In search of the free-zone. A way to explore.

For a while now, the notions of use and appropriation, in spatial theory and practice, have been getting plenty of attention. Although this does not imply that the social production of space is a recent phenomenon, it is certainly true that the last decade has seen an enormous rise in the awareness of the capacity of urban design to produce a meaningful stage-set for various social groups . The discourse around the use and the appropriation of the public domain is often associated with certain forms of indeterminacy in the design of spaces. Research on different degrees of freedom in using and appropriating space has built a varied vocabulary of examples in the design practice. For instance the TU Delft campus offers some areas for students called “free-zones”. Their description contains a paradox between what is meant as “freedom” and the explicit restrictions in their use: “Free-zones are designated areas on campus with electricity, running water and drainage that are free for you to use between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. for various outdoor activities. For instance, you may find it more enjoyable to study or work outside. Or why not try holding a meeting or project presentation outdoors? Do you need an outdoor area to do research? Another option. The free-zones come in three different sizes, from small to large. You will always find an area appropriate for what you want to do” . In a reality such as the Netherlands that has been considered one of the most planned and designed countries in the world (Dutt), it seems normal to define as “free-zone” a space in which the different functions are spatially defined and the appropriations are limited and controlled in time. Nevertheless in a recent conference in Lausanne , the landscape architect Adriaan Geuze, using some of the experience of his youth as a pretext, has described with nostalgia the possibility of freedom offered by the Dutch landscape. For example, the coastal dunes or the marshy land in the south of Dordrecht are depicted as a “playground for grown up men” in which all type of activities could take place. Through this narration Geuze highlighted how today these areas, not accessible anymore and controlled by rangers that protect the ‘wild’ landscape, have been fenced off and transformed into a sort of enclaves. The spirit of nostalgia for the wild “playground for grown up men”, which shines trough Geuze’s narration, carries a few questions on the role of these spaces in the contemporary territory: What are the qualities of these spaces compared with the programmed ones? What is their role in urban dynamics? Are they still present in the over-structured and fully programmed Dutch landscape?