ABSTRACT
Climate and environmental issues, metropolitan densification, and the aspirations of citizens in many areas are challenging the evolution of inherited urban planning models:
The dualism of the city (urbs)/nature of the 19th-century city, where parks and promenades were responses to the urban tensions imposed on the work force, recreation and relaxation spaces, health considerations, and so on.
The landscaping and “green” ambition of the modern city, based on the relationship between building and nature, often degraded by the reality of legislation and different uses.
Should we try to change these “models” in favor of giving nature “civitas”?
We make the hypothesis of a more “natural” city, open, fitting together as a network, structured by “a natural public space.” For the creation of urban projects, this “natural” city seeks to define “emptiness” no longer as a space, a design subtracted from ‘full’ space, but as a complex, constituent element at the forefront of the project and its design. Several projects for urban and territorial transformation have been chosen for their distinct connection with the “natural” – for example, the “garden city,” the “park city.” However, the projects presented were also chosen for their specificity in terms of geographical territory, risk, or resources that can be economic, or in terms of biodiversity. These examples will be used to sketch the contours of the contemporary “natural” city.
