Shared city, abstracts

SUVI NENONEN, JENNI POUTANEN, JUHO RAJANIEMI (Tampere University, Finland): University campus as a home
In recent years, European university campus developers have actively promoted the functional and structural integration of campuses and the rest of the society. Universities' strategies also support the commitment to the surrounding society. One of the tools for achieving these goals has been in building housing in campus areas. While student housing has been built on campuses for decades, creating new forms of housing and living on campuses has become highly topical due to e.g. increasing mobility of students.
In our article we research university campus as a home from three perspectives: as a physical and functional residential area, as a field for experimental housing ideas and as a contradictory combination of public and private spaces. We present several case studies and compare them in order to identify future scenarios.
The paper will contribute to the research about the novel housing taxonomies. The results will deal with both campus and urban development from the point of view of new housing models. Just to name some of them, Student Hotel, a Dutch model, is spreading in Europe. University visitor dormitories are also becoming more common. Co-living is a concept realized by several companies in connection with co-working concepts. In addition, there is a discussion going on whether it is worthwhile to bring permanent housing to university campuses to ensure the vitality and services of the campuses as a part of the city ecosystem. In hybrid solutions, combining campus living with informal learning, one can test how to interact with the development of novel learning spaces and digital learning environments. The perspectives of sustainability and wellbeing are also discussed in the article as main drivers for new campus housing concepts.
Keywords: university, campus, housing, urban planning, city structure, temporality

MOHAMMAD BOROOJERDI (Tampere University, Finland): Social Capacity of Urban Spaces in Social Interaction
Modern urban inattention to social structures and the concept of city-location is a contributing factor in the reduction of social relations and social capacity of urban spaces. However, what makes the spaces socially active; at first are physical factors that can underlie for individuals’ entry and then stop within the space. Anticipation and creation of social events while creating opportunities to participate in social activities can ground the promotion and dependency on the location (Lennard, 1984; Piran, 2001). The impact of social determinants of physical and behavioural aspects of the use of space is one of the critical issues for urban planners.
This research examined the socio-physical aspects of urban spaces in a park in district ix in Mashhad-Iran, to study the influence of social factors on people’s physical characteristics that study the physical characteristics of social space and enhance capacity building in social interaction.
Based on both qualitative (survey) and quantitative (observations and interviews) methods for providing operational suggestions to promote social interaction by creating social capacity in the physical environment are discussed.
Keywords: urban space, social capacity, social interactions, social capital, social-physical aspects

DANIELA BAER, KARIN HØYLAND, LARS ARNE BØ (SINTEF, Norway): Sharing Neighbourhoods – How shared spaces contribute to more social inclusive neighbourhoods
The importance of third spaces as libraries and cafes for community building and social interaction is undoubtable. These spaces between 'home' and 'work' are important for civil society, democracy, civic engagement and establish a sense of place. Third places can be divided into indoor and outdoor places, while indoor places play an even stronger role in colder climates. Besides climate condition, the availability of indoor third places are varying within the city and during the daytime. While city centre areas offer a great variety of public and private indoor third places, the offer is very limited in decentral areas. Sharing these spaces over opening hours to a wider public is an attempt to increase the availability of third places within the area.
In our paper we describe the role of public indoor spaces to foster social interaction within the decentral area of Saupstad within the city of Trondheim, Norway. We have chosen a qualitative approach with 20 qualitative interviews with different stakeholders and site visits for investigation.
Firstly, we present a mapping of indoor third spaces available in Saupstad and describe them regarding location, equipment and accessibility. Secondly, we present the stakeholders involved: Who is sharing the spaces and who is using them? Thirdly, we describe the barriers to share and use public indoor spaces with regard to accessibility (physical, technical and social). We discuss how shared public indoor spaces foster social interaction in Saupstad, but also how the accessibility to the spaces is a limiting factor. We will discuss the role of architecture to provide better availability and access to public indoor places. We close our paper with recommendations to improve sharing of public indoor spaces – taking advantage of best practices from international and national examples of public indoor places.
Keywords: shared space, third places, social interaction, civic engagement, sustainable development

MARKKU NORVASUO (Tampere University, Finland): The new Helsinki Central Library Oodi: from silence to urban living
The new Helsinki Central Library Oodi was inaugurated on 5 December 2018. Within just four months, it received one million visitors. The library project had been well promoted. Its later reception has been mainly positive, but negative as well. Oodi differs from many conventional library buildings. It has changed our view of what a library can be but also received some criticism. The building does not conform to library traditions, and the librarians have to give more time for customer service. There are also fewer books and more background noise. A comparison of Oodi with earlier libraries seems to be an important question. The concept of “urban living room” is not new – the nearby museum Kiasma was thus named two decades ago – but Oodi goes further, being a functionally versatile place for various DIY hobbies and mixing interiors with public urban space. Oodi seems to be a mix of a public library and a community centre. My purpose is to analyse the role of Oodi with regard to architecture, urban planning and building typology. One reference point is the earlier Helsinki Central Library at Pasila. The library institution has changed as well.
Keywords: library buildings, community centres, urban planning, architectural modernism