Notes from the Roundtable

Communities and Sustainability: Towards a Socially Responsive Hybrid

Urbanism?
From the Transforming Cities Transforming Lives Workshop at the British Embassy in Paris
Authors: Carolina Vasilikou & Nil Kutlar (Kent School of Architecture)

As doctoral researchers in urbanism and sustainable architecture at the University of Kent, we had the
opportunity to take part in two captivating roundtable discussions in the Ambassadors Residence at
the British Embassy in Paris in early July, and exchange ideas about (1) the role of communities in
city planning and (2) the environmental and social challenges for sustainable urban metabolisms. The
second discussion addressed global paradigms and emerging solutions that derive from observation
and analysis of the social and physical dynamics of the sustainable city (chaired by Prof Ricky
Burdett, LSE), while the discussion about communities reflected on the different ways in which the
built environment profession can successfully place the local population at the heart of the decision
making process and empower communities (chaired by Dr Kevin Thwaites, University of Sheffield).
We found an interesting convergence between those two discussions that can be summarised in a third
tile area between a top-down versus a bottom-up approach.
The term sustainability has been usually associated with getting cities, building and companies to
become greener. However, the challenge of planning, designing and managing a sustainable city is
more complex and needs to be approached in two levels: social and environmental. A mere allusion to
CO2 emissions is not sufficient to describe the impact of a building on the environment. This aspect
becomes more evident especially for grand metropolises such as London and Paris, where energy
efficiency and the re-use of the existing building stock can contribute largely to both environmental
and social sustainability. The Parisian banlieues and East London area provide good examples of
retrofitting, recycling and re-using existing buildings and industrial complexes as centres of
community to become cores of sustainable development. In particular, social sustainability needs to
be re-considered through rigorous means of capturing, describing and evaluating the link between the
eco-footprint of cities and the HDI (Human Development Index, a composite statistic of life
expectancy, education and income indices). It is through enhancement and education about a holistic
definition of sustainability that the enormous potential of cities as entities to do well will come
through.

A significant point was made concerning the different scales of city governance and the way these
may reflect different values that link the issue of sustainability directly with that of community
participation. City planning has become largely a manifestation of political tension in policy making
and sustainable development that affects critically the decision-making process, whether this is based
on a fragmented system with numerous mayors as in the greater Paris region or the centralised
governance model of London. Our question in either case would be not about the number of decision
makers in the governance of a city, but the degree of implementation of the local community to the
decision making. It is interesting here to remember that what in English language we call community,
in French is called quartier, the neighbourhood; a term that conveys the essence of mini-centralities
and small scale. In the French context, it is urban morphology that defines the boundaries of
environment for human relations and communities to thrive.
We came to the conclusion that community is difficult to be defined mainly due to its diverse nature,
locality to place and sense of belonging. Members of the built environment profession talk about
layers of community, aspiring to use a multi-cultural and pluralistic approach. For example one
cannot speak of a community of disabled or homeless people, but of inclusive design and the
perception of disabled and homeless people. In the end, community could be defined as a feeling of
ownership and identity, a connection to people that is embedded into urban places.
What is the impact of the built environment to the community and how can the planning and urban
design professions contribute to thinking inclusively to describe the transient nature of community
participation?
It is true that the current practice of public consultation in urban design may not guarantee community
representation. From the practitioners point of view the solution comes with flexibility in design and
adaptation to diverse needs. The actuality of practice in the time-sensitive world of delivering an
urban setting is a constant re-iteration of design and editing. However, the involvement of the
community has an input to the creation of more friendly places, in material, spatial and social terms
for, as Christopher Alexander puts it, the delivery of fulfilled lives.
Cities cannot be viewed only as describable in length, depth and height but also as dynamic entities in
constant flux. Organised people participation may form the basis for valuable data generation for
evidence-based design. In a small scale analogy where the city may be organised as a building, the
Flemme Eternelle exhibition in Palais de Tokyo may prove a great example of participatory artistic
design where the spectators would carve their way through malleable walls, becoming designers and
creating street-corridors and urban rooms. One would need to re-consider the tools that are
provided during participatory consultations to overcome issues of apathy and lack of willingness.
Participation needs to be a repetitive process that builds on trust and beneficial production of

solutions. It is always the lengthy fine-tuning that will answer real needs and transform communities
into active networks.
The notion of a socially responsive hybrid urbanism that values the ordinary scale next to grand
design gestures is our optimistic view of a sustainable future. The third tile area that exists among the
duality of the top-down/bottom-up approaches is dynamic, subject to fluctuation and community
exploration. Practitioners and decision makers are commonly engaged in a Cartesian synthesis of the
city that is designed for urban inhabitants. In a sustainable city, the built environment professions
need to design with rather than for and act as Facilitators rather than Manufacturers of
buildings and places.
The convergence between the built environment that becomes an expression of the community and
the holistic approach to social and environmental sustainability lies in identifying the importance of
striving for more effective cross-disciplinary approaches to urban development. According to Dr
Kevin Thwaites, these should be able to accommodate better communication between the
professional disciplines and urban inhabitants in order to help facilitate and encourage processes of
participation and the creation of active community networks. Finally, we might need to re-evaluate
the significance of educational practices aimed at built environment professionals that promote their
facilitating role in the creation of sustainable cities for healthy and fulfilled communities.

Note: This article gives views of the authors concerning the Roundtable discussions and not the
positions of the Roundtable Chairs.