Los espacios públicos adquieren gran importancia como lugares de encuentro e integración de los habitantes, como articuladores de la vida social. Entre ellos, los parques de barrio definen un nivel doméstico en el sistema de espacios públicos, y se caracterizan por su elevado grado de uso y su proximidad al lugar de residencia. El estudio de estos espacios en la ciudad de Valencia evidencia que, la mayor parte de ellos, se sitúa en los barrios de periferia consolidada lo que permite avanzar puntos en común en los procesos de consolidación morfológica con otras ciudades españolas. En el momento actual los ciclos de desarrollo urbano justifican la necesidad de dirigir la mirada hacia la ciudad consolidada y el espacio público partiendo de la escala humana. Desde esta óptica, los parques de barrio se conforman como espacios de oportunidad, pues manifiestan en muchos casos obsolescencia funcional y física, que conviene repensar para el indudable beneficio del confort ambiental de los usuarios y, en conjunto, de la ciudad.PALABRAS CLAVE: espacio público; parques de barrio; periferia urbana consolidada; regeneración urbana; uso social del espacio; calidad ambiental.Public spaces acquire great importance as places of encounter and integration of the inhabitants, as articulators of social life. Among them, neighborhood parks determine a domestic level in the system of public spaces; and they are characterized by their high degree of use and their proximity to the place of residence. The study of these spaces in the city of Valencia shows that, most of them, are located in the neighborhoods of consolidated urban periphery. That allows to deal successfully with common points in the processes of morphological consolidation with other Spanish cities. At the present time the cycles of urban development need to look forward to the consolidated city and the public space starting from the human scale. From this perspective, neighborhood parks represent areas of opportunity, since they show physical and functional obsolescence in many cases. Then, there is a need for rethinking of them for the obvious benefits of the residents’ environmental comfort and, by all means, for the benefits of the entire city.KEYWORDS: public green; neighbourhood parks; consolidated urban periphery; urban regeneration; social use of space; environmental quality.

ABSTRACT:Do we need urban planning? For a better future, for a better territorial integration, for attending collective demands? New York is at the other side of the usual answer. Manhattan is an example of the versatility of a single pattern, drawn on a paper over a territory with very different features. When it comes to reality, it uniforms it, and fills it with progressive, unattended and renewed demands, with no more plan than the one that is demanded by an efficient economic system. Its urban plan (?) has just attended, quickly, private demands, giving flexibility to ground uses and GFAs, with no more worries than its functionality. As the only stable issue, as simple and clear as possible, has been the link between urban space and territory through a universal but fixed pattern.It allows free deals between developers and authority, respecting very few regulations, to enable changes, constructions, knocking offs and rehabilitations far from the European style urban plans. Which is its future in a democratic and free society? A government based constantly and with transparency on assemblies, not in a Plan, that can assure equal treatments and fair deals of the initiatives towards the community? Some of the proposals accepted in Manhattan, where the urban shape at its simplest stage of a horizontal pattern unchanged in its 200 years of existence, show us the success and failures of this system. Adapted from the beginning to a traded world, it has no bad urban nor social conscience. This frame match perfectly the precapitalism of its founders with the demands of a contemporary globalized society. The orthodox answer is placed on the administration, and has been increasingly broad: to attend to its future and plan its orderly urban development, to achieve a better territorial integration, and also to approach the collective needs of its population and, in a more social way, to answer the basic needs of those that do not have the means. A different, more recent answer, that comes from the strengthening of the market society and private initiatives, puts aside the administration, relegating it to a subsidiary role as a law guarantor.

No abstract

El artículo trata de poner a prueba el método mediante el cual somos capaces de afrontar problemas urbanos y territoriales, en una primera fase, utilizando como herramienta fundamental el proyecto de arquitectura. Dicho método requiere  una lectura formal y funcional muy sintética del objeto (ciudad, parte de ella, territorio…), capaz de identificar algunos de los desequilibrios cuya corrección es necesaria para potenciar los valores del objeto en cuestión. Igualmente es necesario identificar y delimitar las áreas de proyecto arquitectura y la elaboración de los programas de acción a acometer de forma coordinada. Por último, la parte propositiva requiere la realización de proyectos de arquitectura que con sus propuestas sean capaces de producir un material consistente en planos acotados, mediante el recurso clásico al sistema diédrico de representación en plantas, alzados y secciones, así como maquetas e imágenes virtuales. El material así producido deberá servir de base a la participación de los actores en las decisiones de política urbanística, permitiendo acciones de mayor envergadura y calidad urbana y arquitectónica. Se presenta Guasave, como estudio de caso recientemente realizado.

Palabras clave: aprendizaje servicio, aprendizaje basado en proyectos, participación ciudadana, regeneración urbana, proyecto multidisciplinar.