Bio-rediscovery will serve as a catalyst for the reconnection of abiotic and biotic systems within the heart of the Brisbane CBD. The immersion of culture and ecological practices aims to realign the principles for future urban living in a manner that addresses the short falls of past urban patterns and mindsets. The design of our urban city structures affect the way in which our residents and tourists engage and connect with each other (Zari, 2019). Additionally, it creates a structure of how we engage with our natural systems, and the roles and relationships we associate with those systems (Totaforti, 2020). For change to occur, a shift in perspectives and attitudes is required, “for reconfiguring the relationship between the urban environment and the natural environment” (Totaforti, 2020). This shift in perspective aims to address the short comings identified in the existing structure of our urban environments in order to support human well-being and celebrate positive interactions with non-human systems (Knight & Riggs, 2010).
A cultural shift is needed to re-imagine living in density and how this can be achieved, is the core of this project. How can our urban environments be re-imagined and re-discovered to support living in density as a more viable housing alternative?
Brisbane city can be viewed and understood on a diversity of levels, dependent on the lens by which one views it. A biophilic urbanism lens would reveal the city as a network of complex social, economic, and environmental systems that “acknowledges the undeniable and interdependent relationship between nature and society”(Dessie, 2018).
But how do we reposition our urban environments to expose this lens to an audience of residents and visitors who often do not realise this perspective exists? First place, second place, and third place are three types of ecological connective theories that are shaping how human and non-human systems connect (Zamiri & Zamiri, 2016). First place relates to our primary home of residence, second place is the location of our primary employment, while third place is often viewed as somewhere that falls in between first and second places, ironically. The third place is a subjective and interpersonal paradigm in which a person places a significant emotional connection and social attachment to said place.
Although the form of third place is highly disputed, research provides a structure as to how these spaces are formulated. Research shows that the desired outcome for third places are to provide a “refuge other than the home or workplace where people can regularly visit and commune with friends, neighbours, co-workers, and even strangers”, or a place “visited by regulars, and is a place to meet old friends and make new ones” (Mehta & Bosson, 2010). Generally speaking, third place is associated with places of private owned structure, being bars, restaurants and cafes, however, there is a growing group of voices that are calling for more equitable spaces so as to provide for the inter-community benefits of social engagement (Zamiri & Zamiri, 2016) & (Lin, Pang, & Luyt, 2015). Places that have a strong desire to support successful third places benefitted the society in a number of ways “at large through its role in the political processes of a community, cultivation of community affiliation and association, performing as an agency of social control and force for good in community life, providing a fun and relaxing place for people to escape from routine, as well as acting as outposts or ‘natural surveillance’ in the public domain” (Oldenburg, 1999) & (Lin, Pang, & Luyt, 2015). The formula for creating third place is subject to societal values specific to the region, however, Oldenburg (1999), suggests eight key principles that support the success of these spaces “a neutral ground, acting as a leveller, having a conversation as the main activity, being accessible and accommodating, having regular participants, having a low profile, encouraging a playful mood, as well as being seen as a home away from home”.
Further to this, Mehta & Bosson (2010) suggest a number of physical opportunities to enhance the quality of the space, namely:
• Personalisation – “Personalization is the act of modifying the physical environment and an expression of claiming territory, of caring for and nurturing the claimed territory”,
• Permeability-“ Providing the ability to be able to access all of the space, in a manner that is comfortable”
• Seating – “ Sitting space has been identified as one of the most important characteristics in retaining people in public spaces and possibly supporting social behavior.
• Shelter- “Research on the effects of environmental factors on human behavior shows that comfortable microclimatic conditions, including temperature, sunlight, and shade are important in supporting outdoor activities”
Objective 1: Create a set of places that are connected by instillations that increases landscape engagement.
Objective 2: Increase inner city connectivity and liveability.
Objective 3: Redefine urban social connection through ecological practice.
Kyle has a fascination with the built environment and the interplay between human and non human systems. Having completed his Bachelor of Urban and Environmental Planning Degree in 2016 and his Bachelor of Design (Honours of Landscape Architecture) in 2020, Kyle believes that by creating great urban open spaces, the idea of living in higher density environments will be viewed as a decision that is social viable, economically feasible and ecologically conscious.