The role of knowledge institutions in placemaking (original) (raw)

Abstract

Urban development is increasing in its complexity. Processes that transform urban areas are not steered by the public sector or private enterprises alone. Hybrid forms of urban development are emerging, with a gradually bigger role given to citizens’ initiatives and self- organization. This favours also the involvement of knowledge institutions that add to new models of innovation by actively contributing to and partnering with public and private initiatives. With the growth of urban areas we also witness the proliferation of urban spaces. There are every time more areas for common uses, more nodes and also more underutilized spots within the urban fabric due to conflictive ownership, lack of planning or other reasons. Rapidly urbanizing territories provide not only a quantitative challenge but equally qualitative demands to our urban environment. New models that apply integrative strategies in particular to the development of public space use placemaking as a core concept, referring to the processes that reveal new, complex and multi-level perspectives for urban systems. The idea that cities are unpredictable in their development trajectories (Herrle, Jachnow, & Ley, 2006) and not subject to centralized control is widely recognized. However, the appreciation of complexity in the domain of urban development and planning and the involvement of non-governmental actors is relatively recent (Jachnow, 2006; Roo, Hillier, & Wezemael, 2012). We suggest that, with the growing complexity of urban development, the role of universities and knowledge institutions could increase for the qualitative improvement of urban public space by bringing expertise, students and innovative ideas. At the same time, academic institutions could get the opportunity of exposure to contemporary societal challenges, real cases and “testing grounds” for meaningful research, thus establishing a mutually beneficial process. In this paper, we analyse the experience of the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands. As an academic institution with a focus on the Global South, IHS took the initiative for an experimental placemaking process in its hometown, Rotterdam, in 2015. Within the Master of Science for Urban Management and Development, participants and academic staff of the specialization for Urban Strategies and Planning (USP) engaged actively in conceptualizing placemaking activities for deprived areas in the city. The result was the development of diverse concepts and methods to facilitate placemaking processes, assess and evaluate demands and potentials, and reflect on the multifaceted implications of each of the possible contributions. Moreover, it provided valid lessons learnt for the opportunities and limits of placemaking as a tool for developing cities and societies that we herewith intend to feed back into the academic discourse.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (37)

  1. Afonso, O., Monteiro, S., & Thompson, M. (2012). A growth model for the quadruple helix. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(5), 849-865. http://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.626438
  2. Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A:, 34(6), 959 -980.
  3. Angel, S. (2011). Making room for a planet of cities. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Avelino, F. and Wittmayer, J. (2014), Exploring tools for facilitating Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) lessons from Transition Methods, TRANSIT discussion paper, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169
  4. Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2014). Igniting citizen participation in creating healthy built environments: the role of community organizations. Community Development Journal, bsu031. http://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsu031
  5. Boer, R. W. J., & De Vries, J. (2009). The Right to the City as a Tool for Urban Social Movements: The Case of Barceloneta. In The 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU), Amsterdam/Delft. Retrieved from http://newurbanquestion.ifou.org/proceedings/9%20Changing%20Planning%20Cultures/full%2 0papers/F034-1_Boer_DeVries.pdf
  6. Boonstra, B., & Boelens, L. (2011). Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research & Practice, 4(2), 99-122. http://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2011.579767
  7. Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when Stakeholders matter. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. http://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722
  8. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  9. Görgens, T., & van Donk, M. (2012). Exploring the potential of the "Right to the City"to integrate the vision and practice of civil society in the struggle for the socio-spatial transformation of South African cities. Paper Presented at Strategies to Overcome Poverty and Inequality: Towards Carnegie III, 3, 7.
  10. Hajer (M.) (2003). Policy without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sciences.36 (2), 175-195
  11. Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review, (53), 23-40.
  12. Herrle, P., Jachnow, A., & Ley, A. (2006). The metropolises of the south: laboratory for innovations?. SEF Policiy Paper 25. Bonn. http://www.rudi.net/files/pp\_25\_eng.pdf. IHS. (2015). Forthcoming: Capacity Development for Sustainable Urban Development. Draft report of the Workshop hosted by IHS on 20 May 2015. Rotterdam: IHS -Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies. https://urbancapacities.wordpress.com IIHS. (2015). Second Urban Sustainable Development Goal Campaign Consultation on Targets and Indicators. Retrieved from http://www.africancentreforcities.net/second-urban- sustainable-development-goal-campaign-consultation-targets-indicators/
  13. Jachnow, A. (2006). Koalitionen für die Stadt: Die neue Verantwortung der Zivilgesellschaft. Trialog (90), 4-9.
  14. Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (2007). Governing Policy Networks: a Network Perspective on Decision Making in Network Society. In G. Morcul (Ed.), Handbook of Decision Making (pp. 169- 187). New York: Taylor and Francis.
  15. Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: a network approach to problem solving and decision making. Psychology Press.
  16. Lofland, L. (1998). The public realm, exploring the city"s quintessential social territory (third ed.). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
  17. Madureira, A. M. (2013). Physical planning in place-making through design and image building. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(1), 157-172. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10901- 013-9381-2
  18. Martin, D. G. (2003). "Place-Framing" as Place-Making: Constituting a Neighborhood for Organizing and Activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 730-750. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.9303011
  19. Mayerhofer, R. (2005). Methodology of Urban Design. In Methodology of Urban Design. Vienna.
  20. Mehaffy, M. (2014). The structure of placemaking: toward a more precise and useful model of street and public space dynamics. In STR EETS AS PUBLIC SPACES AND DRIVERS OF URBAN PROSPERITY (Vol. 2, pp. 343-355). Buenos Aires: Ax:son Johnson Foundation.
  21. Moulaert, F., & Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Socially innovative projects, governance dynamics and urban change, between state and self organization. In F. Moulaert, F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw, & S. Gonzalez (Eds.), Can neighbourhoods save the city?: social innovation and local community development. London: Routledge.
  22. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, Polity.
  23. Olivotto, V. & Zuijderwijk, L. (2015) Re-thinking communication & dissemination strategies: towards practices of engagement & co-production in TRANSIT. Submitted abstract to ESEE 2015. Perovic, S. (2014). Collaborative Research and Urban Educational Discourse in Contemporary Higher Education. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4559-4563. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.985
  24. Portugali, J. (2012). Complexity Theories of Cities: First, Second or Third Culture of Planning? In G. de Roo, J. Hillier, & J. van Wezemael, Complexity and planning: systems, assemblages and simulations. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
  25. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability. Buckingham ; Philadephia: Open University Press.
  26. Roo, G. de. (2000). Environmental conflicts in compact cities: complexity, decisionmaking, and policy approaches. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(1), 151-162. http://doi.org/10.1068/b2614
  27. Roo, G. de, Hillier, J., & Wezemael, J. van. (2012). Complexity and planning: systems, assemblages and simulations. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
  28. Rydin, Y. (2007) Re-examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory. Planning Theory, 6: 52
  29. Schmale, J et al (2013) Co-designing Usable Knowledge with Stakeholders and Fostering Ownership -A Pathway through the communication problem? Impacts World 2013, International Conference on Climate Change Effects, Potsdam, May 27-30
  30. Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: on market-embedded morality. Economy and society, 37(1),1 -19.
  31. Sorensen, A., & Sagaris, L. (2010). From Participation to the Right to the City: Democratic Place Management at the Neighbourhood Scale in Comparative Perspective. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 297-316. http://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503424
  32. Trencher, G., Bai, X., Evans, J., McCormick, K., & Yarime, M. (2014). University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 28, 153-165. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009
  33. Uitermark, J., Nicholls, W., & Loopmans, M. (2012). Guest EditorialCities and social movements: theorizing beyond the right to the city. Environment and Planning A, 44(11), 2546 -2554. http://doi.org/10.1068/a44301
  34. United Nations. (2012). State of the world"s cities 2012-2013: prosperity of cities. [S.l.]: United Nations Pubns. United Nations HLCP [High Level Committee on Programmes] (2014). A New United Nations Urban Agenda. http://habnet.unhabitat.org/files/12490\_HLCP28\_DOC\_CRP.5\_Urban\_Agenda\_0%5B1%5D.pdf.
  35. Wittmayer, J.M. & N. Schäpke (2014) Action, Research and Participation: Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions. Sustainability Science. 9 (4): 483-496.
  36. Zuijderwijk, L. (eds.), Becerra, L., Juarez, P., Olivotto, V., Wittmayer, J. (2014), Part I: Towards Developing a "Toolbox" and "Training Programmes" in TRANSIT. TRANSIT Deliverable 6.3, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169
  37. Zuijderwijk (forthcoming), The making of public places -always under construction