François Maindiaux

Come-on tools Activating common spaces in underused public areas through a toolbox

Master Design Studio

Hulya Ertas & Burak Pak

Envisioning the Architecture(s) of the Urban Commons 18-19

During the past decades, European cities have been continuously evolving due to the many factors influencing the urban entity. Through deindustrialization, migrations, globalization or climate change, the cities changed socially, spatially, economically, culturally, ecologically and architecturally (Madanipour & Knierbein & Degros, 2014). Public spaces always existed as a key component of any built area. They participate in the whole urban picture and experience. However, as these spaces were obviously controlled and managed by the government, thus meaning the politico-economic context, they became a target and a topic for social urban movement. As one of the major tendency that rose, lies the concept of commons, illustrated by “the civil distrust of any form of institutional government and the rejection of deep structural categories embodied in the dualities of state/market, public/private” (Stavrides, 2015). In this context, the commons movement grew, mostly because of the urban society’s interest and desire of action for public space, to propose and alternative and contrasting solution to the current approach led by governements or institutions. The commons movement not only exists in terms of resources, but also as “a process and a practice: the practice of commoning” (Stavrides, 2015).

Common spaces started to emerge in developed cities around the world, as a way of using and sharing urban spaces. Various communities appeared, and with them values, ideas, concepts or even struggles regarding their urban experience. In the same aspect, the reasons and claims of the different communities became diversified over time. The complexity of each initiative and the spatial transformation that follows induces a variety of rules, protocols or method that can be observed. General rules are somehow delicate to extract from the different cases studied. However, in most common spaces lies a key component which is most of the time illustrated by devices or equipment. A common garden will be dealing with plant pots, vegetable garden etc, while other spaces could be integrating wood structure, table, chairs, bicycles, and other (almost unlimited) possibilities. These resources are the most visible part of the system, because it can be what composes the urban space that is used, but also the structure supporting any action of the community. In term of architecture, what we see when looking at common spaces is the design, the spatial planning or construction displayed.

This particular aspect of the topic caught my interest, because of the capacity it has to play a role in the improvement of urban common spaces. Although the space and possibilities for commons are not rare in most develop cities, the society’s knowledge and potential is restricted.

References

Stavrides, S. (2015). Common Space as Threshold Space: Urban Commoning in Struggles to Re-appropriate Public Space. FOOTPRINT, , 9-19. doi:10.7480/footprint.9.1.896

Axonometric Drawing: Phase 1

Section: Phase 1

Organisational diagram

Diagram: Layers