Designed Living Environment: A New Policy for Architecture, Form and Design
A paradigm shift in the national architecture programme
What is modern architecture policy, and why is it being reviewed now? The increased importance of cities, continued urbanisation, new lifestyles, changes in working life and globalisation, are the concepts in focus when the Government issues new guidelines for architecture policy. The term paradigm shift indicates that the Government is announcing a new approach to and new conditions for architecture.
It is good that the Government is initiating a review based on new conditions. The starting point for the previous architecture programme fifteen years ago has changed. A value-based reference framework is now being highlighted. This value framework naturally includes democratic aspects as important elements. The work on a new architecture programme will be broad-based, with a bottom-up perspective in which citizens and human capital are seen as resources in the city of the future.
It was the previous Government that took the initiative to develop a new policy for architecture, form and design. In the Government’s working title, ‘Designed living environment’, the focus is on people – recognising that all construction is rooted in people’s desire to have a good life. However, the words ‘living environment’ also indicate a broader approach. Apart from focusing on beauty and aesthetics, which are, of course, important parameters, the aim is also to create sustainable structures. This strikes a chord in Malmö, which has 15 years of experience of sustainable construction (Västra hamnen, Ekostaden, Sege Park, Hyllie and most recently the Malmö Commission’s work to create a living environment that can counteract the rise in ill-health).
A holistic approach is also present throughout. From the point of view of society, this means, for example, that we cannot just talk about cheap building and cheap homes, despite the acute shortage of homes. We must also focus on quality and ensure that investments are long-term sustainable initiatives. What we must aim to build is a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable city. This has also been Malmö’s guiding principle over the past 10-15 years. The work on environmental issues is what creates the framework for our future.
Designed living environment also entails a broader approach. In addition to the built environment, it must also comprise form and design in a broader context.
When the previous national architecture programme was developed, Malmö drew up its own action programme in parallel. This was entitled Urban Planning and Architecture. It was developed jointly by the city’s administrations to serve as a practical tool and demonstrate the city’s ambitions, while also being a source of inspiration for everyone involved in the urban planning process. This time too, Malmö is in the process of presenting a new action programme. It is entitled Malmö, City of Architecture and will be part of the City’s General Plan. Malmö is a committed city with a strong will. The General Plan is a future-oriented document that the city worked on via a bottom-up concept, and the Malmö, City of Architecture action programme has been developed with similar working methods.
Malmö’s plan for the future is based partly on the necessity of developing the city we have. Instead of talking about special municipal requirements, we want to see cities’ distinctive features as an asset. I see Malmö’s efforts as important experience and a source of inspiration in the national work and I want to share that experience.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
The best nature-based solutions on urban industrial lands are those that are part of a corporate citizenship or conservation strategy like DTE’s or Phillips66. By integrating efforts such as tree plantings, restorations, or pollinator gardens into a larger strategy, companies begin to mainstream biodiversity into their operations. When they crosswalk the effort to other CSR goals like employee engagement, community relations, and/or workforce development, like the CommuniTree initiative, the projects become more resilient.
Air quality in urban residential communities near industrial facilities will not be improved by nature alone. But nature can contribute to the solution, and while doing so, bring benefits including recreation, education, and an increased sense of community pride. As one tool to combat disparate societal outcomes, nature is accessible, affordable and has few, if any, downsides.
I spoke last week to Adrian Benepe, former commissioner for the NYC Parks Department and currently the Senior Vice President and Director of National Programs at The Trust for Public Land.
We discussed a lot of things – the increased use of parks in the era of COVID-19, the role parks have historically played – and currently play – in citizens’ first amendment right to free speech and protests, access & equity for underserved communities, the coming budget shortfalls and how they might play out in park systems.
I wanted to pull out the discussion we had about funding for parks and share Adrian’s thoughts with all of you, as I think it will be most timely and valuable as we move forward with new budgets and new realities.
There is a risk of further widening the gap between so-called ‘knowledge workers’ able to do their jobs remotely and afford to move, and those with place-based employment who cannot. Beyond that, retreating residents might take the very identity and uniqueness of the places they abandon with them.
Nurturing the community-resident bond could be an antidote to these dismaying departures, and new research sheds light on how. A recent report by the Urban Institute and commissioned by the Knight Foundation surveyed 11,000 residents of 26 U.S. metro areas to uncover what amenities created a “sense of attachment and connection to their city or community.” Three key recommendations emerged in Smart Cities Dive’s synopsis of the results.