PLACEMAKING IN PROTECTED SETLEMENTS: BAC FORTRESS SUBURBIUM Tatjana Mrdjenovic, PhD; University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]Abstract: Quality of places has became one of the main issues in the process of sustainable urban and rural development. Protected settlements are usually treated as museums on open space when physical structures represents past values. Contemporary approach for integrating previous values into everyday life assumes that not only physical artifacts are those who are berries of past identity. This identity is hidden into heritable patterns of living, organizing, social-cultural production and should be promoted and integrated into contemporary life. Previous cultural-social practice becomes one of our main duties for preservation and transfer to future generations. This practice becomes one of the main issues in placemaking of protected settlements, especially when it should be re-discovered and integrated into contemporary ways of living. The paper will discuss integral urban design game as a placemaking method in protected settlements specifically in Bac fortress suburbia in Serbia. This settlement has various attributes: vernecularity in urban morphology, contemporary life in past structures, variety of social and cultural structure, proximity to Bac Fortress. The main problem is how to protect it in a manner that allows contemporary living patterns, new needs for social and economic production as well as social integration. The problem was treated in the workshop and training: Participative urban design for Bac fortress suburbium, which included relevant local and regional stakeholders, both students at University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture and at the Summer school of Architecture in Bac. The aim of the paper is to elaborate outcomes of the workshop in relation to placemaking theory giving guidelines for treating similar cases in domestic and foreign practice. Key words: placemaking, protected settlements, sustainability, methods 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Transcript
PLACEMAKING IN PROTECTED SETLEMENTS: BAC FORTRESS SUBURBIUM
Tatjana Mrdjenovic, PhD;
University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Quality of places has became one of the main issues in the process of sustainable urban and rural development. Protected settlements are usually treated as museums on open space when physical structures represents past values. Contemporary approach for integrating previous values into everyday life assumes that not only physical artifacts are those who are berries of past identity. This identity is hidden into heritable patterns of living, organizing, social-cultural production and should be promoted and integrated into contemporary life. Previous cultural-social practice becomes one of our main duties for preservation and transfer to future generations. This practice becomes one of the main issues in placemaking of protected settlements, especially when it should be re-discovered and integrated into contemporary ways of living. The paper will discuss integral urban design game as a placemaking method in protected settlements specifically in Bac fortress suburbia in Serbia. This settlement has various attributes: vernecularity in urban morphology, contemporary life in past structures, variety of social and cultural structure, proximity to Bac Fortress. The main problem is how to protect it in a manner that allows contemporary living patterns, new needs for social and economic production as well as social integration. The problem was treated in the workshop and training: Participative urban design for Bac fortress suburbium, which included relevant local and regional stakeholders, both students at University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture and at the Summer school of Architecture in Bac. The aim of the paper is to elaborate outcomes of the workshop in relation to placemaking theory giving guidelines for treating similar cases in domestic and foreign practice.
In line with contemporary dynamic relations in the process of globalization the identity and quality of places is crucial factor of place recognition in global network.The competition for global recognition opens many chances to local cultures for socio-economic development, developing new relations in global networking. According to Castells local community and local cultures becomes core factor in cultural identity .Globalization as complex process carries plurality of cultures, interests and needs that should be recognized and accepted in urban development process. The plurality carries conflicts and contradictions that are balanced by concept of sustainability.
Sustainable development is a process of balancing plurality of cultures, interests and needs, integrating them into coherent whole .Baker recognizes four models of sustainability according to their philosophical orientation: anthropocentrism and eco-centrism. The models are defined as ideal (which is on the extreme position of eco-centrism, where nature is intrinsic value), Strong model of sustainable development (which is between eco-centrism and anthropocentrism), Weak sustainable development, and Pollution control (which is on the outermost position of anthropocentrism) . This paper will stand for the models that are more on the side of anrtopocentrism, as culture is a product of civilization, taking into account environmental and ecological problems through integrated
approach. Integration of sectors of sustainability - economy, society, environment (both built and natural) is conceptualized through different diagrams (models): The Venn Diagram, The Nesting model, The Mercury model and The Swedish prism model. The last takes into account institutional development as fourth dimension of sustainability. All these types shape a specific approach to regeneration.
Taking into account sustainability as a global concept, contemporary approach to regeneration means creating sustainable places, integrating different developmental sectors, identities and interests into place creation through decision making process, providing quality of life for citizens. In Serbia regeneration is, according to Bazik:“Process of defining integral policies that integrates global and local level, through inter-sectoral relations between economic, social, environmental and institutional development”(Bazik,2006) Also, Vaništa Lazarević and Djukic say that regeneration in Serbia needs multidisciplinary approach, which bounds architects, urban designers and planners, landscape architects, spatial planers, economists, financial experts, sociologists, marketing experts. Apart from interdisciplinarity, regeneration needs participation, wider social inclusiveness as well as public-private partnerships that contribute to active regeneration. (Vanista & Djukic, 2006) This also, puts forward urban decision making process as a carrier of quality of regeneration.
Sustainable regeneration and globalization and frame new context for urban design and its relation to development. Theories of urban design vary in line with different socio-economic context and it is seen more as a product or process. In line with complexity of regeneration and its focus on decision making, I would say that urban design is a process of integration rational and collaborative paradigm of decision making, mediating different realities through communicative action. Seen as a process of place creation, urban design integrates different dimensions of space production.
Seen as a process of decision making, urban design can provide sustainable framework for regeneration considering main principles of sustainability.EUrecognizesneed for developing European methodology for managing cultural heritage in the frame of sustainable development, creating an instrument for qualitative and quantitative assessment of public and private investments on developing cultural heritage, defining the role of cultural heritage in providing new jobs, creating preconditions for sustainable development through partnership between public, private and civil sector. Serbia is in the process of expert and public discussion on the model of integration that is appropriate for domestic context. Therefore, innovative methods and techniques for placemaking are needed.
2.0 PLACEMAKING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTED SETTLEMENTS
Placemaking theory evolved over the time from the postmodernism movement to sutainable places. On the other hand, We can seek roots on place notion in Aristotelle concept of space. According to Aristotelle space reperesents a network of places that are mutually interconnected according to their synergy potential. (Aristotelle acc. to Shultz, 1975) Euclid concept of space is just a content in the wider setting of plural caracteristics in holstic rleation space-time-concept-cognition-man-needs-values. Place has various dimesions that are not just spatial and temporal, but also social, economic, cultural, imaginational, perceptive, iconographic, etc. Eventhough, modernism movement had its own concept of space in representational manner it is more Euclid than multidimensional. However, integration is the crutial word to all architectural constructs. It is present in Aristotelle - Relational, Euclid - Absolut, therefore in modern and postmodern.
Integration is seen in CIAM Athens charter as necessary bounding factor among spatial distant and segregated spaces/city zones. In comparison to Aristotele thought it can be concluded that modernist space is a network of mutually synergized places. However, the main element is/was
missing: everyday life cycle of integration. Here we are: integration failed in modernist movement, therefore the whole concept had a systematic mistake. The integrative layer was missing, I would say settled in the wrong time. Traffic can not be an integrative element if it is not seen in sustainable concept as per se represents non-place. The sustainable transport systems seek to redefine the role and caracter of transport in the city, making it more mobile transferring to system of places. Sustainability has the power of integration.
Sustainable development is a spatial development paradigm evolved over the years from the concern for natural resources toward integrative approach among different rationalities and developmental paradigms: “Sustainable paradigm aims to shape future places and spaces taking responsibility for economic, social, natural, built, and institutional development. A conception of space is global, local, and glocal, integrating plural meanings in holistic manner. ” (Mrdjenovic, 2014) Table 1 presents the systematization of developmental paradigms regarding the type and level of integration that they provide in urban regeneration (Table 1).
Table 1: Interrelations between paradigms with regard to urban regeneration, (Mrdjenovic,2014)
Collaborative, Social, Economic, Public administration, Environmental, Physical
Physical, Economic,
Social
Physical, Public administration
Collaborative, Environmental
Physical Physical, Public administration,
S Social
Sustainable paradigm
Type of integration
Integration of all developmental sectors (economic, social, environmental). Institutional horizontal and vertical integration, Developing soft and hard infrastructure
Integration of all developmental sectors (economic, social, environmental), Institutional horizontal and vertical integration, Developing hard infrastructure
Vertical integration, Top – down, Developing hard infrastructure
Vertical integration, Top – down, Developing hard infrastructure
Horizontal integration, Building trust, Bounding type of social capital, Developing soft infrastructure
Physical by traffic ‘uniting lines’, Developing hard infrastructure
Intersectoral and interdisciplinary integration, Network of planning agencies, Instrumental, Top-down, melting pot, Developing hard infrastructure
Integration of all developmental sectors (economic, social, environmental). Institutional horizontal and vertical integration, Developing soft and hard infrastructure, Developmental social capital, Building partnerships
Level of integration
Multidimensional, Physical towards environmental, Economic and social
Multidimensional, Physical towards environmental, Economic and social
Multidimensional, Economic towards social, Built and natural environment
One- sided
Two dimensional, Social towards environment
One-dimensional, sectoral
One-dimensional with multiple communication channels
Multidimensional,Habermas’s communicative-argumentative consensus, Integrative space and place
Type of the process
Visionary, Strategic
Visionary, Strategic
Visionary, Blueprint
Utopist, Blueprint
Project oriented
Visionary, Blueprint
Project oriented, Blue print
Visionary, Strategic, Project oriented
Dominant type of rationality
Instrumental, Top-down towards collaborative, Environmental
Instrumental, Top-down towards collaborative, Political, Environmental
Political, Positivistic, Quasi – instrumental
Positivistic, Instrumental, Political, Normative
Quasi-collaborative, Environmental
Positivistic, Instrumental, Political
Positivistic, Instrumental rationality
Castells’s and Baudrillard's 'New rationality', Instumental and collaborative, Habermas's communicative rationality
Type of identity
Reminiscence identity of place
Emerging identity of place
Monumental identity, City Beautiful
New identity of emancipated modern man in Modern city
Identity of social space
Identity of great designs
Identity of efficiency and effectiveness of planning agencies
Project identity of place and local community, Glocal identity
Table 1 shows the interconnections between different approaches in urban regeneration related to favored urban paradigm. We can conclude that Hall’s and Reeves’s comparison shows that the sustainable paradigm has been always present. The main issue is that it was practiced fragmentarily over the history, until the study “Limits of growth” has been done. As sustainability is a concept whицх implementation varies due to cultural and socioeconomic specifies, the comparison is relevant for making difference between the betterment notions as a subject of urban regeneration. In line with this, the betterment was more or less “sustainable” in particular paradigm, and reached its full meaning of integration starting from the study “Limits of Growth” until today.
Therefore, sustainable approach to placemaking creates a balance between the protection and development of local identities, including them responsibly into the global trends as the pillars of socio-economic development. The simultaneous need for the protection of inherited values, and the development of new ones, stresses the importance of an integral approach. At the same time, it implies the preservation of non-renewable resources, such as urban cultural heritage, as well as facilitation in the development of new ambient values. Such an approach combines the concepts of space with different development paradigms (economic, social, physical, divided space) and promotes a multi-dimensional glocal place. In that way, a glocal place becomes a subject of regeneration, and focuses on the problem of global and local identities.
„Contemporary approach to regeneration refers to qualitative advances of multi-dimensional characteristics of places (spaces) . In the context of sustainable development, a place is defined through the totality of its manifestation. Thereby, a place embraces the qualities of urban environment through the affirmation and establishment of spatial, functional, visual and symbolic patterns, as well as the vitalities of socio-economic life in urban space. The vitality of place is the result of these relations; therefore it is achieved in the sustainable approach to regeneration through participation and collaboration, where urban design is the integral factor of multi-dimensional regeneration.“ (Mrdjenovic et. al, 2011a)
On the other hand, integrative protection as a discipline is in line with international documents on UN, EU and ICOMOS level that seeks to “bring life” into protected urban areas according to the principles of sustainability (UNESCO, 2005;ICOMOS, 1998; ICOMOS, 1994; ICOMOS, 1982; ICOMOS, 1972).This means integrative protection, also integrates different sectors of sustainability: economy, society, environment and institutions through encouraging public participation to be active in the promotion of cultural heritage in line with contemporary concept of cultural tourism (Dojčinović 2005). This kind of integration leads to promotion and protection of non-renewable resource like cultural-historic heritage. This process also leads to social cohesion among local people, who brings life into physical structure, carrying social and knowledge of past times. This is essential for holistic approach between past, present and future and our responsibility to preserve past and present cultural practice for future generations.
As it is seen in Table 1 Sustainable paradigm creates intergal spaces for project oriented, integral places that are multicultural, both collaborative and instrumenatal. Nowadays, sustainable development seeks to integrate the positive aspects of all paradigms creating glocal, integrative space. The space becomes as an arena for mediating differences in plural society. This integration means making linkages not only between the sectors of sustainability and different interests, but also linkages between different levels of governance, both horizontal and vertical. Therefore, I believe that sustainable urban regeneration is a process of creating glocal identities and places using integrative space as an instrument for developing Healey’s “hard and soft” infrastructure (Healey, 1997) or Giddens’s “structures and agencies” (Giddens according to Dovey 1999). Here, I stand on Dovey’s point that mediation in integrative space should be more “power to then power over”
(Dovey, 1999). In line with that, my thought is that creating, developing, and maintaining integrative space becomes a main subject of sustainable regeneration. Thus, the question: How do we create, develop, and maintain the integrative space? The answer needs further elaboration on the model of integrative space as well as methods for its achievement.
In my opinion the model should provide glocal identities, spaces, and places that are in between CIAM and New Urbanism. Here, I lean on Castells’s attitude that individual, local and national identities are “frustrated” by the process of globalization. According to Castells they should create “project identity” based on memory, present moment, and dreams of the future. This identity makes them pro-active actors in the global community. Such actors are ready to develop new attributes with care and protection of traditional ones (Castells, 2004). Only in that way the ‘ratio’ can be renewed on solid bases, integrating plural identities and values into a coherent whole: “I believe in rationality, and in possibility of calling upon reason […] I believe in the chances of meaningful social action, and transformative politics, without necessarily drifting toward the deadly rapids of absolute utopias.” (Castells,2000:.4) I also believe in Baudrillard’s objective space (Бодријар, 2001), opposing the ‘legality’ of the mutual presence of relative rationalities that postmodern time favors (Harvey, 2007) This ‘new rationality’ determines and supports a model of integrative space, as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Model of integrative space and place. T. Mrđenović (Mrđenović, et al. 2011a)
The model is challenged by conflicts among different values, identities, interests, needs, while should provide and develop the integrity of individuals, communities, and nations into a ‘new rationality’. This rationality is more a hierarchical puzzle or dynamic, live-fractal than it is universal. These conflicts can develop or destroy ‘the fractal’ and ‘New Unity’ regarding the ‘elements’ and ‘design’ of the urban regeneration process. According to Tomić, the conflicts come mostly from communication barriers that can be cultural, semantic, ideological, and psychological, related to power and to social and human capital (Tomić, 2003). On the other hand, I believe the barriers can challenge the development of the model. My attitude introduces the main issues in designing the process, stated as follows: In which situations should the urban design process for regeneration be ‘guided’, ‘mediated’, or ‘facilitated’? Should and can Landry’s “creative milieu” (Landry, 2005) overcome the obstacles in communication? Can it create preconditions for open communication, an argumentative approach, and Habermas’s “communicative consensus” (Habermas, 1984)?
Most authorities, such as Forester, Harvey, and Jacobs, believe that creativity and design can give ‘common meaning’ to the fragment society (Forester, 1989; Harvey, 2007; Jacobs, 1992). The ‘common meaning’ develops ‘new rationality’ for the ‘New Unity’ of individuals, organizations,
institutions, communities, and nations. The imaginative dimension of urban design provokes urban designers to become leaders in creating/designing the urban regeneration process. Furthermore, according to Madanipour, urban design is a multidimensional discipline: subjective-imaginative, communicative-collaborative, rational-technical, interdisciplinary (Madanipour, 1996).
I would say that in the core of integration problem is elimination of barriers in communication. Guided by this assumption, I have come to the conclusion that removing the barriers in the domain of physical context and semantics is ethically justified. However, this poses a question of ethical justification for removing the psychological barriers in the process of communication. Dare we influence the beliefs; analyze differently the experiences, cultural differences, and question the assumptions, prejudices of the interlocutor? Regarding the game theory in communication, the research will assess the new method: “Integrative urban design game” as an open play that enables integration of differences using different methods from artistic towards scientific.
3.0 URBAN DESIGN GAME AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR PLACEMAKING: BAC FORTRESS SUBURBIUM CASE
The holistic thought of urban design integrates different crosscutting dimensions where it is produced. Firstly, it is a space of imagination and creation of urban designers when it is subjective-expressive process of creating specific identity of places. In the context of social production of space it is more objective-rational or socio-communicative process of creating new socio-spatial relations and its visual artifacts. Thirdly, it is an interdisciplinary process as a field for communication of different expert’s view points through argumentation. This dimension emphasizes open communication and argumentative approach in conflict resolution using creativity. Fourthly, urban design can be seen as a technical process that represents politics and regulation form higher level . Therefore, urban design as multidimensional process can provide creative solutions for different developmental sectors of sustainable regeneration: economy, society and environment, overcoming communication barriers in urban decision making through communicative action.(Madanipour,1996) This position should give a holistic answer to the problems that standagainst sustainable regeneration in Serbia, both in theory and practice, especiallaly in protected areas.
Integrative urban design game is an innovative method and integrates different processes of urban design, such as the subjective-expressive, social-creative, social-communicative, technical-rational, and interdisciplinary. The aim of this method is to develop different types of rationality in a community by an adequate regeneration process and achieving the quality of place through a creative game in the visualization of space. The method is rationalized in the key segments of the process, using argumentative and expert methods. In this way, it creates the future of the place through its spatial visualization, using three-dimensional and two-dimensional presentations, drafts, drawings and text, different expert methods of polling, interviewing, context analyses, morphological analyses, as well as collaborative methods that support argumentation by use of different diagrams such as problem tree and tree of aims and measures. The essence of the urban design integral game is to establish а relation between different types of rationality, as well as between the phases of the planning process. As a method, it implies a continual procedure in the development of social creativity, as well as its rationalization. (Mrdjneovic,2010a)
In the light of creating the conditions for communicative action in the regeneration processes and integration of reality fragments, the method integrates the advantages and disadvantages of the two most present paradigms in urban decision-making, the rational-comprehensive and collaborative; changing the role of urban design in the integrative processes. The problem of the first paradigm is the rationality limitation of stakeholders and experts in perceiving the totality of reality; therefore there is a lesser probability for the generation of winning solutions and decisions for different
dimensions of regenerative processes. The problem of the second one can be the absence of a strategic approach in generating solutions, i.e., responding to current problems, without insight into the possible development program-spatial solutions in the regeneration processes. (Mrđenović, 2011b)
The method facilitates the practical command of integrating rational-comprehensive and collaborative paradigms in urban decision-making and process oriented urban design, for establishing a relation with sustainable principles of regeneration. The purpose of the method is in establishing the relations between two paradigms. “ Position that I stand for is optimistic one, based on the assumption that communicative action can integrate positive and overcome negative aspects of each, using creativity as a mean for open communication, flow of ideas and thoughts . Therefore argumentative approach use creativity to make linkages in strategy making crosscutting both paradigms providing particular identities, interests and needs to be recognized as well as having an ideal picture of development as a coherent whole.” (Mrđenović, 2011b)
Integrative urban design game has been applied as a method in the Summer School of Architecture in Bač in 2010, in the workshop with the topic Participative Approach in the Shaping of Public Space - the Bač Fortress and its Suburbium . (Mrđenović, Radionica: Participativni pristup u oblikovanju javnog prostora - Podgrađe tvrđave Bač, 2010b). The students of the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade took part in the workshop, together with the students of the Summer school and stakeholders from the local community: representatives of the Tourist Organization of Bač municipality, "Centuries of Bač" Fund, Radio Bačka, and the local population. The process of integral urban design was created in such a way that the process proceeded through the following phases: (1) Preparation of the participative procedure, (2) Defining the desired future – visioning, (3) Analysis of problems and potentials, (4) Defining strategic objectives and measures for improving public space, (5) Spatial solution testing. The method, in a holistic way, has supported different phases of the process, which were built incrementally an integrated into the ambient presented in Figures 14-21. In that sense, the method has combined different fragmentary methods by passing through the decision-making phases depicted in schema 3:
Schema 3: The path of the urban design integral process applied in the case of the regeneration of public space Bač Fortress and its Suburbium (Acc. to UN-Habitat, 2005)
PHASE 1: Participative procedure preparation
In the first phase the participative procedure preparation was carried out by the students of the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade who had recorded the existing state on the terrain through the identification of the needs and wishes of the local population (using polls and interviews), as well as through the identification of spatial potentials and development limitations of public spaces (by visiting the terrain and taking photographs, notes and sketching).
Figure 1. Students of the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade while recording of the existing state
Figure 2.Making mock models of street fronts as the base for creating solutions throughout the entire process, (Mrđenović, 2010b)
The remaining phases of the participative procedure were realized through trainings lasting a day and a half as part of the Summer school of Architecture in Bač (Mrđenović, Radionica: Participativni pristup u oblikovanju javnog prostora - Podgrađe tvrđave Bač, 2010). The training was conceived according to the principles of adult education; the methodology and realization were adapted to the
needs of the Summer school. The training consisted of seven modules: MODUL 1 – Concept of sustainable development and urban ambient of cultural-historical importance , MODUL 2 – Participative planning and forming of urban ambients of cultural-historical importance: integral approach, MODUL 3 – Rrealization of the integral approach – Defining the desired future – Visioning, MODUL 4 – Realization of the integral approach – Analysis of problems and potentials, MODUL 5 – Realization of integral approach – Defining integral objectives and spatial-physical dimensions, MODUL 6 – Realization of integral approach – Solution creation, MODUL 7 – Realization of integral approach: Spatial solution testing. Within the first two modules students gained knowledge and skills regarding the sustainable approach to regeneration and identification of qualitative characteristics, which are in accordance with the principles of sustainability. The remaining phases of the qualitative characteristics of places were realized together with the above-mentioned stakeholders.
Figure 3. Participants of the Summer school in Bač, during training about participation in the regeneration of protected urban ambients. (Mrđenović, 2010b)
PHASE 2: Visioning –creating an inspirational future
In the visioning process, among the participants besides the students, were also relevant stakeholders from the local community: inhabitaants of the Street Bač Fortress, the representatives of the Tourist organization of Bač municipality, „Centuries of Bač“ Fund, Radio Bačka. The process was supported by brainstorming and nominal group techniques, as well as by creative techniques of visualization and text. The vision was formulated on several levels: through key words, the slogan, drawing-image and a sentence that describes the vision more elaborately.
Figure 5. Integral vision of the inhabitants of Street Bač Fortress (Mrđenović, 2010a,b)
Figure 6.Integral vision of the Tourist organization of Bač municipality
Figure 7.Integral vision of Radio Bačka
Figure 8.Integral vision of „Centuries of Bač“ Fund
PHASE 3: Problems and potentials
The following phase of the process was the identification of problems and potentials that hinder or facilitate the realization of the vision, by using brainstorming techniques. The recognized problems and potentials have been grouped and classified by hierarchy using the problem tree technique, which has facilitated their rationalization and the realization of cause-and-effect relationships.
Figure 9 Identification of problems and potentials
PHASE 4: Integral objectives and measures
The problem tree served to formulate the strategic integral objectives and spatial-program measures that contribute to the realization of the objectives. In this iterative procedure, individual visions have been redefined so they could be adapted to real development needs and potentials.
Figures 10,11. Integral objectives and measures (Mrđenović, Radionica: Participativni pristup u oblikovanju javnog prostora - Podgrađe tvrđave Bač, 2010), (Mrđenović, 2010)
PHASE 5: Spatial presentation through the integration of the previous phases, different global images, values and interests
As the end result, with the creative and rational development of the mock model of the existing street fronts, different phases of integral urban design, types of rationality and different global images were combined into a coherent future. That way, an integral place with a specific identity was designed, while respecting and affirming the inherited values, including the local population and other relevant stakeholders in the development of cultural tourism.
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Integral presentation of urban design strategy for the regeneration of Street Bač Fortress (Mrđenović, 2010b)
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Cultural heritage with its unique values is a crucial factor in European identity, based on tolerance and democracy. Wide knowledge of cultural diversity is a base for tolerance and respect, overcoming differences and building bridges between different cultures as a unique part of European identity. Cultural heritage is recognized as socio - economic potential and each country should develop alternative strategies for sustainable regeneration. . As regeneration crosscuts different sectors of sustainability in place creation it is best achieved through urban design process.
Urban design, considered as decision making and communicative process, as well as creative imaginative and rational can provide framework for sustainable regeneration. Setting up a creative milieu it becomes an instrument for integration of plural identities, interests and needs into a coherent whole, incorporating different types of social arenas into multiplanningagency system. Such a model enable and facilitate partnerships between public, private and civil sector on local, regional, national and supranational level. Therefore, as a creative and communicative process it can be an instrument of integration, providing specific identity and framework for development.
“Integrative urban design game” seeks to play among various interests and rationalities in fair manner using Habermas’s “communicative ethics” (Habermas, 1984). In that play it integrates
different processes of urban design, such as the subjective-expressive, social-creative, social-communicative, technical-rational, and interdisciplinary. The aim of this method is to develop different types of rationality in wide community participation process towards achieving the quality of place using a creative game in the visualization of space. The method applied on Bač Fortress Suburbium is rationalized in the key segments of the process, using argumentative and expert methods. In this way, it created ‘future image’ of the place through its spatial visualization, using three-dimensional and two-dimensional presentations, drafts, drawings and text, different expert methods of polling, interviewing, context analyses, morphological analyses, as well as collaborative methods that support argumentation by use of different diagrams such as problem tree and tree of aims and measures.
Here I would point out again the role of integrative urban design (fusional disciplines) in this process, which is assuring livable places with specific glocal identity making them recognizable on global map. On the other hand, integrative protection should prevent the ‘dark side’ of globalization that is by Nara document characterized as homogenization of cultural expressions. “In a world that is increasingly subject to the forces of globalization and homogenization, and in a world in which the search for cultural identity is sometimes pursued through aggressive nationalism and the suppression of the cultures of minorities, the essential contribution made by the consideration of authenticity in conservation practice is to clarify and illuminate the collective memory of humanity.” (ICOMOS, 1994) Therefore, the Integrative urban design game is in line with the one of the document’s suggestion to develop innovative methods and processes that will treat cultural heritage in integrative manner according to local context. (ICOMOS, 1994).
The method integrates different types of methods and techniques supporting wide range of purposes in the multidimensional process of sustainable urban regeneration. Integrative urban design and integrative protection use different methods according to: Phase of integrative urban design, Level collaborativeness, Type of rationality. Also, it creates spaces and place that are Multidimensional, Visionary, Strategic, Project oriented. According to theoretical discussion, and its application on practical example I would define main principles for creating sustainable places:
• Providing strategic framework for regeneration in rational and collaborative manner,
• Integration of different sectors of sustainability,
• Integration of different levels of governance, policies and legislative,
• Inclusivness for stakeholders on local, regional, national and supranational level,
• Promotion and development of specific character and project identity of place.
5.0 REFERENCES
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development. New York: Routledge.
Bazik, D. (2006) Iniciranje regeneracije javnih gradskih prostora. [book auth.] Ružica Bogdanović. Urbani dizajn. Beograd : Društvo urbanista Beograda, pp. 259-272.
Castells, M. (2004) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Dovey, K. (1999) Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. New York: Routledge.
Dojčinović, V. Đ. (2005). Kulturni turizam: Menadžment i razvojne strategije. Beograd: Clio.
Elin, N. (2004) Postmoderni urbanizam. Beograd: Orion.
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. London: University of California Press.
Habermas, Ј. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action - Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall, P. (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Harvey, D. (2007) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.
ICOMOS. (1972). Resolutions of the Symposium on the introduction of contemporary architecture into ancient groups of buildings. Преузето 11 6, 2010 са http://www.icomos.org/docs/contemporary_architecture.html.
ICOMOS. (1982). DECLARATION OF TLAXCALA. Преузето 11 6, 2010 са http://www.icomos.org/docs/tlaxcala.html.
ICOMOS. (1998). The Stockholm declaration. Преузето 11 6, 2010 са http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/stocdec_e.htm.
Jacobs, J. (1992). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: VINTAGE BOOKS EDITION.
Landry, C. (2005) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan.
Mrđenović, T. (2010b). Workshop: Participatory approach in designing pubic space - Bac Fortress Suburbium
Mrđenović, T. (2011a). Urbana regeenracija zaštićenih ambijentalnih celina u kontekstu održivog razvoja - Podgrađe Tvrđave Bač / Urban regeneration of protected ambients in the context of sustainable development - Bač Fortress Suburbium. 1st Edition. Beograd : Univerzitet u Beogradu - Arhitektonski fakultet, pp. 310-334.
Mrđenović, T. (2011b) Integrative Urban Design in Regeneration - Principles for Achieving Sustainable Places. 2011, Journal of Applied Engineering Science No. 92, pp. 305-316.
Mrdjenovic (2014), Teaching method: “integrative urban design game” for soft urban regeneration, Spatium international Review, iss. 38, pp 9-16,
Norberg-Šulc, K. (1975). Egzistencija, prostor i arhitektura. Beograd: Gradjevinska knjiga.
Pavličić, D. (2010) Teorija odlučivanja. Beograd: Centar za izdavačku delatnost Ekonomskog fakulteta.
Reeves, D. (2005) Planning for Diversity: Policy and Planning in a World of Difference. New York: Routledge.
Tomić, Z. (2003). Komunikologija. Beograd: Čigoja.
Vaništa, E. L. and Đukić, A. (2006) Urban regeneration as a tool of sustainable development. Arhitektura i urbanizam, Vols. 18-19
UNESCO. (2005, October 20). Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. Преузето 11 9, 2010 са http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/themes/2005-convention/.
UN-Habitat, & SIRP. (2005). What is participatory planning? Belgrade: UN-Habitat.
