Life-Centered City: Interspecies Spaces in Contemporary Resilient City Design—The Case of Gliwice

Abstract

The subject of this research is the original project concept of the life-centered city, which focuses on the planning and design of sustainable solutions for urban landscape transformation. This concept prioritizes the well-being and needs of all life on Earth, including not only humans but also animals and their natural habitats. The aim of this article is to propose ways to implement the life-centered city concept into the strategic development policies of cities and identify sustainable urban landscape solutions that foster the creation of interspecies spaces. The research employs a comparative analysis of selected European cities, neighborhoods, and urban microspaces that are progressively adapting to climate change, addressing the needs of various users, and prioritizing the development of interspecies spaces. A detailed study focuses on the Polish city of Gliwice, which serves as a pilot example of applying the life-centered city model to local landscapes. Our findings suggest that the life-centered city concept, when effectively integrated into city development strategies and implemented within the urban fabric, can act as a proactive tool for transforming urban landscapes to better accommodate both people and nature. It supports the creation of a sustainable built environment that is inclusive, resilient, and adaptable to change.

1. Introduction

1.1. Outlining the Context of the Problem and the Research Objective

In recent years, a global crisis has been observed, driven by rapid population growth, population aging, urbanization, and international migration. The world population is projected to reach ca. 10.3 billion people by the mid-2080s, a significant increase compared to 8.2 billion in 2024 [1]. Research indicates that 55% of the global population currently lives in urban areas, a percentage that is expected to increase to 68% by 2050. Additionally, the number of megacities and areas with urbanization rates approaching 100% is continuously increasing [2]. An important environmental issue is the phenomenon of mass extinction of numerous species of plants, animals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and arthropods, referred to as the sixth mass extinction [3]. According to a United Nations (UN) report on urbanization, it is likely that up to 40% of insect species could become extinct, leading to disrupted food chains and impaired or even destroyed ecosystem processes [4]. Studies indicate that over the past 27 years, the biomass of insects in areas under any form of protection has decreased by more than 75%, suggesting that the biomass in areas not under protection decreased even more substantially [5]. The UN report on the global state of biodiversity highlights that over the past 50 years, 82% of the biomass of wild mammals, 50% of amphibians, nearly 30% of coral species within coral reefs, and more than 33% of marine mammals have disappeared from Earth [6]. The consequences of species extinction, urbanization, city sprawl, and the encroachment of natural areas by humans, combined with the pressing need to address contemporary urban challenges such as sustainable development, climate change adaptation, and biodiversity-focused design, underscore the growing necessity for landscape transformation and the development of new forms of cohabitation. These new forms must ensure comfortable living conditions for humans and other species.

The theme of shared urban landscape in architecture and urban planning, although not new [7,8,9], appears to be marginalized and often neglected in research and urban planning. However, the interaction between humans, animals, plants, and the urban environment is crucial to making cities and human settlements safe, conducive to social inclusion, resilient, and sustainable [10]. Consequently, research into the design and implementation of various forms of space in urban landscapes, aimed at habitat protection and diversification, providing living conditions for animals, and enhancing human well-being, is becoming increasingly important. Urban spaces play a significant role in this process, where integration and shared use of space are based on the same terms for all species present, including humans. These spaces are defined as interspecies spaces [11]. These spaces most often emerge at the interface between areas created and used by humans and natural areas utilized by animals. A modern approach to designing interspecies spaces blurs these boundaries, promoting integration and equality among species. Interspecies spaces can be created through the design and adaptation of various urban landscapes, including unused urban spaces with no specific function, areas degraded by anthropogenic activity that have lost their primary function, as well as landscaped green spaces and public areas located within the dense urban fabric. The shaping of interspecies spaces can take the form of systemic actions as well as micro-interventions integrated into the existing urban fabric. Their implementation often involves augmenting infrastructure, assigning new functions to green areas, or creating multifunctional spaces [11]. Taking the above into account, the authors seek a model tool that actively adapts cities to civilizational challenges, creating a built environment that is tailored to the needs of all users, resilient, and responsive to change.

The subject of this research is the original design concept of a life-centered city, which focuses on the planning and design of sustainable solutions for urban landscape transformation. This concept prioritizes the well-being and needs of all life on Earth, including not only humans but also animals and their natural habitats. The aim of this article is to propose ways to implement the life-centered city concept into the strategic development policies of cities and identify sustainable urban landscape solutions that foster the creation of interspecies spaces.

Although the described challenges manifest with particular intensity in countries of the Global South, where rapid urbanization and environmental degradation often coincide with limited access to resources, they are deeply interconnected with the urban dynamics of the Global North. The effects of urban sprawl, biodiversity loss, and climate change transcend borders, influencing global ecosystems and human settlements alike. A holistic perspective on cities as interconnected, living systems is, therefore, essential. Understanding urban environments as nodes within a shared planetary network allows for more equitable and resilient planning approaches that take into account both local specificities and global responsibilities.

1.2. State of Research

The creation of interspecies spaces in city landscapes and the adaptation of urban areas according to the needs of non-human species are crucial for exploring ways to develop a built environment that is resilient and adaptable to change [12]. This issue becomes fundamental to planning and designing holistic solutions that create sustainable cities, neighborhoods, and living spaces, prioritizing all living beings—humans, animals, and plants. The creation of interspecies spaces is a crucial action that supports the resilience of cities to climate change, aligning with Europe’s climate policy goals. Key connections arise from European documents such as the New Urban Agenda (United Nations General Assembly, 2016) [13], Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2018) [14], European Green Deal (2019) [15], and Cities 4 Biodiversity (C4B, 2021) [16]. These documents address, among other issues, sustainable urban planning, increased energy efficiency, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions (New Urban Agenda); achieving climate neutrality, promoting a circular economy, and efficient resource use (European Green Deal, 2019); as well as integrating biodiversity protection and inclusion in urban planning (C4B, 2021). These goals are closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goals 11 and 13, which call for making cities and communities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable and for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (SDGs, United Nations, 2015) [10]. Creating interspecies spaces in cities is one of the ways to achieve these objectives.

The discourse on improving urban resilience and adapting cities to the needs of all users is often associated with urban concepts that address contemporary civilizational challenges. Among the significant concepts are the Zoopolis model and the life-centered design framework—two fundamental design and research concepts related to the integration of non-human species into urban life. The term Zoopolis, developed by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka (2011) [17], initially referred to their theory of animal rights, which proposed categorizing animals into groups and granting them varying degrees of citizenship rights. Over time, the understanding of the concept of Zoopolis evolved into the concept of a shared city, called Zoopolia, designed for both humans and animals, as well as for the broader concept of nature [18,19]. The concept of Zoopolis has become the basis for numerous studies conducted in various European countries [20,21,22]. In recent years, the concept of Zoopolis has been popularized in Poland by the publication ZOEpolis. Building a Human-Non-Human Community, edited by M. Gurowska, M. Rosińska, and A. Szydłowska (2020) [18]. In this work, the authors analyze how social changes, as well as philosophical, ethical, and practical issues concerning the perception of animals as sentient beings, influence the design and functioning of contemporary cities [18]. An important publication is Justyna Kleszcz’s The Idea of Zoopolis in Contemporary Architectural Dimension from 2018. The research presented in this work focuses on adapting the existing urban structures to the needs of a growing population and exploring alternative solutions for newly created structures. Kleszcz notes that maintaining a connection between humans and nature requires integrating nature into the city structure in a way that promotes the integration of urban spaces with nature, renaturalization, and the preservation of biodiversity [23].

Another significant concept is life-centered design, which focuses on creating solutions that prioritize the well-being and needs of all life on Earth. This concept, developed in 2019, serves as an alternative to the human-centered design approach established in 1958 [24]. Human-centered design traditionally concentrates on human needs and requirements [25]. On the contrary, life-centered design does not focus on the end user of the solution but rather on how the design impacts nature and the natural environment [24]. As Jeroen Spoelstra explains, “Life-Centered Design is a design philosophy and approach that goes beyond human needs and puts all life at the center of our creations. LCD advocates for biological ecosystems and non-user communities that have never had a voice in the design process. The long-term goal is to restore natural ecosystems by creating new relationships between nature and society [24].” Design should focus on the entire lifecycle of a product, including the processes of production, distribution, use, and disposal. Consequently, the high quality and durability of the designed elements are crucial [26,27].

The concepts of Zoopolis and life-centered design are also associated with numerous issues related to the broader natural environment. Researchers explore, among other topics, the impact of the Anthropocene on the environment [28,29], the shaping of green systems, the improvement of biodiversity [30], and the provision of ecosystem services [31]. A key focus of many studies is the adaptation of cities to contemporary urban challenges, which explains the popularity of research on increasing urban resilience through greening initiatives [32], utilizing urban nature for adapting public spaces to climate change [33], and implementing multifunctional urban solutions that serve various users [34]. The literature extensively describes the benefits of direct contact between city residents and nature [19,35,36,37], as well as the role of animals in human daily life [38] and their impact on quality of life [39]. Other publications focus on supplementary environmental benefits, as well as social and economic advantages [40,41]. The benefits associated with the presence of animals in cities are most often analyzed in terms of the reasons why animals are drawn to urban environments, such as access to food, availability of numerous shelters that are often lacking in nature, and the absence of large predators in cities [42,43]. In recent years, increasing numbers of researchers have highlighted the importance of animal presence in cities for creating balance and maintaining high-quality ecosystems in highly urbanized environments, which are the primary habitats for humans. This includes several dimensions: the presence of wild animals in urban areas [44], the impact of domestic animals on city residents [45,46], and the perspective of raising farm animals within urban settings [47]. Some research also addresses the dangers and risks associated with animal life in urban environments, such as the consequences of human activity, encounters with previously unknown predators, and disease threats [48,49]. Another group of issues focuses on the impact of animals and their needs on the design of contemporary urban spaces [11,50]. Researchers particularly emphasize the significance of urban parks and open public spaces, which provide various functions such as relaxation, recreation, sports, and social interactions [51]. In densely built neighborhoods where residents often lack access to private green spaces, parks become crucial areas for spending time in natural surroundings, including with animals [52,53].

In research on the conscious design of cities accessible to all users, it is crucial to analyze both the role of urban concepts and the strategic and planning policies implemented on various scales and contexts. These analyses enable the creation of environments that are favorable to all species, resilient to climate change, and sustainable [54,55,56]. This confirms that planning and designing cities that accommodate all species and address their needs is not only a critical response to current trends and patterns, but also an important step toward the development of a sustainable urban landscape.

Although the existing studies extensively examined the role of animals and biodiversity in cities, as well as the impact of nature-based solutions on urban resilience, there remains a significant gap in the integration of these findings into a comprehensive urban design framework that treats all species—human and non-human—as equal and active participants in the urban space. Previous research tends to focus either on strategic planning instruments or on isolated architectural or ecological interventions. The concept of the life-centered city presented in this article addresses this gap by proposing an integrated, multi-scalar approach that combines the ethical foundations of Zoopolis with the systemic perspective of life-centered design. This research offers a novel contribution by positioning interspecies coexistence not as an ancillary element of urban sustainability but as a core principle shaping spatial planning, urban policy, and design practices. The concept emphasizes the importance of designing cities as ecosystems shared by diverse life forms, where spatial solutions support biodiversity, improve ecosystem functionality, and enhance the quality of life for all inhabitants. By bridging the gap between theory and practice, this research provides a methodological framework that supports the implementation of interspecies spaces through scalable, context-sensitive interventions. In doing so, it advances the current discourse on urban resilience, going beyond mitigation and adaptation strategies to propose a transformative, life-centered model of urban development.

One outcome of the aforementioned research is the development of a new, original concept known as the life-centered city. This concept is derived from the integration of ideas and principles from the Zoopolis concept and life-centered design.

1.3. The Life-Centered City Concept

The principal aim of the life-centered city concept is to develop a model of urban space that addresses the needs of both humans and animals and integrates as much nature as possible into urban landscapes. This concept envisions the city as a shared living environment for people, animals, and plants and introduces various forms and functions of space tailored to each of these groups. The resulting spaces are characterized by interspecies integration, facilitating harmonious and conflict-free coexistence among all city inhabitants. In the life-centered city framework, the city is intended to be resilient, healthy, active, attractive, inclusive, communal, and flexible.

Three main tenets of the life-centered city concept:

• Creating interspecies spaces:

A fundamental principle of the life-centered city concept is the development of urban landscapes that provide shelter, services, or recreational areas for both humans and animals. This involves designing spaces to accommodate the needs of various human and non-human groups. Interspecies spaces are primarily established within managed green areas, such as parks, squares, green belts, orchards, vegetable gardens, and wildflower meadows.

2.

Adapting the city to climate change:

A key component of the life-centered city concept is the adaptation of urban spaces to climate change and the resulting anomalies and extreme weather events, such as heavy rains, floods, or dangerous heat waves. Therefore, it is crucial to implement systematic actions, including water management, urban green space management, and sustainable infrastructure development.

3.

Developing a green system:

To achieve the above objectives, the third critical element of the life-centered city concept is the development of a green system within the city. This system should improve biodiversity, create ecological corridors for animals, protect the existing resources, allow consistent and thoughtful expansion of urban green spaces, improve the attractiveness of urban environments, and enhance the quality of life for city residents.

The innovative nature of the life-centered city approach to urban landscape planning and design stems from its holistic view of the city as an ecosystem where humans, animals, and plants coexist. Traditional urban models have predominantly focused on human needs, often neglecting the fact that meeting basic human needs is impossible without a comprehensive and attentive consideration of the environment and other species, frequently overlooking the importance of nature and other living beings. The life-centered city concept integrates elements from various urban planning theories and models, creating a modern city model in which all forms of life can function together harmoniously.

One of the most innovative aspects of the life-centered city concept is the creation of interspecies spaces. In traditional urban planning, green spaces are often perceived merely as recreational areas for humans. In contrast, the life-centered city framework envisions parks, squares, gardens, and other green areas and public spaces designed with the diverse needs of both humans and animals in mind. Another novel element of this approach is the adaptation of cities to climate change through a systemic approach to water and urban green management. Traditional methods of water management in cities often rely on rapid stormwater drainage, which can lead to flooding and environmental degradation. The life-centered city concept advocates for sustainable practices that include features such as green roofs, rain gardens, and retention systems. These elements not only manage water, but also support biodiversity and create friendly urban environments. Adaptation to climate change is viewed here as an integral and crucial part of urban planning. The development of a coherent green infrastructure within the city is another distinctive characteristic of this concept. Traditional urban planning often overlooks the need for cohesive ecological networks. In the life-centered city model, green corridors connecting various urban areas are a priority, as they facilitate the free movement of animals and the spread of plants. Such ecological corridors not only enhance the safety and well-being of animals and biodiversity, but also improve the quality of life of residents by providing additional spaces for recreation and relaxation, as well as contributing to better air quality and microclimate conditions.

The concept of a life-centered city also promotes inclusivity and public participation in the planning and design processes. In traditional urban planning models, decisions about urban development are often made by a narrow group of experts and officials. On the contrary, the life-centered city framework actively involves residents, including various social groups, in the decision-making process. Their opinions and needs are considered at every stage of planning, leading to the creation of spaces that are more attuned to the actual needs of users.

The three core principles of the life-centered city concept—creating interspecies spaces, adapting the city to climate change, and developing a green system—are all inherently linked to the integrated development of blue–green infrastructure, understood as a connected network of natural and semi-natural areas (such as rivers, wetlands, parks, green roofs, and rain gardens), which provides a multifunctional ecological foundation for urban resilience. It not only supports biodiversity and ecological connectivity, but also manages stormwater, mitigates the effects of extreme weather events, and enhances human well-being. Interspecies spaces emerge within this network as habitats and shared spaces for human and non-human users, while systemic water management solutions (such as retention basins or swales) directly support climate adaptation goals. Likewise, the expansion and cohesion of urban greenery—whether in the form of corridors, meadows, or gardens—build the green backbone of the city.

The implementation of such integrated systems may require inclusive and participatory planning processes. Blue–green infrastructure planning is inherently interdisciplinary and cross-scalar, making it particularly dependent on collaboration between stakeholders, institutions, and local communities. In this context, public participation becomes not only a procedural requirement, but a strategic tool for developing locally adapted, socially accepted, and ecologically sound solutions. In many countries, such as those in the Nordic region, participatory planning is mandated by law and deeply embedded in the spatial governance culture. In Poland, recent amendments to the Spatial Planning and Development Act introduce new legally binding forms of public involvement in planning processes. These evolving mechanisms enable broader dialogue on urban priorities, offering an opportunity to co-create inclusive life-centered cities in alignment with both ecological and social goals.

2. Research Methods

To identify model solutions for creating interspecies spaces across various spatial scales, we employed research methods based on case studies and comparative analysis, as well as urban and design analyses conducted for a city undergoing pilot testing. Each of these methods was carefully selected to ensure a comprehensive understanding and solid theoretical and practical foundations for the proposed life-centered city concept. The research was carried out from October 2023 to May 2024.

The research is based on case studies in which we conducted a detailed analysis of selected examples of European cities, districts, and urban areas. For an objective and systematic comparison of the selected examples and an evaluation of their alignment with the assumptions studied, we applied appropriate selection criteria. The primary criterion for selecting examples was that the cities should have development and climate policies that include the progressive adaptation of urban areas to meet the needs of all human and non-human species. The examples were selected on the following criteria:

▪

Location: European city;

▪

Area: up to 150 km²;

▪

Policy and tools: the city must implement adaptive climate policies, consider various users in development and strategic policies, and have planning and strategic tools related to urban nature, adaptive policy, and quality of life;

▪

Actions: the city must be engaged in activities in at least two of the following areas, with visible effects in the urban landscape:

○

Blue–green infrastructure,

○

Nature-based solutions,

○

Enhancing biodiversity,

○

Improving ecosystems and microclimate,

○

Implementing interspecies spaces,

○

Introducing new types and forms of greenery.

The comparative analysis of the selected examples was conducted on three spatial scales: macro (cities), meso (districts), and micro (urban microspaces). For each scale, two examples were analyzed. Although none of the examples individually served as a model, their combined analysis allowed us to draw conclusions and identify exemplary actions.

At the macroscale, we selected Barcelona and Utrecht. Barcelona is a metropolis with a population of more than one million, while Utrecht has fewer than 400,000 residents. These cities differ significantly in terms of scale, geographical location, economic development, urban structure, and local conditions. These cities represent different approaches to developing strategies for growth and climate adaptation, resulting in actions that adapt urban spaces to climate change and integrate interspecies spaces into the urban fabric.

At the mesoscale, the examples are located in Copenhagen, specifically in the Østerbro and Ørestad districts. Although the cultural and environmental contexts, as well as the scale of the locations, are very similar, the examples differ in that Østerbro is a historic district characterized by typical low-rise residential buildings in Copenhagen, where actions have been adapted to the context, while Ørestad is a newly developed district where all actions were planned from the master planning stage.

To analyze actions at the microscale, we selected two distinct projects: the adaptation of the Gellerup residential area in Aarhus, Denmark, and the newly developed Strandeiland Het Oog nature park in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. These examples allowed us to examine the potential of site-specific actions in both natural and highly urbanized environments.

The next step of the research was a comparative analysis of the selected examples, which provided insight into how different cities address urban challenges and implement elements related to life-centered design. This comparison enabled us to draw conclusions about exemplary practices, which were then used as guidelines for recommended adaptive actions in the model concept of a life-centered city.

A crucial phase of the research involved conducting analyses for the Polish city of Gliwice, which was intended to serve as a pilot example for applying the life-centered city concept in strategic policy and urban planning. We performed urban analyses at the scale of the city of Gliwice, the selected district of Sikornik, and the central part of this district. This approach allowed for the adaptation of the general principles of the life-centered city concept to the specific conditions and needs of different urban areas.

As part of detailed urban analyses, we examined the natural environment, functional spatial structure, transportation infrastructure, public service accessibility, and environmental hazards. We also assessed the existing green spaces and evaluated opportunities for creating ecological corridors, new plantings, and connections between the existing areas. In the Sikornik district, we analyzed the structure of residential development, transportation infrastructure, as well as the quality and accessibility of public spaces and local services. We identified locations of animal presence and movement within the district, focusing on the key areas of their activity for the potential creation of interspecies spaces.

Complementing the spatial analyses was an assessment of the needs of all users of urban space. A significant part of the analysis also involved reviewing local documents that shape the vision of the city, strategic action directions, and the principles of urban space management. Data sources primarily included the Gliwice Adaptation Strategy 2040, the City of Gliwice Climate Change Adaptation Plan for 2030, the Study of Conditions and Directions of Development [57,58,59], and the Municipal Spatial Development Plans. The aim of this part of the research was to understand the city’s development and climate policies and gain insights into local conditions that influence the formulation of recommendations for strategic and urban planning actions, facilitating the implementation of the life-centered city concept across various spatial scales.

The final stage of the research involved providing recommendations for updating the Gliwice Adaptation Strategy 2040 and identifying planning directions for macro- and mesoscales, as well as designing sustainable solutions for the microscale.

3. Results

3.1. General Research—Case Studies

The aim of the conducted research was to identify exemplary and most frequently undertaken actions in the creation of interspecies spaces in cities. Identifying these actions is crucial for drawing conclusions that can inform strategic directions for urban development and climate policies aimed at implementing the life-centered city concept. For the case studies, we selected six European examples, representing three spatial scales: macro (cities), meso (districts), and micro (urban microspaces) (

Table 1. Overview of the selected European case studies across urban macro-, meso-, and microscales; prepared by P. Konsek.

	Macroscale		Mesoscale		Microscale
Location	Barcelona, Spain	Utrecht, the Netherlands	Østerbro district, Copenhagen, Denmark	Ørestad District, Copenhagen, Denmark	Gellerup housing estate, Aarhus, Denmark	Strandeiland Het Oog Nature Park, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Surface area	101.9 km2	99.21 km2	8.74 km2	3.1 km2	130.000 m2 (0.13 km2)	220.000 m2 (0.22 km2)
Number of inhabitants	1,620,000	350,000	79,000	Currently 5000, ultimately 20,000	11,000	Ultimately, 20,000 (the number of apartments to be built for that many people)
Project name	Barcelona Nature Plan	Utrecht 2040	Østerbro Klimakvarter	Ørestad	Gellerup New Nature Park by SLA	Strandeiland Het Oog by Delva Landscape Architects
The nature of the actions taken	Adaptation for climate change	Adaptation for climate change	Adaptation for climate change	District project	Adaptation, project of a park for a housing estate	Nature park project
Work start date	2021	2020	2014	2001	2014	2022

).

The comparative case study analysis was intentionally structured across three spatial scales: city, district, and microscale intervention. This multi-scalar approach enabled a comprehensive examination of how life-centered urban transformation processes are implemented at different levels of urban governance and design. Each scale reflects a different scope of planning and decision-making: the city scale addresses strategic adaptation policies and systemic implementation of blue–green infrastructure; the district scale focuses on neighborhood-scale regeneration and integrated ecological–social interventions; and the microscale captures site-specific or grassroots solutions that often serve as prototypes for broader application.

For each scale, two international case studies were selected to provide a comparative insight into diverse methods of operationalizing the life-centered city concept. The selection was based on consistent thematic criteria, including the presence of adaptation policies to climate change; the inclusion of multiple urban space users (including non-human species); the implementation of blue–green infrastructure and nature-based solutions; the support for biodiversity and creation of interspecies spaces. While the surface area criterion (up to 150 km²) was used as a reference to ensure comparable urban conditions in terms of planning and management capacity, it was not the sole determinant. Factors such as population size and the existing biodiversity levels were considered during the broader qualitative evaluation of candidate cities, although they were not treated as strict filters. The final selection prioritized the quality, coherence, and innovativeness of life-centered strategies over geographic proximity or environmental context. This approach aimed to identify transferable principles and adaptable practices, rather than replicate specific solutions in Gliwice’s inland and topographically varied setting.

In the analyzed examples, a diverse approach to adapting urban spaces to climate change can be observed, along with the identification of recurring patterns of actions related to the creation of interspecies spaces. Depending on the scale, some cities take a selective approach, focusing solely on blue–green infrastructure initiatives, while others adopt a more holistic approach, addressing actions that appear to be crucial for the safety, comfort, and quality of life of all city users, including non-human inhabitants.

Barcelona, Spain: The authorities of Barcelona aim for nature to play a key role in the future. To achieve this, they have developed a new urban model for the city—the Barcelona Nature Plan, which prioritizes the preservation of the existing natural areas and the creation of new ones, particularly in districts where the need is most acute. The Barcelona Nature Plan for 2030 envisions a city with functional and ecological green infrastructure integrated into the urban fabric. Access to green spaces will be equal for all residents of Barcelona, including non-human inhabitants. The plan also aims to introduce social and environmental services that will facilitate adaptation to climate change. Additionally, the plan emphasizes the protection of nature (especially habitats, biodiversity, and urban wildlife species) and views it as part of the Earth’s natural heritage [60,61].

Utrecht, the Netherlands: The city is intensively preparing for the future, aiming to create a healthy, livable, and work-friendly environment while being equipped to accommodate a steadily growing population. The city seeks to ensure quick and easy travel options, as well as diverse leisure opportunities. All of these goals must be achieved in harmony with nature, which is seen as a key factor in the quality of urban life. The city authorities also place significant emphasis on climate change adaptation, as the city is particularly vulnerable to negative impacts due to its low-lying location [62,63,64].

Østerbro Klimakvarter, Copenhagen, Denmark: The transformed district combines services for residents with the needs imposed by climate and nature. Urbanized areas are expected to provide attractive residential spaces along with a variety of services and social and commercial events that generate social activity. However, the needs of nature differ from those of human residents—nature requires tranquility, space, and irregularity. As part of the project, a system was developed to adapt the district and its individual public spaces—streets, squares, and parks—to climate change and the needs of both urban and natural environments. The foundation of the plan is a comprehensive and systematic approach to blue–green infrastructure. Special emphasis was placed on the stormwater management system: water collected from the district is stored, distributed, and reused within it [65,66].

Ørestad Klimakvarter, Copenhagen, Denmark: The newly designed urban district is located between the historic center of Copenhagen and the island of Amager, which houses a protected area of wild meadows and wetlands. The district was entirely developed in floodplains and marshlands, and its linear shape was dictated by the metro route and water management solutions. A key part of the project is the local drainage system, consisting of open channels, which, together with green spaces of various scales and sizes, form a blue–green infrastructure network. The district aims to become a thriving residential and business area, centered on new technologies, science, and services. At the same time, great emphasis has been placed on protecting and enhancing natural values, creating interspecies spaces, and actively engaging residents in these efforts [67,68].

Gellerup New Nature Park, Aarhus, Denmark: The main objective of the Gellerup estate adaptation was to transform it from an isolated, neglected residential area into a vibrant, climate-adapted, and green living space. A key aspect of this transformation was giving the district a more human and natural scale, along with better connectivity with the rest of the city. The design strategy focused on using nature to improve the residents’ quality of life, enhance the sense of community, catalyze social cohesion, and increase the area’s biodiversity. The ambition was to create a new understanding of the importance of living together—both with nature and with each other [69,70,71,72].

Strandeiland Het Oog, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Het Oog Park is intended to be a space for living, gatherings, and resident activities, but also a place for ecology, water systems, and diverse urban nature. Het Oog implements a varied water-related program, where the rigidly defined northern shoreline contrasts sharply with the fluid, shifting edge on the southern side. The primary goal of the space is to provide ecosystem services based on water quality, ecology, and recreation. The design incorporates a wide range of diverse recreational areas open to both nature and the city, active and tranquil, creating spaces for interaction with nature while protecting habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife [73,74].

The planned and implemented actions in the individual case studies allowed us to draw conclusions that led to the formulation of key actions for the life-centered city concept. These actions were presented on three scales, macro, meso, and micro, and were divided into categories of planning actions, water solutions, and nature-based solutions, as well as legal actions.

Macroscale: At the city level, planning and organizational actions are particularly important, focusing on creating sustainable and resilient urban infrastructure, supplementing green systems, and developing water management systems. The key actions include:

▪

Creation of new hubs (urban centers) in locations that relieve pressure on the city center, where multiple modes of transport intersect, offering potential for new residential buildings, services, offices, and health centers (Utrecht);

▪

Adapting the city to a 15-min city model, ensuring that all key services are accessible within a 10-min walking, cycling, or public transport journey for residents (Utrecht);

▪

Development of the Urban Green Charter, which outlines guidelines for designing cities and green spaces, considering both socioenvironmental services and factors that promote biodiversity and sustainable development (Barcelona);

▪

City-wide water management: the addition of retention and water storage reservoirs interconnected in a way that enables water drainage after heavy rainfall and water retention during drought periods (Utrecht);

▪

Increasing water in the city: developing systems to direct water to designated floodplains outside the city (Utrecht);

▪

Connecting the city to the surrounding nature by implementing projects to link urban greenery with metropolitan and surrounding green spaces, while removing as many spatial barriers as possible both around and within the city to ensure green corridors are continuous (Barcelona);

▪

Biodiversity protection and raising public awareness: protecting species, improving the quality of natural habitats and the connections between them, creating new habitat areas, and establishing new protected nature zones (Barcelona).

Mesoscale: At the district level, the key focus is on implementing nature-based solutions and blue–green infrastructure. Actions are taken related to water management, increasing the quantity and quality of green spaces, and improving biodiversity. The main actions include:

▪

Systematic water management: creating a healthy microclimate, preventing flooding, mitigating climate change, and providing habitats for aquatic animals in the city:

○

Various methods of water drainage and utilization depending on water cleanliness (Ørestad);

○

Local greywater treatment (Ørestad);

○

Protection of wetlands and shaping meandering waterbody edges to create ideal conditions for a mix of rich reeds, shallow areas with partially or fully submerged aquatic vegetation, grassy meadows, and denser wooded areas, which serve as biodiversity oases (Østerbro);

○

Introduction of channels and reservoirs within the district and using streets as water drainage channels (Østerbro);

○

Implementation of a water storage system with the capability to pump previously stored water to the surface during drought periods, using tilt plates (Østerbro);

○

Use of various materials with different permeability levels for pavements (Østerbro);

○

No separation of public spaces from water bodies (Ørestad);

○

Various uses of the water’s shoreline (Ørestad);

▪

Nature-based solutions:

○

Introducing varied terrain levels to provide shelters and hiding places for urban wildlife (Østerbro);

○

Establishing wildflower meadows (Østerbro);

○

Reducing grass mowing (Ørestad);

▪

Creating bird circles with infrastructure for nesting boxes and introducing artificial insect habitats (Ørestad);

▪

Developing urban farms with greenhouses and community gardens (Østerbro, Ørestad);

▪

Moving away from controlled, formal plantings towards a new aesthetic of urban vegetation: woodlands, wild shrubs, tall grasses, and bushes (Østerbro).

Microscale: At the microlevel of urban spaces, the selection of specific design solutions is crucial, incorporating various types of greenery, wild and semi-wild vegetation, and appropriate elements of small architecture. The key actions include:

▪

Maintaining water quality naturally: natural purification of collected rainwater through varying soil depths and purification of standing water using reeds, underwater plants, and microorganisms that naturally clean the water (Strandeiland Het Oog);

▪

Introducing aquatic vegetation, shrubs, trees, and plants partially submerged in water. These attract new species of birds, insects, and amphibians (Strandeiland Het Oog);

▪

Introducing different types of greenery: wild and semi-wild, uncontrolled and planted within containers, and barriers (Gellerup New Nature Park);

▪

Striving for maximum biodiversity in newly planted greenery (Gellerup New Nature Park);

▪

Introducing spatial elements at the intersection of small architecture and natural elements: stones of various sizes, piles, and trunks, arranged in a way that allows them to be used by all users (Gellerup New Nature Park);

▪

Introducing a diverse typology of greenery, such as groves, wetlands, and reed islands, each characterized by different vegetation and users—some intended solely for animals, some mainly for people, and some for everyone (Strandeiland Het Oog);

▪

Introducing organic shapes of green and water spaces, which mimic natural spaces as closely as possible (Gellerup New Nature Park);

▪

Implementing participatory processes in order to involve community input in changes to shared spaces (Gellerup New Nature Park).

3.2. Detailed Research of the Pilot City of Gliwice

For the implementation of the life-centered city model, we selected the Polish city of Gliwice, located along the Kłodnica River. Gliwice is a dynamically developing scientific and technological hub, with a vibrant IT sector. It is also one of the key industrial, educational, and cultural centers of the Upper Silesian Metropolis. Part of the city’s natural system includes managed green spaces, including numerous parks, gardens, and recreational areas, providing residents with places for relaxation and outdoor activities. The functional and spatial structure of the city is shaped by its center, which serves commercial, cultural, and administrative functions, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, encompassing both urbanized areas and diverse green spaces.

For the purposes of pilot studies, we subjected Gliwice to urban analyses conducted on three spatial scales: macro (the city, with an area of 134 km² and a population of 181,000), meso (the Sikornik district, with an area of 3.13 km² and a population of 13,000) and micro (the main public space of the district—the area at the intersection of Czajki Street and Sikornik Avenue, with an area of 67,500 m²).

3.2.1. Macroscale

The synthetic conclusions resulting from the analyses indicate that the built-up areas of Gliwice are mostly spread out linearly from the city center, with only a partial patchiness. A significant portion of Gliwice consists of fields and wastelands. Green areas are distributed in zones and do not form a continuous natural system. Key linear elements of the system include the Kłodnica River Valley and the cohesion corridor running parallel to it. Protected green areas are primarily located in the western part of the city. The city’s structure clearly reflects the influence of the Kłodnica River and elements of the communication infrastructure: the expressway Drogowa Trasa Średnicowa (DTŚ) and two motorways (A4 and A1), which ensure excellent connectivity between Gliwice and neighboring cities. The city lacks a continuous cycling infrastructure, and the existing paths are not connected (Figure 1).

3.2.2. Mesoscale

The selected district for analysis on the mesoscale, Sikornik, can be divided into two main functional zones: the single-family housing zone and the multi-family residential zone with commercial and service areas. Social service areas are mostly located along the main pedestrian–bicycle avenue, while commercial and retail areas are distributed sporadically. The avenue is the only central area in the district and has significant potential, but it lacks urban infrastructure, recreational and relaxation spaces, and animal services. Most of the green spaces in the Sikornik district are point elements and fragmentary linear areas that do not form a cohesive system. Most of these areas require intervention, redevelopment, or infrastructure enhancement. A significant portion of the green spaces consists of private home gardens and areas with a large number of tall trees. Family allotment gardens are also an important element of the green system, separating the district from the neighboring fields and attracting animals into the district. The Ostropka River flows through the northeastern part of the district, serving as a crucial ecological corridor (Figure 2).

3.2.3. Microscale

For the location of the proposed microscale pilot project, we selected the area around the intersection of Czajki Street and Sikornik Avenue. This location was chosen due to its central and community-building character. It features the highest density of services and functionally diverse areas, concentrating the cultural and commercial life. Currently, this area is neglected and dominated by car traffic. It lacks green spaces, biologically active surfaces, and shaded areas. Public spaces are of low quality, do not encourage people to spend time there, and do not positively impact the life of the local community. Additionally, there are no services or spaces designed for pets, nor are there any areas serving as interspecies spaces. The most important user groups of this area are primarily the residents of the Sikornik district: children, adolescents, adults, families with children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, as well as liminal animals (terrestrial animals, birds, and insects), pets, and all plant species found within the district.

3.2.4. Users

For the implementation of the life-centered city concept, understanding the needs of its users became crucial. Therefore, in addition to the spatial analyses conducted, an analysis of the three main groups—humans, animals, and plants, along with their subgroups—was carried out. Since these groups are characterized by different physical features, needs, and activities, we analyzed them in terms of the spaces they inhabit and function in, the activities they engage in, the spatial challenges they face, the emotions they experience, and the needs they have regarding urban spaces (

Table 2. Multispecies profiles of urban space users based on their characteristics: inhabited environments, behaviors, spatial barriers, emotional states, and ecological needs; prepared by P. Konsek.

Space	Activities	Spatial Problems	Emotions	Needs
Humans
Children
Residential areas; parks and squares; daycare centers and preschools; recreational spaces; playgrounds	Outdoor sports; walks; social gatherings; cycling; exploring the surroundings; education; world discovery; interaction with peers	Lack of shading; heating spaces; lack of access to green areas; low level of urban space safety; lack of playgrounds	Fear of other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; apprehension; stress; depression	Contact with nature; high level of safety; interaction with peers; availability of diverse activities; preschools; varied seating areas
Teenagers and youth
Residential areas; parks and squares; schools; recreational spaces; sports and exercise areas	Outdoor sports; commuting to school; walks; running; cycling; social gatherings and interactions; interaction with peers; dog-walking	Poor access to sports infrastructure; lack of meeting places; lack of spaces for after-school activities; low safety level on the route from school to home, e.g., due to busy roads; lack of shading; overheated spaces	Fear of other species; joy; excitement; stress; depression; frustration due to lack of places to spend time	Contact with nature; sense of safety; interaction with peers; access to culture and entertainment; access to public transportation; varied seating areas
Adults
Residential areas; parks and squares; meeting places; recreational spaces; sports and exercise areas	Outdoor sports; walks; running; gatherings; dog-walking	Congested roads; difficulty commuting to work; lack of rest and relaxation areas; insufficient parking spaces; lack of shading; overheated spaces	Fear of other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; stress; depression	Contact with nature; sense of safety; access to culture and entertainment; workplaces; access to public transportation; access to services and commerce
Families
Residential areas; parks and squares; meeting places; resting areas; medical facilities; schools and kindergartens; sports and exercise areas	Outdoor sports; walks; meetings; dog-walking	Lack of places to spend time with children; spatial barriers and difficulty moving around with a stroller	Fear of other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; stress; depression	Space with a special level of safety; contact with nature; sense of security; lack of spatial barriers; access to culture and entertainment; workplaces; access to public transportation; access to services and commerce
Elderly people
Residential areas; parks and squares; adapted and accessible recreational spaces; medical facilities; sports and exercise areas	Walks; meetings; shopping near home; dog-walking; local activities; activities at senior clubs	Spatial barriers; difficulties in mobility; long distances to service and commercial areas	Fear of other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; stress; loneliness; depression	Contact with nature; sense of security; absence of spatial barriers; access to culture and entertainment; ease of mobility; elevators and ramps; medical and rehabilitation services; access to public transportation; access to services and commerce
People with disabilities
Residential areas; parks and squares; adapted recreational spaces; medical facilities; dedicated sports and exercise areas	Walks; meetings; shopping near home; dog-walking; local activities	Spatial barriers; mobility difficulties; inadequate infrastructure; lack of access to public places; social isolation	Fear of other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; stress; loneliness; depression	Contact with nature; absence of spatial barriers; ease of mobility; elevators and ramps; access to culture and entertainment; medical and rehabilitation services; access to public transportation; access to services and commerce
Animals
Insects
Airspace; land space; safe shelter; resource-rich environment; parks, gardens, forests, built-up areas; aquatic and marshland areas	Flights; nectar gathering; reproduction; nest building	Lack of pollinator-friendly plants; degraded natural environment; lack of access to water bodies; rising temperatures in cities	Fear of predators; stress; joy; enthusiasm; activity; energy	Clean air; pollinator plants; flower meadows; food; adequate humidity; hiding places, crevices, and nests; access to water
Birds
Airspace; land space; forests, wooded areas	Flights; hunting; foraging; reproduction; nest building; singing	Lack of nesting sites; dangerous and invisible glass surfaces, causing collisions; decreasing number of trees; changing climate, disrupting migration cycles and bird safety	Fear of predators and humans; defense; stress; joy; activity; care for offspring; energy	Clean air; hiding places and nests; ability to build safe nests; food; access to water; forming groups
Aquatic animals
Water tanks; areas not threatened by fishing	Hunting; swimming; foraging; building habitats; reproduction	Risk of collision with ships; insufficient space and excessive animal density	Fear of predators; fear of humans	Clean water; safety; appropriate oxygen levels in the water; presence of aquatic plants; forming groups
Domestic animals
Parks and squares; animal enclosures; services: - groomers - veterinarians - behaviorists	Walks; interactions with other animals; running and playing	Lack of access to fresh air; lack of shaded areas; monotonous environment; lack of enclosures and play areas; lack of animal services (e.g., groomers, veterinarians)	Fear of other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; depression	Sense of safety; walks; opportunity to run; socialization (meeting other animals)
Liminal terrestrial animals
Land space; parks and squares; habitats; dedicated urban space; shelter	Hunting; foraging; group encounters; foraging on vegetation; movement; reproduction	Loss of natural habitats; living in a polluted urban environment; lack of shaded areas; lack of safe habitats in the city; conflict with domestic animals (e.g., for birds or small animals); risk of collision with vehicles	Fear of humans and other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; depression; care for offspring	Access to fresh water; opportunity for safe movement; access to food; sense of safety; ability to form groups; living on human-occupied land on equal terms
Wild terrestrial animals
Parks and squares; habitats and protected areas; forests and wooded areas in the city	Hunting; foraging; group encounters; foraging on vegetation; movement; reproduction	lack of habitat continuity; decreasing forest area; deforestation; encroachment of habitats by humans; insufficient separation from human-occupied areas; conflict with people temporarily visiting animal-occupied areas	Fear of humans and other species; fear of cars; joy; excitement; depression; care for offspring	Access to fresh water; opportunity for safe movement; protection from human interference; access to food; sense of safety; ability to form groups; living away from humans; creating habitats
Conflictual animals
Parks and squares; buildings; urban environment	Hunting; foraging; group encounters; reproduction; movement	Lack of access to suitable, designated habitats; repression from humans	Fear of humans and other species; fear of cars; stress; joy; excitement; depression	Dedicated space that does not generate conflicts; shelter; isolated habitats; access to fresh water; access to food; sense of safety; population control
Plants
Deciduous and coniferous trees
Lots of space around; forested and wooded areas; avenues; parks	Growth; reproduction From the human perspective:care;maintenance;forms of protection	Insufficient space for root growth; air pollution; tree cutting	Stress; sensitivity to touch	Access to adequate sunlight; access to water; soil with the appropriate composition; space for root and branch development; proper air humidity
Shrubs and perennials
Diverse environments, from open spaces to wooded areas, depending on species preferences	Growth; reproduction From the human perspective:care;maintenance;forms of protection	Insufficient space for root growth; air pollution; change of land use, e.g., for development	Stress; sensitivity to touch	Access to adequate sunlight; moderate watering; space for growth; care
Tall and short grasses
Open areas; meadows; forest edges; riverbanks	Growth; reproduction From the human perspective:care;maintenance;forms of protection	Threat from invasive species; exposure to pollutants; damage by humans and animals; competition for space with other plants	Stress; sensitivity to touch	Protection from invasive species; access to adequate sunlight; moderate watering; well-draining soil
Flowers and pollinating plants
Diverse environments, from open spaces to wooded areas; flowerbeds; gardens; parks; wildflower meadows	Growth; reproduction; flowering; pollination; fruiting From the human perspective: care;maintenance;forms of protection	Air pollution; threat from invasive species; exposure to pollutants; damage by humans and animals; competition for space with other plants	Stress; sensitivity to touch	Protection from invasive species; adequate sunlight; sufficient regular watering; nutrient-rich soil; presence of pollinating insects
Funghi and lichens
Areas with tall vegetation; forested areas; mosses; decaying wood; shaded areas	Lichen reproduction; decomposition of organic material	Air pollution; damage by humans and animals	Stress	Warm and humid environment; access to organic material for decomposition; moderate lighting
Aquatic plants
Water bodies; ponds; rivers; wetlands	growth; reproduction; water filtration	Water pollution; lack of natural habitats; drying up of water bodies	Stress	Water of adequate quality; sufficient sunlight; appropriate nutrient levels in the water

).

We have correlated the characterization of urban space users with urban space analyses, mapped them, and superimposed them onto the Sikornik district area. In this way, we created an additional “soft” layer of spatial analysis, which complements the technical analyses (Figure 3).

The analyses revealed that the areas of life and activity of animals and plants largely coincide with spaces where human activity is absent, except in parks and green spaces. Zones burdened with spatial problems, such as noise, air pollution, or traffic-related hazards, almost entirely overlapped for all three groups.

The conducted analyses and the conclusions drawn from them formed the basis for a pilot attempt to implement the life-centered city concept, using the city of Gliwice as a case study.

3.3. Implementation of the Life-Centered City Concept on the Example of Gliwice

The effective implementation of the life-centered city concept should begin with the strategic planning of actions. Key documents regulating urban development in Gliwice include the city’s development strategy and municipal spatial development plans. The strategy broadly addresses the city’s development directions, covering areas such as responding to climate change, sustainable urban growth, urban infrastructure development, and natural resource protection. On the other hand, municipal spatial development plans focus on the urban fabric, ensuring the long-term development of the city’s functional and spatial structure, spatial order, and setting conditions and regulations for construction. Therefore, these documents are crucial for the sustainable development of the city, helping to prepare for future challenges, protecting natural and cultural resources, ensuring orderly spatial development and infrastructure, and protecting the health and well-being of residents. Through them, cities can be better managed, more resilient to change, and more livable for their inhabitants.

Based on the analyses conducted, we proposed to update the Gliwice City Development Strategy until 2040 with provisions related to goals for shaping interspecies spaces. On this basis, we presented model solutions for selected types of urban landscapes, enabling the planning and legal regulation of activities in various areas of the city (Supplementary Materials S1). We also developed a master plan for the Sikornik district and showcased example urban solutions at the microscale of urban spaces.

3.3.1. Macroscale: Supplementing the Gliwice City Development Strategy

The primary goal of supplementing the Gliwice City Development Strategy is to transform the city’s model according to the life-centered city concept. This involves introducing provisions for creating a green infrastructure system, enhancing the resilience of urban spaces, and establishing interspecies spaces that address the needs of all city users—humans, animals, and plants. Creating a city offering accessible interspecies spaces in an attractive urban environment and developing a sustainable, healthy, adaptive, and climate-resilient city would complement the current vision of a dynamically growing, active, and future-oriented city [75]. To illustrate a model approach to urban adaptation, we proposed additional horizontal goals aligned with the essence of the life-centered city concept. We also supplemented minor goals and directions for current actions. The strategic action directions were divided into four main areas: sustainable water management, sustainable green space management, sustainable urban development, and sustainable infrastructure growth. The proposed directions encompass technical, organizational, and educational–informational activities. The most important actions focus on increasing the amount of greenery in the city, introducing new forms of fauna and flora protection, improving the quality of public transportation, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, adapting the city to a 15-min model, and creating a water management system for the city (Figure 4, Supplementary Material S2).

The proposed strategic directions serve as guidelines and recommendations, providing a starting point for further discussions on projects, plans, and investments that should be undertaken in the city.

At the city scale, the main objective of interspecies integration is to ensure habitat continuity and migration corridors for wildlife through the blue–green infrastructure network. Priority is given to larger mammals and migratory birds (e.g., hedgehogs, bats, swifts) that require safe passages between green areas. This network is based on parks, watercourse valleys, green belts, and urban meadows. Native tree and shrub species are used to form ecological corridors that also improve microclimate and air quality.

3.3.2. Mesoscale: Masterplan for the Sikornik District

Across the world, model projects for adapting urban neighborhoods, particularly in response to climate change and sustainable development, are gaining popularity. These projects enable cities to gradually increase their resilience, transform urban landscapes, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented adaptive measures. The adaptation concept for the Sikornik district under the life-centered city model is a key project within the updated Gliwice City Development Strategy. To achieve the goals outlined in the strategy, we proposed an update to the Local Spatial Development Plan (MPZP) for the district. The introduced changes focus on increasing green spaces to establish systematic green connections at the district scale, introducing key services that create central spaces, and presenting model design interventions for selected, typical areas of the district identified in the MPZP (Supplementary Material S3). Regulating and specifying land use changes in the MPZP will protect these areas from construction, improper use, or degradation. The proposed changes expand the traditional understanding and presentation of the MPZP, defining the district’s spatial policy and local development rules in a broader sense (Figure 5).

The master plan concept for the Sikornik district serves as a model example of adapting an urban area to the life-centered city concept, introducing a range of solutions that improve the quality of life for various city users. This concept is flexible, allowing for adaptation to changing urban living conditions and the evolving needs of its inhabitants. It can also serve as a foundation for creating adaptation plans and projects for other districts in the future.

At the district level, efforts focus on habitat continuity and ecological niches for medium-sized species that coexist well with humans. These include amphibians (e.g., common toad, smooth newt), nesting birds (e.g., blackbird, green woodpecker), and pollinating insects. Planned interventions feature local water reservoirs, rain gardens, and flower meadows as breeding and feeding areas. Vegetation includes fruit-bearing shrubs and nectar-producing plants, along with deadwood and stone elements to create microhabitats.

3.3.3. Scale of Micro-Intervention

The pilot project in the process of adapting the city to the life-centered city concept is the implementation of the concept on the scale of urban microspace, using the example of the nodal area in the Sikornik district in Gliwice (Figure 6). This is a model project for a district fragment that includes a central area, service zones, educational facilities, multi-family housing, and organized green spaces. The pilot project allows for testing the updated city development strategy, as well as specific solutions, in real-world conditions before fully implementing them across all spatial scales. It also helps to identify potential problems and challenges early, minimize costs, and engage the local community in the adaptation process.

The target groups included in the project are primarily the residents of the Sikornik district: children, youth, adults, families with children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, as well as liminal animals (land animals, birds, and insects), pets, and all plant species found in the district. The project is also aimed at residents of neighboring districts who, due to their proximity, can spend their time in the area in an attractive way. The project includes solutions such as:

• Green meadows,
• Local centers,
• Green roofs,
• Greenhouses,
• Urban gardens,
• Services for pets, including:

  ○

  Animal runs,

  ○

  Animal health centers,

  ○

  Shaded areas and shelters from the sun,

• Inclusive playgrounds,
• Multifunctional spaces,
• Sports grounds.

At the smallest scale, the emphasis is on the daily coexistence of humans with companion and synanthropic species. The project includes spaces for pets (runs, care stations), shaded rest areas, and elements supporting insects (pollinator hotels, flower beds). Plantings include herbs, edible, and ornamental plants adapted to the needs of local pollinators and residents. The aim is to encourage everyday human–nature interaction by blending social and ecological functions within a shared microspace.

The adaptation project for the central part of the Sikornik district, as part of the updated Gliwice City Adaptation Strategy, is an attempt to implement a modern city concept based on the life-centered city model. This concept considers the needs of diverse urban residents, including non-human species, enhances interaction with nature, and introduces solutions that improve the quality of life in the city (Figure 7). The proposed interventions and actions also aim to increase biodiversity, provide animals with better living conditions in the city, improve the local microclimate, and enhance the resilience of urban spaces to climate change.

The adaptation process should be based on gradually adjusting spaces to changing conditions. It must be implemented with care, attention to detail, flexibility, and openness to modifying the concept as future needs arise. The proposed interventions and solutions provide direction for actions that should be consulted with district residents. As an example of urban adaptation following the life-centered city model, this project could serve as a blueprint for future adaptation efforts in other areas, districts, and cities, demonstrating how to effectively respond to rapidly changing social, economic, and environmental conditions. This project could become a model for future adaptation initiatives, promoting sustainable development and fostering cooperation between the local community and city authorities.

Micro-level actions can also serve an educational function, raising residents’ awareness of available opportunities and types of investments they can propose within participatory budgets or special green participatory budgets. Such participation can increase local community engagement and facilitate the practical implementation of the life-centered city concept.

4. Summary and Conclusions

For years, we have been witnessing a crisis in urban planning, driven by interconnected factors such as intense urbanization, global population growth, environmental degradation, and the climate crisis. This phenomenon continues to deepen, making it essential to change the current city model. Urban planners, architects, and city policymakers are continuously striving to create sustainable solutions that help cities adapt to changing conditions, resulting in numerous city concepts designed to address contemporary challenges. One such response to these issues is the life-centered city concept presented in this article. When properly implemented, it can become a tool for actively pursuing urban development and adaptation policies based on planning and design actions. Due to its various scales of intervention, it allows for a comprehensive impact on environmental, spatial, social, and economic values of a city. The three main principles of the life-centered city concept are: creating interspecies spaces, adapting to climate change, and developing green systems. Its innovation stems from a holistic view of the city as an ecosystem where humans, animals, and plants coexist. The process of implementing the life-centered city concept—from reviewing existing knowledge, case studies, and urban analyses of a selected city to pilot strategic and urban solutions for various spatial scales—reveals both the benefits and challenges of bringing this concept to life. Our research has shown that interspecies spaces are complex structures that positively impact urban spaces and the quality of life for the species inhabiting them. However, these spaces are also associated with risks that need to be actively addressed. This should be done through sustainable urban land management that considers the needs of both human and non-human species and aims to minimize conflicts and risks associated with their coexistence. Adopting, understanding, and considering the needs of human residents while caring for other species is crucial in the adaptation process.

Research has highlighted that achieving the goals and principles of the life-centered city concept requires appropriate strategic and urban planning tools, as well as detailed legal provisions that support and regulate coexistence in interspecies spaces, manage them, and simultaneously promote environmental protection and public health. The adaptation process in the life-centered design model should be based on the creation of appropriate legal documents that, on the one hand, enable and regulate the undertaken actions and, on the other hand, provide concrete guidelines and tools for their implementation. It seems necessary to prepare a city development strategy document or an additional document to supplement existing strategic documents, focusing on three key areas: creating interspecies spaces, adapting to climate change, and developing green systems. Such a strategy can help catalog and direct potential actions, serving as a starting point for all planning and urban activities undertaken across different scales and typologies. Equally important tools for implementing the concept are master plans developed for individual city districts, detailing issues related to the implementation of the life-centered city concept. Their implementation involves executing a broad program of actions and projects that play a strategic role in changing urban landscapes, ranging from buildings, services, and infrastructure to green areas and interspecies spaces. The city’s adaptive policy should align with other development directions and be created in collaboration with various authorities. For the adaptation of a city under the life-centered city model, cooperation on multiple levels is crucial, particularly between residents, local government, and experts. Lack of collaboration with social groups may limit the feasibility of urban development policies. Education plays a fundamental role in this process. Model actions and sustainable urban solutions developed by us can be beneficial in this regard. When effectively implemented, these solutions can be adapted and applied in various urban landscapes. By identifying model solutions and categorizing actions, cities can leverage the experiences of others, adapting proven strategies to their own conditions. This approach allows for more effective, sustainable, and climate-resilient planning and design of modern cities. Understanding and implementing such solutions for urban landscape transformation is crucial for creating a more resilient built and natural environment, optimal for all species.

Despite its innovative orientation, the research on the life-centered city concept reveals several limitations that point to important directions for future inquiry.

The current analysis, grounded primarily in European case studies, constrains the broader applicability of the framework, potentially overlooking the environmental, cultural, and socio-political complexities of diverse global contexts. Moreover, although the study considers interventions at macro-, meso-, and microscales, future research should therefore prioritize the development of methods for linking and sequencing interventions across scales to ensure their mutual coherence and long-term effectiveness. Special attention should be directed toward the creation of tools capable of assessing the lasting impact of blue–green infrastructure on biodiversity and evaluating the social and ecological effects of micro-scale interventions over time. By addressing these critical gaps, the life-centered city concept can evolve into a more robust, inclusive, and universally relevant framework for sustainable urban transformation.

Importantly, the study’s perspective, rooted in the discipline of architecture and urban planning, still prioritizes human-centered design, with only an initial attempt to incorporate the needs of other species. Fully realizing the life-centered city paradigm necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly with experts in ecology, zoology, botany, and environmental sciences. Such collaboration would enrich the design process, enabling more holistic, ecologically informed solutions that transcend anthropocentric biases.

An important area for further development is stakeholder engagement. While the study highlights the value of including diverse communities, it lacks clear methods for ensuring inclusive participation. The concept would also benefit from a stronger balance between qualitative insights and supporting quantitative data to better assess its effectiveness. In addition, issues such as economic feasibility, long-term maintenance, and the use of new technologies need more attention to support sustainable, scalable implementation. Although potential conflicts between humans and animals are acknowledged, specific strategies to manage these situations are still needed to support practical interspecies coexistence.

To address these gaps, future development of the life-centered city should focus on its adaptability in the face of social, technological, and climate change. This includes creating integrated models of urban management that connect ecological, spatial, and social goals across different scales. Flexible strategies tailored to local needs, yet grounded in shared values, will be key. Design tools such as scenario planning and speculative approaches can also help cities prepare for uncertain futures and explore new ways for humans and other species to live together.