1st PhD Workshop ‐ European research program CAPA.CITY
Debating residential subdivisions
Which actors, which forms, which uses?
suburban retrofitting, collective capacities, location‐based experiential learning methods, participation, capacity building
Within the framework of the research program CAPA.CITY1, a PhD workshop is organized around the question of suburban retrofitting. The workshop will notably question the capacities that need to be mobilized and associated, or even hybridized, in order to transform existing residential subdivisions. The originality of this approach lies in the interrogation of creating negotiation spaces
between individual, collective and common interests, so that collective capacities could be built between the different actors (inhabitants, professionals, institutions) implicated in the transformation of residential subdivisions.
It has been recognized that the question of suburbanization, specifically the increasing development of residential subdivisions, is at the heart of numerous debates of scientific nature (Vanier 2009; Dodier, 2012; PUCA 2011‐2013, 2015) as much of political nature (in France : law “SRU”, 2000; law “ALUR”, 2014; law “CAP”, 2016). This questioning, far from being a French specificity, is shared by several European countries that are also marked by an increasing urban sprawl, provoking controversy. Among the critiques that have been made, the waste of land, the artificialization of ground, the high cost of infrastructures and networks, the intensification of
motorized travel, the individualism or even the absence of social diversity are the most emblematic (Charmes, 2013; Ministeriet for By, Bolig og Landdistrikter 2013; Van de Weijer & Van Cleempoel, 2015; Deilmann & alii., 2016). Therefore, the diffused city has often been opposed to the model of the compact city and has been the focus of much criticism (Bourne, 1992; Newman & Kensworthy, 1999; Hillman, 2010; Ubels & al., 2010; Pinson, 2017). This criticism has contributed to highlighting the struggle against urban sprawl, and the necessity of suburban densification, as flagship objectives of sustainable urban development in Europe. On the other hand, there are researchers and professionals of the urban revealing the qualities of this emerging city (Dubois‐
Taine & Chalas, 1997) and its potentials on the ecological (Frileux, 2013), social (Dodier, 2012; Lambert, 2015), architectural and urban level (Bonnet, 2014).
Oswald Devisch, Hoofddocent ‐ Associate Professor, Faculteit Architectuur & Kunst ‐ Faculty of Architecture & Arts
John Andersen, Professor. PhD in Sociology and Planning, Planning Studies (Plan, By og Proces), Department of Humans and Technology
Majken Toftager Larsen, Urbanist and action researcher, Planning Studies (Plan, By og Proces), Department of Humans and Technology
David Miet, PhD in Architecture, Director of In Vivo laboratory
Rémy Vigneron, Urbanist & PhD in Architecture, Researcher at Lab InVivo
Marion Serre, Architect, researcher in architecture, Project[s] research laboratory– ENSA‐Marseille
Denis Caraire, Chief Experience Officer, In Vivo laboratory, Urbanist OPQU
Marion Serre, Architect , researcher in architecture, Project[s] research laboratory– ENSA‐Marseille
Ion Maleas, Architect , PhD student in Architecture, Project[s] research laboratory– ENSA‐Marseille
Zineb Ait Bouali, Architect , PhD student in Architecture, Project[s] research laboratory– ENSA‐Marseille
Arnaud Sibilat, Architect , PhD student in Architecture, Project[s] research laboratory– ENSA‐Marseille
2018-01-15 | SELECTION OF PROPOSITION AND INFORMING OF PHD CANDIDATES
2018-04-01 | COMMUNICATION SUBMISSION
2018-04-05 | SUBMITTING OF SLIDESHOWS