Keywords

1 Introduction: Research Question and Methodology

This paper introduces and discusses themes and findings of the research project “Architectures of Care”, which is a pilot research project, funded by Northumbria University Research and Innovation Services, under the “Participatory Research” funding scheme. The project aimed to provide a reflection on what architects can learn from self-organized communities in terms of social inclusion and environmental care.

To address this, the primary objective of this research project was to conduct a pilot study that delved into the effectiveness of informal practices within three distinct eco-communities: Le Piagge in Florence, Guneskoy in Ankara, and Old Hall in Colchester. These communities served as invaluable sources of inspiration, as they presented potential responses to the pressing issues of our times, namely social inequalities and the climate emergency. In contrast to mainstream, commodified approaches, these eco-communities offered models that prioritize values such as integration, circularity, durability, and resilience. Building on the foundations of previously collected data, this project enhanced its dataset through direct engagement with community members. By facilitating group conversations within these communities, the research project achieved two critical objectives. First, it raised awareness regarding the informal practices already in place within each community. These practices can range from innovative methods of social integration to creative environmental conservation efforts. Second, the project endeavored to establish an international network that connects these three eco-communities. This network served as a platform for the exchange of knowledge and, over time, the development of essential skills for addressing shared challenges.

The project engaged eight representatives from each community, designating them as “co-researchers,” through the organization of three facilitated group conversations held on February 2023. The principal goal was to collaboratively curate a repository of textual and visual materials that capture local practices of social inclusion and environmental care. These facilitated group conversations were designed to encourage participants to both verbally and visually respond to specific prompts, aimed at raising awareness and delineating potential areas of improvement within their respective communities. The textual content and drawings generated during these group conversations played a crucial role in shaping the pilot version of the online catalogue known as the “Archive of Informality”. Subsequently, a comprehensive report was crafted for each community, involving an in-depth analysis of the data collected and a delineation of the key points and discussions that transpired during the group conversations. These reports have been shared with stakeholders in preparation for a final online event that took place on March 2023. This event focused on discussing networking opportunities and provided a platform for the collective formulation of a research question as a prelude to the submission of a standard grant proposal to the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

2 Theoretical Framework: Design, Participation, Care

2.1 Architecture as a Relational Process

“Architectures of Care” research project draws on the definition of architecture as a relational process and, consequently, delves into the role of the architect-researcher, who becomes an active agent and, in certain cases, a catalyst for change. In his essay “The Negotiation of Hope” within “Architecture and Participation,” Jeremy Till describes spatial production processes as complex and not rigidly confined to the simplistic dichotomy of “bottom-up” and “top-down” design [4].

This approach highlights the close connection between the design process and what Rousseau terms “transformative action”, which denotes participatory actions enabling the exploration and construction of alternative scenarios to conventional space production through active citizen involvement in public life. In response to Rousseau's model of transformative action, Pateman underscores the potential threat that a genuinely collective process of space production poses to the stability of established political systems [5]. Thus, it is considered acceptable, only if it can be manipulated to endorse pre-determined decisions. It is evident that, for Pateman, the theme of participation is an integral part of defining not only the space production process but, more broadly, the creation of political life. Referring this back to the realm of architectural practice, Till emphasizes that complete participation is an ideal that is challenging to realize in architectural design, as it presupposes a shared and communicable culture between the architect and the end user. This condition is typically not met in design, where the architect's technical knowledge and the empirical (not necessarily explicit) knowledge of the user operate at different levels. Additionally, communication channels are inherently characterized by codes, conventions, and authority dynamics that make the design process less accessible [4]. In fact, in 1970, scholars in the fields of architecture, design, and computer science highlighted one of the primary barriers to participation in architecture: the opacity of the design process. Moreover, in the same year, during his concluding remarks at the Design Participation conference, Cross emphasized how the introduction of new technologies and techniques could potentially circumvent the conventional political control over the design process [6]. He regarded it as a systemic issue that the conference had to confront political problems. However, it is clear that participation is intrinsically a political matter, not in terms of allegiance to a particular party but rather due to its integral role in a process that inevitably impacts public life. In those same years, the debate revolved around the contentious role of the architect in participatory spatial production. On one hand, the architect, possessing specialized knowledge, was viewed as the sole figure capable of dictating the rules of the participatory process, a position that inherently reinforced a hierarchical structure. On the other hand, following a more radical perspective, the architect was divested of authority, and their professionalism was exercised through the role of a technical facilitator, able to translate the community's desires into spatial realities without imposing their own position. Nevertheless, it must be observed that within this latter realm of action, the architect cannot harness their knowledge as a transformative tool. On the other hand, their technical expertise is insufficient to support the user in defining new visions of the built environment. As Rose succinctly summarizes: “The architect steps back, but the citizen does not access power” [7].

It is, therefore, pertinent to consider whether there exists an alternative path for defining the role of the architect, starting from a profound and comprehensive understanding of all the variables involved in the definition of a new spatiality. This essay takes the position that the process is based on the architect's act of critical positioning as an active citizen within the context they are called to intervene in [8, 9], triggering an alteration of the status quo through creative action [10, 11]. This process is then completed through the collective recognition of a new meaning of creating space and inhabiting it. In particular, Agamben's reflections on creative action introduce the concept of human potential as the individual's capacity to act creatively [10]. The theme of “potency” and the distinction between “potency” and “act” are particularly relevant here. According to Agamben, human essence lies in the capacity-in-potency to act, rather than in the concrete and realized action, which could be viewed as a structural element of the previously mentioned technical design knowledge. Equally relevant is the need to redefine the scope of project action and the professional role of the architect, as discussed by the Spatial Agency group, founded at the Sheffield School of Architecture in 2010. According to Till, Awan, and Schneider, we should refer to a much broader field of opportunities where architects and non-architects can collaborate, suggesting “other ways of doing architecture” [8]. This provocative manifesto also suggests that a building is not always necessarily the best solution for resolving problematic spatiality.

2.2 Participation in Architectural Research

Participatory architectural research is a foundational paradigm within the domain of architectural design, illuminating the central role of community engagement and collaboration in shaping the built environment. This approach, recognized by scholars such as Petrescu and Blundell Jones [12], Patsy Eubanks Owens [13] and Nabeel Hamdi [14], holds significant potential and grapples with various challenges, making it a complex yet rewarding avenue for architects to explore.

Owens, in her work “Community-Centered Design,” underscores the power of participation in the design process. She argues that engaging communities in decision-making not only results in architecture that is more aligned with their unique needs and aspirations but also has the capacity to empower marginalized populations [7]. This approach fosters a profound sense of ownership and agency within their surroundings, ultimately democratizing the design process. However, realizing this potential is no small task. The challenges are multifaceted, encompassing issues of representation, access, and cultural sensitivity. Achieving meaningful participation requires architects to navigate these complexities while respecting the diverse perspectives and lived experiences of the communities they serve.

Drawing from the field of urban sociology, the works of scholars such as David Harvey [9] and Richard Sennett [10] further inform the challenges and potentials of participatory architectural research. Harvey's insights on the right to the city emphasize the importance of participatory approaches in urban development, as they contribute to more equitable and inclusive cities. The notion of the right to the city implies that citizens should have an active role in shaping the urban environment. This aligns with the principles of participatory architectural research, where community engagement is central to design decision-making. Sennett's exploration of the open city and the role of the public realm in urban life sheds light on the potential of participatory design in enhancing urban spaces [10]. He argues that a well-designed public realm, one that emerges from collaboration and community input, fosters social interactions and a sense of belonging among residents.

In addressing the challenges of participatory architectural research, architects must prioritize inclusivity and equity. Owens’ work reinforces the need to recognize the voices of marginalized groups who have historically been excluded from the decision-making process [13]. Communities vary in terms of culture, socioeconomic status, and background, and architects must adopt an approach that values these differences. Bridging the gap between the lived experiences of community members and the architectural design process is not a straightforward task, but it is essential for creating spaces that truly serve and inspire their inhabitants. Nabeel Hamdi's emphasis on small-scale, community-driven interventions calls attention to the potential of grassroots initiatives [14]. These local, community-focused projects can serve as catalysts for broader urban changes. However, architects and researchers face the challenge of scaling up these interventions to create city-wide impact. This necessitates navigating bureaucratic structures, securing funding, and aligning projects with larger urban development strategies. Participatory architectural research is, at its core, a cooperative endeavor. Architects, communities, and stakeholders must come together to explore new dimensions of architectural design. This approach not only engages the public but also promotes a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, and contextual intricacies of architectural projects. However, realizing its full potential depends on overcoming the challenges it presents (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Re-cycling site at Comunità delle Piagge, Florence (Italy), 2023. Photograph by Nadia Bertolino.

Full size image

One of the challenges faced in participatory architectural research is the need for a shared language and a common understanding of design principles between architects and community members. It is crucial to facilitate effective communication, as architectural concepts and terminology can be daunting for those unfamiliar with the field. Architects should employ accessible and visual methods, such as diagrams, sketches, and models, to bridge this knowledge gap and create a more inclusive design dialogue. Another challenge is the potential for conflicts and disagreements within the community or between architects and residents. Differing opinions and priorities can arise during the decision-making process, potentially leading to tensions. Architects need to act as mediators, facilitating constructive discussions and finding common ground. This involves patience, active listening, and the ability to adapt the design to accommodate various perspectives.

2.3 Making Other Worlds: Care and Architectural Design

Care assumes a pivotal role in participatory research. Examining the three communities through the framework of care facilitated the reflection on various forms of nurturing relationships that exist and bolster the operation of these societal institutions and allowed to determine the spatial unfolding of such practices. Care is mutually experienced, by the ones providing the caring deed and the others that are the recipient of this deed. It is an empathetic approach that helps to meet needs and think beyond that. As confirmed by most participants in the research project, care can be described as a way of being that makes life habitable for other people, animals and the planet [15]. A caring attitude ensures that a particular lifestyle does not exploit another person or thing. It has been defined as a “social practice that is essential to the maintenance and reproduction of society” [16]. In fact, Gilligan’s approach to understanding caring practices goes beyond conclusions based on justice, rules and regulations. It is rather perceived with emotions and empathy. This creates the basis for building relationships between people. The “conception of morality reflects the understanding of social relationships” [17], defining the role played by humans in society.

Aligned to Gilligan, Noddings’ approach establishes a connection between justice and care, delineating two distinct stages within the caring process: “caring about” and “caring for” [18]. These stages constitute essential components of any caring relationship. During the act of caring, one relinquishes self-interest and engages in selfless concern for others, a state Noddings terms as being engrossed in care. Empathetic caring occurs naturally and represents a more active form of caring, albeit less receptive compared to engrossment. Noddings defines caring-about as the emotions we experience within a broader and more generalized context, primarily focused on recognizing the need for care. This stage contemplates care from a theoretical standpoint rather than addressing it practically. The caring-for phase refines our focus, translating intentions into tangible actions and makes evident how caring practices contribute to the creation of alternative, other worlds, where power structures are challenged and subverted.

From this perspective, it becomes apparent that the project could indeed absorb the intangible dynamics of the human relations, devising strategies capable of translating these into spatial constructs and providing environments that can nurture caring practices. It is an agency that requires annexing, selecting, or abandoning, and ultimately engaging in dialogue with what is discarded rather than categorically excluding it as inappropriate material. Thus, new operational scenarios emerge, new territories that already existed but were previously overlooked by our gaze, embracing the “mutable identity of places” [19]. The future of these blank areas, perennially awaiting a defined role, may therefore involve forming zones of change: ready to re-enter the game in the event of necessary revisions to the existing structure, thereby accommodating the uncertain and the undefined. Making other worlds, eventually (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Guneskoy eco-community site, Ankara (Turkey), 2023. Photograph by Nadia Bertolino.

Full size image

3 Discussion: Spatial Unfolding of Caring Practices

The three communities involved in the “Architectures of Care” project were selected due to their radical agenda and grassroots approach to sustainability. While this article doesn’t delve into the specifics of these communities, it's more relevant to recognize that, despite their differences in location, context, and governance models, there exists a common ground that elucidates their operational principles and the spatial provisioning processes they entail: that is putting “care” at the very core of their agenda and everyday community life. The research findings from the eco-communities in Florence, Ankara and Colchester unveil a compelling set of principles and practices that have played a pivotal role in nurturing inclusive and sustainable environments. All the points raised by the research participants are extremely relevant to an architectural discourse and foster a reflection on new design paradigms.

Firstly, the principle of low thresholds and blurred boundaries explains the critical role of open and inclusive spaces. An issue highlighted by most participants across the three communities is that, by minimizing barriers to access and participation, these communities cultivate an environment that welcomes diverse contributions, fostering a sense of belonging and shared responsibility among inhabitants. This philosophy of inclusivity not only values the input of every individual but also serves as a cornerstone for nurturing a cohesive community fabric.

Moreover, the emphasis on designing spaces with undefined character and flexibility amplifies the notion of empowerment within these communities. By providing inhabitants with the agency to shape their environment according to their needs and preferences, these spaces become catalysts for fostering deeper connections and a heightened sense of ownership and place attachment among residents. Such flexibility allows for the organic evolution of spaces, ensuring they remain responsive to the evolving dynamics and aspirations of the community.

Additionally, the activation of networks and territorial connections extends the influence of these communities beyond their immediate boundaries. Through collaborative efforts and alliances with neighboring communities, they not only amplify their impact but also underscore the interconnectedness of social and environmental ecosystems. This broader engagement enables communities to pursue collective goals and address shared challenges, thereby reinforcing the notion of collective responsibility and solidarity. Furthermore, the adoption of sustainable practices, such as recycling spaces and embracing low-tech building technologies, embodies a commitment to environmental stewardship and resource efficiency. By repurposing materials and engaging in hands-on construction processes, these communities not only minimize their ecological footprint but also foster a culture of innovation and resilience. Moreover, these practices serve as educational tools, empowering residents with valuable skills and knowledge related to sustainability and construction.

In essence, these eco-communities epitomize the harmonious integration of principles such as inclusivity, flexibility, networking, recycling, and self-construction. These principles not only inform the physical design of spaces but also permeate the social and cultural dynamics within these communities. As architects, urban planners, and policymakers endeavor to design environments aligned with these principles, they must navigate various challenges, including balancing diverse interests and addressing power dynamics. Yet, by embracing transparency, collaboration, and a profound respect for local contexts, they can unlock the full potential of participatory design in shaping vibrant, resilient, and inclusive urban environments.

4 Conclusion: Subverting Power Structures Through Participatory Research

Drawing on the research project mentioned above, this paper advocates for care as a fundamental and critical action, serving as a potent tool for critiquing the prevailing capitalist modes of spatial production. The three communities involved allowed to introduce and explore various dimensions of urban care, care institutions, and care as an agency to underscore the significance of care as a form of design paradigm and critical action. In this paper, it is believed that prioritizing care for “the other,” for individual and collective well-being, for the planet, and for the city is imperative. To navigate the challenges of our times, fostering a sense of care and interconnectedness should be at the forefront of our intellectual and societal discourse, as this aligns with the human geography paradigm of examining the dynamics of space, place, and society [20,21,22]. By emphasizing the value of care, it is provocatively proposed a reevaluation of thought processes and the restructuring of societal relations that can ultimately steer towards a more compassionate, inclusive, and sustainable future. The objective is to reinstate the concepts, principles, and a commitment to novel civic organizations that resonate with the continuous battle concerning societal, political, and democratic existence. The endeavor lies in discovering techniques and actions fostering solidarity, collaborative efforts, and a moral framework grounded in compassion, as essential components for an efficient response to the deterioration of our urban centers and the environment. The mission is to redefine care as a pivotal form of engagement that operates on multiple levels, spanning from individual responsibilities to societal interactions and even planetary interconnectedness. Care, often confined to the private realm and connected with marginalized groups, assumes significance when harnessed as a critical tool for evaluating the impacts of capitalist spatial production. Chiara Bottici, in “Anarchafeminism” [23], advocates an intersectional approach aimed at emancipating all from capitalist exploitation and male-centric dominance. This perspective highlights the essential role of care in understanding the intersections of various oppressions and nurturing anti-state solidarity and resistance.

The division between “work” and “labor,” proposed by Hannah Arendt in “The Human Condition” [24], distinguishes productive work from the seemingly unproductive labor of care, crucial for sustaining the world. However, care work is often undervalued, even though it encompasses caring for others, spaces, everyday life, and the planet. In an era marked by democratic fragility, civic culture erosion, and the neglect of collective life, care for others has waned, replaced by regressive individualism that erodes the social imagination and civic institutions. Hélène Frichot's concept of “Infrastructural Love” positions care as a relational approach that connects pedagogy, practice, and theory [25]. Ellen Meiksins Wood, in “Democracy Against Capitalism”, argues for perpetual attention and reconfiguration of democratic life [1]. Care, as a critical action, provides a lens for critiquing capitalist spatial production and exploring meaningful ways of living and acting. Amidst the backdrop of capitalist urban space, new institutions and communities are needed to align with the broader quest for an alternative collective life [26]. Critical thought and civic action spaces must be established, fostering a social imagination that encompasses care for all beings, human, non-human, and more than human. Articulating care's centrality in shaping agency, values, social relations, and future visions of collective life is essential. Ultimately, care as critical action emerges as both a method and guiding principle within the care framework underpinning the research project discussed in the paper.

The research project discussed here embodied a collaborative and inclusive approach, positioning community representatives as co-researchers, thereby underscoring the significance of local knowledge and experiences. The aim was not merely to document and disseminate these insights but also to foster meaningful connections and sustained dialogues among eco-communities. The research project recognizes the value of informal practices to challenge and, to some extent, subvert power relations in developing the urban realm. By shedding light on the innovative, localized, and community-led responses to our contemporary challenges, the project contributed to a broader discussion on sustainable and socially inclusive practices. Furthermore, it fostered a sense of shared purpose and knowledge exchange among eco-communities across borders. The collaboration among these communities enabled the development of skills, strategies, and best practices that can be applied not only within these communities but also on a global scale, providing practitioners and policy makers with a radically new set of paradigms to design spaces that enable and nurture practices of mutual care.