 |
Pierre Donadieu Buying informations The book is available at Amazon.com: The title of Pierre Donadieu’s book Campagnes Urbaines (Urban Countryside) is an oxymoron, however it accurately describes the present-day dilemma regarding urban sprawl, urban expansion versus rural dissolution, rural withdrawal. These two words may seem just a simple oxymoron which attracts critiques, clichés and judgements, but the author transforms them into what he coins a realistic utopia (utopie réaliste). Agronomist and ecologist by training, who has worked in Alger and Rabat, Pierre Donadieu is now a professor at L’École Nationale Supérieure du Paysage de Versailles in France. In a very legible style, he explains through practical knowledge about the existing agricultural situation in France as well as landscaping theories his vision of a realistic utopia called “the urban countryside”. In some respects it is similar to the ideal urban environment promoted by the Le Corbusier’s plans for the “Radiant City”, Frank Lloyd Wright’s plans for “Broadacre City”, and Ebenezer Howard’s “Garden City”. Similar in that, certain values about the kind of environment we live in need to be put forth, yet different in that it is vehicled in another form than that of pure physical planning. The question put forth in this book is the following: Why can we not build an urban fabric with agricultural and silvicultural spaces? More specifically, why could the peri-urban farmer not be considered by urban planners as an “urban planning tool” capable of organising the territory of the city in a sustainable way? For Donadieu the solution remains in the landscaper’s vision of the territory. In his opinion urban agriculture per se is not feasible in developed countries. It is not a means of complementing low-income households. It is not a means to favour social integration and it is not a basin of employment or a means to feed poor urban dwellers, as it is in underdeveloped countries. Mechanisation of agricultural production in developed countries does not allow this latter solution. However, he does see the possibility of saving, maintaining and developing peri-urban agriculture. It could play a crucial role, which is sustainable, in bettering the quality of life of city dwellers and also in providing a source of quality produce. Peri-urban agriculture can be used for several ends: to recycle organic waste from the city, as horticultural space, for nurseries, educational farms, pick-your-own produce etc. Through John Dixon Hunt’s theory of three natures: a) natura decorum (e.g. forest, desert, ocean) b) altera natura (e.g. city and rural space) and c) terza natura (e.g. Bonfadio’s and Taegio’s gardens) Donadieu’s vision of an urban countryside emerges, a cross between the altera and the terza natura. A vision of a countryside that survives through its beauty, by appealing to the desire for the countryside, one which remains in the collective imagination, of the French. This could be part of the solution to the mobile city, the territorial city, the natural city, the polycentric city, or the empty city. In this new shape of the city, farmers, planners and landscape architects would work in unison to respond to the demand of the new city dweller. Urbanity with a twist of ruralism, one that is not rural and that does not obliterate the countryside, an equilibrium of sorts. Donadieu explains that this project is feasible only if two aims are achieved in the process: 1) the peri-urban countryside must supply the city with produce; and 2) the urban countryside must be designed with the idea of providing services to ameliorate the quality of life of the city dweller. In this context, the farmer becomes a service that can be in some cases managed by the municipality or the commune. Can we envision shepherds as municipal employees? Just as commercial streets are governed by specific planning regulations, so should agricultural spaces be controlled. Following the model of rules that regulate the perennial character of façades, their alignments and their appearance on commercial avenues, planning rules for agriculture that would control and insure the continuity of the agricultural landscape should also be developed. Donnadieu wonders: Can the farmer become a gardener of the landscape? Can land be valued in function to aesthetics and not in relation to the market? Remunerated by the municipality as a public service? A public good? As Donadieu says himself, the need for the countryside is much more complex than it seems, otherwise greening would be sufficient to satisfy our need for nature. This is something that for a long time we have mistakenly believed to be true. The proximity of agriculture is key to an individual’s wellbeing, because the visual link with the rural roots of society eases urban stress, but most importantly it allows the transmittal to future generations of tradition and modern farming knowledge (p.133). One of the examples cited of this urban countryside is the Commune of Coubron, an agricultural enclave some fifteen kilometres east of Paris. This Commune formulated a project called: “Centre for the initiation to the rural and natural world”. Through it, elected officials promoted the preservation of an authentic ecological heritage. An ultimate and ambitious response, that action occurred when the inhabitants realized the last agricultural lands of the Commune were being administered by farmers living outside of Coubron. Following the exurbia trend that Europe is currently undergoing, there are now four models of agriculture according to Donadieu, four models that will eventually engender the urban countryside. The first is rural agriculture, undertaken by entrepreneurs working full-time on large modern efficient and profitable cultures. The second model is peril-urban agriculture, marked by the vicinity to urban markets and by a family revenue dependant on urban activities (i.e. one of the family members works in the city core). The third model is city dweller agriculture. It is a part or full-time employment dedicated to services for city dwellers, such as agrotourism, restaurants, educational centres etc. Last, but not least, agriculture as a hobby involves all those who continue to work the land, but who do not count on it for their main source of revenue. To conserve these natural landscapes, Donadieu believes that agricultural space must be interpreted as a natural infrastructure of public interest, just as a road, a dam, an electricity network or pubic or private forests. The farmer then becomes a manager of a natural area, of a non-urban area and also becomes a partner of equal standing to that of the local authorities. Another example of this urban countryside project is the Parc du Vexin Français created in 1996. This park assembles more than 100 communes whose cereal agriculture covers more than 70% of the park’s land area. The aim is to preserve the identity of the rural landscape from the peri-urbanisation of l’Ile-de-France. The idea is to create, via the mediation of the landscape architects and planners, a plurality and mixed use of space, an urban countryside that recognizes the qualities of the agricultural area and its historical foundations, while proposing new social practices and renewed spatial compositions. Donadieu’s realistic utopia reminds us of the political nature
of planning such as emphasised by Paul Davidoff in the 1960s. It
calls for an activist’s role for the planner, in this case
a landscape architect, who should seek to represent and plead the
plans of the public, thereby facilitating the active involvement
of citizens in public policy decision-making. In this context, it
is about a policy of urban countrysides that is in the interest
of the public good. What remains to be seen in this utopia, is whether
the project will ever be seen as a public good by city dwellers.
|
