Just one week, seven days. A brief and limited span of time that is almost irrelevant to the usual processes of urban regeneration. Just seven days are enough to change how a space is perceived, how it is used, and how people interact with it. Sometimes, it is enough for a space to stop being just a space and start being recognised as a place.
This involves the precise and coherent implementation of hybrid, non-codified structures that oscillate between small-scale architecture and furnishings. These removable and reusable elements are integrated into open spaces in a coordinated and systematic manner. These installations can multiply the uses of spaces, transforming them into highly liveable places, thanks to a system of modular, flexible and interactive elements that can be freely reconfigured and manipulated to adapt to different needs and circumstances, thus amplifying the space’s role as a generator of public life.
Urban regeneration coincides not only with the physical transformation of a space, but also with its re-semantisation, with the possibility that a place may once again be traversed, inhabited, shared, and contended.
The small scale of the action, linked to the self-construction operational methods, seems to contradict the intensity of the produced effects. These are powerful, generative practices consisting of a few high-impact actions. But what kind of impact? On what? And, not least, to what extent?
These are questions that can only be answered by one predicate: to evaluate, that means to make value judgements about a given situation or process, focusing on the dimensions in which the consequences of the transformation are relevant to the process itself.
Evaluation is a function of the purpose of the evaluation itself, which must be distinguished from the motivation. Both elements influence the value judgement, but while the motivation indicates its general direction, the purpose defines its specific direction. For example, the evaluation of the urban environment may be prompted by the recognition of the potential of a forgotten, abandoned, underutilised and underestimated space for revitalisation through improved liveability. This is the motivation for the evaluation.
However, the structure of the process will be determined by the purpose that guides its operations. In this case, the objective is to enhance the effectiveness of the mentioned practices, maximise their potential for revitalising the area and improving urban quality, and facilitate their integration into public space regeneration and generation programmes.
This necessitates a two-phase approach. Before the construction activity begins, the assessment aims to support the conception and design of the intervention in relation to the regeneration dimensions, i.e. the attributes considered valuable. During this initial assessment phase, it is useful to identify and understand the relationships of various actors with places, as they have different intentions regarding the use of public spaces. It is important to recognise and interpret their needs and desires, as well as any conflicts in current and potential social practices relating to the use of space, in order to identify places and their potential. The knowledge acquired through these assessment practices is part of the design process, providing useful information on the current situation and guiding potential regeneration strategies that promote urban vitality.
In a post-action phase, following the self-construction activity, the evaluation aims to assess the effectiveness of the regeneration intervention in terms of satisfaction and, above all, changes in the participants’ perceptions and relationships with the spaces involved, as evidenced by the evolution of use practices and care of these places.
Finally, the structuring of evaluation practices and the overall observation of the transformative process can provide useful information regarding the scalability and replicability of self-construction practices in generative architecture. In light of the distinctive features of the intervention, we can identify and evaluate 'construction' in three possible senses. Firstly, construction can refer to the system of physical architectural elements that comprise the modular, flexible, manipulable and interactive installations built. The second sense concerns construction as a process: the involvement of participants in co-design and, above all, the direct production of physical structures. Finally, the third sense concerns the construction of relationships. New relationships are established between the agents and the sites of intervention and between those who inhabit, live in and use the spaces that emerge following the intervention. Ultimately, it is these relationships that remain and establish social practices for using the spaces after the intervention has been completed.
So how can we observe and assess the transformations that often persist not in the built objects themselves, but in the relationships they enable?
Such transformations require evaluation tools that can capture not only changes to the shape of the space, but also changes to the conditions of habitability that it enables.
The observed effects can be classified according to two logics. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, on the one hand we can recognise material transformations, such as the concrete alteration of practices of use and enjoyment of space, whilst on the other hand it is possible to detect immaterial effects concerning, for example, the perception of places. Secondly, a distinction can be made based on temporality. Some effects are immediately detectable, while others occur at a later stage following the transformation of the space.
With regard to the material aspects of transformation, the environment provides individuals with opportunities for action that depend on the relationship between the physical characteristics of the space and the abilities of those moving through it. The concept of affordance, discussed in the literature since the mid-twentieth century, clarifies this. It enables us to interpret open spaces as more than just physical configurations; they are also sets of effective possibilities. This emphasises the importance of the relationship between the body and the environment, the place where latent potential actions are realised. This relationship exists when there is compatibility between the properties of the object (the environment) and the characteristics of the subject (the person). For instance, a bench offers the possibility of sitting down. This position, made possible by the bench's form and the person's characteristics, enables various activities. It can allow for prolonged rest, for example, by providing support for reading in an individual context or facilitating observation of the surrounding space in an interactive way. It can also allow for more informal postures, such as lying. The seats therefore encourage people to use the public space, giving them the opportunity to stay for a while. Furthermore, arranging several elements in a configuration that encourages interaction, such as facing the seats towards each other or around a shared space, extends the possibilities offered beyond individual use to the creation of conditions for social interaction. This facilitates encounters and spontaneous meetings, turning the simple act of being in the space into a collective, relational experience. This introduces a social dimension of affordance, whereby the characteristics of the environment allow several individuals to interact with it and with one another simultaneously. The focus is not merely on what an individual can do within the space, but on what becomes feasible for a group of people.
Space becomes empowering in the sense that it empowers people, setting them free to choose different forms of fulfilment. This empowerment consists of creating real, accessible opportunities. The quality of public space is therefore related, on the one hand, to its ability to facilitate various uses, times and forms of presence, and, on the other hand, to its ability to include a variety of active participants, each with a different profile, who are free to choose different practices according to their preferences.
In this sense, Jane Jacobs’ reflections on urban vitality are particularly relevant. A vibrant city is not a rigidly ordered or functionally optimised space, but rather an environment capable of sustaining a dense network of relationships and everyday practices.
These physical effects are relatively easy to observe. By using behavioural mapping techniques, we can record the flow of people, how long they spend in a space, their body posture, their level of activity and the social configurations that emerge in public spaces. By rigorously and systematically observing how spaces are used, we can understand how certain configurations encourage or discourage specific activities. The distribution of rest areas, movement speed and the presence of groups or spontaneous activities indicate a place’s capability to support various individual and collective activities, moving beyond a purely declarative interpretation of urban space. In fact, people's stated intentions do not always align with their actual behaviour in a given space. Furthermore, objects are not necessarily used for their intended purpose. Usage practices often exceed designers' intentions, leading to spontaneous reinterpretations and unexpected ways of using the space.
On the other hand, the intangible effects of urban transformation emerge through various interconnected dimensions: a sense of belonging, place attachment, willingness to care for the place, perceptions of environmental quality, and intentions regarding space use. In this context, environmental psychology studies take on particular significance, demonstrating that the relationship between people and the urban environment is emotional, cognitive, symbolic and not merely functional. Places become integrated into people's daily routines, memories and collective representations, contributing to the construction of individual and collective identity. Direct participation in co-design and construction processes intensifies these dynamics further, promoting forms of identification and engagement that go beyond technical construction aspects.
Among the tools designed to capture these intangible dimensions, questionnaires enable the assessment and measurement of perceptions, feelings and constructs that would otherwise be unobservable, such as place attachment, intentions to care for a place and a sense of belonging, using a quantitative approach.
However, quantitative analysis of the collected data is insufficient to interpret the complexity of the relationships that develop between people and their environment. For this reason, qualitative methods play a complementary and, therefore, indispensable role. Focus groups, structured interviews and other listening practices enable shared representations, memories, needs, expectations, conflicts and forms of identification with the place to emerge through dialogue. These aspects would be difficult to reduce to simple quantification. Urban space is thus interpreted as a social and symbolic construction of values, as well as a material one.
In addition to classification based on material effects, it is also possible to classify them based on temporality. While some aspects are immediately observable following the reconfiguration of space, others only become apparent over time as they are the expression of longer and more complex processes. Over time, delayed effects begin to emerge which are difficult to interpret outside a process-oriented framework. Certain spaces gradually become perceived as more accessible, welcoming or safe. Practices of ownership and care that were previously absent begin to emerge. The ways in which people relate to the place and to one another change. Conditions of proximity encourage unexpected encounters, thus facilitating the development of forms of social recognition.
In short, places that are marginal, residual or underused can gradually take on new meanings through the intensification of the relationships and activities they support.
The temporality of these effects then becomes central. Some transformations are immediate and reversible, while others emerge slowly through processes in which practices and perceptions become established.
The physical duration of the intervention does not necessarily coincide with the temporal scale of its impact. Often, it is not so much the built structure that persists, but rather the relationship established with the place, the collective memory of the experience, or the now-recognised possibility of using that space in different ways.
The process of self-construction also plays a direct role in producing these effects. Construction is not just about the resulting structure; it also involves the development of relationships and the development of a collective practice. Direct participation in designing and constructing the structures promotes engagement, identification and appropriation. The transformed space is not merely utilised, but progressively recognised as part of a shared experience.
The temporal structure of the process, as well as the dual material and immaterial nature of its effects, requires the use of different, complementary evaluation tools. Designing and applying these tools using both quantitative and qualitative approaches helps to reduce the risk of interpreting public space in a way that is either partial or purely performance-based. This allows us to address the epistemological need to observe phenomena that take place simultaneously at multiple levels. In isolation, no single evaluation tool is sufficient to describe the complexity of urban transformation.
Standardising these tools also allows us to make longitudinal comparisons between situations before and after the intervention, revealing certain transformations that would otherwise remain hidden.
The effectiveness of this evaluation framework was tested as part of the self-build project carried out at the Nucleo Sacripanti in the Is Mirrionis district of Cagliari. For this project, an evaluation protocol incorporating the approaches and tools mentioned above was drawn up and implemented. The results revealed significant effects in the observed dimensions. In terms of behavioural patterns, observation before and after the intervention revealed an increase in the number of people using the space, as well as a change in how it is used, with people staying longer and socialising more. The space was transformed from a place of transit into a place for resting and socialising.
At the same time, the tools designed to capture perceptual and relational dimensions revealed significant changes in the psychological constructs under investigation. A greater sense of place and stronger forms of identification and belonging emerged. The place was generally perceived more positively and was no longer considered marginal or residual, having acquired new meanings through the practices and relationships that developed there.
Despite being based on a single case study, these findings not only demonstrate the effectiveness of the evaluation protocol in identifying changes affecting both the physical and non-physical dimensions of public space, but also offer valuable insights into extending its application and replicability.
From this perspective, evaluation is an integral component of the transformation process, not a final, separate phase. It supports urban regeneration through continuous observation, guiding design choices and rendering the material and immaterial effects produced in public spaces interpretable.