Housing construction and investment, which continues to increase, is one of the serious factors affecting the quality of life in big cities. In this context, however, various organisations and experts are increasingly intervening, introducing concepts such as public spaces, urban culture, placemaking, which are playing an increasing role in investors' intentions. We talk to urban planners Angel Bondov and Todor Kesarovski about what are the factors for a quality residential environment and how housing should be developed in big cities. The two are co-founders of the association "|No|Formal" and expert coordinators of one of the largest placemaking projects THE SPOT/Your Place, implemented in 2017 in 10 cities, and the second edition started recently and expects even more serious results.
They say that an even bigger construction boom is on the way in Sofia and major cities in Bulgaria. Isolating the usual negative sentiment, can you tell us what is the positive impact of these trends?
The increased construction interest in the capital is definitely a positive sign. It shows that the city is developing and there is a need for new residential and office space to meet the growing demand. Investment and construction in itself is not a bad thing, it is an opportunity to improve the environment in Bulgarian cities. For this to happen effectively, however, these investments need to be used strategically to improve the urban environment holistically, not just in individual pieces. This can be supported through various instruments, such as investing in derelict buildings or those with cultural and historical value to fill urban 'gaps', putting a percentage of the investment into improving the surrounding public environment, overall coordination of the investment process and following a unified vision for the development of the city - identifying areas with potential and areas in need of investment.
How can investments in construction, based on the mentioned tools, improve the urban environment overall?
A few things that can be done in the relatively short term are: in particular, treatment of potential investments in derelict buildings and even those with cultural and historical value. It is notable that even in cities with a high level of investment interest (Sofia and other large cities) there are many 'brownfield' areas and functional 'gaps' filled with a large amount of unused building stock and neglected urban environment. With coordinated investment planning and the appropriate incentives, these areas and buildings can be transformed and turned into wonderful urban areas. There are enough positive examples in world practice from which to draw experience, but it is unacceptable for buildings such as the tobacco warehouses in Plovdiv or a number of houses of high cultural and historical value in Sofia to have been in a deplorable state for decades when there is significant investment interest in construction. Yes, perhaps the conversion of such buildings will not be the most effective solution for an individual investor, but with coordinated action on both the public and private side and the setting of reasonable incentives, overall positives for all can be achieved.
Photos from a shared studio-workspace and cafe Plexin the transformed NDSM port areain Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Source: Travelingeurope.biz
A huge positive effect can be achieved by considering the building-public space relationship. Quite often, in our context, developers want to meet the maximum allowed density and intensity parameters by not paying attention to the transition, the relationship of the building to the public realm. This is often a big mistake as buildings and their architecture are a fundamental part of the urban layout and the emotions it generates. The perception of the city defined in the book 'The City at Eye Level' is conventionally divided into two levels:
- Public Reality - this includes the public realm (anything that is publicly owned) and is defined and influenced by the surrounding buildings (privately owned);
- The City at Eye Level - this includes the ground/first floors of buildings (privately owned) and the public realm around (publicly owned).
That is, what people see and the way they experience the urban environment is determined by the combination of private and public elements in the space. It is important to work (even normatively) to make sense of the role of the building and its impact on public spaces and on people's sense of the urban environment.
A key conceptual statement in the book 'The City at Eye Level.Source: Stipo NL
Public spaces themselves are the other key element that logically need to be addressed to maximise the impact of building investment and achieve a high quality urban environment. This can be done by earmarking part of the investment for the improvement or construction of new public spaces. In this way, and using certain approaches (such as 'placemaking'), a very large, positive, social effect can be achieved which would improve both the quality of the urban environment and the image of the developer. A 'win-win-win' situation where all three parties - residents, investor and municipality - win. Unfortunately, in Sofia and other large cities we are witnessing the opposite - investment is only in housing and offices, but not in public spaces and social infrastructure. This leads to functional bottlenecks in these areas and, consequently, results in a low quality of living and urban environment in the long term.
What defines a quality living environment? What does a residential area need to provide favourable living conditions?
A quality living environment is something that is very easy to feel, perceive and define, but quite difficult to create. As one can guess, the universal characteristics of a pleasant living environment are: accessibility, diversity (of functions, housing typologies, etc.), socio-economic serviceability, healthy and safe environment with dynamic and inclusive public spaces. When we take a closer look at our cities, we can note that, taking into account some exceptions (unbuilt water and sewage infrastructure and underground car parks), many of the specific problems of the residential environment are not caused by the unbuilt elements of the urban environment, but rather by the lack of an effective maintenance and control model in the construction and use of the given structures. Everyone wants to inhabit a more welcoming and attractive environment. For this reason, it is fundamental to establish new effective models of maintenance and use of public spaces in the vicinity of residential buildings. For example, such as would provide more powers but also obligations to local citizens and/or businesses.
What is the future of the enabling residential environment? What should it be and what do you think investors should contribute to it?
A favourable residential environment in the future should be in keeping with the existing urban fabric, respecting and building on it without destroying the characteristic context of a given spatial structure - street, neighbourhood, settlement. Naturally, the future of a supportive residential environment needs many public spaces of high quality. They are the living and social part that all citizens need. Public spaces are both an alternative to housing and a natural extension and complement to it. Investors should therefore be encouraged to pay more attention to this aspect.
In addition, the investor's contribution can be on the physical dimension of the building as well as on the quality of its surroundings, whether private or public. Showing an attitude and understanding of the urban environment and the characteristic context of certain investment intentions are the way forward for projects. To this end, it is advisable that, in addition to the physical environment, resources are also allocated to its long-term management, and that specialist experts are available to carry out studies and provide guidance on the above topics in order to optimise investment and improve the quality of the urban environment.
Give some good examples of a residential neighbourhood. Are there any in Bulgaria?
The assessment of a 'good' residential neighbourhood is quite complex and complicated. However, if we have to mention an example of such a neighbourhood, we think that the residential area of Gdansk is a good example. 'Musagenitsa' or the part of Mladost 1, west of Durvenishka Reka.In our opinion, this neighbourhood can be defined as 'good' for the following reasons:
- It is not crossed by a major thoroughfare and there is no through traffic, which has an impact on tranquillity (noise pollution), air quality and environmental safety;
- The neighborhood is not overcrowded and overdeveloped, so the different types of areas (residential, parking, landscaped, service, etc.) are sufficient to meet the needs of the population;
- In relation to the above, there are numerous inter-block (public) spaces that have retained their original appearance, with a high percentage of landscaping, landscaping, urban furniture and diverse functions;
- There is a very high level of services available - transport, social (close to hospitals, availability of schools and nurseries + other social facilities) and a range of services - existing market that caters for many types of need;
- Favourable location in the urban structure - close to the City Centre, Student City (park) and Borisovaya Gradina.
In short, the neighbourhood has so far managed to keep the concept it was planned for and for one reason or another has not become a 'victim' of unreasonable and uncontrolled investment interest. These factors, in line with the characteristics of the neighbourhood to date, are the prerequisites that determine the high quality of the urban environment in the neighbourhood.
| View of the 'Musagenitsa' residential complex in Sofia, Bulgaria. Source |
As a foreign example, we can give an example of a complex that we had the opportunity to see live - 'Henriksdalsberget' in Stockholm (Sweden). Despite its massive size and the large population that inhabits it, the quality of the public environment, accessibility, socio-economic provision, sense of security and recreational opportunities in the inter-block space and immediately around the complex are at a very high level. It is interesting to mention that, in the case of 'Henriksdalsberget', the presence of a team of professional managers responsible for managing the space and liaising between the residents and the various institutional structures (municipality, school, waste management agencies, public transport, etc.) has a great deal to do with achieving and maintaining a pleasant living environment. This type of solution can serve as a good example for Bulgarian housing estates, but of course it has to take into account specific contextual problems, mechanisms and potentials.
It is no coincidence that we give two positive examples of this type of housing complex. The huge number of inhabitants that inhabit such structures in Bulgarian cities and the general negative attitude towards them makes them a key case study for Bulgarian urban development. Positive change in housing estates is entirely possible and depends on a constructive dialogue between municipal administration, professionals and residents. This discussion should focus on specifying and defining the optimal mechanism for transforming housing estates into attractive residential structures.
| View of the 'Henriksdalsberget' housing complex in Stockholm, Sweden. Source |