Designed Living Environment: A New Policy for Architecture, Form and Design
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
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
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?