How can we work together on major spatial challenges?

One of the ideas to emerge from this talk was that it’s about bursting bubbles, about truly wanting to tackle the major challenges we face. The talk concluded a day that was dedicated to the learning community ‘Maakruimte voor Mooi Nederland’, as part of the national programme ‘Mooi Nederland’. The talk was preceded by tours of various projects for Dutch Design Week 2023 (DDW23).

Hungering to answer to the question ‘How are we going to do it?’ Gido ten Dolle, head of the Spatial Quality Department at the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), observed this hunger that afternoon during the tour. Ten Dolle remarks, ‘It’s not just about acquiring the knowledge on how it can be done.’ As manager of the Mooi Nederland programme, Ten Dolle joined a tour of DDW along with civil servants, policy makers, researchers and designers, just like last year. For example, we walked past a model of a house built from bio-based materials. I realised then that we no longer have to convince each other that this is the future; it’s more a question of “Where do we begin?”

The design dialogue

Moderator Jetske van Oosten, author of the book ‘Maakkracht’ and quartermaster of the Maakruimte voor Mooi Nederland community, introduced the panel discussion. Panel participants included: Jannemarie de Jonge, government advisor for the Physical Environment, Roel Schoenmaker, designer at Cascoland, Ziega van den Berk, landscape architect at MUST urban development and Bregje van Wesenbeeck, scientific director at Deltares, expert in Nature-based Solutions, associate professor at Delft University of Technology and jury member of the EO-Wijers prize.

According to van Oosten, the design approach revolves around the interplay between design, science and policy. De Jonge obtained her PhD in 2009 with her dissertation ‘Landscape between Politics and Science‘. Van Oosten believes that this landscape ‘is still highly relevant.’ In her dissertation, De Jonge explains the distinction between design, political thought and action, as well as scientific thought and action. In De Jonge’s words, ‘I discovered that design’s actually a thought process (a movement in thought, as it were) between creative imagination — which will surprise no one — and the question of whether what you’ve imagined is better than what’s already there. You have to determine whether it’s a good proposition. And you have to do this not just once, but many times, until you can say to yourself: “This is good enough.” ‘ De Jonge calls this process the ‘design dialogue’.

Discussing dilemmas

Van den Berk graduated from the Academy of Architecture in the Netherlands with the agenda-setting design: Doggersland, nursery of the North Sea. She attempted to design the optimal wind farm from the perspective of marine life and the intrinsic values ​​of that landscape, or rather, seascape. She followed up the project by participating in a tender with Ambassade van de Noorzee (Embassy of the North Sea). As van de Berk explains, ‘We wanted to show what a fair wind farm looks like. However, during the tendering process, it became clear that the dilemmas that are inextricably linked to the energy transition were simply not being discussed and were nowhere to be found in the tenders. So that became our goal, to ensure that these dilemmas made it to the desks of the people who deal with them.

‘We simply don’t know what the effects of filling up the North Sea will be,’ says van den Berk, ‘and even though there are things we know we don’t know, we’re not investing enough in the research to find out. That’s why our plea was: “Stop, take a pause.” Take care that the research is synchronised with the implementation of this task, so that you can gradually learn from it and understand the consequences of your design.’ Van Oosten further clarifies, ‘Meaning, ensure that not only scientific knowledge is applied, but that ethical decisions are made collectively and thoughtfully. Make certain that your considerations are clear and transparent as there’s always some kind of damage that must be weighed against the entire context.’

Linking crises

An audience member asked about the attention paid to the long-term effects of the climate crisis because, as the person said, the attention is often focused on the short-term issues. In Van Wesenbeeck’s view, ‘I really think that we should link all of these different crises together. I always say that we could very well destroy ourselves in our quest to be completely carbon-neutral and bio-based if we fail to address the biodiversity crisis. It’s not either or, they’re not different things. You really have to view it as a whole. If you don’t do that, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.’

Van Wesenbeeck, who has a background in ecology, works extensively on water safety and water climate adaptation. ‘I see all kinds of projects under the beautiful flag of planting trees for which they end up destroying entire ecosystems and regional water cycles. All you can do is advise people to get the experts involved before they start doing things like that. The people who have the necessary knowledge of these systems.’

The power of community

Schoenmaker, from the collective Cascoland, illustrates how to take action in his work in the Amsterdam district of Van Deysselbuurt (Tegenlicht episode ‘Maak ‘t Simpel’) and the Lab&Kitchen initiative. Schoenmaker comments, ‘At one point, as designers, we were approached by WUR (Wageningen University & Research) and the University of Mexico to use our designs to forge a bridge between science and society with various communities.’ 

‘What we can do, as designers, is develop a language between the different sources of knowledge through the power of imagination and our own creative faculties. On one hand, you have the scientific knowledge about the disappearance of our rainforests due, in part, to our food systems. On the other, you have the direct knowledge of the people who live there.’ Cascoland created a kitchen table for scientists, creatives, farmers and local communities to cook together. ‘The kitchen table is a metaphor for the way that all of our families communicate around the table. We combine scientific knowledge with farmers’ deep practical knowledge, in particular to share the “farmers’ know-how” with scientists. This leads to the understanding that these two parties actually have the same goal; to wit, improving an environment.’ 

The ability to get a move on

Returning to Ten Dolle’s question. As De Jonge points out, ‘I think we’re still terribly stuck on the idea that the world’s engineerable. We think that there’s a single big solution for a major task. We’re not asking fundamental questions about, for example, ownership or feasibility. To Gido’s question, who would like designers to advise on the right direction, I don’t have an answer. I do know that I can’t do it alone and that I’ll only succeed if I move in the right direction, step by step, guided by a moral compass and in dialogue with science and with the people who have a wealth of practical knowledge. What I want is a government that makes it possible to get a move on. A government that says: ‘Let’s work together to find the right direction’. But this also means that we have to let go of many of our certainties, and that’s frightening. After all, we cannot move from A to B using the rules from A.’

Bursting bubbles

According to De Jonge, ‘All sorts of studies show that when 20% of people see, want and do things differently, you’ve reached the social tipping point.’ Matthijs Schouten, special professor of ecology and philosophy of nature restoration at WUR and a Buddhist teacher, observed during a lecture that De Jonge attended the day before: ‘Studies show that we’ve actually already exceeded that 20%.’ As Schouten notes ‘That 20% is divided into bubbles whose whole is greater the sum of its parts. Only, these bubbles don’t know how to find each other. So, let’s try to burst our own bubbles!’