OPPORTUNITIES
Clementine: “At the metropolitan scale, central places correspond to the dense urban cores and historical cities, in opposition to suburban peripheries. At the national scale, central places correspond to large cities, in opposition to smaller cities. The two understandings of ‘less central places’ share some similarities such as lower population densities and fewer urban functions. These conditions are viewed by the economic geography literature as detrimental to agglomeration economies and command over urban economies. However, they can be opportunities for stronger human-non-human relations, place attachment and community building.”
Birgit: “The less central and the more central can be understood as complementary conditions rather than opposites. This invites a broader exploration of the spectrum of spatial differentiation between these two poles: how gradients, contrasts, and transitions between degrees of centrality can shape possibilities at the scale of the neighbourhood, city, region, and beyond. What forms of spatial differentiation create opportunities, and which might instead become disabling/segregating?”
Alex: “Peripheral places are not necessarily places of fewer opportunities. The question is who can access land, mobility, work, services and ecological resources, and who or what bears the costs of providing them”.
Francesca: “From an urban design perspective, less central places can offer opportunities precisely because of their different spatial conditions: more open space, looser urban fabrics, proximity to productive and ecological landscapes, and greater possibilities for adaptation and transformation. The challenge is to recognise these qualities without reproducing inequalities or imposing models of centrality that belong elsewhere. Urban design can instead build on what is already there, strengthening connections, accessibility and shared spaces while allowing room for different forms of life and appropriation. Opportunity then becomes not only a question of what a place provides, but of who (human and non-human) has the possibility to inhabit, shape and benefit from it.”
