Conversation with dr Hanna Obracht-Prondzyńska
Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Social and Economic Geography and Spatial Management, Department of Spatial Management
You work at the University of Gdańsk in the Department of Spatial Management as an academic teacher; you teach urban design and data analysis. Could you explain to a layman what spatial planning is? What is the meaning and goals of spatial planning?
I’m an architect and urban planner. Already as a student, I was particularly interested in urban planning. My friends sometimes tease me that my concentration begins above two thousand square meters. Indeed, a larger scale is closer to me and that’s why I took up urban planning. It covers a much broader spectrum than traditional design. What fascinates me about urbanism and city planning is the number of variables that need to be considered to create a good liveable space. City design is not only related to the composition of buildings and shaping public spaces. A city is a complex organism, the design of which must take into account social, environmental, infrastructural and many other conditions.
One of the reasons why I work at the Faculty of Social Sciences is that city space is for people (though not only!), and my research and work focus on our perception of the built-in environment, how it affects us, and how we engage in shaping healthier cities.
Why is spatial design so important? What would happen if we omitted this instrument of spatial policy?
Unfortunately, we often skip it. In our cities, the degree of coverage with local plans is low, and the documents are often of low quality. Urban design or preparation of masterplans basically does not exist. This approach results in high economic, social and environmental costs.
Economic – the more dispersed buildings, the higher the costs of providing infrastructure, ensuring access to services and organising transport.
Social – the worse the space, the more frustration (because I’m stuck in traffic jams, because it’s far everywhere), the weaker social bonds, the worse our well-being. Psychologists’ research clearly shows that our stress level increases dramatically when we stay in a chaotic, congested space devoid of human scale and urban life. This is also what my research on social media data showed. We become haters when our neighbourhoods are roads and concreteosis.
And finally, environmental – shaping space without taking into account the issues of ventilation, elimination of heat islands, water management, and preservation of green corridors worsens the living conditions of all city inhabitants.
When did urban planning become an important element in shaping spatial policy?
The wording used in this question is alarming to me. Today we are talking about spatial policy, not urban design. The cities and housing estates – both historical and contemporary – that we admire have been designed. Today, we reduce the role of urban planners to that of planners. And there is a fundamental difference, especially with the current planning system.
I think that in recent years we’ve experienced an urban planning crisis. My lecturer once said: “freedom has actually worked out very well for us and it’s clearly visible in space.” This means that freedom has given us enormous liberty, which in many places has unfortunately led to the disruption of spatial order. The space has become less legible, the buildings have become more chaotic, and pedestrians have been pushed into the background. We have a lot to do here. I think that the coming years will be very intense for spatial planning. The planned reform of the spatial planning system proposes many key changes, but it still lacks urban design. I don’t want to discredit the tools proposed or taken from previous eras, but the art of city design is changing because the realities are changing. And the legal tools we have or will soon receive don’t respond to the biggest challenges cities face – such as climate change, nor do they use the potentials of the modern world – such as digital tools and access to data.
We will return to Polish realities, but first I would like to ask about your trip to South America. What was the purpose of this trip?
I went to Colombia because of the summer school that is organised every year by the Universidad Externado de Colombia in Bogota. Each year, a different meeting topic is selected and the recruitment for lecturers is open to everybody. This information reached our university, and I thought it might be an interesting challenge. The theme was relevant to me and concerned facing the future with hope. The main pillar of urban planning is shaping the cities we will live in in the future. I proposed a topic related to city design in the context of the challenges related to climate change we’ll have to face in the near future. I was selected and that’s how I went to Colombia, where I spent three weeks teaching students how we can, even without being urban planners, act for climate and help our cities become more resilient to climate change. We must remember that cities and their development contribute to the aggravation of the climate crisis. And every resident can and should contribute to changing this situation.
I must admit that the university made my task easier. The university campus itself is amazing – beautifully integrated into the natural landscape, bathed in greenery, offering the academic community many nooks and crannies for work and rest, and you can get around on foot only.
If we were to enumerate some of the most important principles that planners should follow when designing sustainable cities, what would they be?
The topic is very extensive. It seems to me that the priority is to change the approach.
Pedestrians should play a key role. Research shows that cities with a high level of pedestrian-friendliness rank high in the rankings. Reducing car traffic and replacing it with public transport, alternative forms of mobility and, above all, pedestrian spaces, not only help to shape healthy living conditions and fight climate change but also stimulate the local economy. We often hear that when we cut traffic, local businesses will go bankrupt. Meanwhile, we can cite a lot of research showing that businesses revive because it turns out that ground floor services are used primarily by pedestrians, not car drivers.
Shaping inclusive, compact and integrated spaces – it’s time to move away from separating urban functions. We can’t design a city where in one place there is a business and service centre, in another there are residential blocks, and somewhere else there is a recreational area. We should try to create synergy by mixing these functions. The city should be compact and connected by a dense network of public spaces, guaranteeing residents quick access to basic services. The second thing is inclusiveness, friendliness and inclusion. The point is that all places in the city should be equally accessible to residents. Our university campus denies this idea. From the city’s point of view, it creates an obstacle by being an excluded enclave separated by a fence.
We should also remember about integration with housing policy. Today we see a trend of pushing residents to suburbia, giving city centres to short leases. The inhabitants of our cities can’t afford to live there. The longer we ignore this problem, the more our cities will spread out and the more difficult it will be to guarantee a good quality of life for their residents. A vicious circle. Support for housing is therefore crucial. Even for our future students who will face the challenge of whether they can afford to study in the largest academic centres.
Cities and their development contribute to the aggravation of the climate crisis.
Urban self-sufficiency is particularly important in the face of the energy crisis. Today we need an energy policy that will allow cities to save money, improve air quality and shape electromobility.
The next topic is the climate issue. A number of elements appear here. The most pressing issue is the tendency to concrete cities. We indurate unprecedented amounts of space, forgetting about the role of verdure in the city. Instead of building more roads, instead of building more parking lots, we should change our way of thinking and focus primarily on vegetation, the so-called biologically active surfaces.
Where do you think the tendency to concrete cities comes from?
In my work, I’ve encountered numerous arguments. From the belief that greenery is expensive, that trees take up space that could be used as a parking lot, and the fear that trees will be damaged during renovation. I often participate in conversations where I explain that renovation does not necessarily mean damage to the root system. A tree can and is worth saving. Unfortunately, conservators also stand in the way and use the argument that historically there was little greenery in cities, forgetting that when it was realised that the conditions in cities had become harmful, we began to invest in this greenery.
Another problem is the constant low awareness of the role of plants, but also the pursuit of savings: “if we put concrete, it will be easier – we won’t have to mow the grass or rake leaves” – this is a false belief. Greenery has many advantages. It eliminates the risk of harmful heat islands and the threat of flooding the city, which we regularly experience during the holiday season in Gdańsk because the water has nowhere to be absorbed. Greenery also shapes the microclimate, affects our well-being and even allows us to save money!
We should strive to restore the trend of using less concrete in cities.
What do you think about the campuses of Polish and foreign universities? Would you say they are sustainable?
A lot depends on the place. When I travel, whether in Europe or beyond, I always try to visit campuses, even if I’m not in a given city for academic purposes. My latest experiences are related to a visit to the Sorbonne in Paris which I perceived very negatively. The campus was terribly inaccessible. I felt like an intruder there, although I am an academic, so the university is a natural environment for me. There was no space for students. While there, I didn’t feel like I was in a city, but simply at a university – there was no zone of flow and mixing of functions. I had high expectations for this place, but I was very disappointed.
On the other hand, I admire universities in the Netherlands, which give the impression of being very open and inclusive. An example is the Science Park in Utrecht. There are an academic centre, a school centre and a hospital centre. All functions of these centres interact with each other. And between them, there is a rainbow bike path, which shows real openness and efforts to integrate different environments. Interestingly, there are no roads there at all. Only tram, bus, bicycle and pedestrian traffic is allowed. Cars are not allowed. In the spaces between the buildings, despite the fact that there are various universities, hospitals and secondary schools, it’s very crowded and you can see the flow of people, the flow of information – there is this interaction. I really wish it worked this way in our country. My favourite architecture faculty in Europe is the one at the Delft University of Technology. The university campus is, interestingly, modernist, and when you enter the building of the Faculty of Architecture no one is interested in you. Simply put: you can be there. At architecture faculties, we often have model shops with expensive equipment for cutting models, wood, creating, building, and so on. At the Delft University of Technology, they are simply available. You can enter them and watch students work. Students leave their things there and no one worries that anything will get missing. The community treats this department like their home – it’s where they spend their time, where they work, and everyone feels safe there. There are also discussion places in the corridors. Academic work doesn’t have to and shouldn’t be confined to offices or lecture halls. There it takes place in all these places. It works perfectly there.
I’m very intrigued by the idea of a tram that runs right through the middle of campus.
This is an interesting example because there was such an idea in Gdańsk. At the Gdańsk University of Technology, it was considered whether the tram from Nowa Politechnicza should run through the campus. Of course, there were “no” votes. However, many people gave the example of Delft, where a tram runs through the centre of the campus, or Utrecht, where a similar solution also exists. This is what it should look like. We should get to the university mainly by public transport, not by private car. We should have the stop as close as possible to make using it as convenient as possible. Even at the University of Gdańsk, we would sometimes like to move the public transport stops a little closer and open the university to pedestrians and cyclists.
However, when discussing the tram, people often point out that it can be a nuisance due to the noise it makes.
Today, we have such design solutions that we are able to muffle it. I can mention the example of the campus in Lisbon, a beautiful university, but located in the approach zone of planes. Due to the fact that Lisbon is a tourist destination, planes land there every now and then and you can hear them during classes. It’s certainly much more inconvenient than a tram running under the windows. People live near tram stops and they appreciate it because they are close. Trams don’t disturb our functioning at all.
Let’s go back to Polish campuses. During your academic career, you have visited the campuses of the Gdańsk University of Technology, the Warsaw University of Technology, and of course, of the University of Gdańsk. What do you think about their design? In particular, I’m curious about your opinion about our university.
The campus of the University of Gdańsk is changing: the EcoPark has appeared in the middle; there are more plants than a few years ago. The perception of the campus has been evolving quite a bit in recent years. However, there are certainly a lot of things that are in my dream zone. I will refer to the example of the Universidad Externado de Colombia in Bogota, which I visited. The campus is very green. The university employs its own gardeners who take care of the greenery. Walking around that campus, I had a dream of making the premises of our colleges greener as well; making them bathed in vegetation, because it makes us want to be closer to such a university and use the space between the buildings. Interestingly, in Colombia, which is perceived as a dangerous country, the university campus was open. Even before I started teaching there, I arrived a few days early and visited the campus. I could enter it without any problem; I could watch it and no one paid any attention to me. There was no fence. I wonder why in that place, which we consider dangerous, it is possible to make an open campus, and in our country, we protect it so much by building a fence around it.
I’ve touched on this topic several times. The answers varied. The main issue is the parking lot: “cars will enter from neighbouring office buildings.” In my opinion, it could be organised in such a way that pedestrians can cross but cars can’t pass. There is also the issue of safety. It seems to me that this is absolutely deceptive because if someone wanted to get to the campus, they would do it anyway, even if it is fenced.
I believe that a fence is not the best solution, especially if we want to emphasise that this is the university space. You can use various solutions (in the field of design, small architecture, greenery) to show that “this is OUR campus.” Clearly establish its boundaries without creating a spatial barrier. In this respect, there are definitely some things that can be improved.
Pedestrian accessibility would certainly also need to be improved as we can access our campus primarily by car. There is also the issue of access to public transport. Not so far away we have the Pomeranian Metropolitan Railway station, which is basically not taken into account as the direction from which we come to the campus. In turn, when coming from it direction, we enter the university from the Faculty of Social Sciences – through the car gate.
An interesting issue that could be worked on are spaces that give us a sense of homeliness and eliminate the feeling that we only come to classes and quickly run away. This applies to both students and lecturers. At the university in Colombia or at the university in Gothenburg in Sweden, there are student kitchens: there are microwaves, you can leave cups and so on. This shows that we can create this domestic atmosphere.
There is definitely a lack of space to work. Indeed, there is a space where we can sit and wait for classes, but to sit in a group when we have a project to do, there are few places designated for this purpose; they are just beginning to emerge slowly.
My personal dream is also to reduce the number of parking spaces a bit. In return, we could make a bicycle path and bicycle stations on campus in convenient places, right at the entrances to the buildings.
The University of Gdańsk has great potential to become an even more friendly place. This is a space that we could be proud of soon. But first, we would have to put some work into it. One of the positive things that have appeared recently is the Academic Citizens’ Budget, which provides an opportunity to carry out various interesting projects. This academic year, we joined forces, submitting projects together with employees, PhD students and students.
And what were these projects?
We proposed the project “Teamwork Zone at the Faculty of Social Sciences”, i.e. a project to create a joint workspace where we could sit and work with a larger group. It would be a useful space for both students and employees. Additionally, we proposed arranging the rotunda inside the building of the Faculty of Social Sciences. We wanted it to be lined by greenery and have places to work in the brightest part. We’ll definitely want to come back to these topics.
Our team is happy that one of the projects won – the second place in the student classification went to the “Chillout Zone at the Faculty of Social Sciences” which will be carried out in 2023. It will be a lounge with armchairs, a swing and pouffes.
What does the Pomeranian Landscape Protection Institute do?
The association was established in June last year. The president is habilitated doctor Miłosława Borzyszkowska-Szewczyk, prof. UG. She initiated the whole action and gathered a lot of people around this idea who wanted to get involved. The association was established at our university and associates people for whom landscape, spatial order and the space in which we live are not indifferent. A lot of people from various departments of our university are involved, but also from outside: activists and people dealing with landscape issues professionally. I strongly support this initiative. The association intends to actively participate in discussions, give opinions on investment projects that are carried out in our region, conduct educational activities that involve people in schemes for the benefit of the landscape of our region, but also contribute to a more caring and responsible approach to what we construct in our cities and towns. The landscape is not indifferent to the inhabitants of Pomerania – many want to take care of it. We don’t leave this task only in the hands of people who deal with it professionally, but we start to act together. After all, we all live in this space and we all have to take responsibility for it. I hope that we’ll be able to organise a lot of interesting events and certainly protect some valuable places in our region.