The Evolving Theme of Health-Promoting Urban Form: Applying the Macrolot Concept for Easy Access to Open Public Green Spaces

Abstract

Making cities health-promoting places is an evolving theme. Numerous studies confirm the health-promoting qualities of contact with nature and problems resulting from the deprivation of access to public green spaces. Easy access to safe and inclusive public green spaces is still one of the long-lasting problems of urbanized areas around the globe. It is one of the sustainable development goals, SDGs, proposed by the UN: 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Point 11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities. The major question is how to implement this goal in practice and design cities to provide easy access to safe and inclusive public green spaces. One of the important concepts for sustainable urban development is the urban block, Macrolot, coined by Christian de Portzamparc, which led to the new urban morphology of eco-neighborhoods in France. It combines the traditional, walkable urban grid with the Le Corbusier vision for a healthy modernist city offering daylight, fresh air, and greenery for everyone. Among the advantages of this particular urban morphology are the increased presence of green spaces and possibilities for placemaking. Studying the effects of the urban form of the Macrolot is of great significance for sustainable urban development. In this study, five neighborhoods—three eco-neighborhoods from France designed according to the open urban block, Macrolot urban morphology, ZAC Massena, ZAC Trapeze, and ZAC Clichy-Batignolles, and two award-winning developments from Poland, Riverview and Ostoja Wilanów—were chosen as case studies. The application of the Macrolot concept to sustainable urban planning and design and the possibilities for operationalization of the SDG—11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable—are discussed. This study offers valuable evidence to inform urban planning and design.

1. Introduction

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—an urgent call for action by all countries [1]. SDG 11 stipulates “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”. Among the points of this goal are two that are closely related to urban design:

11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons, and persons with disabilities.

11.7.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age, and persons with disabilities.

Thus, universal and easy access to safe and inclusive open public green spaces is crucial in all neighborhoods. Safe and inclusive open public green spaces are understood as everyday places that unite the qualities of therapeutic landscapes to influence people’s physical, mental, and spiritual healing [2]. They are open and welcoming to everyone, including people with special needs [3]. Inclusive open public green spaces are designed according to the principles of universal design: Equitable Use, Flexibility in Use, Simple and Intuitive Use, Perceptible Information, Tolerance for Error, Low Physical Effort, and Appropriate Size and Space for Approach and Use [4].

For all stakeholders, the most interesting is the practical approach. The major focus of this study is how to implement this goal in practice in urban planning and design. Are there examples of good practices that can serve as guidelines for urban planning and renewal? There is a gap in research evidence, therefore, this study was undertaken.

The history of urban planning encompasses various attempts to create a health-promoting urban design [5]. The historic old towns were built to satisfy all dwellers’ needs within walking distance. However, numerous factors influenced that urban tissue over time, e.g., changes in the town planning paradigm, economic pressures, and modern living standards. Today, modern eco-neighborhoods are implementing the current state of knowledge [6,7,8]. The concept of the open urban block, coined by Christian de Portzamparc, led to the creation of a new urban block, Macrolot, characterized by the increased presence of green spaces, direct sunlight, and fresh air [9,10,11,12]. The concept of Macrolot was successfully utilized in the last twenty years in various operations of urban renewal in France, e.g., ZAC (Joint Development Zone) Paris Rive Gauche, ZAC Seguin-Rives de Seine à Boulogne, ZAC Paris Clichy-Batignolles, ZAC Ginko Bordeaux, ZAC Docks de Saint-Ouen, ZAC Lyon Confluences, ZAC Jackques Coeur-Port Marianne Montpelier, etc. [10]. The research question was the following: does the concept of Macrolot facilitate the creation of easy access to safe and inclusive open public green spaces in France and other countries?

To answer this question in this study, five modern neighborhoods: three eco-neighborhoods from France, ZAC Massena, ZAC Trapeze, and ZAC Clichy-Batignolles, and two award-winning developments from Poland, Riverview and Ostoja Wilanów, were chosen as examples of the implementation of the open urban block (

Table 1. Basic information about selected neighborhoods. Source: Author.

	Location	Area	Specificity
ZAC Massena [13,14,15]	Paris Rive Gauche [F]	130 ha	brownfield, abandoned industrial area
ZAC Clichy-Batignolles [16,17,18,19,20]	Paris [F]	54 ha	brownfield, abandoned industrial area
ZAC Trapeze [21,22]	Boulogne-Billancourt [F]	74 ha	brownfield, abandoned industrial area
Riverview [23,24]	Gdańsk [PL]	3.8 ha	brownfield
Ostoja Wilanów [25]	Warsaw [PL]	17.4 ha	greenfield

). The focus is on urban morphology and the concept of the open urban block coined by Chrisitan de Portzamparc.

Open Urban Block: Macrolot

Christian de Portzamparc established the theory of III phases of urban development: City of Age I, city of Age II, and city of Age III [11,12].

City of Age I represents the historic urban form with streets, plazas, and urban blocks. The hierarchy of public and private spaces is clearly defined. The emphasis is on the space between buildings [12].

City of Age II is a functional city constructed according to the Athens Charter [26,27,28]. The city is organized around the volumes and blocks, not around the human being. The old structures are being replaced all at the same time, and there is neither space nor time for organic growth. The individual inhabitants are losing control over the space and time [12,26,27,28].

City of Age III is a new approach. The city is not seeking homogeneity but rather promotes diversity, architectural and functional variety, and individual treatment of each place. Portzamparc’s theory (1994) was based on Le Corbusier’s ideas; however, it differs concerning the most unecological and unhuman concepts of a city destined to become a well-functioning machine. City of Age III is a place where the relations between human beings and the environment are the most important [9,10,11,12].

The concept of city of Age III, coined by Christian de Portzamparc, led to the creation of a new urban form—an open urban block characterized by the increased presence of green spaces and diversified architectural features (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).

The first “open block” was implemented in the design of Hautes Formes in 1975 [29].

Back in the 1990s, Christian de Portzamparc proposed an urban block with various heights and a fragmented perimeter. His urban blocks were more sculptured. They are the next generation of urban planning, a joining point between the historic city and the XIX century Haussmann block, modern city, and open planning (Figure 1) [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,29]. This type of urban block is connected more with architectural design than public space design. Portzamparc is using the world: l’île architecturale (architectural island) [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,29].

One of the noticeable characteristics of open blocks is the architectural variety. There are no long, uniform repetitious forms of blocks of flats. All buildings vary in height, width, material, and shape. Each building may be designed by a different architect. Each of the blocks is coordinated and developed by a different construction firm.

The diversity encompasses mixed-use and various social groups of users and inhabitants. Important amenities, e.g., parking spaces, facilities, and open green spaces are also shared, therefore it is possible to create larger public parks inside the open block. There are open blocks that are constructed around a centrally located park or garden, e.g., Clichy-Batignolles and le Trapeze.

The concept was turned into Macrolot, which unites a few project managers to build one urban complex with various functions and uses, sometimes designed by numerous architects [9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Macrolot represents the return of traditional town planning with urban blocks. The concept of the open urban block is related to sustainable urban form and the compact city [30,31,32,33]. That concept facilitates the implementation of public parks in dense urban tissues.

2. Materials and Methods

The methods included the literature studies, content analysis, and comparative analysis.

The literature studies encompassed data sources research. The content analysis involved deriving conclusions based on specific characteristics and extracting arguments and examples from recorded sources to support observations. Sources of existing data were used to address specific research problems [34]. The comparative analysis included a comparison of architectural and urban plans, projects, and data from completed neighborhoods.

The field study visits focused on the comparison of data derived from available sources with on site situations, and assessment using the Author’s tool—UNIVERSAL STANDARD FOR HEALTH-PROMOTING PLACES (

Table A1. Universal standard for health-promoting places. Source [20].

Universal Standard for Health-Promoting Places
Universal Standard for Therapeutic Parks
1. Universal Design	2. Park’s Functional Program	3. Organization of Space and Functions	4. Placemaking	5. Sustainability	6. Access to Park
1.1. Place Area Location Surrounding urban pattern 1.2. Environmental characteristics Soil quality Water quality Air quality Noise level Biodiversity Forms of nature protection 1.3. Universal accessibility (addressing needs of people with disabilities) 1.4. Access to park Distance to potential users Public transport stops Walkways to park	2.1. Psychological and physical regeneration Natural landscapes Green open space Place to rest in the sun and in the shade Place to rest in silence and solitude Possibility to observe other people Possibility to observe animals 2.2. Social contact enhancement Organization of events inside the park Gathering place for groups 2.3. Physical activity promotion Sports infrastructure Recreational infrastructure Community gardens 2.4. Catering for basic needs Safety and security (presence of guards, cleanness, maintenance, etc.) Places to sit and relax in quiet Shelter Restrooms Drinking water Food (possibility to buy food in the park or close vicinities)	3.1. The park spatial composition follows the surrounding urban pattern 3.2. Architectural variety of urban environment Focal points and landmarks Structure of interiors and connections Long vistas (Extent) Pathways with views Invisible fragments of the scene (Vista engaging the imagination) Mystery, fascination Framed views Human scale 3.3. Optimal level of complexity 3.4. Natural surfaces 3.5. Engaging features Risk/Peril Movement 3.6. Presence of water 3.7. Sensory stimuli design Sensory stimuli: sight Sensory stimuli: hearing Sensory stimuli: smell Sensory stimuli: touch Sensory stimuli: taste Sensory path	4.1. Works of art 4.2. Monuments in the park 4.3. Historic places Culture and connection to the past 4.4. Thematic gardens 4.5. Personalization 4.6. Animation of place 4.7. Community engagement Personalizing the architectural process Participation of all stakeholders, including inhabitants and users Determining the rules of conduct and self-management Space for social contact -third places -fourth places	5.1. Green infrastructure 5.2. Parks of Second (New) Generation 5.3. Biodiversity protection Part of park not available to visitors Native plants Native animals Natural maintenance methods 5.4. Sustainable water management Rainwater infiltration Irrigation with non-potable water 5.5. Urban metabolism 5.6. Ecological energy sources	6.1. Sidewalk infrastructure- Width of sidewalk Evenness of surface Lack of obstructions Slope Sufficient drainage 6.2. General conditions: Maintenance Overall aesthetics Street art Sufficient seating Perceived safety Buffering from traffic Street activities Vacant lots 6.3. Traffic Speed Volume Number and safety of crossings On-street parking 6.4. User experience Air quality Noise level Sufficient lighting Sunshine and shade Transparency of ground floors of building

, Appendix A).

The Author’s original method was used to assess the qualities of open public green spaces in selected neighborhoods. This standard was developed using the triangulation of research evidence and field studies [6,8,35,36]. It facilitates the assessment of attributes of therapeutic parks and access to the parks (Appendix A). It can be used as an audit tool to determine the potential health-promoting qualities of urban places. This standard can be used to evaluate existing parks as well as a design tool to make improvements in open public green areas (Appendix A and Appendix B). The method of assessment was described in detail in the example of Rahway River Park [35] and three parks in Pomerania Regon [36].

Selected examples of the implementation of the open urban block Macrolot are ZAC Massena, ZAC Trapeze, and ZAC Clichy-Batignolles. All of the studied neighborhoods in France were designed according to Macrolot’s idea (Figure 1 and Figure 2) [13,14,15,16]. The Polish examples bear some resemblance to the Macrolots (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Thus, the interior courtyards of both selected Polish neighborhoods are connected to form open green spaces, carefully designed and decorated with modern art pieces. Some similarities were obvious when comparing selected examples from Poland and France. Both Riverview and Ostoja Wilanów resemble the concept of a Macrolot. Both have openings and active frontages along the streets and shared open green spaces.

2.1. Christian de Portzamparc: ZAC (Joint Development Zone) Rive Gauche: ZAC MASSENA, PARIS

This eco-neighborhood was designed by Christian de Portzamparc and landscape architect Thierry Huau. The project “Seine rive gauche” started in 1991, developed by SEMAPA Christian de Portzamparc planned commercial spaces and services along the streets and residential units inside the “îlots ouverts” open islands of Macrolots [13,14,15]. ZAC Paris Rive Gauche is a living example of his theory turned into practice. The site encompasses a strip of land 2.7 km long, with an area of 130 ha. Numerous revitalized ancient industrial buildings are enhancing architectural variety. The same can be said of functional and social variety. Half of the 4000 apartments are social housing [13,14,15]. The project included a comprehensive urban design with specifications of rules for urban blocks, built-up volumes, traced routes, and public gardens.

In the center of the development, there is a public park with a surface of 11.2 ha [13,14,15]; moreover, each group of houses has access to an interior garden that can be private or form part of a public green corridor running along the district.

2.2. ZAC CLICHY-BATIGNOLLES, Architect–Urbanist François Grether, Landscape Architect Jacquelin Osty

This eco-neighborhood was planned as a showcase model of a sustainable district. The city of Paris had an ambition to organize the Olympic Games in 2008 and the ZAC Clichy-Batignolles was planned to become the Olympic Village. Eventually, the Olympic Games were organized by China but the idea to promote sustainability in new urban renewal project was kept. The functional and architectural diversity was promoted, and each of the open blocks was designed by a different architectural office. The project Clichy-Batignolles is divided into three sectors:

• ZAC Cardinet Chalabre (7.6 ha);
• ZAC Clichy-Batignolles (43.2 ha);
• Urban island Saussure (3 ha), which is located on the opposite side of the railroad.

Only 12% of the district area is dedicated to driveways accessible to motorized vehicles [23,24,25,26]. Public transportation is given a priority. The new metro line no 14 and tramway lines were lengthened to the eco-neighborhood. The new public transport stops were constructed inside or close to the new district. To give priority to public transport the car parking areas were reduced. Therefore the basic parking indicators are as follows:

• 1 parking space per 100 m² of apartment space;
• 0.33 of 1 parking space per 100 m² of office space;
• 0.28 of parking space per 100 m² of commercial space.

The eco-neighborhood was planned to accommodate 7500 new inhabitants, 12,700 employees, and 5000 visitors to the new Palais of Justice, commercial, educational, and cultural centers and services located within the new district daily. Half of all the new apartments, 3400, were planned to become social housing, 20% were apartments with regulated rent, and only 30% were available to potential buyers [16,17,18,19,20].

The master plan was designed by a team led by architect–urbanist François Grether, landscape architect Jacquelin Osty, and the agency responsible for sustainable solutions—OGI. The project encompasses 54 hectares at the former SNCF rail yard in the north of the Batignolles neighborhood (Paris’ 17th district) [16,17,18,19,20]. It was designed according to the Macrolot concept by Christian de Portzamparc. Each Macrolot could be built with approx. 10,000–30,000 m² SHON [16,17,18,19,20].

This idea facilitated the creation of one of the largest public parks, Martin Luther King Park, which spans over 10 hectares in the center of the new district (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The park is the heart of the new development. All of the pedestrian routes are leading to the park and are crossing the park. The design facilitates everyday contact with nature in a safe and inclusive open public green space.

2.3. Patric Chavannes. ZAC TRAPEZE, BOULOGNE-BILLANCOURT

This eco-neighborhood exemplifies the idea of Macrolot (Figure 6). It was designed by architect–urbanist Patrick Chavannes and a team of specialists in various fields. The construction started in January 2012 and was scheduled to be finished in 2023 [21].

The vast area of the former Renault factory is 74 ha, including ZAC Trapèze, ZAC Pont de Sèvres, l’île Seguin, and separate blocks. The Macrolots have various sizes (200–400 long and 150–200 in depth). Each Macrolot can be developed with volumes up to 30,000 and 50,000 m² SHON (area without net built area) and is divided into plots with multifunctional development [21,22]. This eco-neighborhood is characterized by a social, functional, and architectural variety [21,22].

Access to open green spaces was secured with a centrally located public park of 7 ha. The private interior gardens are located inside open blocks. There are green corridors along pedestrian paths and motor vehicle routes. The public green spaces are open and inclusive, safe, and well-maintained.

The examples from Poland are also interesting. Both of the selected developments have received many awards and can be treated as examples of good and innovative practices. Riverview is the first residential development in Poland that received LEED Gold certification.

2.4. APA Wojciechowski Architekci, RIVERVIEW, GDAŃSK

The Riverview complex of seven buildings, located next to the Granary Island in Gdańsk, was completed in 2020. This location offers easy access to the city center. The development encompasses an area of 3.8 hectares [23,24]. It was designed to seamlessly fit into the neighborhood and the city skyline. The character of the project alludes to surrounding historical buildings and Hanseatic architecture; however, the aim was to create a modern and timeless development. The complex was developed by Vastint.

The complex has many openings facing the river and a compact frontage from the street. The urban design facilitates access to safe, open, and inclusive public green spaces.

The complex includes space for offices, retail units, and open green spaces. Riverview’s shared space was created in collaboration with the students of the Academy of Fine Arts in Gdańsk, who designed and produced the elements of street furniture. The architects and designers took a modern approach by using minimalistic details and ensuring high-quality workmanship.

2.5. Kuryłowicz and Associates, Ostoja Wilanów, Warsaw

This large neighborhood of 17.4 ha with 33 buildings was developed in phases from 2005 to 2017. Ostoja Wilanów is a development located on the outskirts of the new neighborhood of Wilanów. A total of 45% of the land is developed as green areas [25]. Inside the development is 2 hectares of a green corridor—a linear park was developed around a retention pond with a stream, bridges, benches, and pedestrian paths. A gated private forest park is also a part of the investment. There are a few playgrounds. Public space and public plazas in front of the local church were designed with care for details. There are numerous local services and a kindergarten located inside the neighborhood. Ostoja Wilanów was awarded a prize for being sound, with principles of sustainable development. This development offers a safe and inclusive open public green space on top of private gardens and parks for the inhabitants.

3. Results and Discussion

This research demonstrates how operationalization of SDG 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable in urban planning and design is present in eco-neighborhood development. Chrisitan de Portzamparc created the concept of Macrolot based on la ville de l’Age III, which unites the qualities of traditional urban blocks with modernist suggestions for a healthy city. The viability of the Macrolot concept was confirmed, which offers a compact urban form and facilitates sustainability. It could be used for eco-neighborhood design not only in France but also in other countries.

The concept of Macrolot proved to be useful in securing space for local urban parks in densely inhabited urban neighborhoods (Figure 2 and Figure 7).

3.1. Health-Promoting Urban Places: Public Parks and Gardens

This study included an assessment of the health-promoting qualities of public parks in selected neighborhoods. The Author’s original method—the universal standard for health-promoting places (Table A1, Appendix A)—was used to assess the qualities of open public green spaces in selected neighborhoods. In this study, a simplified rough assessment method was used to compare the overall health-promoting qualities of open public green areas in selected neighborhoods: ZAC Massena, ZAC Trapeze, ZAC Clichy-Batignolles in France; and Riverview and Ostoja Wilanów in Poland (Appendix B). The binary assessment method was used for the evaluation of comparable attributes: 0—not present, 1—present. The results of this study are presented in

Table A2. The rough assessment of open green public spaces in selected neighborhoods.

The Universal Standard for Health-Promoting Places	Selected Neighborhoods
	1. ZAC Massena	2. ZAC Trapeze	3. ZAC Clichy-Batignolles	4. Riverview	5. Ostoja Wilanów
1. Universal design
1.1. Place
Area, approximately	130 ha/ Jardin Grands Moulins Abbé Pierre 1.2 ha	74 ha/ Parc de Billancourt—7 ha	54 ha/ Parc Martin Luther King—10 ha	3.8 ha/ Interior gardens	17.4 ha/ Linear Park—2 ha
Location	Paris	Paris	Paris	Gdańsk	Warsaw
Surrounding urban pattern	dense urban tissue	dense urban tissue	dense urban tissue	dense urban tissue	loose urban tissue, forest
1.2. Environmental characteristics
Soil quality	brownfield	brownfield	brownfield	brownfield	Unbuilt green peri-urban space
Water quality		good	good	good	good
Air quality	good [40]	good [40]	good [40]	good [41]	good [42]
Biodiversity	Local species were observed	Local species were observed	Local species were observed	Local species were observed	Local species were observed
Forms of nature protection	Yes—fragment of park is closed to visitors	Yes—fragment of park is closed to visitors	Yes—fragment of park is closed to visitors	No	No
1.3. Universal accessibility
	accessible	accessible	accessible	partially accessible, steep slope	accessible
1.4. Access to park
Distance to potential users	less than 500 m	less than 500 m	less than 500 m	less than 500 m	less than 500 m
Public transport stops	less than 500 m	less than 500 m	less than 500 m	less than 500 m	less than 500 m
Walkways to park	multiple	multiple	multiple	multiple	multiple
2. Park’s functional program
2.1. Psychological and physical regeneration
Natural landscapes	0	0	1	0	0
Green open space	1	1	1	1	1
Place to rest in the sun and in the shade	1	1	1	1	1
Place to rest in silence and solitude	1	1	1	1	1
Possibility to observe other people	1	1	1	1	1
Possibility to observe animals	1	1	1	1	1
2.2. Social contacts enhancement
Organization of events inside the park	1	1	1	1	1
Gathering place for groups	1	1	1	1	1
2.3. Physical activity promotion
Sports and recreational infrastructure	1	0	1	1	1
Community gardens	1	1	1	0	0
2.4. Catering for basic needs
Safety and security	1	1	1	1	1
Places to sit and relax in quiet	1	1	1	1	1
Shelter	1	1	1	0	1
Restrooms	1	1	1	0	0
Drinking water	1	1	1	0	0
Food	1	1	1	0	0
3. Organisation of space and functions
3.1. The park spatial composition follows the surrounding urban pattern
	1	1	1	1	1
3.2. Architectural variety of urban environment
	1	1	1	1	1
Focal points and landmarks	1	1	1	1	1
Structure of interiors and connections	1	1	1	1	1
Long vistas (Extent)	1	1	1	1	1
Pathways with views	1	1	1	1	1
Invisible fragments of the scene (Vista engaging the imagination)	1	1	1	1	1
Mystery, fascination	1	1	1	1	1
Framed views	1	1	1	1	1
Human scale	1	1	1	1	1
3.3. Optimal level of complexity
	1	1	1	1	1
3.4. Natural surfaces
	1	1	1	1	1
3.5. Engaging features
Risk/Peril	1	1	1	1	1
Movement	1	1	1	1	1
3.6. Presence of water
	1	1	1	0	1
3.7. Sensory stimuli design
Sensory stimuli: sight	1	1	1	1	1
Sensory stimuli: hearing	1	1	1	1	1
Sensory stimuli: smell	1	1	1	1	1
Sensory stimuli: touch	1	1	1	1	1
Sensory stimuli: taste	1	1	1	0	0
Sensory path	0	0	0	0	0
4. Placemaking
4.1. Works of art
	1	1	1	1	1
4.2. Monuments in the park
	1	1	1	1	1
4.3. Historic places
Culture and connection to the past	1	1	1	1	1
4.4. Thematic gardens
	1	1	1	1	1
4.5. Personalization
	1	1	1	0	0
4.6. Animation of place
	1	1	1	1	1
4.7. Community engagement
	1	1	1	1	1
Personalizing the architectural process	1	1	1	1	1
Participation of all stakeholders, including inhabitants and users	1	1	1	0	0
Determining the rules of conduct and self-management	1	1	1	1	1
Space for social contact	1	1	1	1	1
-third places	1	1	1	1	1
-fourth places	1	1	1	1	1
5. Pursuit of sustainable development
5.1. Green infrastructure
	1	1	1	1	1
5.2. Parks of second (new) generation
	1	1	1	1	1
5.3. Biodiversity protection
	1	1	1	1	1
Part of park not available to visitors	1	1	1	0	1
Native plants	1	1	1	1	1
Native animals	1	1	1	1	1
Natural maintenance methods	1	1	1	1	1
5.4. Sustainable water management
Rainwater infiltration	1	1	1	1	1
Irrigation with non-potable water	Data n/a	Data n/a	Data n/a	Data n/a	Data n/a
Park in a flood-risk zone	no	yes	no	no	no
5.5. Urban metabolism
	1	1	1	1	1
5.6.Ecological energy sources
	Data n/a	Data n/a	Data n/a	Data n/a	Data n/a
Total	57	56	58	47	50

, Appendix B.

This study demonstrated some divergences and discrepancies as well as fields for possible improvement. The largest park, Martin Luther King, received the highest score, followed by Jardins Abbee Pierre and Parc de Billancourt.

However, the order of scores did not match the order of sizes of the parks. It is easier to provide all sorts of park interiors, infrastructure, and equipment in larger parks over 10 ha. What was surprising was the small park Jardins Abbe Pierre [13,14] and interior gardens in Riverview [23,24] received a relatively large number of points. It proves that even pocket parks can promote the health and well-being of local inhabitants, even though they could neither compete nor replace larger parks (

Table 2. Comparison of open green areas within selected neighborhoods.

	Total Area	Public Park	Public Park/Total Area Ratio	Open Green Public Courtyards	Private Park/Garden
ZAC Massena [13,14]	130 ha	Jardins Abbee Pierre— 1.2 ha	0.01		Some individual lots are fenced
ZAC Clichy-Batignolles [16,17,18,19,20]	54 ha	Parc Martin Luther King—10 ha	0.19		Some individual lots are fenced
ZAC Trapeze [21,22]	74 ha	Parc de Billancourt 7 ha	0.09		Some individual lots are fenced
Riverview [23,24]	3.8 ha	Public riverfront of Motława, pedestrian path along the banks	Access to green and blue city infrastructure	Open interior gardens
Ostoja Wilanów [25]	17.4 ha	Linear Park—2 ha	0.11	Open interior gardens	Private, fenced park accessible to inhabitants only

).

3.2. Placemaking

According to Project for Public Spaces [37], placemaking inspires people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community (…) and results in the creation of quality public spaces that contribute to people’s health, happiness, and well-being. The studied neighborhoods offered quality public spaces. How was it achieved?

The process of neighborhood development was different in France and Poland. The French ÉcoQuartiers were constructed by the local government that engaged with private stakeholders and developers. In Poland, the neighborhoods were developed by private companies. In France, the grassroots level of the user is taken into consideration early in the design process and down-up management and public participation in decision-making is encouraged. In Poland, this process of public participation is still under development.

However, the public spaces of all selected neighborhoods have similar aesthetic qualities. There is a close relationship between the quality and accessibility of public spaces and urban forms of open blocks. The selected neighborhoods offer attractive public spaces that can be called third [38] and fourth places [39]. Moreover, the neighborhoods’ locations facilitated accessible walking distance to places that can fulfill the role of third places in all studied cases [37,38,39].

Modern research confirms the human need for a stimulating environment, full of engaging details [4,5]. However, it is difficult to design architectural variety without falling into the trap of overstimulating cacophony. Architectural variety requires not only multiple architectural practices but also a leading architect, or a supervising board who coordinates design, materials, and color schemes.

The architectural variety is much more pronounced in France than it is in Poland. It seems that the public demand for architectural variety is much more articulated in France. To avoid cacophony, the eco-neighborhoods are designed according to master plans, which come with precise color and material schemes. Their execution is coordinated by leading architects and urbanists, usually the author of the master plan. Large-scale developments are controlled by a board of supervising specialists. In selected neighborhoods, each of the blocks or even individual buildings was designed by a different architectural practice. The majority of work was commissioned only to the winners of architectural compositions.

The examples from Poland also demonstrate some architectural variety. The Riverview complex has diversified street frontage and the Ostoja Wilanów was designed in various phases.

Functional variety was present in all selected developments. Functional variety and walkability promote active living and physical activity. The examples from France demonstrate a higher percentage of mixed-use urban tissue than those from Poland. That might be a result of location. ZAC Massena and ZAC Clichy-Batignolles are located in Paris and ZAC Trapeze forms a central part of the new large district. The Riverview and Ostoja Wilanów in Poland rely on the functional variety of their surroundings and function as residential neighborhoods with only the most basic services (Figure 4).

It is worth noting that the criteria for safety assessment are prone to be subjective. Many cases exist where areas with good accessibility and close proximity deteriorate into high-crime zones due to neglect or lack of management. Placemaking motivates place attachment and inspires people to look after open public green spaces.

4. Conclusions

The application of the Macrolot concept to urban planning and design offers possibilities to implement the SDG: 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. The concept of Macrolot proved to be useful in securing space for inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable local urban parks in densely inhabited urban neighborhoods. The public parks created within five neighborhoods observed in this study were assessed as health-promoting everyday spaces with the Author’s assessment tool—UNIVERSAL STANDARD FOR HEALTH-PROMOTING URBAN PLACES. Moreover, this study demonstrated that even pocket parks can promote the health and well-being of local inhabitants, even though they could neither compete nor replace larger parks. Their assessment with the universal standard demonstrated satisfactory results. The concept of the Macrolot coined by Christian de Portzamparc can be recommended for urban planning and design.

The results may serve as a ground for further discussion about the future of health-promoting urban design in Central and Eastern Europe but also due to the geographical and cultural similarities of other countries in Europe. The limitations of this study to this geographic area may provoke possible development of this research. Similar studies may be implemented in other parts of the world to verify the health-promoting potential of urban design of eco-neighborhoods based on Macrolot morphology in other climate zones.