David Barry began his lecture by warning: “I am not an architect or city planner. I am a film producer. That at the same time alarmed and delighted. From the point of view of a professional, when a producer talks about urban planning, this is pure amateurism. But on the other hand, amateurism is sometimes useful because it contains a fresh outlook on things. Ideas received from the outside, being superimposed, in particular, on architecture, can become a great innovation.
This innovation was his work by David Barry, aimed at the renewal of cities and life in them. Its character is largely managerial and experimental: Barry is trying to build social structures that would connect state and public organizations, professional city planners and ordinary citizens who are not indifferent to the fate of their city. The most interesting part of such work, according to Barry, is communication with people, awakening in the inhabitants of civic consciousness and creative energy, which is aimed at arranging their hometown.
According to David Barry, all the work of building social structures and the subsequent renewal of the city is based on three things - social design, social innovation and social entrepreneurship, which in turn are built on the principles common to all - "help yourself" and "help another", as well as privatization, the transformation of state property into private. To illustrate the interplay of all these principles, Barry showed three works carried out under his direction in the British cities of Castleford, Middlesbrough and Cardiff.
The first project has a slightly strange name "Agricultural City". The fact is that the city where it was implemented - Middlesbrough - is known for its unfavorable environmental situation. To remedy the situation, residents were asked to grow vegetables right in the city. The townspeople took the idea "with a bang" and even indicated the places where you wanted to do agriculture - in parks, botanical gardens, even on the steps of your own house. As a result, a map of the city was created taking into account these wishes, on the basis of the map, real changes were made to the urban development of the city.
In the second project, the city of Castleford, several locations were selected with the potential to become popular public spaces. Which they were turned into - with the help of public meetings, attraction of investments and architects and designers chosen by the residents. The objects of the transformation were a wasteland inhabited by drug addicts, a typically shabby pavilion of the English metro (which became "almost a Vitre museum"), and one of the central squares of the city - it was turned into a formal experiment in the style of Mondrian. David Barry is convinced that it does not matter at all whether you and I like all these updates, and most importantly, that they are liked by the people of Castleford and made according to their will.
Another small project Barry oversaw in the capital of Wales, Cardiff. A disadvantaged dock area was selected for this project. The improvement was carried out by 15 people, representatives of different strata of the population interested in changes in this part of the city. Unlike the previous two projects, there have been no significant changes in the urban space here - this experience can be considered more social than urban planning.
The result of the lecture may be the emergence of another term starting with "social …" - "social urban planning". It is much broader than simple "town planning", as it includes the life of the city as a whole, without being confined to its architectural aspect. The effectiveness of this "social urban planning," according to Barry, is amazing.
Dabbled urban planner David Bari is quite convincing in his quest to engage residents in the renewal of the cities they inhabit. Six months ago, at a lecture in Moscow, a similar idea was voiced by one of the prominent (British) professionals - the architect William Alsop. According to Olsop, he tries to consult with residents in all his urban projects - and they often push him to radical artistic solutions, because they want to have something interesting and attractive in their city, something that would change the established space and allow it to develop. Again, according to Olsop, residents are friends of the city, its enemies are officials and city planners. A joke of a prominent English architect, but there is some truth in it too.
What is it all about? Because if we project Barry’s position into our local context, it’s the other way around. Somewhere they call residents, ask them, find out what they like and do so, and then rejoice that it turned out well. And somewhere, they first come up with a concept, then report it to each other for a long time, and then show the residents - often, already implemented, they expect recognition and delight after the fact. You can always find a resident happy with what others have already decided for him. And you may not even hear the dissatisfied. Two different situations, two different, sorry, islands. Guess the melody, as they say.
