.  Underneath the canopy is a vast concrete slab where paint has designated boundaries for football, basketball, tennis and other sporting activities.

Pictures cannot capture the energy and excitement the industrial park encompassed.  While on the elevated walkway, I observed sporting activities, dance routines, loitering, stunt practice, and children at play.  Everywhere I looked, a different corner of the park was being used for a different activity.  It was quite a juxtaposition of activities and materials, but it all was in a logical manner and everything seemed to need to coexist together.

Hindsight is 20/20 and in the case of Parco Dora, there are no regrets for what occurred in its place before its existence.  The implementation of the park has allowed people to rediscover a post-industrial landscape and cross into new boundaries.  The park seems to have undefined boundaries within it, making its entirety a playground for one’s imagination.  The tall rust-red steel columns seem to stand as aged trees forever rooted permanently and the canopy as a warming protection of the distant outside world.  How does Parco Dora, with physical conditions leaving it described as vastly open, hard, and angular, feel so inviting?  Maybe it’s one of the few spaces that has been created with instigating elements and then left for one’s interpretation.  This interpretation has created personal connections to it, making it feel delightfully welcoming.

Overhead structure of Vitali

Canopy and elevated walkway

Basic facts from: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parco_Dora&prev=/search%3Fq%3DParco%2BDora%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D870%26bih%3D716

I applied and was selected to attend the IP Upward Erasmus Intensive Program 2013, urban design project workshop and responsible design.  This was the third year of the workshop being held in Torino, Italy and the topic chosen was ‘urban agriculture.’  The workshop was a compilation of eight different universities from eight different countries and each brought five students and one or two professors to the workshop based at the Politecnico di Torino.  The attending universities were:

1. Politecnico di Torino – Torino, Italy
2. Newcastle University, School of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape – Newcastle, UK
3. Yildiz University of Istanbul, Department of Urban Planning – Istanbul, Turkey
4. Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism – Bucharest, Romania
5. Cracow University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture- Cracow, Poland
6. UACEG, Faculty of Architecture – Sofia, Bulgaria
7. Corvinus University of Budapest, Faculty of Landscape – Budapest, Hungary
8. CVUT, Faculty of Architecture – Prague, Czech Republic

Lectures at Valentino Castle – Torino

The first week involved lectures, roundtable discussions, a site visit and intensive research and work to develop site analysis and a proposal, which was presented digitally after the first week.  The following week consisted of discussing and designing the proposals as well as making graphics for the final digital presentation and printed boards.  By the end of two weeks, each group was able to finish an astonishing amount of work and wonderful design ideas relating to urban agriculture and Torino’s desire for an agricultural park within the selected site.

Site Visit – old landfill with biogas extraction

Midterm Presentation

The workshop was an unforgettable experience and provided an intensive learning opportunity.  Large-scale urban agriculture and agricultural parks were in a design classification rather different than what I have studied before and I enjoyed learning about this idea and exploring how it can be implemented in Torino.  Along with the materials changing my knowledge base, my group members also had an incredible influence on my design insight.

What I appreciated most about the workshop was being able to work with and be taught by foreign strangers.  For example, my group consisted of people from Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Italy (but originally Brasil) and I was amazed at some of the differences and similarities we had when thinking about and designing a project.  Each person had obviously been trained differently and therefore, we had a combination of diverse techniques, strategies for design and conceptual thinking.  I felt that in our group discussions we had so many great ideas that were quite inspirational and it eventually lead to a good design.

Fortunately, I believe my group had the perfect combination of personality types, knowledge, skills, talents and abilities.  We worked and functioned very well together and this was an added bonus to what I learned from the workshop.  I now understand how important group dynamics are, because if there is an improper balance in a design group, then efficiency is lost and the best work will not surface as the result.  I am so thankful I had the opportunity to work with my group members and tutors, because it was them who taught me and gave me new insight into our professions.

My project group and tutors

Having just landed from Sarah and I’s study trip to Turin, Italy; the part of the city I will perhaps miss the most was my daily walk to/from the university campus through the kilometres of historical arcades, perhaps one of the most distinctive and beautiful features of the city of Turin.

In Turin, arcades are the stitching, infrastructural elements of the city, connecting a series of destinations.  18 km of historic arcades stretch through the city centre, 12 km of which are interconnected, hurdling over side streets to create continuous routes.  About 5m in width, and 2 floors in height, they create a unique linear public space, activated on one side by the building frontage.

Turin’s arcades create attractive and lively linear public spaces

Turin’s arcades were distinctive elements of the city, not only aesthetically, but structurally and functionally.  The shelter and scale of them creates a microclimate, sheltering the pedestrian from the traffic chaos of the boulevards, the humidity and pollution of the streets; providing shade from the sun and shelter from the rain.  As the Italian students exclaimed, “you will never need an umberella in Torino!”

The environment of the arcade is dedicated to human comfort.  It allows one to enjoy being outdoors in the city centre, yet provides a sense of enclosure, safety and protection from the traffic and the elements.  Despite the enclosure and repetitive structure, the arcade spaces feel entirely public and have a sense of freedom and informality about them.

The arcades also provided ample opportunities for a variety of uses, and facilitated shops, cafes and restaurants, which spilled out into the arcades and provided points of interest and activity, breaking the monotony.  The daily theatre of the arcade was a simple wonderment to behold.  Market traders came and went, florists displayed their finest arrangements, gelato kiosks picked off passers-by, diners filled the tables, and finally waiters stacked up furniture after a long day.

Flexible spaces for informal retailing, capturing passing trade

Arcades provide consumption and movement spaces

The multifunctionality of the arcades as social spaces, consumption spaces and pedestrian routes is an extremely efficient use of spaces and buildings, and the opportunities offered by semi-outdoor spaces could pose an interesting solution to urban problems in the UK.  Town and city centres that can compete with the comfort and security of shopping malls would do well to attract shoppers back with a comfortable, organised, yet fluid pedestrian environment, and sense of sociability and vitality which often becomes very sanitised in shopping malls.

Enclosure and openness: arcades provide a sense of shelter from traffic and the elements

Check out these photos from the IP UPWARD 2013 workshop, held in Turin.  The city of Turin was like no other I’ve visited mainly because walking around Turin, you are constantly reminded of the city’s place within nature- its setting.

The city is nestled between the Alps to the north and west, and the hills to the east, at the junction of the Rivers Stura and Po.  From the top of the Mole, this relationship is most apparent (see image from the Mole, above).

You are also reminded of this when walking at street level, particularly in the city centre, where streets align perfectly to give views of the Alps to the west, and the hills to the east.  In a large city of around 900,000 population, I was impressed that entire views from east to west had remained uninterrupted, despite urban sprawl.

Views down the street of the hills

.

View down the street towards the Alps

Why would a person choose your local centre as a destination with so many othe alternativea avalilable? certainlly many,if not most,or just the goods and services offered there can easily be obtained somewhere else. The answer is a strong sense of place,a characteristic place that rarely associated with large area of car parking,big-box retailers.

A sense of place

According to Lynch (1981:131),”The definition of a sense of place is based on the interaction between people and place…(and) depends on spatial and quality ,culture ,temperature, status, and experience.” Accordingly, Place than become in a way that much materialization to people, driving people figure out the place by themselves from time to time. Also, the place is unique defined by people therefore maintain a sense such as calling home, as well as using them as a kind of symbolic identify other places.

the experience of a place

Without people, the built environment cannot be built themself by a sense of place, therefore the area should contain both physical and social elements to guide the emotional behaviours through different users. Massey (2005) wrote about “the event of the place”. The attachment of participants to local centre activities is very important, even in the situation of deserted landscape provides with the evidence that design local centre as a place is in a way more than buildings. “Indeed, entertainment, community festivals and farmers markets are some activities that can generate human activity which can encourage people social, therefore a greater sense of place are created

design as place making

Urban design acts as an important role in place making .Indeed it should be comes with the context of the site. In my site Blaydon, it as a post industrialized local centre, the site is quite fragmented both in terms of the retail-led shopping centre and the big car parking which remains no connection to the surrounding communities. Accordingly, the aim than is to re-link the historic fabric of the local centre, making a kind a dignity and attachment to the local centre. Secondly, increase the economic value of the land by bring more diverse variety of uses through a retail-led mixed-use development .Lastly, creating a better environment-friendly link between the community and the local town centre, therefore creating a sense of place.

References

• Lynch, Kevin. 1981. A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Massey, D. 2005. For Space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Container City, or Trinity Buoy Wharf is the London Docklands answer to an Arts Quarter.  An old waterfront industrial area, with a number of existing industrial buildings, the area has been transformed through the development of several blocks of containers, creating apartments and workspace.

My first question was how a type of development clearly quite ‘rough and ready’ would fit into a historic environment.  I think the answer partly lies in the industrial nature of both the existing buildings, and the purpose of shipping containers- a complementary mix of past and present industrial artefacts.  The treatment of spaces was also important when considering the relation of the container development, nestled between 3 very different historical buildings.  The placement of the multi-storey container buildings respects the various scales of the surrounding buildings, affording more space to the single storey building than the 3 storey building.

Container block affords space, respecting the scale of the single story 1870 building

Where old and new meet

New on top of old

My second question was how such a rough and seemingly uncomfortable environment would generate any kind of place attachment of the residents, and how it would function as an arts quarter.  Residents seemed to have taken many opportunities to express themselves through the buildings, using semi private space created in the under-croft of the container buildings using soft boundaries, and the private balconies.  These spaces were adopted and embellished by residents, which in places felt like an exhibition of design and art work.  In addition, existing buildings were kept open, rather than converting them into apartments, which also provides a facility for the art community to use for exhibitions, but also for others to hire out (www.trinitybuoywharf.com).

Undercrofts become exhibition spaces for sculptural art work

Residents personalise and embellish their private balconies

Residents appropriate existing spaces and buildings to meet new demands

The result is something that is as close to what we saw in Christiania, Copenhagen; than any other place I’ve visited.  It has a wealth of historic buildings similar in style/structure to the military buildings of Christiania.  The use of shipping containers creates the temporary, thrifty and organic feel that Christiania had.  Although no bespoke surface treatments or street furniture had been used, the spaces felt loved and adopted by the residents.  The place has used concepts of thrift and temporality, to create a distinctive feature and catalyst for development.  All this, just a short distance away from the shiny towers and corporate giants of Canary Wharf!