The consequences of climate change for humans and animals, for nature and culture, for biodiversity and human (co)existence are immense. Scientists agree that climate change is the result of human activity, in particular due to nitrogen emissions. The construction industry contributes significantly to this – according to estimates, construction is responsible for no less than 37% of total emissions worldwide. It is therefore evident that we need to build differently. In recent years, the industry has therefore made every effort to develop sustainable building materials (less concrete, more wood), a more sustainable construction chain (electrification of equipment, reduction of transport), and waste reduction (circular and adaptable construction). However valuable this approach may be, it is not enough if we continue to build as we have been building, the same homes, sports facilities, roads, parks, agricultural landscapes, and so on (only then technically more sustainable). Fundamental change is needed. To shape and initiate that change, we must learn to think, act and design differently with regard to society, the economy and politics. It is precisely from this perspective that we can see the need to build differently (not only technically, but also structurally, spatially and in terms of processes) as an opportunity to rethink the construction chain and redefine the design of the world for people, animals and society. The Climate, Space and Politics research group aims to contribute to this from its own field of expertise, with its own expertise on the spatial dimension of the world and its design and development.

The research can be summarized in the following two questions:

• How can spatial design contribute to the necessary transition of the (un)built environment at these three scales?
• And how can spatial designers – architects, urban planners and landscape architects – help residents and users to take and bear responsibility themselves, so that they can respond to the urgent challenge posed by climate change?

The common definition of public space refers to ‘providing space for public life’. This definition immediately makes it clear that it is not just about the necessary infrastructure that allows people to move from A to B, from home to work, and from school to the sports club. Public space is also a destination in itself – for a stroll, to meet someone, or just to be outside. This public life also has a political dimension: public space is often seen as the space where you can meet the proverbial ‘other’, where there is interaction with those who think differently, where there is an exchange of ideas, a necessary building block of social debate and thus also of a vital democracy. It is clear that this image of public life is not only connected to the physical space of streets, squares or parks, but also to (public) institutions such as the media, museums and debate centers. The rise of digital technologies, the internet, and social media has had a fundamental impact on this public space, both on concrete public life and on social debate. This calls for a revision of the vision of what ‘public space’ and ‘being public’ mean today, particularly in the context of (the design of) physical space. How are digital and physical space intertwined, and what does this mean for the inclusivity and diversity of public life? This question is central to the Hybrid Public Spaces research project. The research began with an exploratory graphic and digital ethnographic study of the intertwining of physical and digital space by Hedwig van der Linden and Kevin Westerveld of the architectural firm Dérivè. This exploratory research paves the way for a broader research project on public life in hybrid spaces, the potential of spatial design and cultural practices in the context of further hybridization, and the necessary transition of (physical) public space in the context of climate change.

In collaboration with Naomi Bueno de Mesquita. Read more about the Social Justice and Diversity in the Arts.