Spatial Autonomies and Hybrid Urbanism in Contemporary European Cities: An Ontological Design Perspective
Drawing on five European case studies and an ontological design perspective, this paper argues that spatial autonomy emerges not in opposition to but within institutional structures, fostering a "hybrid urbanism" where planned and unplanned processes, non-human agency, and material form interact to shape cities while revealing inherent risks of co-optation and precarity.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Cities are often imagined as machines built by experts, where architects draw lines and governments enforce rules to create orderly places for people to live. For decades, this view held that a city was either fully planned or entirely chaotic, with no middle ground. However, a new way of looking at urban life suggests that the most vibrant and resilient cities are actually a mix of both. This perspective, known as ontological design, proposes that the buildings, streets, and parks we create do not just house us; they actively shape who we are and how we behave. It also recognizes that a city is not just for humans. Animals, plants, weather, and soil are active participants in the city's story, influencing how spaces are used and how they change over time. When we understand that a city is a living system where human plans and spontaneous life constantly interact, we can see how communities might find ways to live more freely and sustainably, even within strict legal and economic systems.
A team of researchers set out to test these ideas in the context of contemporary European cities, a place where rigid planning traditions have long dominated. They examined five distinct neighborhoods across five different countries over a span of fifty years to see how "spatial autonomy"—the ability of people to shape their own living spaces—actually works in practice. The researchers looked at Christiania in Copenhagen, a self-governing community founded in 1971; Parc de la Villette in Paris, a massive public park designed in the 1980s; Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm, an eco-friendly district built in the 1990s; Granby Four Streets in Liverpool, a community-led regeneration project starting in 2011; and Boeren Bruxsel Paysans in Brussels, a pilot urban farming project from 2015 to 2023. By studying these very different places, the team wanted to move beyond the simple idea that cities are either controlled by the state or left to chaos. Instead, they developed a framework called "hybrid urbanism" to describe how planned structures and unplanned, everyday life constantly push and pull against each other to create something new.
The study found that successful autonomous spaces do not exist outside the law or in opposition to it; rather, they emerge from within complex institutional structures. In Copenhagen, the Christiania community managed to secure its future not by rejecting the Danish state, but by negotiating a unique legal agreement that allowed them to own their land collectively while still operating under certain national rules. In Paris, the Parc de la Villette was designed with a specific philosophy of leaving spaces open and undefined, which allowed visitors to invent their own uses for the park over decades, turning a formal design into a living, changing place. In Stockholm, a highly planned ecological district showed that even the most carefully designed green spaces can be vulnerable to real estate markets if the community does not have a strong, formal hold on the land. Meanwhile, in Liverpool, a group of residents took over abandoned houses and, through a community land trust, turned them into affordable homes and workshops, proving that informal actions can eventually become formal, protected institutions. Finally, in Brussels, a temporary urban farming project demonstrated how different groups—farmers, city officials, and funders—could work together to create new ways of growing food in the city, even though the project's temporary nature left its long-term future uncertain.
A key discovery in this research is that the physical materials of a city play an active role in shaping life, rather than just being a passive backdrop. The old military barracks in Copenhagen, the red metal towers in the Paris park, the brick terraced houses in Liverpool, and the soil in the Brussels farms all "design back." This means that the specific condition of a place, its history, and its physical limits influence how people use it and what becomes possible. For instance, the rough, unfinished edges of the Paris park allowed plants to grow wild and people to gather in unexpected ways, while the strict, clean lines of the Stockholm district made it harder for spontaneous community actions to take root. The researchers also found that non-human life, such as birds, insects, and plants, is not just decoration but a crucial part of how these spaces function. In the Brussels farm, the soil and weather dictated how the project was organized, and in the Copenhagen community, the lack of strict landscaping allowed a rich variety of wildlife to thrive.
However, the study also highlights that these hybrid arrangements are fragile and come with significant risks. The very success of these projects can sometimes lead to their downfall. When a place becomes popular or successful, it can attract investment that drives up prices and pushes out the original residents, a problem seen in the Stockholm district where the wealthy moved in, pricing out the working class. In other cases, legal agreements meant to protect a community can slowly limit their freedom, as seen in Copenhagen where new laws restricted certain activities to keep the peace. The researchers suggest that while these hybrid spaces offer a powerful way to create more just and ecologically resilient cities, they are not a magic solution. They require constant effort to balance the need for legal security with the need for freedom, and they depend on the community's ability to stay in control of their own land.
Ultimately, this research suggests that the future of European cities lies in embracing this messy, mixed reality. It shows that the best way to design a city is not to try to control every outcome, but to create conditions where different groups—people, animals, institutions, and materials—can interact and shape the environment together. The study concludes that design is not just about arranging buildings; it is a practice of world-making that has real political and ecological consequences. By understanding how planned and unplanned forces work together, city planners and communities can create spaces that are more adaptable, more inclusive, and better able to support a wide variety of life forms. The findings indicate that while there is no single model that works everywhere, the ability to navigate the tension between order and chaos is the most valuable skill for building cities that can endure and thrive.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.