Re-activate, Re-generate, and
Re-use: expressions that
have been recently
introduced into our lexicon, and have since become widely
disseminated; moreover, it becomes increasingly important to
address issues of re-activation, re-generation, and re-use
in an urban context, we also find ourselves utilizing such
terms whenever we refer to an architectural project,
indicating a more conscious use of the resources at our
disposal.
The ‘crisis’ (an overused term referring to the economic
recession of 2008) has
drastically altered the context and modus operandi of the past
years, and expresses many subtleties beyond the
economical. To wit: it refers (in an architectural context) to
an economic model that assumes a financial,
environmental, and academic interest in re-use and re-activation,
bringing with it new opportunities for
investigation.
Before the recession, we often considered the demolition
and reconstruction of
entire neighborhoods. Today, however, we find ourselves
slowly acclimating to new realities, where resources
are finite, buildings are expensive, and the types
of investments are critical. The old methods were outdated,
and in their place we find the re-use of existing ar
tifacts, chirurgical interventions within the urban
fabric, and participatory bottom-up initiatives. This new trend runs contrary to our pre-crisis mentality, when such
operations represented but a small — almost trivial—percentage
of investment when compared to the massive speculative
projects engulfing our cities at that time. The
re-appropriation of urban space by the citizens and the
communities who inhabit it is a central topic involving
architects, designers, and countless experts from diverse fields,
working together at a European scale with entrepreneurs, local
associations, and groups.
The prefix, ‘
re-’, becomes fundamental in understanding
these transformations.
When we talk about the reactivation of an urban space, we are,
inevitably, dealing with new models that
currently lack connections to theoretical practice, and,
as a response, a number of initiatives employing more
experimental strategies and methodologies have
resulted in, quite interestingly, a sort of ‘
systematization of the informal’.
These informal practices exemplify the grassroots
tradition: being developed
from the bottom-up and supported by groups of
everyday citizens, associations, cooperatives, or other
self-organized communities. Today, these previously
informal initiatives are, by necessity, transforming
themselves into ad hoc organizations, which
translates into more structured projects and goals.
Therefore, it is important to focus our attention toward the
experts involved in these processes, who are
contributing their knowledge to refine this informal
approach, in order for us to translate these ideas into working
models and, ultimately, to bring change to the
community.
Dak Hofplein Wunderbaum, The New Forrest
New Trends at the EU Scale
The trends seem to be clear: the
informal is becoming
formalized—but (as is
usually the case) it is not that simple. There are many
difficulties to overcome before one even reaches this
step. One first needs to classify and group these projects
into clear categories—which represents a complex task
in and of itself, as the majority of them are still ongoing,
constantly learning day-by-day about how to improve their
process. Our role, as is shared with many other
researchers, mainly consists of
observing this process in order to understand
and, perhaps, to anticipate these models.
As previously mentioned, the
onset of the financial crisis
has completely changed the
way that we understand the design process, and an
awareness of this economic aspect thus becomes an important
tool for understanding the processes related to
re-activation.
Prior to 2008, the
re-activation of a generic urban area (central or peripheral)
would have been primarily driven by the desires of the
public or private sector: a person, or entity—an ‘operator’
who would be able to translate an idea into a project,
and subsequently acquire the capital for its
realization. Today, this is no longer possible. The recent past has
already exposed the enormous failures of huge
speculations and over-ambitious projects, all of which
have contributed to us being in this current situation. A
marked reduction in these kinds of speculations at the
European level is bringing media attention to these
‘formerly-informal’ practices and models, which, in the
majority of cases, puts them in direct correspondence with a
multi-disciplinary group of people.
These collaborative models ha ve already e
xisted for many years, but are only just now receiving recognition due to the aforementioned
financial crisis, which resulted in the drastic reduction
in the number of investments (both public and private), and
the gradual redirection of public interest toward the
investigation of newer models, which are currently
well-represented by the sharing initiatives.
Another important development is the subsequent
shift in administrative
direction for many local European municipalities who, just a
few years ago, were still quite skeptical of these kinds
of initiatives, but are today much more
open and receptive to listening and
understanding the needs of the public domain, and are now aiding in the emergence of those
initiatives which lack economic stability and power by positioning
themselves as facilitators. The reduced availability of
financial resources at the local municipalities’ disposal
can be seen as a pivotal point that would explain this
change: as the balance of power shifts farther away from
the municipalities, the public finds itself with increased
leverage and power in negotiations; furthermore, each
successful initiative demonstrates—to both the administration
and the greater public—the value and efficacy of pursuing
these complex projects with smaller investments. Because these
informal practices are just a small part of a complex
system, we, together with other experts currently
investigating these processes, can begin to map and analyze them in
order to extrapolate what we refer to as the ‘tools’
for urban re-activation.
From this perspective, the European context is unavoidably
complex, but nevertheless
exhibits recurring elements that, in spite of the
diverse geographical, cultural, or political climates to
which each community belongs, still share common traits that
are uniquely cultivated within each geo-political
context. Spontaneous initiatives, which were generally treated
with disregard just a few short years ago, are now becoming the
inspirational precedent for many other cities across
the globe, each assuming the role of establishing new models
for urban re-activation, which in turn provides novel and
innovative economic solutions, as well as an
entrepreneurial model for a new generation.
It is often taken for granted, but one of the most critical of
these aspects is related
to the propagation of these ideas, which is facilitated today
by the Internet: it strengthens and unifies the informal
and decentralized (consider the significance of social
media during the Arab Spring, or for European movements
such as 15M in Madrid), and facilitates connections
for the exchange of ideas and models at a global scale.
In terms of urban re-activation, it allows for the
possibility to analyze and replicate successful experiences, to
isolate and address the weaknesses, and to
systematize the various processes at both the local and global
scale.
