Generic Symbiosis

Having too much people in a limited territory becomes a problem of density. In this case, however, the opposite happens:  a vast and generic field, no topographic constrains; 10,000 people in 300 ha. How to occupy the territory? How to give value to every part of the land? And, most importantly, how to generate human interaction?

As guiding principles, we believe all energy in the neighborhood should come from renewable resources. Also, people interaction is a key issue, insisting on the possibility of human interaction as a justice and responsability detonators: THE POSSIBILTY OF DEMOCRATIC SPACE; through occupying the public space, people will feel commited to their neighbourhood and among themselves.

Given all the activities that happen in a city/neighborhood according to the Hyperhabitat research, our aim is to accommodate those that have a closer relationship (space, time) in an inner belt, generating a more concentrated and dense center. Such strategy would allow more open space for food production and green areas in general.

Since the pedestrian is the main subject of this neighborhood, each activity is accommodated in a walking distance (400-800 m).  Different walking patterns are studied to establish the most efficient one.

Studying the daily, weekly and monthly typical schedules, there appear to be gaps and time losses that could be better used for leisure/personal time. Technology has brought a new time distribution, where flexibility and simultaneity set up new figures: Working possibility while riding public transport, sending/receiving data in a portable device releases the limitations of an office space/schedule.

As a first and schematic approach, we set up a geometry around which some of the program could start to develop, offering always the most amount of green space and a low scale, horizontal configuration. Buildings would be from 4 to 8 stories, with commercial spaces on the ground floor to have activity all day long.

By proposing closed loop cycles for energy, water and waste, we attempt to create a self sufficient community, as well as an efficient and low carbon emission masterplan.

Going back to the first Garden-City theorists (Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier, Buckminster Fuller, Jane Jacobs, Lewis Mumford…), how much of the ideas and abstactions could now be applied? Technology and social behaviours have shifted, environmental values are now a key issue in any political agenda. What can we recover from those first pioneers? Where to take it even further?

A place designed FOR the people. Avoid car circulation and parking. The urban fabric is composed of elevated pathways that create multilayered connectivity… interaction.

People going to the park VS. The patk giong to the people.

Underground possibilities for vehicular circulation, releasing the ground space for pedestrian use. Overlay of networks.

What if a water body (river, channel…) could connect visually and phisically all the neighborhood, serving as a transportation network, energy resource, weather improving device and irrigation system? Water is a primal source of life, why not celebrate it?

Setting up urban programs, looking for the appropiate relationships in terms of proximities, orientation, interconnectivity. Land use is not limited to one activity. One program dissolves into the other, creating a more flexible and dynamic environment.

This entry was posted in RS1. Emergent Territories and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*


6 × seven =


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>