An Exploration of the Socio-ecological Approach

Theory in socio-ecological architecture and urbanism: a path from past to present an exploration of the socio-ecological approach

Kaylee Tucker

Table of Contents 1. Metabolism & Territory

“Water” we doing with the waste

Carrefour: What’s in Season?

2. Ecological Urbanism: Rural & Urban Reconnection

Co-operative Housing 3. Humanistic Urbanism: From Participation to Self-Management

LabCDMX: Mapatón

Participatory Budgeting NYC 4. Socio-ecological Communities & Spatial Practices Mobility

“Water” we doing with the waste?

After visiting Área Metropolitana de Barcelona (AMB)’s sewage treatment plant in Besòs, I saw how Aigües de Barcelona approaches resource management.

Although we had visited for another history module, I found that what we learned about the cyclical nature of resources is really applicable to what I learned on my tour.

Through this chart, we can understand how, while water is reused— after it’s been contaminated, it’s cleaned and redeposited into the environment—the contaminants are not part of such a cyclical relationship. Though some organic contaminants are harvested for fuel, this energy is NOT cyclical. The energy produced does not recreate itself once it is used.

Additionally, inorganic material is sent to a landfill, effectively halting its useful life. waste water sent to AMB

tap water used by people

water cleaned by AMB

contaminants

water deposited in sea

landfill

burned for fuel

• worst

biofuel, (metroforn)

traditional burning • still creates energy, just more inefficient • occurs if the material is unsuitable for biofuel

• most efficient

energy

Carrefour: What’s in Season?

Sustainable ecology in action

These signs at the Carrefour on las Ramblas are a prime example of sustainable ecology. By informing consumers of the produce that’s in season, the store is encouraging in-season purchasing.

This in-season purchasing reminds me of what we discussed in class and at the orchards in Caldes de Montbui about how buying produce in season reduces ecological footprint. This happens because if you buy in season, you’re more likely to buy locally. If you buy a kiwi in March like this sign says, you’re not buying a kiwi from the other side of the world as you would in January. By buying in season, you’re buying it from somewhere closer and you’re saving energy that would have been used to transport and grow a fruit out of season.

Co-operative Housing Three case studies, three approaches Can Masdeu La Borda Harvest House These three housing initiatives are all co-operative. The first two are ones we visited in Barcelona during history class, and the last is in Urbana, Illinois.

ownership

building

can masdeu

squatters’ community, communal ownership

an old hospital, plus additional construction as needed

la borda

squatters’ community, communal ownership

new construction

harvest house

non-profit, part of COUCH (Community of Urbana Cooperative Housing), which is a part of NASCO (North American Students of Cooperation)

originally single family residence

can masdeu, exterior

residents

can masdeu, common kitchen

flexibility

varied; single people, couples, families, kids

high flexibility; rooms are constantly reevaluated and walls are built when needed. additionally, new construction is allowed to expand the community.

varied; single people, couples, families, kids

high flexibility; the way the building works encourages units to change depending on user requirements

mainly students, as it’s close to campus. there was a married couple a few years ago, though

very little. has never changed the size of rooms (as it would cause NASCO to re-evaluate rents)

la borda, park facing elevation

la borda, section

payment structure can masdeu

low rent (45 â‚Ź) + 15 hours of work a week to support the co-op

la borda

average rent is about 600â‚Ź + participation in a committee

harvest house

rent is between $560 and $660 (includes rent, utilities, and food) + about 4 hours of work a week (cooking dinner for the house once a week + labor (upkeep) or coordinator position + weekly house meeting)

la borda, 3 unit types

harvest house, exterior

ecological considerations

reflections

shared food (some ordered in bulk from ecological suppliers, some grown in gardens), communal cars if needed, but everyone uses bikes, circular and selfsustaining water cycle

through the analysis of these three co=operative housing arrangements, I have found a number of commonalities. generally, co=operatives are in favor of low rents, using work to offset some of the cost. all of these co-operatives use shared resources to some degree, which reduces their ecological footprints.

materiality and architectural design encourage better energy use (shading, ventilation). grey water reuse. rainwater can also be harvested. some collectivization– large kitchen, washing machines. services centralized for better management shared food, no paper towels (cloth towels and rags are used), composting, spirit of sustainable living encourages more sustainable living

the main difference i noticed was between the one in urbana and the two in barcelona was that the latter are more flexible. this makes sense just due to the original function of the house.

LabCDMX: mapatĂłn Laboratorio para la Ciudad

I first learned about LabCDMX over the summer at a lecture from Gabriella GĂłmez-Mont, the founder and director of this experimental part of the government of the Ciudad de MĂŠxico (CDMX).

Unfortunately, it seems that the Lab has been discontinued, perhaps after the 2018 election.

This laboratory was dedicated to bettering the city through urban works. However, unlike a traditional governmental office, LabCDMX relied on citizen engagement and participatory design. They also employed people in a variety of fields to broaden their horizons.

In CDMX, there are about 30,000 microbuses, buses, and trolleys that make over 14 million trips daily. These transportation methods are incredibly important for citizens to move around the city, but there was no information for the routes these buses took. This presented a problem for citizens to be able to choose the best route.

To start to gather this information, LabCDMX turned to crowdsourcing and gamification to create a citizen map of these transportation systems. The game they created was called...

From January 29th to February 14th, 2016, citizens of CDMX participated in the mapping of their city through the game.

Commuters were able to take control of their travelling through the game. Not only did they engage with their transportation (and perhaps change their habits since the results were out), travellers were able to engage with each other.

One feature of the game was the ability to create teams. By Februrary 12th, over 3500 gamers had created 678 teams and had created over 2000 maps in just over 2 weeks.

Having detailed information on bus routes and their duration, cost, and stops creates a more connected city.

Mapatón has a number of positive qualities. This project gives citizens a service they need–namely maps of their city. Those maps give citizens agency in their home. By knowing their options for transportation, they can start to optimize their commutes so they take less time or cost less. Through gamification and participatory action, Mapatón gave citizens of the Ciudad de México the power to create these maps.

This agency is essential to the socio-ecological health of the city– without it, citizens don’t feel like the city is theirs and have less need to treat it well.

Al 12 de febrero, 2016

Through teams, Mapatón transformed a daily mundane task (commuting) into something active and community-builidng.

LabCDMX takes a unique approach to design. Through citizen engagement, they are able to improve their city from the inside out.

LabCDMX engages citizens through active participation, like Mapatรณn, public debates, road reclamation through the Parking Day initiative, hackathons (with over 440 participants!), and even a citizendriven initiative to draft new laws through Change.org that resulted in ideas that reached the mayor.

I think this is the heart of participatory design. It involves allowing the people who are going to use the city (or building) to determine what is best for it. Although LabCDMX (or architects) may guide the discussion or work to put the ideas into reality, the beauty of participatory design is that it actively engages people and gives them agency in their city (or space).

Participatory Budgeting NYC I recently saw a number of tweets about PBNYC, or Participatory Budgeting NYC, and I was reminded of the ideas of participatory design that we talked about in class.

PBNYC started in 2011 and was designed to allow citizens to vote on how council funds will be spent in the next year.

This year, $35 million will be spent around the city, and citizens will vote online for how it will be spent in THEIR neighborhood.

This initiative engages citizens of all ages in their community–NYC allows anyone 11 years old or older to have a say in how their community is improved. On their website, New York City Council has support for 18 languages, including minority languages like Creole and Yiddish.

Although this isn’t a traditional type of participatory design, I think that it is really important–giving citizens, especially children the platform to determine how their community is going to improve and change builds interest in and ownership of the city.

This ownership is a crucial part of participatory design.

above, sample ballot for district 28; 2019 each district has different projects. monetary values are included on the ballot

Mobility When we talked about our mobility footprint, I was struck by how different I use different types of transportation in the three places I’ve lived, so I wanted to explore this further.

Highland Park, IL,

• a north Chicago suburb, about 25 mi (40 km) north of

downtown Chicago.

Champaign, IL,

• a college town about 3 hours away from Chicago,

Indianapolis, and St. Louis.

Sant Cugat, ES,

• a town north of Barcelona, about 9 mi (14 km) away from the

center of the city.

Highland Park, IL Large radius of movement. Suburbs are laid out far apart, and thus, places are scattered. Not particularly walkable- walking from my house to the Chicago Botanic Gardens takes about 90 minutes.

Champaign, IL Small radius of movement. Champaign-Urbana is an isolated college town, so most places are fairly close to campus. Everything is about a 15 minute walk away.

Sant Cugat, ES Medium radius of movement. Since I don’t have a bike or a car here, Sant Cugat is very walkable. Everything is about 15 minutes away from me, but the radius is larger due to better public transportation.

home to ↓ in →

highland park

work/ class home to ↓ in →

+ + highland park

work/ class

55 min

7 min + 7 min

or 55 min or ~75 min

~75 min

grocery store 7 min

grocery store

or 7 min 37or min

37 min

12 min + 12 min

champaign champaign 4 min or

sant cugat sant cugat

(ETSAV)

2 min (ETSAV)

4 min 12or min

2 min

or

(Barcelona)

+

12 min 10or min

14 min

26 min +

10 min

4 min

14 min

15 min

or 4 min 8 or min

8 min

15 min

26 min

(Barcelona)

Through this analysis, I noticed an enormous difference between Highland Park and the other two cities. In the suburbs, a car is essential because everything is quite far away. Though in Champaign, my roommate had a car, I rarely used it, and only to transport heavy items that I wouldn’t be able to carry across campus. In Sant Cugat, walking and biking seem to be very normal.

Although I travel from Highland Park to Chicago and from Sant Cugat to Barcelona using similar means of transportation, I’ve noticed a number of differences. First of all, the amount of time it takes to get from Highland Park to Chicago is much greater-- this makes sense (it is 30 km further away, after all!). However, looking at a suburb of Barcelona that is about the same distance away, La Garriga, I can see that it takes about 48 minutes on the R3 to get to the city, stopping at 12 stops on the way. On the other hand, the Metra from Highland Park to Chicago takes 55 minutes and stops at 15 stops. Another difference I’ve noticed is cost. While the FGC from Sant Cugat is 1.10 € each way (and the R3 from La Garriga is 3.50 €, a single way Metra ticket is $6,75. This makes it more expensive to take public transportation to the city if more than one person is going (parking for a full day is $20, while two people taking the train both ways would be $27).

Chicago transportation systems are more expensive regardless, but are faster closer to the city (although, that might be because Rogers Park is technically a part of Chicago, whereas Sant Cugat is not).

Personally, I think that having a walkable city, good access to public transportation, and bikes gives me freedom of mobility. While I don’t always have a car, I always have legs, and I generally have a bike or access to public transportation!

comparative costs, times, and distances for travel from suburbs to city, barcelona and chicago shortcomings

~14km to city center Sant Cugat del Vallès, 16.5 km N of Barcelona

FGC, S1,2,5,6,7, 1.10 €, 26 min, 10 stops

Rogers Park, 17 km N of Chicago

Metra, Union Pacific North, $4.25, 24 min, 3 stops

~40km to city center La Garriga, 39.5 km N of Barcelona

Rodailes, R3, 3.50 €, 48 min, 12 stops

Highland Park, 40 km N of Chicago

Metra, Union Pacific North, $6.75, 55 min, 15 stops

What I learned from this mobility analysis is that there are a lot of factors that affect whether sustainable transportation is or even can be used.

I was unsurprised that the distance between my house and various places (such as grocery stores and work/school) really determines how practical it is to walk or bike. However, I had never considered how the quality of public transit systems impacts this. The transit in Barcelona is cheap, fast, and extensive! In constrast, the Metra in Chicago is very expensive and takes quite a while. I can’t speak to the extensiveness of the entire CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) system as I haven’t needed to travel more than about 20 minutes walking away from the train station. In Champaign, all buses are free for students and are do a good job of connecting campus.

Another factor I noticed was weather. In Sant Cugat, it does not get that cold, which makes walking and biking viable options year-round.

This is not the case for Illinois. It can be 10 degrees Celsius or lower between October and April, making those types of transit more difficult. In Champaign, I actually didn’t even have a bike for those months–it was too cold to ride it and there was a high risk of rust.

Through a combination of urban layouts, transit systems, weather, and more, the amount of sustainable transportation can be high or low. I’m not sure how much I can do to improve the situation other than to rely on walking, biking, and public transportation when possible. Perhaps when I look for somewhere to live in the future, I can keep this in mind.