Hybrid spaces as open signifiers
Erik Van Daele
Addressing the ecological aspect of the next urban question
I address the ecological theme of the next urban question in a research by design on hybrid open spaces. Hybrid spaces are large open spaces close to an urban settlement, available, accessible and characterised by a friction between landscape and urbanisation. Spaces are hybrid because none of the spatial elements is dominant. The hybrid is not just a landscape or just an urban space it’s both at the same time. Landscape and urban elements are equally important, which makes hybridism an ideal condition to reflect on the relation between landscape, ecology and urbanisation. In my designs I use and interpret ecology and landscape concepts to produce knowledge on new types of contemporary open space and to explore the importance of ecology within these new types of open space structures.
Designing hybridism means designing open structures. Openness, a system open for systematic changes in the design environment, is a basic concept in contemporary landscape design[1]. The landscaped openness is a systematic openness, to a large extend based on time aspects. Open space is designed as a landscape machine, as a system of change[2], constantly transforming space. I put the focus on the spatial and social impact of openness. As for now in my projects on hybridism five aspects of openness appear.
1. Hybrids are literally open. As free havens of public life hybrids are essential open spaces in the urban fabric. In the relation between build urban programs and open space, open space is generally the weaker term of the two. The projects I develop are spatial strategies to withstand the pressure of urbanisation and to counter the urban term to become too dominant in the hybrid. Ecological concepts like the productive landscape allow me to preserve this open space by making it indispensible for the functioning of the urban environment. In this way these landscape concepts help me to develop new alliances between landscape and urban environment.
2. Hybrids are open signifiers. In order to value the tension between the landscaped and urban aspects of a space, the site needs to be the regulatory aspect of the project, not a program.[3] A design attitude that is completely opposed to the way hybrids are actually developed. In general hybrids are developed by introducing external elements, erasing the hybrid mix of urban and landscaped elements. I detach the projects from external claims and demands by focusing on the constituent elements of the hybrids. Valuing these elements is not evident as most hybrids are neglected, underused spaces Their quality and vocation is not clear, it’s only suggested in weak residues. And yet this weakness and ambivalence makes them into elements open for interpretation. All of these traces are picked up and reinterpreted into new ecological structures. The weak character of the residues helps to reinforce the hybrid character by confronting the different layers of the hybrid on an equal basis.
3. Hybridism demands open ends. Every design for a hybrid is an exercise in designing margins and open ends. The main quality of hybrids is their public character. They’re used in a spontaneous way, like camping grounds. In order to address the temporality and spontaneity of camping, designers need to find ways to organise a space without determining it. One way is to organise the space using silent forms, forms that are self-referential. On the landscape term I introduce reinterpretations of archetypical ecological systems. Landscapes that are not determined by their use or by a program: the beach, the forest, the dike, the meadow.... Concerning the mineral urban elements, I abstract these to the maximum blurring the relation signifier – signified. This way they function as abstract beacons within the hybrid landscape, making the hybrid a mentally open space. That is a space open to receive, absorb or reject urban use..
4. Hybridism is characterised by open confrontations. The spatial elements of the hybrid are each others’ counterpart. Only by designing them in a relation of antagonism none of the elements can dominate the space and is the hybrid character of the space strengthened. If the parts of the hybrid get too reconciled the hybrid character is lost and the space becomes just a landscape or just an urban space.
5. Hybrids need an open time course. Working with ecology is working with seasonal change and dynamic. I use the time aspects of a landscape to strengthen the public character of the hybrids by confronting users with unpredictable time courses. I design ecological structures that work on different scale levels and on different aspects: it reinforces the spatial sequences within the hybrid, it enriches the landscape on a local and regional scale but above all it provokes extreme seasonal change within the hybrid. As the space changes shape, as the accessibility of the space changes; the possible use of the space is altered. Inhabitants are challenged to constantly reinvent ways to appropriate the space and in doing so they are forced to constantly explore the hybrid reinforcing the public character of the space.
Ecological systems in an urban environment should be hybrid. Apart from an ecological agenda they ‘re to address an urban agenda as productive landscapes, urban destinations, public spaces...Therefore we should treasure our residual, neglected and underused spaces. As these spaces are weak they have the potential to evolve into new types of open space, into new alliances between landscape, ecology and urbanisation. I explore the character and potential of these new alliances in my designs for hybrids.
Erik Van Daele St Lucas Ghent WENK,/KULeuven Arendonckstraat 26 2800 Mechelen 0032 15 20 67 51 Erik.
[1] See the notions of open-endedness and open-matrix in Corner James, Landscape Urbanism, in Moshen Mostafavie and Ciro Najle ( eds.), Landscape Urbanism a Manual for the Machinic Landscape, AA Books, London 2003, pp 58-63
[2] Prominski Martin, Designing Landscapes as Evolutionary Systems in The Design Journal, volume 8, issue 3, 2006, pp 25 - 34
[3] Marot Sébastien, Sub-urbanism and the Art of Memory, A.A.Books, London 2003