In beginning my research, I have relied primarily on documentation provided by Paisaje Transversal which include statements of methodology, detailed diagnostic proposals, and their blog. Most of my time in office is spent analyzing the intricacies of each project while also trying to understand the larger context of the neighborhoods and districts they are addressing. As a visitor in Madrid, I have few preconceptions about these places — I am seeing them for the first time through statistical and spacial analysis. My first point of reference was the PIER methodology, Paisaje Transversal’s elaborate roadmap for urban regeneration projects. PIER incorporates environmental, social, and economic sustainability indicators, and prioritizes citizen participation at every phase. Over the past six years, PIER has been put into practice in Virgen de Begoña, one of Madrid’s most vulnerable neighborhoods.
Paisaje Transversal has applied a similar methodology, at a larger scale, to produce diagnostics for three districts, Fuencarral, Puente de Vallecas, and Arganzuela. The collective analyzes demographics, social cohesion, public space, mobility and infrastructure, local economic activity, and housing. These diagnostics serve to locate vulnerabilities within each district. From there, Paisaje Transversal can zoom in to the scale of the neighborhood or even the plaza, and imagine regenerative solutions. I find it fascinating to consider how they translate such intensive data and public perceptions into cohesive strategy.
On Thursday evening, Paisaje Transversal and their co-working organizations, Hecate and Creando Redes, hosted a debate on Casa de Campo, a topic of urban regeneration in Madrid. This provided source of community-based information to consider in my research. Casa de Campo is an expansive forest just outside of the city center with biodiverse flora and fauna, and remnants of historical architecture. In the last decade, there has been conversation around how to connect this space to the rest of the city and attract visitors interested in outdoor activities. The debate brought up concerns of ecological conservation, historical preservation, and unwanted traffic in surrounding neighborhoods. It was neat to see a community come together in democratic setting to discuss a pressing urban issue. People were passionate and vocal, and also willing to listen to each other.
During my time in Gallatin, I have read some texts that relate to Paisaje Transversal’s vision and to the debate I witnessed on Thursday. These include Dolores Hayden’s Power of Place, Urban Landscapes as Public History and David Harvey’s Right to the City. While these pieces are in the back of my mind as I think about urban regeneration in Madrid, my research has been grounded moreso in the experience of being in Paisaje Transversal’s lab and studying their primary documents.
(The link to PIER didn’t work…) I like hearing that you are focusing more on primary documents than on secondary ones. It shows, first of all, that Paisaje is really innovating the way it approaches and conducts research and, secondly, that you are immersing yourself in your projects in Madrid. Still, I’d love to know how the research Paisaje is conducting on neighborhood regeneration compares to how we think about neighborhood regeneration elsewhere. I’m intrigued by the difference between “renewal” and “regeneration” — and whether this is just a change in vocabulary or a change in attitude. Look at Arielle’s post from this past week. She is also conducting research around this topic. I wonder whether it compares?