2010
Nr 2(28)
Sustainable development, sustainable design, and sus-
tainable space design – involve improvement of quality of
life of present and future generations in harmonious coexist-
ence of man with nature
[5]. Traditionally, the environmen-
tal protection emphasizes the environmental aspect con-
nected with natural resources, however, its correct, holistic
meaning comprises a balance of all interdependent sectors
of anthroposphere and biosphere. According to sustainable
development human environment and natural environment
are considered complementary – not competitive. Ultimate-
ly, this is about the development of humanity that will as-
sure the maintenance of the conditions of the environment
which will enable man to live now and in the future.
The main idea of sustainable development is to inte-
grate the environmental, economic and social order [8]. The
principle of dependence of the quality of the natural envi-
ronment on economic and social situation has been present
in literature regarding sustainable development since the
1990s. Achieving a permanent equilibrium in environment
is dependent on equilibrium in its individual sectors. The
environmental protection is not possible without spatial or-
der which in turn depends on economic as well as social
and cultural order.
The global crisis which since 2008 has blown over
most world economies has revealed the weakness of the
mechanisms of market self-regulation. The conviction that
the development of civilization will also automatically
adapt to the deteriorating conditions of environment and
depletion of resources is an excuse for inactivity which
can lead to catastrophe [11]. Humanity needs a deliberate
and reasonable prevention of self-destructive trends [13].
The necessary reforms which will encompass all aspects
of human development need to be based on changes in
mentality, lifestyle, hierarchy of values and adequate level
of social and cultural development. Apart from all neces-
sary changes it is important for the top-down actions to
have a clearly dened goal – strengthening the natural
processes of the environmental protection and develop-
ment as well as resolving problems and threats – locally
along with the growing activity and decision-making
authority of local communities. All programs and under-
takings developed at international [4 and 5] and govern-
mental levels should aim at constituting local communi-
ties as natural and main change centers – this is, among
others, what the principle of sustainable development is
based on [2].
Jacek Wiszniowski*
Sustainable space development
Sustainable development
Sustainable policy
The strength of international programs and political
arrangements is necessary for changes. However, top-
down management is dangerous for social development –
it replaces the natural solidarity between people and con-
sequently strengthens demanding egoistic attitudes [10].
In order to balance the processes of change it will be nec-
essary to develop a common subsidiarity policy instead of
top-down management dominance at local level.
The global environmental, economic as well as social
and cultural threats require supra-local agreements, strate-
gies and policies [7]. However, all these activities should
with their strength support the natural mechanisms of lo-
cal activities in building social patterns, spatial policy,
and culture. The limits of inuence of central manage-
*
Wrocław University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Depart-
ment of Environmental Development.
220 Jacek Wiszniowski
ment practices should be clearly dened to protect what
is the most valuable, natural and necessary to balance the
processes of development of human environment – capa-
bilities of local communities to self-organization and joint
care for the common good. The strategies and policy as
well as ofcial procedures which result from them should
support the decisions regarding space development and
make them more valuable as well as more community-
oriented – to increase the participation of local commu-
nities and decrease the inuence of central management.
Public man [12] needs natural environment to develop,
and local community is that environment.
Sustainable social development
The level of cultural development is closely connected
with social development. The level of social capital is an
indicator of social development which is very low in Po-
land [6].
Community is the bonding agent for such qualities as
sensitivity, desire to achieve harmony or to admire beauty,
a need to grow roots and community which take perma-
nent shape in local culture. A community condition has
a direct inuence on economic and spatial development
as well as on the level and quality of culture. As a result
of disintegration of social bonds, extinction of behavioral
patterns and absence of values in public life, the activities
taken in order to create common principles fall on barren
ground because the most fundamental frame of reference,
namely community, is missing.
Spatial culture: patterns of spatial behaviors, continuity
of tradition of residence, set of rules applied in a residen-
tial space – are all inextricably connected with community
[14]. Culture without reference to community becomes
a manner and dead formalism (Fig. 1). Without support
in local community, architecture becomes a monolog de-
tached from local culture. It does not bond people through
common understanding of culture. It does not enter into
dialog or exchange of sensitivity; it does not evoke com-
mon emotions which can build, develop or revive local
culture.
Architecture treated as a mass product which is gov-
erned only by the rules of the commercial market results in
a social disintegration because it is addressed to an anony-
mous group of customers; it does not draw on any existing
patterns of spatial culture, it does not provide an opportu-
nity for inclusion into the community of place (Fig. 2).
Architecture should reply to the basic need of social
development and create places which will be lled with
interpersonal bonds. When assessing values, the social
aspect of an enterprise must be taken into account. The
Fig. 1. Sun City constructed
since the 1960s by Del Webb
– Sun City, Arizona, USA.
Source: Google Earth
Fig. 2. Breaking off spatial culture topics.
The monotony of mass production – San Buenaventura, Mexico.
Source: www.imagenesaereasdemexico.com
Sustainable space development 221
calculation of costs should include the extent of impact of
planned investments on the existing social structure and
introduction of new inhabitants into the place. The way
this is conducted determines whether the existing com-
munity will be enriched or conicted and destroyed.
Sustainable, permanent and social order is possible
only if the stability of the natural grass-roots processes
of consolidation of social groups is secured. Social eco-
system will really work out when the top-down assistance
from outside is no longer needed.
Sustainable culture
Culture is reected in the way in which human space
is organized. The appearance of human settlements allows
for determining the spatial behaviors of their inhabitants,
social structure, hierarchy of values or level of culture.
Sustainable space development is inextricably connected
with the protection and development of the spatial culture
of the community residing there
1
. The condition of our
landscape demonstrates how huge threats we face. Spatial
chaos, environmental degradation and waste of resources
indicate a low level or even disappearance of culture.
The more and more unequal economic development,
deeper and deeper process of social disintegration and grow-
ing cultural conicts translate specically and directly into
the environmental degradation and cause concerns about the
future. Changes are necessary, and it is possible that in or-
der to make them and for their results to be permanent it is
necessary to redene the interpersonal relations and estab-
lish the cultural patterns which express the identity of local
communities. When dening what is common in culture,
it is not possible to exclude local community. However, in
many cases it is still necessary to enable and prepare it for
that participation. In order for the process to be successful it
must take into account the activity of the community from
the very beginning. Only then will it be possible to be sure
that the effects to be achieved will be accepted by the com-
munity as their own and they will be permanent.
The principle of subsidiarity is the best vehicle to transfer
the sustainable approach to culture which is an expression,
and at the same time one of the most important pillars, of the
identity of local communities. Culture cannot be regulated
by top-down decrees, however, it can and it should be pro-
tected against the dominance of foreign, external patterns or
solutions which can disintegrate and destroy local culture.
The centralized model is one of the reasons of the cri-
sis which affects culture. It is evident in space develop-
ment. No clear boundaries, no special places, loss of local
identity, destruction of structures by express transit roads,
supra-local shopping and ofce centers – these are just
a few of many examples of negative consequences of cen-
tralized indifference to local communities. In the system of
centrally assigned procedures and decisions, community is
no longer a subject, a decision maker, a host of the place.
The top-down imposition of patterns is based on the basic
1
The Polish Policy Architectural assumes that: Understanding the
work of an architect as an obligation to cultural heritage, contemporary
human needs and the future of next generations, the participants of the
Congress of Polish Architecture in Poznań encourage all those who
understand the mission of an architect in public life in a similar way to
cooperate in order to develop architecture and create spatial order which
determine the quality of life of all citizens [3].
principle of equality to established rules. Unfortunately,
these patterns are often developed for large areas, without
recognizing or paying any attention to the differences be-
tween neighboring communities existing there and with-
out knowledge of their local culture of residence, without
their participation in decision making processes, without
respect for social and cultural continuity of the place. This
leads the whole urban areas to depravation of their original
cultural diversity. All this contributes to social disintegra-
tion, loss of identity and generates cultural crisis.
The popular artistic happenings negate previous pat-
terns and become discussion for discussion’s sake; they do
not add much, or they add little, to common cultural assets,
and often they weaken or even harm culture. The rejec-
tion of the existing culture is a dangerous manner which,
in the name of search for new values, questions the exist-
ing values, offering no valuable alternative instead. Search
only for search sake often does not add any real values, and
instead it reafrms contempt or aversion to the traditional
cultural patterns. Architecture more and more often divides,
inames, stuns, shocks, breaks, ridicules and loses... its
connection with culture which is experienced communally.
Contesting and going to extremes does not contribute to im-
proving or developing the culture of residence – on the con-
trary – it deepens the spatial chaos, diminishes the prospect
of culture shared with others, disturbs the common cultural
heritage, degrades architecture to a commodity whose sale
depends not on its actual usefulness for the inhabitants but
on the brand built according to market rules.
Such developments cease to be a means of conveying
shared culture. Instead of becoming an object of common
care and an appeal to build and develop, culture is trans-
formed into formal deformations to draw attention of the
anonymous viewer for a moment. Single and individual-
istic treatment of culture, no respect for the existing com-
munities and local cultural patterns result in breaking the
continuity, loss of local identity as well as destruction of
natural legacy and potential of local communities, expos-
ing them to threats of global universalization and shallow-
ness of culture-like mass products.
In the times of growing inuence of globalization when
culture is especially threatened – the aspect of protection and
development of cultural heritage, continuity of tradition of
residence as well as patterns of spatial behaviors – becomes
especially signicant in our care for the quality of life of
present and future generations. The extensive literature docu-
menting the regional cultural values of architecture is not ap-
plied in architectural policy, development strategies or spatial
planning and in design practice. This is not a result of the lack
of specic research or insufcient knowledge. This is rather
the effect of the complex process of uniformization of needs,
222 Jacek Wiszniowski
tastes and opinions subjected to marketing treatment by sales
experts [9]. The basic problem is agreeing which cultural val-
ues should be protected and how to develop them.
Agreement at community level is the key to solving
the basic problems of the environment and sustainable
development.
Sustainable architecture
Architecture is a language which expresses human spa-
tial culture [1]. Architecture – which individually can dem-
onstrate positive qualities – holistically, socially and cultural-
ly can generate a dissonance. This is the difference between
human capital and social capital. Both are needed but only
when they are balanced is optimal development assured. The
difference between culture and a culture-like product is the
same as between theater and digital television – the point is
community experience – which, if it exists, greatly contrib-
utes to building a common culture or, if it does not exist, it
may develop some internal sensitivity, however, it is more
a form of entertainment controlled by viewing ratings and
political situation. A designed building, even if it is a single-
family house, is a political act in the sense in which it is
perceived from outside by users of common space.
We need architecture which develops a permanent or-
der not only in respect of space but also in respect of so-
cial and cultural development. This can be achieved only if
the design process involves community participation [15].
The spatial development is achieving long-term objectives
which are impossible to achieve without relying on perma-
nent local communities.
References
[1] Buczek G., Chwalibóg A., Chwalibóg K., Gawlicki M., Grochulski
J., Kaliszewski A., Kiciński A., Lenart J., Śmiechowski D., Wolski P.,
Polska polityka architektoniczna – polityka jakości krajobrazu, prze-
strzeni publicznej i architektury, Poznań 2008, www.sarp.org.pl/pliki/
ppa-www.pdf, 06.2009.
[2] Community participation in local health and sustainable development.
Working document on approaches and techniques. WHO Regional
Ofce for Europe, Copenhagen 1999.
[3] Deklaracja Poznańska 2008, www.kongresarchitektury.pl/?m=51
&d=2&ak=14, 10.2010.
[4] European Handbook for Participation, PARTECIPANDO – Thematic
Network of the URBACT Programme, www.urbact.eu/leadmin/
subsites/participando/pdf/European_Handbook_for Participation.
pdf, 10.2007.
[5] Europejski proces Localnej Agendy 21. Materiały szkoleniowe ICLEI.
„Lokalne strategie zrównoważonego rozwoju”, post-conference
materials. Warszawa 2000.
[6] Gumkowska M., Szołajska J., Herbst J., Buttler D., Mozga-Górec-
ka M., Batko-Tołuć K., Kuraszko I., Iłowiecka-Tańska I., Indeks
Społeczeństwa Obywatelskiego w Polsce 2007, Raport Stowarzyszenia
Klon/Jawor, Warsaw 2008, pp. 68–69 www.portal.engo.pl/.../IN-
DEKS_SPOLECZENSTWA_OBYWATELSKIEGO_2007_LAST2.
pdf, 04.2009.
[7] Markowski T., Problematyka wdrażania polityki przestrzennej
państwa. Paper presented at the conference “Spatial Development Plan
for Poland and the Visions and Perspectives of Spatial Development
in Europe” organized jointly by the Commission for Spatial Devel-
opment of Poland PAN and the Ministry of Regional Development
on September 25–26, 2008 in Jachranka near Serock, p. 2, http://
www.mrr.gov.pl/Rozwoj%20przestrzenny/Strony/Konferencjaw-
JachranceKPZK.aspx, 30.06.2009.
[8] Piątek Z., Przyrodnicze i społeczno-historyczne warunki
zrównoważenia ładu ludzkiego świata, „Problemy Ekorozwoju”,
2007, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 5–18.
[9] Raport Tygodniowy, Nielsen Audience Measurement, http://www.
agbnielsen.pl/2010-10-03,1510.html, 10.2010.
[10] Ridley M., O pochodzeniu cnoty, Rebis, Poznań 2000.
[11] Sadowski Z., Przedmowa do wydania polskiego, [in:] Meadows D.H.,
Meadows D.L., Randers J., Przekraczanie granic, Warszawa 1995.
[12] Senet R. The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life,
Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1970.
[13] Tyburski W., O niektórych aksjologicznych przesłankach zrówno-
wa żo ne go rozwoju, [in:] Pawłowski A., Filozoczne, społeczne
i eko nomiczne uwarunkowania zrównoważonego rozwoju, Lublin
University of Technology, Lublin 2004.
[14] Wiszniowski J., Krajobraz jako dobro wspólne, paper presented at the
international conference „Landscapes of Europe”, Wrocław 2009.
[15] Wiszniowski J., Wpływ partycypacji społecznej na proces projektow-
ania architektonicznego, doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Architec-
ture, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław 2003, p. 118.
Zrównoważone kształtowanie przestrzeni
Proces kształtowania przestrzeni odbywa się w wielowymiarowej
sferze dynamicznych współzależności. Kształtowanie środowiska odwzo-
rowuje wspólne dla lokalnej społeczności wzorce kulturowe, zachowania
przestrzenne, struktury społeczne, styl życia i kondycję ekonomiczną.
Architektura jest tych wartości zapisem w przestrzeni.
Trudność polega na tym, że wraz z coraz szybszym postępem
cywilizacyjnym pogłębia się kryzys kulturowy i społeczny, co odbija
się w otaczającym nas krajobrazie. Decyzje projektowe – nawet te
w mikroskali, podejmowane pod wpływem doraźnych, partykularnych,
jednostkowych interesów – skutkują negatywnymi konsekwencjami na
długie lata. Czy dezintegracja okaże się pozytywna? Czy na gruzach
dotychczasowych porządków kulturowych, społecznych i gospodarczych
powstaną nowe porządki?
Zrównoważone projektowanie zakłada poprawę jakości zarówno
życia obecnego, jak i przyszłych pokoleń – a to niemożliwe jest bez
wypracowania wzajemnego porozumienia opartego na wspólnie akcep-
towanych wzorcach uznanych w danej społeczności. Dlatego tak ważne
jest pozyskanie akceptacji, zaangażowania i współodpowiedzialności
za kształtowanie przestrzeni zamieszkania przez lokalne społeczności.
Znalezienie wspólnego języka staje się zatem palącą koniecznością dla
wszystkich użytkowników tej przestrzeni.
Key words: community participation, spatial order, common good Słowa kluczowe: partycypacja społeczna, ład przestrzenny, dobro
wspólne