CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND ART ACTIVISM IN THE MILANESE DISTRICT OF ISOLA Ecological and Creative Approaches to ‘Eco-Gentrification’ 2007 - 2019
55
FRANCESCA SAIA
The urgency of the current ecological crisis has informed a number of design approaches characterised by a higher degree of environmental awareness. On the other hand, the mark of progressiveness attached to ‘green design’ has also engendered new architectural trends that emphasise sustainability in order to gain market share and general consensus.1 Some argue that a literal, superficial or excessively emphasised presence of ‘nature’ in architecture and cities ‘is better than no nature at all.’ However, can architecture be considered as ecological, regardless of the use it chooses to make of its power to reshape urban space and dwelling? Since its emergence as an interdisciplinary theoretical framework, ecology has been variously defined. If Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess’ ‘Deep Ecology’ is centred on environmental sustainability,2 thinkers such as Gregory Bateson and Felix Guattari emphasised the interrelation between the environment, society and the psyche. Their approach thus provides relevant instruments to urban and architectural discourse, whereby ecological design is understood as an opportunity for change. According to this line of thought, the predominantly western dualism ‘Nature-Culture’ derives from a deeply flawed understanding, one that conceives environmental damage as an external threat to Nature, a problem that further progress and new technologies – Culture – are then expected to solve.3 In architecture, the use of plants as inaccessible and rigidly controlled façade elements may suggest a similar assumption. A consumerist approach to the environment is unconsciously or unquestioningly integrated into architecture, whereby the active taking care of plants is assumed to be inconsequential or not preferable to the passive, visual consuming of the plant-product. If this idea problematises