Void. Interstitial practices of doubt and reward

Abstract

As products of urban growth and decline, urban voids are spaces in transition from one stage of development to another. Their interstitial existence portrays a non-classifiable resistance and freedom to social and ecological conventions of the city. This paper outlines our practice and approaches to working with the natures of urban vacant spaces in the context of growth and transformation in two cities with distinct socioeconomic and cultural drivers that are mirrored in urban form and fabric: Tokyo and Melbourne. Our practice in working with urban voids through mapping, design interventions, design strategies, virtual agency and writing are discussed alongside topics of appropriation, informality, design strategies and ecological processes. We argue that urban voids can serve as testing grounds for an idea of dynamic urbanism and a context-driven design practice in landscape architecture. We also continue to negotiate our roles as landscape architects in relation to questions of program and the value of the role of design in the activation of these voids. Hence the positioning of our practice as an interstitial one where both doubt and reward are the outcomes.

Urban voids: identifying and optimizing urban voids potential as a revitalization source in enhancing developing countries’ city income

“…It facilitates various uses, purposes, and events of social cultures, such as parks, small gardens, neighborhood gardens, and public piazzas [26]. Small urban voids can also give the ability to form a network of interconnected spaces capable of offering various levels of connections and different types of uses [27].…”

Landscape—A Review with a European Perspective

“…Duisburg-Nord Park in Germany by the Latz & Parter studio, the New York High Line by architect James Corner, and the Nordbahnhof Park in Germany by the Fugmann & Janotta studio are other examples. These are some references of an emerging group of architectural projects that are related to waste landscapes (wastelands) or abandoned industrial sites (derelict lands), which share the same aesthetic characteristics and the particular quality of creating a balance between the past and the present [97]. In his essay, Solà-Morales advocates for a much subtle way of integrating the past of abandoned or destroyed places with architecture proposals.…”

“…Many other terms have been used to describe abandoned and residual spaces: "Derelict land" [92,100,101]; "Zero panorama"; "Empty or abstract settings", and "Dead spots" [102]; "Vacant land" [103,104]; "Wasteland" [105,106]; "il Vuoto" ("the Void") [96], "Urban wilds" e "Urban sinks" [87], "New, nameless places" [107]; "Dross" [108] e "Drosscape" [6]; "No-man's land" [109]; "Dead zones" and "transgressive zones" [110]; "Superfluous landscapes" [111]; "Spaces of uncertainty" [112]; and, "Le Tiers-Paysage", "Les delaisses", "the Third Landscape" and roughly, "Leftover lands" [113]. Other common terms, among others, include "Brownfields", "In-between spaces", "White areas", "Blank areas", "SLOAPs" (Spaces Left Over After Planning), "Voids" [97], and "Terra incognita" [103]. Despite the multiplicity of definitions and terms described above, these landscapes are not united by physically belonging to the city, but from having been expelled from it for the conclusion of their life cycle, for the incompatibility of their use with the urban reality or for the loss of their economic value.…”