Explore our insights
Thoughtful articles on design, innovation, sustainability, and more
Mobility, density and urban green space
Written by Anne Leemans in collaboration with Yellow Design
July 18, 2018
Cities can be looked at from many angles, in what follows I’d like to invite you to look at cities as a ‘multi-core dynamic network’. Standing alone, the cores are fairly meaningless, risking isolation, insecurity, with pockets of impoverishment. Within a fluid network they can benefit from the trade between each other’s products, services, charms and entertainment. In so doing they become interdependent and thus more resilient.
The parallel between cores and squares or public spaces speaks for itself, but the parallel between a well-functioning public transport network and a quality public space network is not always well understood, let alone implemented. Research has demonstrated that in metropolitan areas in developed economies, since the beginning of this century, car use has declined in favour of soft – walking and cycling – and public transport. However the decline is relative as in many metropolises of which Brussels is one, cars still represent about 42% of trips for distances between 1 and 3km! Improving soft mobility and promoting a sustainable modal shift on the one hand and upgrading the quality of public spaces, are the two major goals for any urban decision maker and planner to realise the liveable city of the future.
Soft mobility and public transit go hand in hand and allow for more efficient land-use as well as positively impact public health. The success of soft mobility is directly impacted by perceived security, convenience and proximity of basic services. Essentially, if sidewalks are good and well maintained, elderly and fragilised citizens will be encouraged to use them rather than stay home and rely on third parties for the provision of services.
In other words, it is recommended to architects, engineers and planners to embrace transversal thinking and before anything try using the space for walking, cycling, playing, sitting and conversing on a bench or driving through it in the most harmless and pleasant way each time, fully considering a diverse group of practitioners/users of the other modes. It will help them conceive a thriving plan for multi-modal use including mobility impaired users of the space.
About 42% of trips for distances between 1 and 3km
Next, some spaces, for instance motorways, are not meant for walkers or cyclists, just as some squares are not at all meant for cars or motorbikes. Employing the same logic to roads and motorways, urban public green space needs to meet specific sustainability, safety, maintenance, equipment and lay-out requirements. Good urban public green space being essential for residents to socialise, rest and restitute.
Returning to the Brussels Capital region, with a total surface of 16.200 ha/162km2 and over 8.000 ha/80km2 of green space (parks, woodland, the Forêt de Soignes, cemeteries and sports fields), while considering that some park-poor neigbourhoods in the city are very densely populated, counting up to 38.347 (Bosnie, StGilles), 25.923,73 (Historic Molenbeek), Porte de Hal (26.993, St-Gilles) inhabitants per square km, as opposed to 1.335 (Vivier d’Oie, Uccle) or 1.820 (Putdael, Woluwe St-Pierre) inhabitants/km2, it is easy to understand there is a huge need and collateral precariousness in urban public green space in the first areas, as well as the impact this has on physical, mental and social health. Not addressing it is a public time bomb and constitutes a lack of urban and environmental understanding.
The problem of this injustice is not exclusive to Brussels. Similar inequities can be observed in Paris where in the 11th arrondissement (Popincourt) in 2014 no less than 42.138 inhabitants per km2 were registered as opposed to only 52,96 per km2 in the 16th (Passy). In many cities the greener areas are generally the more affluent ones. Greening efforts, as side effects, often generate higher real estate prices and gentrification. An interesting approach to limit these side effects was developed in Toronto, where local non-profits were successful in encouraging planners to opt for participation and co-creation moving away from elaborate re-wilding approaches to restoration, and allow for the participative development of landscapes – with community input – that can also serve as nodes for urban agriculture, community garden spaces, playgrounds and resting zones. In this way, restoration projects are more connected to local concerns about food security, job creation, and human health. The benefit is not just that urban greening and walkability are improved and consequently that the interdependency of urban public space and public transit is strengthened, but also that social and dialogue cohesion is restored and given new chances.
