Infrastructure as base structure
Infrastructure qua base structure underlies or serves the superstructure. Superstructure must take into account the load-bearing capacity of the base and must not exceed it. Base structure is hierarchical like a tree. The roots of a tree keep exchanging matter and information with the environment, while the canopy has to be able to carry both foliage and snow loads. The functioning of the tree root system is supported by soil biota and networks intertwined with the roots, such as mycorrhizae. The canopy functions by transforming sunlight into chemical energy. The variety of connections and dependencies gives rise to sustainable and resilient bio- diversity, whereas simplifying it makes life vulnerable.
The base structure of human settlement is landscape. Landscape likewise consists of natural and man-made networks and elements, which together give it its unique substance and appear- ance.1 Cultural landscape is the reflection of culture within the landscape,2 for better or for worse. The visible image of landscape, however, does not always enable to grasp the functioning of the whole and the roles of parts and participants.
It is not superfluous to ask whether humans connect their infrastructure with nature in the way of foliage, blooms, apple ermines or bark beetles. Compared to natural networks, engineered and mostly single-purpose infrastructure is mono-functional and aggressively demanding of space. Depending on the purpose of the infrastructure, connecting with natural networks can range from interaction to exploitation, competition and exclusion. This comes down to spatial design decisions.
Infrastructure as a system
Infrastructure is a system whose character depends on its purpose. We distinguish between social infrastructure and technical infrastructure, which also includes transportation infra- structure. In the field of economy, technical infrastructure is also called production infra- structure, which ensures the functioning and development of the economy. One of the main causes of current crises is the systemically narrow nature of technical infrastructure.
A technical system is a self-contained phenomenon in a purpose-defined environment that transmits or processes matter, energy or information. In a socio-technical system, the technology is supplemented by human participants, a social subsystem. Given such a model, the environment still lies outside of the system, giving it inputs and receiving outputs. The next level is a socio-eco-technical system that uses ecological technologies and state-of-the-art knowledge to encompass also the environment, i.e., the landscape space. All these systems shape cultural landscapes both in urban and rural areas.
The quality of spatial design depends on the competencies of built environment designers and coordinated co-creation over an extended period. Although in the 20th century, transcending limits with the help of developing technology went from illusion to reality, our current ambitions of coping with sustainable development goals, environmental issues, and climate change have made us once again reach for socio-eco-technical systems. In these systems, new technologies are closely tied to the old and forgotten ones that adhered to ecological principles by relying on community knowledge.
The socio-eco-technical system of human settlement is situated within landscape in the form of cell-like units on and between networks that provide it with metabolism, mobility and natural resources.3 The historical development of settlement shaped infrastructure according to conditions set by landscape. Today, there are efforts to find value in such an approach once again. In redesigning settlement units, it is necessary to systematically adapt social, technical as well as ecological networks to ensure the functioning and logic of them. This needs to be done both in growing and shrinking settlements. In the latter case, it is inevitable, albeit extra difficult, as there are less and less resources for keeping the excessive system in place as well as for adapting it.4
Green infrastructure
In order to offset construction- and production-related use of space and technical infrastructure, there is a vital need for green infrastructure networks. The first ecological compensation areas were devised in Estonia already in the 1970s, and green zones around urban areas began to be planned. European environment ministers agreed in 1995 to create a pan-European ecological network by 2005. Nature is not something found only in primeval forests or something that stops as you cross the city border. A city intertwined with nature is a varied and biodiverse habitat. Greenery accompanies us even in dense city centres. The European green infrastructure strategy (2013)5 aims to preserve or create a coherent system of functioning green areas and facilities. Further aims, such as preventing the decrease of biodiversity and increasing the proportion of green spaces integrated with urban buildings and infrastructure, are specified in the regulation on nature restoration (2024).6
Green infrastructure can offer various nature-related benefits, acting simultaneously as a flexible preserver of biodiversity, facilitator of climate change adaptation, enricher of living environment, improver of health, and booster of economy.7 Green infrastructure also encompasses blue networks, thus shaping ecosystems both on land and in water.8 Greenery that supports biodiversity as well as diverse habitats and ways of life has to be available both in the city and in the countryside.9 Urban densification is not an end in itself; the functioning of green infrastructure imposes place-specific limits on it.10
Green infrastructure needs to be in place at macro, meso, as well as micro level.11 The macro level of spatial planning is the national level, meso level is the municipality, while the micro level of healthy living environment consists in the immediate surroundings of the place of residence or work and landscaped street space.12 In Estonia, the national-level green network is specified in national planning and county planning,13 which are supplemented by municipal planning that details how the green network and land use cohere. For high-quality spatial design, it is particularly important to specify the local and nearby green network, and give substance to the design conditions.14,15
Spatial infrastructure
Space is a finite resource. Human behaviour in industrial consumer society is, on the other hand, first and foremost pragmatically interest-centric. For technical infrastructure the tendency, therefore, is to occupy as much space as possible and to thoroughly change its nature through construction. Buildings lie within landscape space; but even the space between the buildings is mostly constructed.
The landscape space that binds together the living environment and infrastructure is continuous, extending to outdoor areas between buildings, streets and green areas. In the hierarchy of spatial parts, space functions via cognitive and semantic transitions. Public space is the back- bone of landscape infrastructure, based on which placemaking can shape the rest of spatial logic.16 After public space come semi-public, then semi-private, then private and intimate parts of space. Big is distinguished from small, landscape from place. Natural, semi-natural and artificial space come to the fore. Spatial sequences create a cultural and communal perceptual space—a sense of belonging—that helps one to situate oneself in space, move around in it, and use it in a sustainable way.17 According to the basic principle of safe living environment design, spatial logic guides our behaviour and interactions more than written rules or signage.
Regardless of growing technical capacities there is a lack of knowledge, skill and will in structuring the landscape space, especially in creating mobility infrastructure and green infrastructure. Building, creating technical infrastructure, maintaining and using it all too often occurs at the expense of biodiversity. The key to high-quality spatial design is held by the design team of the built environment, whose competencies, explanations, inclusion and co-creation will bear visible fruit only after decades of continuous activity.
ANDRES LEVALD is a landscape architect-planner and architect, chairman of the accreditation board of the Estonian Association of Architects. He is also active as an educator, among other things in several Estonian higher education institutions.
HEADER photo by Roland Reemaa
PUBLISHED: MAJA 3-2024 (117) with main topic INFRASTRUCTURE
1 Maastik: loodus ja kultuur. Maastikukäsitlusi Eestis [Landscape: Nature and Culture. Estonian Approaches to Landscape], eds. Hannes Palang and Helen Sooväli (Tartu: TÜ Geograafia Instituut, 2001).
2 This builds on an idea by Jaan Eilart (1976). See Andres Levald, ‘Maastikuväärtused – kokkulepe läbi planeeringute’, Postimees, 7 October 2015.
3 Robin Renner, Urban Being: Anatomy & Identity of the City (Niggli, 2017).
4 See: www.planeerimine.ee.
5 European Commission, ‘Green Infrastructure (GI)— Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital’ (2013).
6 ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration’ (2022).
7 Tom Bergevoet and Maarten van Tuijl, The Flexible City: Solutions for a Circular and Climate Adaptive Europe (nai010 publishers, 2023).
8 Baukulturbericht 2024/25: Infrastrukturen (Aumüller Druck GmbH & Co. KG, 2024).
9 Andres Levald, ‘Linnahaljastuse planeerimisest’ [‘On Planning Urban Greenery’], Linnade haljastud ja nende kaitse (Teaduste Akadeemia kirjastus, 2001), pp. 24–32
10 Géraud Bonhomme et al., Should I stay or should I go? Urban sprawl, density, and a new planning agenda for Europe (perspective.brussels, 2024)
11 Viktor Masing, ‘Linnahaljastus ökoloogi vaatekohast’ [‘Urban Landscaping from an Ecologist’s Point of View’], Eesti Loodus 1 (1984): pp. 2–9, and 2 (1984): pp. 66–74.
12 Peter Plum et al., Orientierungswerte für öffentliches Grün (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2024).
13 See: Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, ‘Üleriigiline planeering’ [‘National Planning’], www.agri.ee.
14 See: ‘Nõuandeid üldplaneeringu koostamiseks’ [‘Advice on Drawing Up a General Plan’], www.planeerimine.ee.
15 Environment Agency, Rohevõrgustik: Üldplaneeringute analüüs ja planeerimissoovitused [Green Network: Analysis of General Plans and Planning Recommendations] (2023).
16 See: Jan Gehl and Birgitte Svarre, Kuidas uurida elu avalikus ruumis [How to Study Public Life] (Yoko Oma, 2023).
17 Andres Levald, ‘Linna infrastruktuur’ [‘Urban Infrastructure’], ‘Maakasutuse ja transpordi integreeritud planeerimine’ [‘Integrated Planning of Land Use and Transportation’] and ‘Ruumiline planeerimine’ [‘Spatial Planning’], course materials for MA students (2009 et seq.).
